MIPIM | GMCA publishes report into housing loans fund’s value for money
After sitting on the report for more than a year, the combined authority has released the 61-page document praising its fund, considered contentious by some and subject of a court case scrutinising impact on the market of large loans from the public sector.
Following a conversation between Place North West and combined authority representatives at MIPIM about why the report had not been made public despite being finished in January 2025, the GMCA has now published it in full.
Commissioned by the GMCA at the request of the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the interim evaluation was compiled by research consultancy Winning Moves, part of the Growth Company, a company linked to GMCA.
The report concludes that “the successful achievement of strategic goals and stakeholder buy-in support the conclusion that the GMHILF has delivered value for money”.
The Greater Manchester Housing Investment Loans Fund was created in 2015 with £300m from government.
Since then, it has been deployed across various schemes in the city region and resulted in the delivery of 11,000 homes.
Developer Renaker and connected SPVs have been the fund’s main beneficiaries, receiving more than £500m in loans over the last 11 years. This amounts to more than half of the £940m lent altogether.
The loans Renaker received from the fund were the subject of a court case last year. Weis Group, an investor and developer, attempted to sue the GMCA claiming the Renaker loans had “distorted the market” and amounted to subsidy.
The GMCA won the case and Weis Group has been given leave to appeal.
In the report, Renaker’s investment director Mark Schilling highlights the impact the fund has had on the growth of the business.
“I’d say, without the loan fund, our 10-year pipeline would have been slowed down by at least 30%,” he is quoted as saying.
The report adds that the fund allowed Renaker to “be more ambitious, building to a greater density and scale”.
Overall, the fund has “accelerated the delivery of much-needed housing, contributing to the immediate housing supply and stimulating economic activity” in line with its original aims, the report states.
A Greater Manchester Combined Authority spokesperson said: “We commissioned this independent report to look at the impact of our Housing Investment Loans Fund.
“The report is overwhelmingly positive about the role the fund has played in accelerating the delivery of homes and providing value for money.
“It finds that our decisions helped deliver 11,000 new homes and rebuild confidence in Greater Manchester’s housing market.”
See below for GMCA’s full statement
City centre skyscrapers backed by the fund, most of which have been developed by Renaker, “have transformed Manchester’s skyline, improving its image as a modern, vibrant, and globally attractive city”, the report adds.
Net “monetisable benefits” from the GMHILF to date amount to £142.5m, according to the report.
This includes financial surpluses from the fund – which are returned to the GMCA and government, construction outputs, and affordable homes.
Place was alerted to the existence of the report after shadow housing secretary James Cleverly asked housing minister Matthew Pennycook in a written question in November 2025 “whether he has made an assessment of the value for money of the Greater Manchester Housing Investment Loans Fund.”
In response, Pennycook said “an independent evaluation of the Housing Investment Fund commissioned by Greater Manchester Combined Authority concluded that it delivers good value for money.”
A follow-up question from Cleverly in January asked if Pennycook would publish the report, to which Pennycook replied: “The independent evaluation in question was commissioned by Greater Manchester Combined Authority and a decision on whether to publish it is therefore for the GMCA not my department.”
Critics of the fund say it has not focused enough on providing affordable homes. GMCA argues it offers loans on a commercial basis and cannot influence affordable provision directly. The authority adds its “ability to influence the level of affordable housing within schemes is limited by the planning process, over which GMCA has no control”.
The fund has directly supported 503 affordable units, the report states.
The authors made several recommendations in their conclusion, such as extra evaluation of the impact of development after the loan has been repaid, and at credit report stage considering what might happen for individual schemes if the GMCA loans were not offered.
GMCA’s full statement
A Greater Manchester Combined Authority spokesperson said: “We commissioned this independent report to look at the impact of our Housing Investment Loans Fund.
“The report is overwhelmingly positive about the role the fund has played in accelerating the delivery of homes and providing value for money.
“It finds that our decisions helped deliver 11,000 new homes and rebuild confidence in Greater Manchester’s housing market.”
“The fund also brought wider benefits – from backing major strategic regeneration projects like Stockport Interchange, to supporting construction jobs and SME developers, and delivering higher quality development.
“We’ve also reinvested our share of the interest in our work to tackle the housing crisis, including launching the country’s first Good Landlord Charter, and training new housing enforcement officers to drive up standards for renters.
“Since 2015 not a single credible or viable proposal to the fund was turned down. We carried out all necessary due diligence measures on developers, and at all times exposure to loans to Renaker was within an agreed lending cap.
“A case was brought to the Competition Appeal Tribunal regarding the fund and loans to Renaker and we won on every count.
“The Tribunal saw all the documents and stood behind our processes. Their judgement is a matter of public record. It completely debunked the false idea of a cosy relationship with developers.
“In fact, the Tribunal chair also praised our approach, which helped regenerate brownfield sites at no cost to the taxpayer and without losing a single penny.”
So a company linked to GMCA undertook an ‘independent evaluation’? Just over 500 affordable at an average cost of around £1.8m is staggering.
By Anonymous
How curious they were reluctant to publish the report, when it was compiled by The Growth Company “whose purpose is to collectively drive forward GM’s economic development” and “are accountable to the GM Combined Authority (GMCA)”
https://recoveryworks.org.uk/about-us/our-board/ – quotes taken from Mark Hughes profile.
MHCLG should not accept this.
By Anonymous
The fund is a Manchester success story. It’s enabled a density of development in core areas of the city centre that have driven investment, activation, employment etc and taken pressure off other areas for lesser density. It’s transformed the skyline, earned interest and grown it’s pot. I imagine renaker have taken a great deal of risk, developed their ecosystem and rolled their profit from plot to plot…and fair play to them. I think other cities would be quite jealous of such synergies. For those with long enough memories, there was a time when Manchester languished, depopulated. Progress is not always linear and not always promised. I for one am grateful
By Cry me a River
There are questionable ethical concerns about all this, and my views on the subject would not be publishable, but lots of housing is good. Just a shame so much of it went on Ian Simpson’s Snoozeville
By Anthony
Given private investors in other cities are willing to build “density and scale” bearing full risk and without effective public subsidy, it’s inexcusable that Manchester has funneled these loans into schemes that didn’t include affordable housing. It should never have been allowed.
By John
What’s not often discussed is Trafford removing the tilted balance because the combined authority is delivering housing units. So when Renaker deliver how ever many non-affordable units, the development shy local authority and notoriously difficult LPA in Trafford have a reason to deliver less. So while some might say the GMCA fund is a ‘success storey’ and others may argue about the quality of the architecture, there’s an argument for saying there’s a knock on impact in other boroughs.
By Anonymous
Cannot wait for Zoe Bread to comment
By Anonymous
the noose tightens…..slowly, slowly, catchy monkey
By anonymous