A TOWN centre leisure and retail development for Bury has been given the go-ahead, despite being branded a "monstrosity" by councillors.

Plans for the two-storey building, featuring a gym, pool, changing room and bars, were submitted for the corner of Angouleme Way and Spring Street.

Proposals by developers Highpoint Estates include parking on land currently occupied by a council pay-and-display, the Running Wild activity centre and the Bury Council's vehicle weighbridge facility.

Bury's planning control committee voted by a narrow margin to approve the plans at its meeting on Tuesday (11Nov).

Concerns from members focused on the appearance of the building, which features a curved metal roof and large areas of glass panelling.

Councillor Yvonne Creswell said: "I have an objection to putting this monstrosity in the centre of town. The design is very modern with too much glass in it.

"I think we need to look at where it is and have some development that is in keeping with the rest of the town."

Coun Yvonne Wright added: "I think it looks like the rear of a football stadium; We already have one of those at Gigg Lane."

The committee heard that letters of objection had been received from market traders and Mill Gate Centre owners Westfield, arguing that parking spaces for customers would be lost.

Spaces to serve the site will also be created between Georgiana Street car park and the former Bury Times site on Market Street, from which there would be pedestrian only access onto Cecil Street.

Local resident Arthur Withington spoke against the plans, arguing that land should be used for low cost elderly accommodation and sports facilities for Holy Trinity CE and St Marie's RC primary schools.

However, Coun Mike Connolly said that alternative uses were not valid planning objections.

"This application clearly falls within the unitary development plan.

"Much as we would all love to see low cost housing on this particular site, it is not designated for housing."

Coun Connolly added that views about the appearance of the building were "very subjective".

The committee voted by seven votes to five to approve the plans.