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

A site visit will take place prior to the Committee meeting. Members of the Committee will be advised of the arrangements.

(Councillors Andrews and Flanagan both declared prejudicial interests in this item of business and left the meeting before it was considered)

The application related to the construction of a temporary 729 space car park, with associated access arrangements onto Enterprise Way, for a temporary period of five years. The application was deferred at the meeting of the Committee on 16 January 2020 for a site visit be undertaken to allow members of the committee to view the site of the proposed development and surrounding area that were not available on the drawings and images included in the planning report submitted; due to the loss of employment land and the greenness of the site. The Committee undertook a site visit prior to the meeting.

The proposals are for car parking to be brought forward as an early phase of development to support the applicant’s growth at existing office space at the Airport and in advance of their Headquarter offices being developed. The proposals would not result in the loss of employment land but would bring forward the site as an earlier phase of development that is associated with a scheme granted planning permission by Committee at its meeting held in December 2018. It was explained that the proposal was not related to the operation of the airport but to the growth of a business located near to the airport.

The meeting was addressed by an objector who referred to the Climate Emergency that the Council has declared. He argued that the demand for ever more car parking capacity had to stop if there was to be a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the city. This application was an opportunity for the Council to show how travel to work needed to be reconsidered in the future. The application should be rejected and green travel options relied upon.

The meeting was then addressed by a representative of the applicant. He spoke of the applicant’s investment in creating new jobs in Manchester and how the growth of the business was a boon to the city’s economy and the economic wellbeing of the area.

Councillor O’Neil addressed the meeting as a ward councillor for the Woodhouse Park ward. He felt that the traffic generated from the operation of the airport was already adding to the pollution and carbon dioxide that were directly affecting the local communities, and that this application would only exacerbate that undesirable situation. He called on the committee to reject the application.

Councillor Newman also addressed the meeting as a ward councillor for the Woodhouse Park ward. He spoke of the levels of pollution that local residents face from the airport operations and the traffic generated by air passengers going to and from by the airport. This application would add to pollution and traffic in the area. The employment opportunities generated by the growth of the business were welcome but he sought an assurance that the jobs created would be taken up by local residents so that they did not result in more traffic.

The planning officer confirmed that the principle of a large car park at this site had been approved in a 2018 planning approval that had also dealt with the building of new offices for the company. This application was bringing forward the timing of the implementation of a part of that earlier consent. The applicant had provided a Green Travel Plan as part of the application to help reduce the level of additional traffic the expansion of the car park would generate, as the number of spaces available would still be fewer that the number of employees who were to be working at the site.

The Chair referred to investment into community and social infrastructure by the company to support community initiatives in the Woodhouse Park ward.

Given the relationship of the proposed car park to the delivery of the consent granted in 2018, it was proposed that approval of this application should be time-limited as the future of the whole site needed to be in accordance with the earlier consent. The long-term operation of the cark park should not be independent of the proposed office development. The recommendation had approval for five years only. The Committee felt that two years would be more appropriate. It was proposed and agreed that a temporary consent of two years should be given.

Decision

To grant temporary consent for a period of two years subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the Planning Officer’s report.