Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011

Application Number Date of Appln Committee Date Ward 094310/FO/2010/S2 30th Sep 2010 17 February 2011 East Ward

Proposal Change of use of Bingo Club (D1) to Casino (Sui Generis) Location Entertainment Centre, , Didsbury, , M20 5PG Applicant Grosvenor Casinos Ltd, Former Buckingham Bingo Club, Parrs Wood Entertainment Centre, , Didsbury, Manchester, M20 5PG Agent Graham Murdoch, Murdoch Associates, 16 South Road, Bishops, Stortford, Herts, CM23 3JH

Since the last Committee the Council has received notification of an appeal in respect of this application on the ground that the Council failed to give notification of the decision in the appropriate period. The appeal has been validated therefore the Committee will be unable to determine the application. However, any reason(s) put forward for refusal will form the basis of the Councils case at the appeal.

Members will recall that this application was brought before the Committee on 25th November 2010 with a recommendation for approval. At this meeting representations against the proposal were made by residents, residents groups and Ward Members. Members of the Committee resolved to be minded to refuse the application for the following reason:-

1. That the proposal would create a significant increase in comings and goings, which would result in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance, to the detriment of nearby residents, particularly during the early hours of the morning.

The Head of Planning was asked to bring forward a report addressing the above concerns and proposing detailed reasons for refusal. As such the issues are explored further:

Members are concerned that by allowing the premises to open as a 24 hour casino, the resultant noise and disturbance caused by comings and goings would be excessive and as a result would have a detrimental impact upon the levels of residential amenity currently enjoyed by the occupants of the nearby residential accommodation.

Whilst it is noted that Environmental Health have not objected to the application and have not raised concerns that relate to residential amenity, it should be noted that they only assess the impact of the noise breakout from the building, rather than the potential noise and disturbance that is caused by patrons leaving the building.

In order to assess whether the development would have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of nearby residential occupiers, the Council commissioned Colin Waters Acoustics (CWA) to undertake a noise assessment and Three Spires Acoustics to carryout a night-time noise survey. The survey recorded the noise levels from

Page 1 of 17 List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011 midnight to 5:00am. Similar measurement points were used to those used in the noise survey submitted by Walker Beak Mason on behalf of the applicant.

The survey results clearly show the change in the levels of the ambient levels that occur between the late evening and the early morning. At around midnight the minimum value for the background noise level is 54 dB LA90 (LA90 a term used to describe background noise measurements) and a 5 minute background noise level of 55 dB. At 3am the LA90 reduces to around 45 dB. CWA report states that ‘this in itself is a very significant reduction. At midnight the noise would be perceived as a varying source that rises and falls in a relatively smooth manner. However at 3.00am the character would change to a low level background noise interspersed with discrete loud traffic noise events. The actual level of each traffic event would not be very different at each time but the difference between the traffic noise peak and the background would be greater. It is this difference that would emphasise the adverse effect of this early morning traffic impact’.

The results also show that ‘that when a vehicle passes along Wilmslow Road it generates a maximum noise level of 75 dB over the existing background level of 43 dB (46 on a Saturday). The permitting of this development would change the number of times this occurred in a five minute period from around 17 to 23 at 2:00am and from 6 to 10 at 3:00am. The first of these increases would be considered noticeable and unwelcome but the second represents a considerable potential impact on local residents along this road. It is accepted that during the daytime the period LAeq is a reasonable measure, however at night this may not be the case. Matters such as sleep disturbance and the potential to be woken are the important factors. It is also a given that it cannot be assumed that residents should shut their windows to protect themselves from exterior noise.

In addition to the noise from vehicles there will be noise from patrons, CWA report states ‘There is no doubt that this can cause significant noise in an area even with the most well regulated of establishments. With Clubs and Pubs this is a often discussed as being in the province of the police as it’s a public order matter, but that should not be the case for a planned leisure complex. It has to be a material consideration in planning terms and relevant to this assessment. Accordingly it is evident that noise will be present in the very early hours that would not be present if this application were to be refused’.

The examination above reveals that if the Casino is permitted it would almost double the occasions when a vehicle passes along Wilmslow Road as such it is considered that this increase in traffic would have a negative impact on residential amenity.

CWA also examined the report submitted by WBM and stated that ‘An examination of the report submitted to the Council by WBM shows that the metrics used to describe and assess these incoming noise levels serves to reduce the impact of the short duration of the events leading to an underestimate of the possible consequences’.

At present the entertainment centre is closed for all activities after the late night cinema show finishes at 2.00am. It is considered that the establishment of the proposed Casino has the potential to significantly affect the noise environment of the

Page 2 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011 local area after 2.00am. The scale of this affect results from the proposed 24 hour use of the Casino that will result in additional traffic and patron activity in the early hours of the morning.

It is important to mention the recent appeal decision for the extension of opening hours to the Tenpin Bowling Unit at the Parrswood Entertainment Centre. The application (093286/JO/2010/S2) was refused but the decision was overturned on appeal and as a result Unit 1 at the Parrswood Entertainment Centre is now permitted to open until 08:00-01:00am on Sundays to Wednesdays, and 0800- 01:30am on Thursdays to Saturdays. Whilst the Inspector acknowledged that the extension to the opening hours would result in customers arriving at or leaving the premises in the early hours of the morning he considered that it would be unlikely that such activity would be of a scale to appreciably disturb residents in the area. Further the Inspector stated that there was no evidence to show that the resultant noise levels would generate undue noise and disturbance that would contribute to a substantial reduction in the residential amenities of nearby occupiers.

Conclusion

The Head of Planning's recommendation still remains one of approve subject, however this recommendation is now subject to an hours condition. Having regard to the evidence obtained from the noise survey and analysis, it is considered that there would be a significant adverse noise effect upon the local residents, particularly in the early hours beyond 2.00am. Planning Policy Guidance 24 (PPG 24) suggests that in these situations proposals such as this should be subject to conditions to mitigate the adverse effects. It is therefore considered in the context of the appeal decision on the bowling alley and the evidence prepared by CWA that an hours of use restriction between the hours of 2:00am to 7:00am would be appropriate. However, the applicant is seeking a 24 hour use therefore such a condition is not acceptable, it is considered that weight must be attached to Unitary Development Plan policies H2.2 and DC26 and PPG 24, and the application should be refused on the following grounds.

1. The Change of use of the premises to a 24 hour casino would substantially reduce the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties due to the increase in comings and goings to the premises and associated noise problems, particularly in the early hours of the morning, and as such is contrary to policies DC26 and H2.2 of the approved Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester adopted in 1995 and Planning Policy Guidance 24.

Description

The application site is located in the Parrswood Entertainment Centre on Kingsway. It is a purpose built commercial leisure building located within the East Didsbury area of Manchester. The Entertainment Centre itself is bound by Parrs Wood Lane to the north and Kingsway and Wilmslow Road to the west. Car parking is situated to the south of the site with situated to the east. Residential uses are situated on the western side of Wilmslow Road and Kingsway. Residential uses are also situated on Kingsway close to its junction with Wilmslow Road; The Gateway

Page 3 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011

Public House is also situated at this junction. Further residential uses are located beyond the eastern boundary of the school at Green Pastures.

Some members will recall granting temporary planning permission 082717/FU/2007/S2 at the Planning and Highways Committee meeting held on 28th June 2007 for change of use of part of existing Bingo Hall to form Casino comprising 846 sq m. of gambling area between the hours of 4 pm. to 6 am. Monday to Friday, 2:00pm to 4:00am. Saturday, 2:00pm to 6:00am. Sundays and Bank Holidays, for a temporary operating period of 18 months. That consent was never implemented.

The application now being considered proposes the Change of use of the whole of the Bingo Club (D1) to a 24 hour Casino (Sui Generis) on a permanent basis. The Casino would be on the first floor, which can be accessed by lift or stairs. Whilst the primary use of the leisure facility would be a casino consisting of a gaming area, slots lounge and a poker room, there are also a variety of other facilities available to use without the need to gamble, these include the restaurant, the bar area and a sports lounge.

This application does not include alterations to the building, the applicant has applied for these on a separate application, which is also being considered under 094403/FO/2010/S2 elsewhere on the agenda.

Consultations

Local residents were notified about the planning application, 48 letters of objection were received, the objections are summarised below:  Noise and disturbance  Parking is already a problem, the proposal will exacerbate the problem  The casino is not a family use, therefore it should not be located in a family entertainment centre.  This type of use increases incidences of crime e.g. rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and automobile theft.  The increased noise from people leaving the complex will affect residents. At weekends the impact is less, however during the week working residents expect reasonable 'quiet hours'.  The site is approximately 100 yards form residential properties.  The use would act as an attraction to gambling to school children.  The report “casino’s, crime and community’ by Grinols & Mustard 2004 proves that casinos increase levels of crime.

Didsbury Civic Society - The seven day a week, 24 hour opening hours would substantially reduce the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby and opposite properties due to the increase in comings and goings to the premises and associated noise problems, particularly in the early hours of the morning, and as such is contrary to policies DC26 and H2.2 of the approved Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester adopted in 1995.

Although there is a comparison of traffic with the bingo hall, this is only up to when it closed at night. In other words there is no traffic survey for the early hours of the

Page 4 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011 morning. This is crucial for the residents since if there are only three cars an hour between say 03.00 and 05.00, any increase substantially decreases residential amenity.

Didsbury East Councillors - The comments area summarised below: The Parrs Wood Entertainment Centre was built for family entertainment, the proposal to open a gaming casino is a dramatic step towards a totally different patronage. The use is unsuitable in the suburban residential area of East Didsbury and the character of the Entertainment Centre would be irreversibly changed for the worse.

The position of the casino would be right next to Parrs Wood High School, a school for pupils in the age range from 11 to 19 some of whom (aged 18 or more) would be attracted to the casino and would be allowed entry to the casino. Pupils walking to and from the school would be walking past the casino entrance. This would be totally unacceptable.

The proposed 24-hour operation of the Casino would mean that there would be additional noise from traffic at all hours of the day and night, the disamenity for local residents would be considerable.

Officers should refuse this application under delegated powers. We have received many contacts from local residents including a petition containing hundreds of signatures.

John Leech MP – grounds for objection are as follows: 1. “This entertainment complex was set up for family entertainment. While a Bingo Club is also for over 18s, a casino establishment is seen as a very different type of gambling and is likely to attract a completely different clientele to a Bingo Club. This in turn has the potential for changing the family nature of other establishments at the Parrs Wood complex, which is out of keeping with the intended use of the centre. 2. The very close proximity to Parrswood High School makes this an unsuitable location for a casino. 3. The 24 hour nature of the business will undoubtedly result in additional noise and disturbance for local residents throughout the night, in what is essentially a residential area. A 24 hour operation is likely to result in a precedent being set for other businesses to run later into the night, and a move away from the family nature of the entertainment”.

Heatons South Ward Councillors - One email on behalf of the three councillors for Heatons South Ward of Stockport MBC, namely Councillors Owen Breen, Colin Foster & Tom McGee was received, the comments are summarised as follows:

We wish to object to the proposed change of use from bingo to a casino open for twenty four hours for the following reasons:

The twenty-four hour usage is likely to have an impact in two separate ways:

 Residents on Green Pastures backing on to the complex are likely to be more

Page 5 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011

disturbed by cars starting up throughout the night

 The amenity of residents along Didsbury Rd and Lane will be affected by increased numbers of casino users moving away from the Centre along those roads. Availability of alcohol at this venue will attract users and increase the potential disturbance to residents. Customers moving away from the Parrs Wood centre on foot are likely to disturb households many of which on Didsbury Rd are terraced properties.

It is unacceptable that young people (from the adjacent Parrs Wood High School and Sixth Form Centre) should have to be exposed to these gambling activities and be faced with customers accessing and leaving the casino throughout the day. A casino is more appropriately located in a discrete location or in a central area, not adjacent to a large secondary school.

As such the amenity of residents in the immediate area of Heaton Mersey will be adversely affected and that there is a conflict in usage between a secondary school and a large gambling complex therefore the planning application should be refused.

Highway Services - This development will not have any major impact upon the existing highways surrounding the proposal, as there is very little increase in visitors from the previous use of these premises as a bingo hall. Therefore, Highway Services will support this planning application.

Environmental Health – No objections subject to conditions attached to the approval.

South Manchester Regeneration – No objections

Greater Manchester Police Design for Security – No Objections Neighbourhood Inspector – The proposal is not predicted as a crime generator and cannot be realistically compared to other casino locations in the city.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council – No Comments received.

Issues

Regional The North West Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) 2021 provides a framework for the physical development of the region over the next 15 to 20 years. The following policies are of relevance:

Policy DP1 'Spatial Principles' outlines the main principles that underpin the RSS to which all other regional, sub-regional and local plans and strategies and all individual proposals, schemes and investment decisions should adhere to. These include to promote sustainable communities, promote sustainable economic development, make the best use of existing resources and infrastructure, manage travel demand, reduce the need to travel, and increase accessibility, marry opportunity and need,

Page 6 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011 promote environmental quality, mainstreaming rural issues, and to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.

Policy DP2 'Promote Sustainable Communities' states that building sustainable communities are places where people want to live and work. This is a regional priority in both urban and rural areas. Sustainable Communities should meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, promote community cohesion and equality and diversity, be sensitive to the environment, and contribute to a high quality of life.

Policy DP4 'Make the Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure' explains that priority should be given to developments in locations consistent with the regional and sub-regional spatial frameworks, which include building upon existing concentrations of activities and existing infrastructure, and sites that do not require major investment in new infrastructure, including transport, water supply and sewerage. Where this is unavoidable development should be appropriately phased to coincide with new infrastructure provision.

Policy DP4 goes on to outline that development should accord with a certain sequential approach that starts with using existing buildings (including conversion) within settlements, and previously developed land within settlements, and ends with the development of other land where this is well-located in relation to housing, jobs, other services and infrastructure.

It is considered that the application proposals are in compliance with all of the principles outlined above as set out in the RSS.

National Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) - encourages the promotion of urban and rural regeneration to improve the well being of communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe development and create new opportunities for the people living in those communities. In addition to this PPS1 clearly outlines the importance of creating sustainable communities.

Planning Policy 4: Town centres - Policy EC 17 of Planning Policy Statement 4 states that planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be refused planning permission where: a. the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements the sequential approach (Policy EC 15); or b. there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of anyone of impacts set out in policies EC I 0.2 and 16.1, taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.

Policy EC17.2 states that where no significant adverse impacts have been identified under policies EC10.2 and 16.1, planning applications should be determined by taking account of: a. the positive and negative impacts of the proposal and any other

Page 7 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011 material considerations; and b. the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) - Identifies land use planning as having a key role in delivering the Government's integrated transport strategy, i.e. securing integration between planning and transport. By shaping the pattern of development and influencing the location, amongst other things, planning can help to reduce: the need travel and the length of journeys; make it safer and easier for people to access jobs, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling.

Planning Policy Guidance 24, “Planning and Noise” states in paragraph 10 that while not placing unjustifiable obstacles in the way of development, local planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. It states further in the same paragraph that local planning authorities should also bear in mind that a subsequent intensification or change of use may result in greater intrusion and they may wish to consider the use of appropriate conditions, taking into account the economic, environmental, social and cultural implications of development.

The Manchester plan: Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester (adopted 1995 with alterations in 1998).

The Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester was adopted in June 1995. There are no site specific policies relating to the application site. However, when dealing with an application such as this, consideration is given to policies H2.2 Part 1 of the UDP and policy DC26 in Part 2 of the UDP.

H2.2 - States that the Council will not allow development, which will have an unacceptable impact on residential areas. The matters that the Council will consider, amongst other things, the scale and appearance of the development, traffic generation and road safety;

T2.4 - States that, outside the City Centre, the City Council will expect developments to make adequate provision for their car parking requirements. In considering development proposals The City Council will have regard to the environmental capacity of the site both in terms of the physical appearance of the car parking and its effect on neighbouring activities and also the ability of the local road network to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed development.

T2.6 - States that the City Council will expect adequate car parking provision to be made for disabled people so that they can get easy access both to existing and new facilities in the City.

Part 2 policy DB9 is also relevant and states that the City Council will improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists at the major junctions of Parrs Wood Lane and Kingsway.

DC 26 states that t he Council intends to use the development control process to

Page 8 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011 reduce the impact of noise on people living and working in, or visiting, the City. In giving effect to this intention, the Council will consider both: a. the effect of new development proposals which are likely to be generators of noise; and b. the implications of new development being exposed to existing noise sources which are effectively outside planning control. DC26.3 Developments likely to result in unacceptably high levels of noises will not be permitted: a. in residential areas; b. near schools, hospitals, nursing homes and similar institutions; c. near open land used frequently for recreational purposes.

Guide to Development in Manchester 2: Supplementary Planning Document - The Guide aims to support and enhance the on going shaping of the City by providing a set of reasoned principles which will guide developers, designers and residents to the sort of development we all want to see in Manchester.

Principle of the development - Changes to the Use Classes Order (April 2006) excluded casino uses from Class D2, i.e. the previously authorised use of the application premises. Since Casinos have been reclassified as "sui generis", a full planning application is required. The Government maintain that changes to the Use Classes Order were required in order to: account for the distinctiveness and scale of casinos; counter proliferation; capture of regeneration benefits and enable the management of adverse impacts.

Government guidance indicates that issues such as the fear of crime or nuisance arising from a proposed development may be a material consideration. However, the assumed moral character of the users of a particular building will not generally be a material planning consideration. As such consideration should be given to the suitability of the proposed location, the impact on other centres and the impact on residential amenity.

Suitability of Location: The application site is currently vacant it’s last use of a bingo hall ceased approximately 6 months ago. Before the location was decided the applicants carried out a sequential site assessment in line with Planning Policy 4 to review the suitability, viability and availability of sites within the catchment area. The catchment area being a 15 minute drive from the application site. The applicants looked at the following sites/areas District Centre, Corner of Wimslow Road and Banff Road, , Corner of Stanley Grove I Stockport Road, , Former Petrol Filling Station, Stockport Road North, , Former Goodsyard, Wilbraham Road I Wilmslow Road, crossroads. Fallowfield, Burton Road I Wimslow Road. , Civic Centre Site, Former Petrol Filling Station, Corner of Great Western Street and Wilmslow Road, Rusholme.

Each of the sequential sites within the catchment area were assessed in accordance with PPS4 and the Practice Guidance in respect of their availability, Suitability and Viability. The sequential approach showed that the Parrswood site is the optimal location for the proposed casino. All of the other sites considered were disregarded

Page 9 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011 because they fail to fully meet the PPS4 criteria of being available, suitable and viable, which is in contrast to the application site as it is available for the purposes of the proposed development, suitable in terms of its sustainable use of an existing building, located close to public transport options and existing car parking; and viable in respect of commercial and financial feasibility. As such it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Planning Policy 4 in that the approval of the proposal will ensure that Parrs Wood Entertainment Centre remains vital and viable. Further more, the application site has been vacant for some time and the proposed use would provide a regenerative benefit by bringing a vacant shop unit back into effective use.

Impact on other Town centres - Based upon EC 16.1 of PPS4 the proposed casino was assessed against the following impacts: a. the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned private investment in centres within a 15 minute drive time catchment area, this includes the following designated centres: Mossside I , Chorlton, Rusholme, Longsight, Levenshulme, Fallowfield, Withington, , Wythenshawe and Didsbury. b. the impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of the district centres in the catchment area, including local consumer choice, the evening economy, and any potential overlap with existing gambling facilities (e.g. bookmakers). c. the impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan. There are no allocated casino sites and therefore such impact is not relevant. d. the impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made. The applicant has stated that there is no reliable data relating to the available expenditure within the Manchester area. As such they have not identified the split of such expenditure between existing casinos. Therefore without such data it is not possible to understand potential trade/turnover impact in a reliable way.

The submitted centre assessments show that most of the identified district centres contain at least one betting shop, the majority of which are operated by national operators such as Betfred, Ladbrookes, William Hill and Totesport. Wythenshawe district centre also contains a bingo operator. Whilst the principle facilities within a casino are a form of gambling, it should be noted that under existing Licensing legislation, a casino is not permitted to offer either betting or bingo facilities. A casino cannot therefore compete directly with either a bookmakers or a bingo club, therefore such formats will not compete for trade.

Based on the evidence provided, it is not envisaged that the proposed casino will have any trading impact on such businesses or effect the vitality and viability of any of the identified district centres and is therefore compliant with Planning Policy 4.

Residential Amenity – Noise - The impact of the noise emanating from the site has been considered with

Page 10 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011 regard to its relationship to neighbouring residential uses. The nearest houses are situated approximately 100 metres (328 ft) from the application site on Kingsway and Wilmslow Road. The nearest residential property on Green Pastures are situated 260 metres (853 ft) from the east of the site. Wilmslow Road is an existing highway which currently has road traffic movement throughout the day and intermittent traffic at night, therefore there is background noise throughout the day and night .

The submitted noise assessment report assumes that "potential noise impacts" will result from customers leaving the premises and walking to cars or the bus stops at the front of the Entertainment Centre. Noise has also been attributed to vehicles as they manoeuvre around the car and exit the site from Wilmslow Road.

The noise report considers the night time period between 11pm to 7am, it indicates that, on the basis of established background noise levels, there would be no increase in the prevailing noise level and no adverse impact is anticipated. The report concludes that the magnitude of the increase in noise levels within this vicinity is considered to be barely perceptible.

The proposed use is unlike the other entertainment uses in the centre in that a large number of people do not participate in the same activity at the same time, therefore would not result in large numbers of people dispersing the venue together. On this basis it is considered that the proposed use would have a steady continual amount of people dispersing throughout the day and night compared to the previous use, which would have hundreds of people leaving at the same time.

The Head of Environmental Health has confirmed the acceptability of the contents of the submitted noise report. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in line with Planning Policy Guidance 24, “Planning and Noise” in that the development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance, Policy H2.2 in that the development does not have an unacceptable impact on residential and Policy DC26 in that the development will not result in unacceptable levels of noise.

Operational Arrangements - Membership would be required to gain access to the Casino. The applicant maintains that the "robust" electronic access arrangements, supplemented by dedicated staff at the Casino entrances, would prevent unauthorised access to the premises.

The applicant maintains an awareness of the social responsibilities related to gambling. The applicant maintains that the measures that would be put in place to control and restrict access to the premises would be sufficient to ensure its appropriate management, including restricting access to individuals below the age of 18 years and anyone in a school uniform regardless of they age.

The proposed use will provide 120 new jobs, a mixture of full and part time posts, the applicant has stated that the vast majority will be created locally. This is in line with Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) – in that the development creates new opportunities for the people living in the Didsbury community.

Page 11 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011

Traffic/Car Parking - The applicant provided a Transport Assessment and parking surveys, which state that the proposed Casino will utilise the existing car parking within the existing car parking area.

The submitted data shows that the anticipated uplift in parking provision associated with the proposed casino development is able to be accommodated within the existing car parking provision at the entertainment centre. The assessment also demonstrated that the proposed casino development actually results in a reduction in the level of peak parking demand on a Wednesday evening (Wednesdays is one of the busiest days at the cinema, due to the 2 for 1 orange Wednesday offer) than would previously existed with the Bingo Hall.

Based on this information the Head of Highways Services and the Head of Planning are satisfied that the proposed use will not have a major impact upon the existing highways surrounding the proposal.

Licensing – Have agreed the following: Opening hours - 24 hour opening Alcohol can be served at the following times - Monday – Saturday 11am – 11pm Sunday 12 noon – 10:30pm Gambling – Bingo licence 9am to 12 midnight, Monday to Sunday.

An application for a casino licence has not been submitted as yet. However the applicant has submitted the following information regarding the licensing:

“Grosvenor is seeking to obtain a Gambling Act 2005 converted casino premises licence for the premises by applying to vary the converted casino premises licence it currently holds for an unused part of the Grosvenor “G” Casino, Bury New Road, to relocate it to the Parrs Wood site. That licence in turn was obtained as a successor to the licence granted under the Gaming Act 1968 in 2001 for the Hard Rock Casino in the Printworks, Manchester which Grosvenor operated between 19th July 2002 and 30th July 2006, when the licence was surrendered. The Bury New Road licence was subsequently converted under the transitional provisions of the Gambling Act 2005 and its relocation to Parrs Wood will be applied for under paragraphs 65(12) and (13) of the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) Order, which provide specifically for the relocation of converted casino premises within the same local authority area. Application to vary the Bury New Road licence to relocate it was made on 23rd November and the consultation period for the application is 28 days”.

Human Rights Act 1998 considerations – This application needs to be considered against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applicants (and those third parties, including local residents, who have made representations) have the right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full consideration to their comments.

Protocol 1 Article 1, and Article 8 where appropriate, confer(s) a right of respect for a person’s , other land and business assets. In taking account of all material considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan,

Page 12 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011 the Head of Planning has concluded that some rights conferred by these articles on the applicant(s)/objector(s)/resident(s) and other occupiers and owners of nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that that interference is in accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal. He believes that any restriction on these rights posed by the approval of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits of approval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts.

Recommendation APPROVE

Approve on the basis that the proposal is in accordance with national policy in particular Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) – in that the proposal creates new opportunities for the people living in Didsbury, Planning Policy 4: Town centres – In that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential test and there is no evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) – in that the applicant has demonstrated that access to public transport is good. Planning Policy Guidance 24, “Planning and Noise” – In that the proposal does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance and City Council policy in particular H2.2 – in that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on residential areas, T2.4 – in that the proposal makes adequate provision for car parking, DC 26 in that the development not result in unacceptably high levels of noises and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate otherwise.

Conditions and/or Reasons 1) The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason - Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings and documents unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as Local Planning Authority: Drawing number 4081-810-007, 4081-800-002 stamped as received on 20/09/2010 and information received 21/09/2010 and 22/09/2010.

Reason - To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Pursuant to policy H2.2 of the Manchester Unitary Development Plan.

3) No deliveries, servicing or loading and unloading of vehicles shall take place at the premises outside the hours of 7.30a.m. and 8.00p.m. Monday to Saturday. No deliveries/waste collections on Sundays/Bank Holidays

Reason - In the interests of residential amenity pursuant to policies H2.2 and DC26 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

Page 13 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011

4) Before development commences a scheme for the extraction of any fumes, vapours and odours from the premises hereby approved shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the City Council as local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to occupancy and shall remain operational thereafter.

Reason - In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers nearby properties in order to comply with Policy H2.2 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

5) No equipment relating to the transmission of amplified sound or music shall be installed or operated outside the building, to which this planning permission relates, at any time unless specifically approved in writing unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

Reason - In the interests of residential amenity pursuant to policies H2.2 and DC26 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

6) No development shall commence until a scheme for the storage (including segregated waste recycling) and disposal of refuse has been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The details of the approved scheme shall be implemented as part of the development and shall remain in situ whilst the use or development is in operation.

Reason - In the interest of residential amenity, pursuant to policy H2.2 of teh Manchester Plan.

7) The premises shall not open between the following hours.

02:00am to 07:00am Monday to Sunday.

Reason - In interests of residential amenity in order to reduce noise and general disturbance in accordance with Policies H2.2 and DC26 and the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

8) Before the use hereby approved commences the premises shall be insulated in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority in order to secure a reduction in the level of noise emanating from the property.

Reason - To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby accommodation, pursuant to policy H2.2 of the Manchester Unitary Development Plan.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

The documents referred to in the course of this report are either contained in the file(s) relating to application ref: 094310/FO/2010/S2 held by planning or are City Council planning policies, the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester, national planning guidance documents, or relevant decisions on other applications or

Page 14 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011 appeals, copies of which are held by the Planning Division.

The following residents, businesses and other third parties in the area were consulted/notified on the application:

South Manchester Regeneration Police Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Didsbury Civic Society Friends Of Parrswood Tesco Stores Ltd, Parrs Wood Lane, Manchester, M20 5NP 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46 Lynnwood Road, Manchester, M19 1RJ 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66 Lynnwood Road, Manchester, M19 1RJ 13, 15, 17, 19 Antrim Close, Manchester, M19 1TB 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 Antrim Close, Manchester, M19 1TB 20, 24, 26, 26, 32 Printers Close, Manchester, M19 1TL 19, 21, 23, ,25, 27, 29, 31, 35 Printers Close, Manchester, M19 1TL Flat 6, 8, 10, 15 Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Apartment 1, 870 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5AA Flat 12, 18, 20, 21, Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Flat 28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 41, 45 Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Flat 24, 25, Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Warrington Martin, 1 The Stables, Parrs Wood Entertainment Centre, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG 2 The Stables, Parrs Wood Entertainment Centre, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG Outgoing Ltd, 3 The Stables, Parrs Wood Entertainment Centre, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG Jones Lowndes Dwyer Llp, 4 The Stables, Parrs Wood Entertainment Centre, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG Flat 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Flat 14, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19 Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Flat 22, 23, 26, 27, 36, 37 Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Flat 32, 34, 38, 40, 42, 44, 50 Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Flat 55, Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Flat 31, Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Flat 9, Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99 Green Pastures, Manchester, SK4 3RB 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115 Green Pastures, Manchester, SK4 3RB 22, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, Printers Close, Manchester, M19 1TL 75, 77, 79, 81 Green Pastures, Manchester, SK4 3RB 2, 4 Morningside Drive, Manchester, M20 5PQ 904, 906, 908, 910, 912, 914, 916, 918 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 Denholm Road, Manchester, M20 5PP 8, 10 Moor Park Road, Manchester, M20 5PF

Page 15 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011

902 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG Parrswood Technology College, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG The Bell House, Parrs Wood Entertainment Centre, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG Buckingham Bingo, Parrs Wood Entertainment Centre, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG Holmes Place Healthclubs Plc, Parrs Wood Entertainment Centre, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG Arc Design & Interiors Ltd, Parrs Wood Entertainment Centre, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, Moor Park Road, Manchester, M20 5PF 884, 886, 888, 890, 892, 894, 896, 898, 900 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG Gateway Hotel, 882 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG Peter R Hartley Equipment, 804 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5WY Flat 51, Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Flat 2, 46, 47, 49, 48, 52, 53, 54, Parrs Wood Court, 880 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5NG Khandoker Restaurant, 812 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5WY Styl2, 810 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5WY 804a, 808a, 806a, 808-810, Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5WY Khandoker Takeaway, 806 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5WY 826, 828, 830, 832, 834, 836 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5WQ 846 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5WQ 831, 833, 835, 837, 839, 841, 843, 845, 847, 849, 851, 853 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5PA 838, 840, 842, 844, Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5WQ 1, 3, 5, 7 Moor Park Road, Manchester, M20 5PF 857 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5PA 855 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5PA 2a, Gawsworth Avenue, Manchester, M20 5WU 848, 850, 852, 854, 856 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5WQ

Representations were received from the following third parties: Any civic societies etc etc 2 Davenfield Grove, Didsbury, Manchester, M20 6UA 16 Morningside Drive, East Didsbury, Manchester, M20 5PR 26 Laneside Road, East Didsbury, Manchester, M20 5PD 32 Morningside Drive, East Didsbury, Manchester, M20 5PL 4 Moor Park Road, East Didsbury, Manchester, M20 5PF 29 Albert Hill Street, Didsbury, Manchester, M20 6RF 8 Anerley Road, Didsbury, Manchester, M20 2DJ 9 Denholm Road, Manchester, M20 5PP 11 Moor Park Road, Manchester, M20 5PF 900 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG 888 Wilmslow Road, East Didsbury, Manchester, M20 5PG 886 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG 853 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5PA 843 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5PA 7 Moor Park Road, Manchester, M20 5PF

Page 16 of 17 Manchester City Council List No. 7 Planning and Highways Committee 17 February 2011

830 Kingsway, Manchester, M20 5WQ 91 Kingsfield Drive, Manchester, M20 6HU Flat 11, Drayton Manor, 507 Parrswood Road, Didsbury, Manchester, M20 5GJ 906 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 5PG

Relevant Contact Officer : Charenjit Kaur Telephone number : 0161 234 4544 Email : [email protected]

Page 17 of 17