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

The application proposes a multi-use arena comprising 68,608 sqm of floorspace with ancillary retail, food and beverage uses.

This 4.46 hectare site is used as a 500 space overspill car park for events at the Etihad stadium. The site is secured with a mesh fence on all sides and contains a number of self-seeded trees and shrubs. Its topography is relatively flat with a gentle slope from south to north before the site drops steeply down to the Ashton Canal. 

The site is bounded by Joe Mercer Way (an elevated pedestrian walkway connecting to the Etihad Stadium) which separates the site from the Manchester Tennis and Football Centre located further west, Alan Turing Way, a four lane road with segregated cycle lanes is to the east with the Ashton Canal and the Etihad Metrolink stop to the south. 

The applicant’s aim is to develop the best arena in Europe in Manchester that would attract the world’s top events and shows. They aim to set new standards in terms of arena design and environmental sustainability. 

The design would be unique and enable the main auditorium to operate in a variety of different seating modes and host different entertainment and leisure events including music, sport, performances, awards ceremonies and other live entertainment.  Its capacity would normally be 20,000 but could be extended to 23,500 for events where a centre stage configuration is used. 

The arena would host events on scheduled days throughout the week and year.  The operational strategy could occasionally result in events taking place at the same time or same day as football events at the Etihad Stadium.  The associated impacts of this are considered in detail in the report. 

The auditorium would be custom designed for a much more compact, flexible and intimate configuration compared to comparable capacity venues. The lower tier of the seating bowl would have retractable seating that could be configured in a variety of ways in maximise the spectator experience. The upper tier would project and be lower to the heart of the auditorium to enable a more intimate spectator experience.

The Chair invited the Planning Officer to present the Item.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that additional information had been provided within the ‘Supplementary Information on Applications’ document, previously circulated. Reference was made to representations received from the Manchester Arena and Printworks to have the application referred to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to decide whether the application should be called in for determination, if the Committee was Minded to Approve. The Planning Officer reported that all aspects of the scheme had been addressed and this was detailed within the planning report. Reference was made to a representation received from the Executive Vice President of ASM Global (operating company of Manchester Arena), regarding the impact of the development on the Manchester Arena, and which requested the Committee to consider the impact of the application in line with the concerns of other city centre stakeholders. In addition it was reported that the £100million investment planned for the Manchester Arena by ASM Global, may not be justified if the application was approved.

A further representation from ASM Global had suggested that the Market Assessment had not been properly considered by the Council’s independent advisor.

The planning Officer confirmed that the Council’s independent advisors had reviewed the additional work and had confirmed in writing that it did not fundamentally alter their advice that there is robust evidence to support the proposal.

The Committee was advised that if the Committee was Minded to Approve the application, the approval notice would not be issued until the Secretary of State had considered the application.

The Chair invited an objector to speak.

The objector spokesperson addressed the Committee on behalf of ASM Global and other interested stakeholders. Concern was expressed on the impact of the application on the sustainability and vitality of the city centre economy. In addition, concern was expressed on the matters not included within the planning report that were raised in the late representation that had been left unanswered relating to growth in the market and the split from the city centre. The point was made that the forecasts produced in the application had yet to be tested and needed to fully understood before a decision could be made. Other issues raised related to the impact of the application on the Manchester Arena and the planned investment of £100million by ASM Global. In addition, reference was made to policy C9 which seeks to protect the city centre and the East Manchester Regeneration Framework which was produced to complement the city centre offer. The Committee was advised that the Manchester Arena had the capacity to meet expansion and growth in the market. The application did not provide links to the city centre similar to the Manchester Arena and took potential trade away from city centre businesses.     

The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to speak on the application. In response to the points raised in the representations it was stated that there is sustainable growth in the market for two city arenas. Other cities have recognised growth in these markets and this would be sustained in Manchester through the increase of the population over the next fifteen years. The evidence produced has been robustly tested independently and this has indicated that the visitor spend generated by a second arena would benefit the city centre economy. It was hoped that a new arena will help spur the operators of the Manchester Arena to invest in the facility and provide the city with two high quality entertainment venues.

A ward councillor addressed the Committee and reported that other ward councillor and local residents in surrounding wards have welcomed the application and supportive recognising the benefits this will bring to the surrounding ward areas such as job creation and apprenticeships.

A ward councillor welcomed the application and referred to the importance of maintaining balance between the two arenas and businesses in the city centre. Reference was made to the positives which the development would bring to East Manchester in the form of jobs during and after construction and the potential of attracting further investment to the area. It was hoped that Manchester Arena could continue to be a world class venue and a second arena could complement this.

A ward councillor referred to parking arrangements for local residents and sought an assurance that there would be no cost to residents or the Council. In welcoming the application and the positive benefit it provides for local residents through jobs and training opportunities, the councillor considered it reasonable that the city could accommodate two arenas. Officers were asked for clarification regarding the overlap of events being held at the new arena and football matches arranged for the Etihad Stadium and the traffic plan to deal with the large numbers of attendees and vehicles this would attract.

The Chair invited members of the Committee to comment and asked questions.

A member in welcoming the application and the benefits it would bring to the area and local economy also asked officers to explain the arrangements in place to deal with events at both the arena and the Etihad Stadium.        

The Planning Officer responded by explaining that the evidence that has been presented to the Committee had been analysed and the conclusion from this suggests that two arenas could operate successfully in the city. Officers are currently working with the operators of the Manchester Arena regarding their investment proposals which will take a phased approach. The residents parking zone intended for the area around the application site will be set up and operated at no cost to the Council and is subject to a Section 106 agreement. With reference to events clashing on the same day at the arena and the Etihad Stadium, it was reported that special measures would be introduced such as to stagger the start and finish times at each venue. Attendees would also be advised that limited parking would available and sustainable transport options would be encouraged as well as improvements being made to the three existing walking routes from the city centre.

Officers were asked for clarification on the operation of a travel plan and in view of location of the site of the proposal being on the former Bradford coal mine, could an assurance be given on the safety of the development and impact on surrounding residential homes. With regard to the public realm works in the application would the trees planted be mature trees.

It was reported that the travel plan would be reviewed annually by the Council and the venue operators. The Coal Authority had been consulted on the proposal and was satisfied that the issues raised can be addressed within the application. The Committee was informed that details of the public realm works had yet to be finalised but it was expected that the trees to be planted would be mature/semi mature.

A member referred to the consideration of market assessments as part of the application and asked officers for guidance on this.

It was reported that the application presents a large proposal and market assessment is a material consideration. The applicants have provided a detailed assessment and so had the objectors and the Council had engaged an independent consultant to provide advice. The advice received was there is a market available for two arena venues. The proposed venue would look to facilitate more diverse formats and layouts than the existing arena to open Manchester to different types of event and in doing so would attract a wider regional/national audience and provide a balance to the national economy.

A member referred to a community fund for the three local wards affected by the proposal and asked how this would be monitored. The Committee was informed that this was included in the draft S106 agreement but it was not a material planning consideration and members of the Committee should not consider it in their decision.

Councillor S Ali made a request to move the recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor Y Dar.

The Committee took a vote and gave their support to the decision to agree the recommendation.

Decision

Minded to Approve subject to:-

i)       the signing of a section 106 agreement with regards to the review and expansion of the existing Residents Parking Zone (RPZ), an operational event management strategy, walking route improvement works, local labour commitments and waste management arrangements.

ii)     confirmation that the Secretary of State does not intend to call the application in for his own determination.

iii)    Revision to condition 15 as follows:

15) Prior to the first use of the arena hereby approved, a strategy for use of the ancillary spaces throughout the arena building, including kiosks to the canal (as shown on drawing BRA-POP-ZZ-01-DR-A-0613 Rev 00 stamped as received by the City Council, as Local Planning Authority, on the 6 March 2020), on non-arena event days shall be submitted for approval in writing by the City Council, as Local Planning Authority. 

For the avoidance of doubt, this shall include details of the nature of the uses which would take place within the ancillary spaces including which facilities/spaces would be made available, the amount of floorspace to be utilised, operating hours and any management arrangements to ensure authorised access to the arena building only. 

The use of the ancillary spaces on non-arena event days shall be carried out in accordance with this strategy for as long as the arena is in use. 

Reason – To facilitate the use of the ancillary spaces on non-arena event days for community use and other appropriate purposes including kiosks to the canal which would support natural surveillance and activity at the arena and Etihad Campus as part of supporting the vitality of the campus and community access to the building pursuant to policies SP1, EC7 and DM1 of the Manchester Core Strategy (2012). 

(Councillor Flanagan declared a personal and pecuniary interest in the application and spoke as a Ward Councillor and took no part in the consideration of the application.)

(Councillor Hitchen declared a personal and pecuniary interest in the application and spoke as a Ward Councillor and took no part in the consideration of the application.)

(Councillor Monaghan did not take part in the consideration of the application or vote.)