The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding an application for full planning permission for the severable and phased construction of five units (light industrial (Use Class E(g)(iii), general industrial (Use Class B2) and/or storage or distribution (Use Class B8), together with ancillary offices (Use Class E(g)(i)) providing a total gross external area of 36,706 sqm; and associated service yards, parking, landscaping, amenity space and infrastructure, with vehicular access off Simonsway.

The Planning Officer made reference to the Late Representation Report and stated that this includes the correct images to replace those included on pages 157 and 178 of the main report which show the scheme prior to revised drawings being received. Assurance was provided that the scheme had been fully assessed in relation to the submitted revised drawings. The officer also stated that the applicant had made reference to a severable phased development but in assessing the overall details of the scheme it is not considered that the part of the scheme located outside of the Green Belt could be looked upon favourably as it is integral to a wider scheme which as a whole is unacceptable and out of character with the area in general. On this basis additional wording is proposed to Reason 2 to state that the scheme could not be severed or phased in order to overcome the harm caused.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee, stating that application responded to the need for logistic space in South Manchester, delivering Grade A floor space. They acknowledged that a portion of the site was composed of the Greenbelt and by definition the scheme proposed represents inappropriate development but would only result in moderate harm, however the area was poorly kept, and would therefore  improve the appearance. The height and scale of the application was consistent with the area, with the development 78 metres from the nearest residential property. The application would retain some of the existing trees at the site. The application would bring economic benefits to the area in terms of jobs and business rates, whilst continuing the regeneration of the area. They noted that the development would also support the transition to a low carbon future.

The Planning Officer stated that the report covered the benefits of the application, but the key point was the impact on the Greenbelt, and it is the case that the proposal represents inappropriate development that is harmful to the open character and special circumstances have not been demonstrated. The impact is considered to be significant. The area not being well kept was not a consideration that outweighs the harmful impact. The land outside of the Greenbelt within the application was acceptable in principle. The Airport maintained their objection to the application.

Councillor Andrews moved the Officer’s recommendation of Refuse, for the reasons provided by Officer’s in the written report.

Councillor Johnson seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to Refuse the application for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, including the additional wording to reason 2 referred to by the Planning Officer during the meeting.