The Deputy Prime Minister introduces new housing targets, sparking changes in development strategies across Greater Manchester

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has announced a groundbreaking reform in Greater Manchester’s housing strategy. During her first visit as Deputy PM to Manchester, Rayner, who also serves as the housing minister, revealed significant changes to the planning system on Wednesday, July 30. This reform focuses on mandatory local housing targets and green belt land usage.

Rayner emphasized the importance of meeting housing needs, stating, “Today marks a significant step to getting Britain building again. Our decisive reforms to the planning system correct the errors of the past and set us on our way to tackling the housing crisis, delivering 1.5 million homes for those who really need them.”

Under the new system, local councils will face mandatory housing targets, revised upwards under a new formula. Greater Manchester, known for its pockets of intense development, is no exception. The city-region must now build 17,705 more homes by 2029 than initially planned, surpassing the targets set by the Greater Manchester’s Places For Everyone plan (PfE).

PfE, Greater Manchester’s development blueprint, details the expected number of homes and their locations within each borough. Initially, some areas like Salford and Manchester took on more housebuilding to preserve green belt land in rural areas. Despite the judicial review from campaigners and Stockport’s withdrawal from the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework in 2020, PfE was formally adopted in March.

Rayner’s reforms, now under public consultation, propose easier green belt development if councils cannot meet housing needs through brownfield land. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) supports a brownfield-first approach, encouraging developers to use former industrial or commercial sites. GMCA also administers a £150 million brownfield housing fund to jump-start projects.

However, the revised targets present challenges. Council officials must work closely with developers to meet new quotas, potentially increasing planning permissions. With a central directive and political desire across parties to build more homes, the focus remains on finding developers willing to invest.

The new targets also raise questions about increasing density at existing PfE sites or identifying new development locations. For instance, Bolton must now build 1,340 homes annually, up from 787. Bury’s target doubled to 1,054 homes, necessitating potential changes to existing plans. Manchester’s revised target is slightly lower than its PfE goal but still signifies continuous development.

Oldham and Rochdale face similar scenarios with substantial increases in their targets, necessitating possible adjustments to current allocations. Salford’s new target is slightly lower than its existing PfE goal, ensuring continued development without major alterations. Stockport, now pursuing its own local plan, must accommodate an additional 809 homes annually.

Tameside and Trafford must also adapt to significant target increases. Tameside’s target rose from 485 to 1,223, while Trafford must now build 1,607 homes annually. Wigan’s target increased from 972 to 1,572 homes, requiring adjustments in development strategies.

Rayner’s reforms underscore the need for collaboration between councils and developers to meet the ambitious housing targets and address the housing crisis effectively.

Analysis:

Political: Angela Rayner’s housing reform marks a significant shift in the political landscape, emphasizing Labour’s commitment to addressing the housing crisis. The mandatory targets and increased focus on green belt land development reflect a proactive stance on meeting housing demands. This move may strengthen Labour’s position, particularly in urban areas where housing shortages are most acute. However, it may also spark political debates and opposition, especially from parties and constituencies concerned about green belt preservation.

Social: The housing reform highlights the ongoing societal debate on balancing development and environmental conservation. By mandating higher housing targets and easing restrictions on green belt land, the government aims to alleviate housing shortages and improve living conditions. However, this could lead to public outcry from communities valuing green spaces and fearing overdevelopment. The success of these reforms depends on effective communication and engagement with local communities to address their concerns and ensure sustainable development.

Racial: Housing policies often have disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities. Rayner’s reform, if implemented equitably, could improve access to affordable housing for diverse populations in Greater Manchester. However, there is a risk of exacerbating existing inequalities if new developments do not prioritize inclusive and affordable housing. Policymakers must ensure that housing projects under these new targets address the needs of all communities, promoting diversity and inclusivity in urban development.

Gender: The housing crisis affects men and women differently, often with women bearing the brunt of inadequate housing conditions due to economic disparities and caregiving responsibilities. Rayner’s focus on delivering 1.5 million homes could provide more stable housing options for women, particularly single mothers and low-income families. Ensuring that new developments consider gender-specific needs, such as proximity to childcare and employment opportunities, will be crucial for the reform’s success.

Economic: Economically, the housing reform aims to stimulate construction and related industries, potentially creating jobs and boosting local economies. Mandatory targets and higher quotas could attract investment and development, driving economic growth. However, the reliance on private developers to meet these targets presents challenges. Councils must incentivize developers and streamline planning processes to ensure timely and efficient project completion. Additionally, the economic benefits must be balanced with the need for affordable housing to prevent exacerbating economic disparities.