Councillors have postponed a decision on the construction of what could be Greater Manchester's tallest skyscraper following a heated planning meeting.
Salford Council members voted to defer the verdict in order to gather more information on several significant concerns, with the motion to defer passing by six votes to three.
Had the approval been granted today, it would have allowed Henley Investment Management to proceed with plans for up to 3,300 homes across ten tower blocks at the northern end of Regent Retail Park.
The largest tower within the proposed development is set to reach a height of 273m, potentially becoming the tallest structure in Greater Manchester and one of the highest in the º£½ÇÊÓƵ, with designs indicating it could span up to 78 storeys.
However, the ambitious project has faced opposition from residents and councillors in Ordsall, who argue that the existing community is already under significant strain and would find it difficult to accommodate thousands of additional residents.
By the start of the planning meeting, the council's website had registered objections from a total of 460 individuals.
The meeting began at 10am and continued until nearly 1pm.
During the meeting, one opponent said: "It can take four weeks to see your GP. There was one resident we know who had a cough but she could not get an appointment for three weeks – she had to go to A&E for emergency treatment.
"Congestion is a major problem for Ordsall. Regent Road is one of the busiest roads in the region. It's an artery of city life, in danger of being blocked."
Salford MP Rebecca Long-Bailey and Ordsall councillor Brendan Keville both spoke to the planning panel regarding the proposals.
Ms Long-Bailey warned the development would establish a "complete new town in the sky" that would "not be out of place in downtown Manhattan".
She added: "There were no new proposals for GPs, no new school places, and no new dentists in one of the most deprived areas in the city, an area already struggling.
Affordable housing emerged as a significant issue during the meeting – referring to properties priced beneath market value.
Planning documentation revealed that incorporating affordable homes within the development was deemed financially unviable.
Nevertheless, discussions with council officials have sought to identify a solution, with the developer proposing 20% affordable housing through land lease negotiations.
This remained a subject councillors sought further clarification on – alongside queries about the implications for parking and transport infrastructure.
Phil Cusack, chairing the planning panel, declared: "One way or another, we will get to 20% affordable housing."
Council representatives indicated the proposals would result in decreased traffic volumes compared to the current retail park, asserting that all necessary information for decision-making had been supplied.
Hattie Charlier-Poole, senior development manager at Henley Investment Management, informed councillors that they had collaborated with residents to tackle their concerns throughout the process, including with public consultations. She elaborated: "This proposal is a vision for the future of Salford, with a new public park and a revitalised local centre."
The proposals outline 10,000 square metres designated for business and community use, which, according to planning documents, are expected to accommodate shops, food and beverage outlets, and community facilities.
Included in the plans is the creation of a new public park, alongside provisions for 600 car parking spaces, out of which 100 will be allocated for community purposes.
Infrastructure enhancements are on the agenda as well, featuring a 'dedicated walking and cycling route' to improve connectivity to the city centre, and the introduction of a new bus gate on Ordsall Lane.
In response to concerns regarding insufficient healthcare services locally, planning reports highlight the need for a new health facility at the location, with the Integrated Care Board getting first refusal.
The postponement means the plans will be revisited by the planning committee at a future meeting.
