Plan to bulldoze Salford KFC, McDonald’s, and casino stutters
The city council has rejected proposals for the demolition of the three buildings at Riverside Retail Park, a site that is earmarked for residential redevelopment.
UAE-based Imco Holdings, which owns the Regent Road site, asked for permission to demolish the three buildings in July.
However, Salford City Council has blocked the plans as they were “not sufficiently robust”, according to a decision notice handed down this week.
The authority wants Imco to provide more information on how the environmental risks to the River Irwell associated with the demolition of the casino will be managed and how the site would be restored after the buildings have been levelled.
Cassidy + Ashton is advising Imco on the demolition proposals. To learn more, search for reference number 23/82023/DEMCON on Salford City Council’s planning portal.
While Imco owns Riverside Retail Park, it is understood that Forshaw Land and Property is the developer attached to the site. The developer’s branding appears on the planning documents and the company is building the 160-apartment Pavillion Wharf on an adjacent plot.
As part of the planning application for that scheme, an outline for how the redevelopment of the Riverside Retail Park might look was also provided.
This indicated that as well as Pavillion Wharf, another four blocks between nine and 25 storeys could be delivered where the casino and two fast food restaurants currently stand.
Riverside Retail Park is located opposite Regent Retail Park, which is the subject of proposals from Henley Investment Management to be redeveloped into 3,200 homes.
Early-stage plans for Henley’s scheme also feature a 264-metre tower, which would be the third tallest in the country if built today.
Pipeline developments in this area amount to a westward extension of Manchester city centre.
Over the border in Manchester, Renaker is on site delivering River Gardens, the redevelopment of the Trinity Islands site.
This scheme comprises 1,950 apartments across four towers.
Good news, the loss of amenities for locals should not be allowed just for more exclusive ugly flats, the same could be said of Regent Road Retail Park
By Cal
Seems like a fair concern to want more detail from them on.
By H
Does anyone know why there is no public consultation on this?
By Darren
Good call Salford. We need street level
Interaction and vibrant mixed use neighbourhoods, not glass box Pe£is extensions.
By Neighbourhoods not towers
Good move City of Salford Council.
You can have amenities and housing – in street-based walkable neighbourhoods with housing to catering for all demographics.
Sheds in oceans of surface packing and towers, especially expensive BTR silos? Well, they’re two cheeks on the same backside.
By SW
This will be back, hopefully with a little more detail.
By Anonymous
Why do Manchester apartment building have zero retail units or restaurant units on ground floor like you find in other countries or are Manchester developers in cahoots with food delivery apps?
By Bob Smith
This was a good call from SCC. However, let’s be clear, this was because they require more information. It will be back and a good job too. A drive through fast food place and a casino are not “amenities”. They are also not components of “high quality, mixed-use neighbourhoods”. The quicker this is demolished and replaced with something which improves our lives, the better.
By Logical
Good on you Salford Council we don’t need any new developments and total agree loss of amenities should not be lost for locals I’m not a local but a similar thing happened near us
WELL DONE SALFORD
By Anonymous
What Ordsall actually needs are decent shops and social homes. It needs leisure facilities. It needs cafes and bars. I don’t think Councillors care enough.
By Christopher
Salford needs social housing for Salford people .
By ___A_
Someone needs to explain how they’re not a minimum of 50 storeys.
By Tom
Leave our Local shops alone, a lot of residents in our area rely on the little precinct, it’s a lifeline.
By Stephen
Why not keeping the restaurants on ground level plus few more shops like convenient store and supermarket, as well as car parking in underground?
The building itself can be built on a podium while under that could be shops and public realm. So, the first floor of the residence will be higher and keep the distance from the bustling road nearby.
By Martina
Refreshing to see planners showing some backbone for once and put residents and local economy first. If you want to demolish it then fine but at least give concrete proposals as to what you are going to do with the site. This site could easily just become an empty eyesore if it was levelled.
By Js1000
Although this development may add to the much needed housing stock in the city where there is a acute renting shortage for young people, this poor quality of development and genuine lack of good place-making beyond the individual site scale will embed its own set of problems in the near future for us to deal with, however I must say a Casino and two drive through global fast food chains shouldn’t be the type of amenities we are trying to preserve for communities.
By Better Spaces
It is totally weird that so few blocks come with ground level commerical space considering how many more thousands of people live in the centre these days.
It would be good to know what the various councils’ policy is on this? Or is it something that’s negotiated away pre-application?
By Anonymous
They should build one 70+ stories tower block with amenities for local and residents at the bottom as well as more green spaces
By Anonymous
I agree with Better Spaces. If this was an open market, I would say save it. Drive-in Junkfood stores In a central location, is a waste of land needed for homes.
By Elephant
Sorry Anonymous 6.44pm, but it’s obvious you are not a local or you’d know that the loss of a drive through McDonald’s, KFC and a casino do not constitute amenities! This is a temporary respite pending more details then the plans will get approved hopefully they will get on with clearing the lot.
By Anonymous
Youre having a laugh if you’re calling a fast-food drive through and a casino a “local amenities”
No, SCC have merely asked for more detail to ensure no pollution from the demolition enters the river. The demolition firm will simply submit a method statement outlining how they’ll do that, box ticked at SSC and the application will probably progress.
By Ian Hart
If they had ambition here they would make the tallest building 120 storeys
By Giant Skyscraper Fan
Good news. High quality new buildings please !
By Another Manc