Other smaller LPAs get a lot more from developers even with a tiny fraction of what is being delivered in Manchester.
They have a 20% requirement for affordable housing on market sites in their Core Strategy and from then data it looks like mainly 0% is achieved.
He is the Mayor of Greater Manchester.So has the scouser gone
He is the Mayor of Greater Manchester.
This is Mnchester city council leader.
What happened to Richard Leese?
He is the Mayor of Greater Manchester.
This is Manchester city council leader.
What happened to Richard Leese?
At least she isn't Pat Karney!How very innocent Kaz, Ive been informed by a someone in the know that she is actually the out going council leader’s pet favourite.
At least she isn't Pat Karney!
You voted for Boris the journalist and ****.She has no experience of running a company or a senior position. Nothing to do with her being a women. Her "CV" simple does not warrant the position.
Fair point democratic decisions need to be respected.You voted for Boris the journalist and ****.
She was elected, you lost, get over it.
Not true - a new park, new school, new medical centre all been built as part of S106 contributions and threshold contributions sets if developers make more than 15% on a project.
That should ne in addition to affordable housing, and those contributions are set on a tariff basis normally rather than a % requirement that affordable.
The threshold for a major site is 10 or more in the NPPF. The developer just needs to pay less for the land if they can't meet the Affordable Housing requirements and not hide behind creative viability assessments. It is clear some LPAs are performing far better than others in this area, and despite the Affordable Housing rhetoric MCC isn't good in this area.
Not having an up to date Local Plan doesn't help MCC, as viability is now tested at plan making stage, but the path of least resistance is not challenging developers.