.png)
A City United for action on housing, climate, and health inequalities
At 11.59pm on Monday 28th September the tiny window of consultation on the latest version of the Manchester Local Plan closed. Held, as is so often the case, during August when most people are on holiday, and open for a short 6-week consultation period with little to no public outreach, most citizens of Manchester will have no idea of the importance or existence of this critical piece of urban policy.
Fortunately, in Manchester, we have had a coalition of dedicated community leaders; community and faith groups; local and national charities and supportive professionals (yep that’s us folks!) working together relentlessly since 2023 (mostly unfunded) to ensure that at least 8 communities across the city were able to make a submission to the Regulation 19 stage of the Manchester Local Plan consultation as well as the SH4M Coalition.
Read the full SH4M Regulation 19 Submission here.
One of our arguments for national and local policy makers has been clearer use of language and specification of tenure types so we should also be clear on this here.
When we say Social Rent below we mean: Low-cost, secure tenancies rented out by local authorities or housing associations to those deemed to be in priority need. Rent is set through the National Rent Regime in England at around 50% of market rents.
When we say Affordable Housing below we mean: housing for sale or rent provided for people whose needs are not met by the private market encompassing Affordable Rented; Shared Ownership; Social Rent; Manchester Living Rent.
What is the Manchester Local Plan and why does it matter?
The Manchester Local Plan is a 15-year strategy for the city setting out the council’s plans for land use and new development across different areas of the city. All Local Authorities must produce a Local Plan. It takes a long time to develop a new plan so they have lasting impacts on what kinds of housing and other facilities can be developed, and where – often for 15 years or longer. The last Local Plan was published in 2012 and is still the current policy for the city despite rapid changes since then. Some aspects of city planning are still determined by the Unitary Development Plan that was published in 1995!
There are different stages to the consultation starting with Key Issues, moving into publication of a first draft of the new plan called Regulation 18; this latest phase called Regulation 19 – which is the final draft for public consultation before the council prepares its submission to the planning inspectorate; and finally, something called an Examination in Public.
Regulation 19
Submitting objections at this stage has been important because those with objections (on tests of soundness for the needs of the city; appropriate justification for the plans made; effectiveness; and consistency with national policy) can request to be invited to the Examination in Public. This is when a Planning Inspector comes to hold a meeting with the council and all concerned stakeholders to hear the council’s defence of the plan and any objections. The room is usually full of white men in suits and dominated by private developers e.g. screenshot of York City Council’s Local Plan hearing in 2018:
This is not what we want to see in Manchester! So, we are delighted that at least 9 communities across North, Central, and South Manchester have managed to submit Reg 19 responses and request a seat at the Examination in Public including:
Blackley | Harpurhey | Miles Platting |
Clayton | Hulme | Moss Side |
Friends of Irk Valley | Gorton | Wythenshawe Central |
If you know of any other communities who have submitted responses not listed above, we would love for you to get in touch with us so we have a full picture of all community priorities raised across the city.
Is it too late to get involved?
No! Please join the SH4M mailing list to receive all calls to action and consider writing to your local ward councillor to ask them to continue to advocate for community priorities submitted under the Regulation 18 and 19 stages to be included in the final version of the Local Plan that has to be signed off by full council before submission to the Planning Inspectorate in December 2026.
What can I do if I am a ward councillor?
As our elected representatives, please:
· Recognise that people want to attend the examination and be heard on the issues raised in their Regulation 19 submissions and the SH4M response.
· Ensure community priorities are in the plan by advocating between now and December with the Planning Strategy team and Exec members.
Key priorities for Manchester
Affordable Housing: Given recent increases in central government grant and £2.5 billion committed to Greater Manchester for the immediate future, SH4M have argued that it should be possible to achieve 30% sustainable social rent and 20% of other affordable housing tenures in new developments of ten homes or above (so 50% affordable housing in total). The council’s own 2026 housing needs assessment finds that 46% of the annual total of 3,533 homes that are to be built in Manchester should be affordable.
Communities across the city from Blackley to Wythenshawe have been reinforcing our own analysis drawing on the housing needs in their own local areas. Most communities submitting objections find that 30% sustainable social rent is a modest target in the face of a crisis with over 20,000 households on the waiting list and increased central government investment.
Housing Mix: Communities are concerned about the concentration of housing strategy on 1 and 2 bed flats both historically and within existing ambitions. There is a major shortage of 3+ bedroom family homes leaving thousands of families on the waiting list, in poor quality temporary accommodation, sofa surfing or in overcrowded conditions. Manchester City Council and many housing associations are encouraging ‘right-sizing’: a strategy focused on older people downsizing into flats to free up family homes. This is a great idea in principle and more ecologically sustainable than new build especially when combined with investment in retrofit. However, this is a medium to long term solution and as well as the existing families waiting for a home, more people will be starting families who will also need larger homes. Right-sizing must be matched with sufficient new build family homes.
SH4M and a number of communities have backed the GM Coalition of Disabled People’s evidence-based request for 10% of new build to be to wheelchair adaptable standards rather than the 4% provided for in the Reg 19 version of the Plan. Disability charities and community coalitions like Wythenshawe Central Network are also calling for more supported living options for adults with autism and learning disabilities. Many can live independently with the right kind of support but are unable to leave their parental home due to a lack of this kind of provision.
Sustainable Design and Construction
SH4M are calling for 100% of new social rent homes to be built to zero carbon ready standards. The current Regulation 19 version suggests that this will be dependent on viability assessments. We have called for clauses on viability in relation to zero carbon homes to be removed. All development applications will be assessed through the development management process in any case, and there is no requirement or need for the council to state this in the Local Plan.
Developer Contributions
SH4M have requested revised wording on Developer Contributions on the grounds that the current version of the plan is unclear on what will be expected from private developers and is weakly worded stating that the council “may seek contributions”.
The policy should instead state that ‘in line with the other policies in this plan, the Council will seek contributions from development. These contributions will be relative to the scale and impact of the development and will ensure that Manchester’s communities are not adversely affected by development.’ We have requested that there should also be a specific mention of how development will be expected to address the needs of the local community.
Specific community priorities
In our discussions with communities across the city we have listened to a wide range of issues of concern that would not otherwise have been raised. SH4M supports all of the submissions made by the communities we work in partnership with and cannot reproduce all of these here. However, here is a summary of the key issues raised by community groups from North to Central and South Manchester.
The inclusion of the Aquarius Estate in Hulme within the boundary of the city centre without recognising the importance of the community and the implications for the scale and type of development. We are pleased that in response to representations from the Aquarius community their estate was removed from the city centre boundary in Policy GL 2. However, the boundary line drawn at present does not incorporate the full residential area, and the Hulme community have collectively made further objections on this point.
The concerns of the Moss Side Community about the spread of HMOs and short term lets as well as the encroachment of evening economy uses of Rusholme into residential streets. The community welcomed the changes to Policy H 5 relating to HMOs policy but make some very telling points about the way that the definition of family homes excludes 2 bed properties which make up a significant proportion of the Moss Side stock.
Residents and community groups in Wythenshawe are concerned about the redevelopment of the Wythenshawe District Centre as set out in Policy GL10 and the extent to which it meets local housing needs, supports local businesses, and is integrated with the local community. These concerns have only been partly addressed, and the community once more makes some telling points including on the need for supported accommodation for adults with learning disabilities and autism.
The Miles Platting community expressed their concerns about the net loss of social and affordable housing, and the failure of the Policy H 2 to address areas facing large scale redevelopment, including the provision of housing and social infrastructure and the protection of mature trees and local green spaces on the edge of the city centre where the community already experiences poor air quality and disproportionately high levels of respiratory disease.
Clayton and Higher Blackley highlight the absence of any Positive Preparation for their areas of North Manchester despite being ranked in the top 10 most deprived areas of the city. No plans have been made for addressing entrenched inequalities; lack of community and social infrastructure; and specific local housing need for social rent family housing to address widespread overcrowding and hidden homelessness.
Communities in a number of areas were particularly concerned about Policy H7 on Purpose Built Student Accommodation (see also here). This referred to the proposed location of student accommodation immediately adjacent to the core university areas, principally the Oxford Road Corridor without showing a boundary for the corridor leaving the position of Hulme and Moss Side unclear.
Friends of Irk Valley have specifically objected to the rejection of Vauxhall gardens/Bob’s Hill being designated Green Space status. The original application set out a clear evidence base and in addition, the alternative plans do not include any social or affordable housing compounding loss of nature with no net affordable housing gain for the local community.
Read our full response here.
Sign up to join the coalition here.
