Here is our detailed response to Manchester’s Local Plan consultation.

Click here to read the detailed response from Steady State Manchester.

Update: 1 May Click here for the supplementary addendum to our response – We’d previously commented on the Core Strategy objectives, missing the proposed local plan objectives.  We’ve also added some commentary on the consultation process (our mistake being in part due to the confusing way the materials are presented).

As noted in the post below, this is not in any sense a “local plan”, any more than the council’s use of the term “neighbourhood” to refer to the large districts of the city, corresponds to the usual use of the term.  However, Local Plan is what the National Planning Policy Framework calls it.  This is a response to the high level issues paper, the first stage in rewriting the plan.  We find a lot wrong with it (and some good things too) and make a lot of suggestions for the planners in our 25 page response which benefited from the earlier skeleton response we produced with three other campaign groups.  Note: April 30th.   Please note – regarding Qs 4 and 6, we responded to the Core Strategy objectives and not the update of these for the local plan. To the extent that the newer set responds to our concerns, we welcome this.  However, many of our points remain valid.

You can make your own response by 5pm 1 May, to the planners, most easily by sending an email to them, endorsing our response.  Or, use the consultation site to make your own response.

Click here to read the detailed response from Steady State Manchester.

And meanwhile….

Readers will also be interested to read the Open Letter we signed with 8 other community and campaigning groups, led by Greater Manchester Housing Action, urging the council to restore the minimally democratic Planning Committee, suspended under Covid19 quarantine arrangements.  As the letter explains, this reduction to an Executive group of three is unnecessary (other councils are using a variety of virtual methods for their committees).  It can only fuel suspicions that decisions are going to be made with insufficient scrutiny.