Adult gaming centre at Former Barclays Bank, Manchester

What was proposed

The application proposed changing a vacant former bank unit into an adult gaming centre with slot machines and elevational alterations.

“Proposal Change of use from a vacant Class E unit (former Bank) to an adult gaming centre (sui generis) and associated elevational alterations…”

“The proposal is for the use of a property on Stockport Road in Longsight district centre as an adult gaming centre, providing slot machines for gambling purposes (sui generis), together with elevational alterations.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The two-storey building fronts Stockport Road and a pedestrian route to the Asda foodstore, in a busy centre with retail and other businesses.

“The application site is a two-storey building with frontages onto Stockport Road and a pedestrian route through to the Asda foodstore. Stockport Road is a busy pedestrian and vehicular route.”

“It is proposed to change the use of the ground floor of the premises to an adult gaming centre (sui generis), with slot machines for gambling. This would occupy the ground floor, with the upper floor used for storage and staff facilities. The upper floor area also extends over a retail unit (in separate occupancy) at ground level to the east. The floor area would be 485 sqm.”

Officer report

Earlier application and appeal

A previous 24-hour application was refused in principle by the committee, while an inspector dismissed the appeal because noise evidence was insufficient.

“A previous application for the same use but operating on a 24/7 basis was considered by the Planning and Highways Committee in November 2024. However, a non-determination appeal was submitted by the applicant prior to the Committee meeting, and as such Members were not able determine the application, but agreed a resolution as to what decision Committee would have made if it was still within its power to determine the application.”

“The Planning Inspector in determining the non-determination appeal was of the view that the re-use of the property as an adult gaming centre would not unacceptably harm the role, function vitality and viability of the district centre, nor would the proposed window display and potential customer activity associated with the appeal scheme significantly harm the overall character of the commercial uses within the district centre, and would maintain an active frontage in this…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, concluding that the effects on the centre and residential amenity would not be significant enough to justify refusal.

“The proposed development would have an effect on the vitality and viability of Longsight district centre, through the introduction of a non-retail use into within a prominent primary shopping frontage and a use which has a largely inactive frontage to provide privacy to the users. However, it is considered the resulting impact would not be so significant as to warrant a refusal of permission.”

“Other Legislative Requirements Equality Act 2010 Section 149 (Public Sector Equality Duty) of the Equality Act 2010 requires due regard to the need to: Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act and; Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The Equality Duty does not impose a legal requirement to conduct an Equality Impact Assessment.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways officers raised no concerns, while Environmental Health recommended conditions covering hours, noise, servicing, lighting, waste and management.

“Additional information has been provided by the applicant which shows an internal bin store and confirms on-road refuse servicing with waste collected directly from the internal store - this is considered acceptable.”

“Environmental Health – Conditions are recommended to in relation to waste and recycling arrangements, external lighting (designed to control glare and overspill onto nearby properties), a restriction on hours of operation to 08:00-23:59; servicing hours, external equipment and the implementation of an 'Operational Management Plan’ with control measures' detailed within the submitted Noise Assessment.”

Officer report

Objections to the proposal

Residents, businesses, councillors and the MP objected over gambling harm, vulnerable people, clustering, health, safety, noise, crime and the loss of retail diversity.

“- The introduction of an adult gaming centre in this location raises significant concerns about its effect on vulnerable individuals. Gambling establishments can contribute to ‘problem gambling’, financial hardship, and social issues, particularly when placed in close proximity to residential areas and community spaces. The council has a responsibility to protect residents, especially young people and those at risk of gambling-related harm.”

“It is maintained that gambling can have significant adverse effects on mental and physical health, particularly for vulnerable individuals. This includes relationship breakdowns, large-scale financial loss, crime, and in some cases, suicide. The…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and objectors were absent; Councillors Richards and Lovecy addressed the committee against the application.

Members’ debate

Members debated health, wellbeing, district-centre retail, the inspector’s conclusions and the possible cost of a later appeal.

“Councillor Kilpatrick said that he was unable to support the officer recommendation to approve as he was of the view that the application was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly in regard to the promotion of the health and wellbeing of residents and retail within District Centres.”

“Councillor Gartside stated that she also opposed this application on the grounds of undermining the promotion of the health and wellbeing of residents. She said that she was conflicted as she recognised the significant cost that would be incurred by the Council at any subsequent appeal hearing should the application be refused.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Andrews moved approval and Councillor Rawson seconded the motion.

“Manchester City Council Minutes Planning Committee 3 July 2025 Councillor Andrews said that it was with reluctance that he moved the Officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee resolved to approve the application.

“The Committee resolved to approve the application.”

“[Councillors Chohan, Lovecy and Richards had submitted representations opposing the application during the formal consultation period, as set out within the published report. Councillors, Chohan, Lovecy and Richards attended this hearing only in their capacity as local Ward Councillors or objectors and withdrew from the meeting during the Committee’s deliberations and took no part in the voting.]”

Minutes

Conditions on approval

The approval included conditions on approved plans, first-floor storage, waste, opening hours, servicing hours and noise measures.

“The development hereby approved shall only be implemented in accordance with the waste management scheme detailed on drawing referenced 899-PL-110 01 (proposed waste management plan) and accompanying waste management pro forma, received by the City Council as Local Planning Authority on 19 June 2025 and 20 June 2025 respectively.”

“6.Deliveries, servicing and collections, including waste collections shall not take place outside the following hours: 07:30 to 20:00, Monday to Saturday, no deliveries/waste collections on Sundays/Bank Holidays.”

Officer report