Food store with parking at 440 Hollinwood Avenue, Manchester

What was proposed

A single-storey Lidl food store would replace existing structures, with 1,965 square metres of floorspace, 106 parking spaces, landscaping and an enlarged access.

“The application relates to the erection of a single storey, retail food store (Class E) following demolition of existing structures. It is proposed that the store is operated by Lidl.”

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey retail food store (Use Class E) with a gross internal area of 1965 sqm and a net sales area of 1334 sqm, together with car parking for 106 vehicles, landscaping and ancillary development.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant site contains former warehouse buildings and hardstanding in a mixed-use area beside homes, a nursery, shops and commercial premises.

“The application site relates to large, single-storey warehouse buildings previously occupied by Barr soft drinks, but now vacant. The premises were understood to be used as part of the company’s distribution operations.”

“The application site is situated within an area that is mixed use character, including a children’s’ day nursey which bounds the site to the west and a parade of local shops and commercial uses, including a veterinary practice to the south along the opposite side of Hollinwood Avenue. The closest retail centre is Hollinwood Avenue/Greengate local centre which lies immediately to the opposite side of Hollinwood Avenue.”

Officer report

Earlier committee action

The application was deferred so committee members could visit the site and understand the development’s effects on highway and pedestrian safety.

“This application was deferred at the committee meeting held on the 31 July 2025 to enable members of committee to undertake a site visit on the grounds of understanding the impact of the development on highway and pedestrian safety.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal an appropriate redevelopment that would improve a vacant brownfield site, provide jobs and shopping choice, and avoid unacceptable impacts.

“The proposed development would make efficient use of a previously developed site which has been vacant for some time and would provide increased shopping choice for the local population, whilst contributing to the local economy through the creation of jobs.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways consultees found the transport effects acceptable subject to works, while environmental consultees requested conditions covering noise, drainage, ecology, trees and construction.

“Conditions are requested in relation to demolition/construction management, servicing hours, hours of operation, external lighting, external equipment, noise management, waste management, electric vehicle charging and remediation of any ground contamination.”

“Following the submission of a revised landscaping scheme, the proposed tree works are considered acceptable, subject to agreeing construction methodology to ensure trees are not destroyed during construction of the new car parking spaces.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Eleven objections cited traffic, safety, congestion, residential impacts, retail need and impact, biodiversity loss and the loss of employment space; one representation supported the proposal.

“The application is contrary to Policy EC2 of the Core Strategy which seeks to retain and enhance existing employment space and that alternative uses will only be supported if certain criteria are met. It is maintained insufficient justification has been provided in relation to the loss of an employment use.”

“It is noted however that the Officer’s Report refers to a net loss of -51.33%. It is unclear where this figure has been taken from. The proposal would result in ecological harm arising from the loss of biodiversity and has an unacceptable lack of consideration of opportunities to reduce the scale of the development and hard paving.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent supported the store as a sustainable brownfield investment creating jobs, with transport matters assessed as acceptable by highways consultees.

What members discussed

Members discussed the nursery, traffic access and exits, screening, parking restrictions, traffic management, the nearby roundabout and the external lighting request.

“Councillor Curley welcomed the development for the residents of North Manchester, noting its benefits and thanking officers for a detailed report. He sought to minimise the impact on nearby residents and enquired about double yellow lines near residents’ homes on Hollinwood Avenue and other nearby roads.”

“The Director of Planning made comment that it was clear that the Committee were ready to support this application if some traffic concerns were addressed. She stated that there was scope to amend the condition relating to traffic management, making reference to “seeking to minimise the effect on residents” and “not prejudice work to the roundabout.” The Director of Planning confirmed that the Committee could delegate consultations to her to amend the wording around these…”

Minutes

What the committee decided

The committee approved the officer recommendation with the report’s conditions, an additional traffic condition, and changes concerning the future external lighting scheme.

“The Committee resolved to Approve the Officer’s recommendation subject to conditions set out within the report and an additional condition being imposed by The Director of Planning around traffic movement having a minimal effect on nearby residents and at the roundabout by the Gardeners Arms pub, plus taking note of the applicant’s request in the Late Reps agenda around any reference to external lighting being removed subject to an updated scheme being submitted at a later…”

“[Councillor Kamal arrived during this item and did not take part in the discussion or vote.]”

Minutes