Three-year marquee extension at British Muslim Heritage Centre, College Road, Manchester

What was proposed

The application sought three more years for a temporary marquee used for functions, prayers and religious festivals.

“In 2013 the British Muslim Heritage Centre obtained planning and listed building consent for the erection of a temporary marquee for use in association with the centre. This was subsequently renewed in 2016, 2019 and 2022 subject to conditions, which have been discharged. This report relates to the planning application to retain the existing temporary marquee for a further 3 years and for associated listed building consent.”

“Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent (refs:100277 and 100278) were granted in September 2013 for the siting of a marquee located on the hard standing and grassed area to the south of the west wing. The marquee provides a large floor space for functions, such as weddings and conference events, Friday prayers, and for prayers during religious festivals, which are attended by up to 800 people.”

Officer report

The site and marquee

The marquee is within the grounds of a Grade II* listed building in the Whalley Range Conservation Area, surrounded mainly by housing.

“Description The British Muslim Heritage Centre is a grade II* listed building, set in extensive landscaped grounds between College Road and Clarendon Road in the Whalley Range Conservation Area. Boundary treatment includes a stone wall and railings to College Road, and the gate posts and entrance are grade II listed. This entrance is, however, rarely used and the main vehicle access is currently taken from the northeast corner of the site on College Road.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the marquee’s continuing visual harm and effects on residential amenity outweighed its public and community benefits.

“Consideration has been given to the duration that the temporary marquee has been on the site, and visual impacts associated with the current condition of the marquee and the associated plant and equipment, and the external storage of pallets and other goods associated with the venue to the west of the structure.”

“Public benefits For proposals that are likely to cause less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the NPPF states that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits. It is acknowledged that there are some public benefits to be derived from the extension of the use of the marquee for functions that would fund the long-term economic future of the listed building.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways and police raised no objection subject to management, while Environmental Health sought stronger noise evidence and the Heritage Panel supported refusal.

“Highway Services In respect of application ref: 143445, Highways recommend continual monitoring and management of parking demands, this is in order to ensure there is no adverse impact generated on the highway network. They note the content of the revised Events Management Strategy and recommend this is conditioned. They request confirmation when the Travel Survey was undertaken to ensure that an up-to- date survey has been undertaken.”

“Environmental Health – Advise that they are continuing to receive complaints in relation to noise at the venue from loud music when there is an event on in the marquee from the PA system when being used, traffic noise from cars revving their engines and from flares and fireworks being set off by guests using the marquee.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector requested refusal, while the applicant described the centre’s community role and asked for deferral.

Members’ debate

Members weighed the centre’s religious and community role against resident disamenity and discussed stronger management and a replacement masterplan.

“Councillor Andrews noted that the responsible authorities had issues with the centre but expressed that he would be satisfied to defer the item in the interests of allowing the centre to strengthen their management strategy.”

“Councillor Kilpatrick felt that the site visit gave the Committee a greater understanding of the issues raised. He noted that refusing the application would affect religious practices but found it hard to weigh this in favour when balanced with the disamenity to local residents. He noted that he would be minded to refuse, owing to the centre already having had 12 years with the marquee in place as a temporary structure.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The Chair confirmed that the application would be deferred to the January 2026 meeting.

“The Chair noted that this application would be deferred until the next meeting in January 2026.”

Minutes

Why it was deferred

The Committee deferred the application so management operations could improve and time could be allowed for a masterplan application replacing the marquee.

“The Committee resolved to defer the application until the next Planning Committee hearing in January 2026 in order for the applicant to improve management operations at the marquee and allow some time to submit a masterplan application to replace the temporary marquee.”

Minutes