®Planning appeal decision
Piccadilly, outside NO. 71, Manchester, M1 2BS
the removal of an existing InLink Unit and the deployment of a replacement Steet Hub 3 unit
- Authority
- Manchester City Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- utilities-energy · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Lancaster K
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area, with particular regard to whether it would preserve or enhance character or appearance of the Stevenson Square Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings
- Highway safety, with particular regard to pedestrian movement
- Effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity and public safety
What decided it
The replacement nature of the proposal, combined with the marginal increase in size and the busy commercial context with existing modern features and advertisements, meant that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of listed buildings, and would not harmfully affect pedestrian movement or highway safety.
Framework references: 11, 117
Plan policies cited: Policy SP1, Policy CC9, Policy EN1, Policy EN3, Policy DM1, Saved Policy DC19, Saved Policy DC22, Saved Policy DC15, Policy JP-P1, Policy JP-P2, Policy JP-C5, Policy JP-C4, Policy CC5, Policy T1
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.