To receive Questions from the Public, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.
Minutes:
A question was received from Mr Matthew Broadbent:
Paragraph 2.18 of the public documents pack states "Whilst there are a large number of proposed modifications, including amending the plan period from 2020 to 2037 to 2022 to 2039, they do not change the overall Vision, Objectives and Spatial Strategy of the plan." However, the proposed modification to Policy JP-H 2 drops the commitment to deliver 50,000 affordable homes across Greater Manchester by 2037. Dropping this key policy commitment limits the ambitions, vision and objectives of the plan at a fundamental level. Whilst it is true that the Local Plans will be able to deliver some of the affordable housing, they will never be able to provide all of the 50,000 affordable homes since they amount to 30% of the overall housing target. Does the Council agree that Cabinet should not approve the modifications for consultation unless the policy to deliver 50,000 affordable homes is restored to the plan in its original form?
The commitment to deliver 50,000 affordable homes across Greater Manchester by 2037 is an ambition established in the Greater Manchester Housing Strategy. Places for Everyone (PfE) would be just one part of the solution to meeting this ambition. As a result, the Inspectors consider that it would not be justified to include these 50,000 affordable home targets in PfE policy.
Councillor McLaren, Chair of the Place, Economic Growth and Environment Scrutiny Board replied:
The modification to Policy JP-H2 has been proposed to provide clarity in terms of the meaning and implementation of the policy, providing a strategic framework for local plans in setting targets for affordable homes. It does not undermine the 50,000 affordable home commitment, but recognises that not all affordable housing will be delivered through Section 106 agreements associated with new market housing. A high proportion of affordable housing is delivered by Local Authorities, Registered Providers and through the use of Government funding. This is likely to continue to be the case. It is also worth pointing out that the reasoned justification accompanying Policy JP-H2 also includes a modification ensuring that the 50,000 affordable home ambition is included in PfE.
The consultation on the Inspectors’ proposed modifications to PfE would be just that – a consultation. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to prevent the opportunity for the consultation to go ahead simply because of concerns over one proposed modification. This would limit the ability for the public and stakeholders to comment on all the proposed modifications, and so limit the robustness of the Inspectors’ examination of PfE.
If the consultation is allowed to go ahead with all modifications included, the Inspectors can then consider their proposed modifications in light of all the consultation comments and so consider if they should amend any of their proposed modifications or add further ones. The Council will then be able to make a decision on whether to adopt the final modified PfE Plan with a full awareness of all views on the modifications and the Inspectors’ final report on the Examination.