Renaker’s wait for skyscraper green light goes on as legal threat looms
Weis Group is preparing to launch a judicial review in a bid to block the construction of Renaker’s next five towers at Great Jackson Street in Manchester, including the developer’s tallest yet at 71 storeys, which have been stuck in planning limbo for 20 months.
Manchester City Council’s planning committee gave the go-ahead in principle for Renaker’s plans for the 2,400-home, SimpsonHaugh-designed scheme in August 2024.
A draft S106 agreement was published in June 2025 but final sign-off has been delayed following a series of objections submitted by Manchester-based investor Weis Group focussing on the project’s lack of affordable housing provision. Without a formal decision notice, Renaker cannot start building the project.
In June, it will be three years since the planning applications for the five buildings were submitted. This is a protracted process for Renaker, Manchester’s most prolific developer, which has historically secured speedy approvals for its projects.
In the case of Contour, two 51-storey towers currently under construction, the gap between committee approval and the completion of the S106 was less than four months. For Trinity Islands, comprising four towers and almost 2,000 homes, the wait was less than three months. The wait for approval for Renaker’s five-tower development at Great Jackson Street currently stands at 20 months.
Renaker declined to comment.
The delay in approval for Renaker’s largest project yet is at least partly down to an objection from the Weis Group. The investor objects to the proposals for The Green – two 47-storey towers and two 51-storey towers – and the 71-storey Lighthouse, saying that the application is “materially deficient”.
Specifically, the investor cites concerns about the assessment of the scheme’s viability. At the planning committee meeting during which the application was determined, members were told that, due to viability constraints, Renaker could not afford to provide any on-site affordable homes and that that scheme would not be deliverable if a contribution, in full or in part, was provided.
The lighthouse-inspired building will feature a restaurant on the top floor. Credit: via consultation website
The draft S106 contains a clawback mechanism, which means the viability of each phase will be assessed at intervals to see if the outlook has improved sufficiently to allow contributions towards affordable housing to be made in the future.
In its objections, Weis Group questions how the profit level triggers – the amount at which the viability clawback would kick in – have been calculated.
A spokesperson for Weis Group said: “Our objection is simply that developments like this across the rest Manchester and indeed the rest of the country would include a reasonable amount of affordable housing.
“Sadly, Manchester City Council seem intent on doing all they can to let Renaker off any such requirements. That’s not fair to the residents of Manchester and once again shows the dubious realities of Manchesterism.”
You can read the full objection letter on Manchester City Council’s planning portal by searching for reference numbers 137227/FO/2023 and 137226/FO/2023.
Manchester City Council declined to comment.
Weis Group’s objection letter published in February concludes: “Unless these issues are fully addressed, the necessary evidence is provided and subject to consultation, and the application is brought back before members for re-consideration, any determination would be made on a flawed and incomplete basis. Any such decision would be at clear risk of legal challenge.”
More generally, Weis Group queries in its objection how previous Renaker developments have been considered unviable to the point they cannot support the delivery of affordable housing and simultaneously viable enough to secure finance from the Greater Manchester Housing Investment Loans Fund.
Two other Renaker schemes in Manchester loaned a combined £140m from the fund were both labelled as unviable when passing through planning. Weis Group lost a tribunal last year during which it claimed these loans to Renaker from the GMHILF amounted to subsidy and had “distorted the market”. The judge found in favour of the GMCA and an appeal will be held in June.
Weis Group defeated Manchester City Council in a separate court case recently after the authority refused the landowner permission to knock down warehouses on a site next to Renaker’s that has permission for a pair of 51-storey towers.
Probably no great loss to the city if this doesn’t happen. I think most have moved on from Renaker and their dated checkerboard buildings now – Salboy deliver way better buildings, with affordable housing included.
By Anonymous
Interesting?
By Just saying?
Well done Weis for challenging this.
By Anonymous
It’s odd but not surprising that the only people effectively making the obvious point about a single very prolific developer consistently avoiding affordable housing requirements while consistently getting a helping hand with funding from GMCA is another developer and not any of the local Manchester politicians wandering round today in rosettes of various colours bothering voters.
It’s a real weakness of the CA in particular that there is no effective internal scrutiny or accountability at all, and MCC is still stuck in the Bernstein/Leese “give developers whatever they want or they might go somewhere else” mindset, when this hasn’t been the case for at least 20 years.
By Town Clerk
Not close to the details, but this strikes you as simple lawfare, and not any kind of public spirited intervention. I perfectly see why MCC like Renaker in the sense they deliver, and this was so easy then other UK cities would look like Manchester, which *checks notes* they don’t.
By Rich X
There is a clear conflict of interest in allowing Weis to delay this. They are putting in blockers to competing submissions rather than sorting out their own plans. Hardly the great saviours. “Any such decision would be at clear risk of legal challenge.”, from Weis I imagine!
By Charles F
A lighthouse inspired design to reflect Manchesters proud maritime history.
By Anonymous
And all because Weis got upset with the Council over the planning and lease on his blue sheds, and is inflicting rage on Renaker as collateral damage. Weis wasn’t willing to undertake delivery within a certain period, which all others commit to, and isn’t letting it go. Behaving like a bitter child in the playground.
By Deal breaker
Can someone dramatise the Weiss Vs Reneker feud . . . Place North West’s first TV series perhaps?
By allergic to squirrels
The best demonstration of vindictiveness you will see.
By Anonymous
Weis need to wind their neck in.
By Anonymous
How about Weis build something first, calling them a developer would be a stretch. Why is Weis not going after any other developers? Why just Renaker? Is it because of the confrontation between the 2 at Greengate in which Weis lost in court. Sour grapes springs to mind. Move on Weis.
By New Wave
Can anyone send me Weiss groups portfolio of developments that have contributed to Manchester and brought jobs and council tax. I can’t seem to find anything online
By Bob
allergic to squirrels:
Manctopia 2 – it could be the best property comedy since Manctopia 1.
By Anonymous
So basically, one property developer in Great Jackson St (Weis Group) is trying to stop or slow down a competing developer in Great Jackson St (Renaker) which would make significant financial benefits for Weis Group and doing so in the guise of a judicial attack. Interesting how they do their business.
By EOD
Let’s hope the lighthouse building doesn’t get built. It does indeed look dated. And not a great design. We’ve had enough of the checkerboard cladding care of SimpsonHaugh. However, the other 4 buildings look ok.
By John
I don’t know what the benefit of the s106 agreements bring other than councils claiming they are benefitting the community when it seems most of the time it doesn’t even happen. Look at all the Developers in Liverpool who were recently taken to court by the council for not paying the s106 agreements. Unfortunately, those investors did not have the power of a group behind them to intervene at the planning stage, yet they continue to back these unviable projects in a vain attempt to appear to be tackling the housing crisis
By Anonymous
The fact Renaker have had consent in the past should have no baring on proceedings. If the scheme cannot afford section106 payments, it should be rejected
By Bernard Fender
Just build a park and a sport center in there. Too many towers in that spot anyway.
By A
Allow the development, it will enhance the overall status for a generation in the growth of Manchester
By Paul Stonehouse
It’s surely not healthy for the market that 70% of a public funded loan scheme has gone to one developer.,
By Anonymous
I personally think these 5 buildings will be a good addition. Homes for people, close to the centre but not too close to the Gothic Victorian centre. Yes the checkerboard is Renaker / SimpsonHaugh’s main go too – but I think the whole area will look good once filled out by the Green and Lighthouse.
Having said that – Weis could well be correct.
By Anonymous
All developments over 10 units. Developers should produce a prorata scale of affordable homes from say 10% up to the max of 40% irrespective or pay a higher cill payment per apartment Yes it could and only could slow down developments but once they realise thier shareholders/investors still want thier dividens then they will accept the fait of complay and deliver…
By Mr D (Mcr)
Reminder that Renaker founder took his money, lives in Monaco and pays no tax. more should be done to hold them accountable. If they dont want to build affordable housing there are other things they should be made to do to give back to the city like updating nearby parks etc
By Anonymous
@Anon 10:27 That developer holds most of the land within the strategic framework area that’s seven designated and is suitable for large scale housing numbers. If the majority of the loan pot has gone to a particular developer it’s because they happen to own most of the developable land. There’s no scandal there. You will always need land to build things on. If you don’t have land, you can’t build.
By Anonymous
I am sure Weis are doing this with the best interests of Manchester at heart. No commercial considerations play their part at all.
By Patrick
Pathetic. As ever delaying an eventuality. Another example of those that do, being held back by those that talk. Britain in a nutshell.
By Elephant
Could WEIS explain what affordable housing is and pertinently, what level of rent are we talking about for families per month ?
By Rodders
Weis need to grow up. Making Manchester wait for more housing (affordable or not) isn’t helping anyone. Or just turn both spaces into green parks and see how they react then…
By Paul
The Tower of Sour
By Anonymous
The hypocrisy from Weis Group is staggering. They posture as defenders of Manchester while repeatedly trying to stall one of the few developers actually capable of delivering transformational projects at scale. Every time Renaker moves forward with another landmark scheme, out come the legal threats, PR spin, and performative outrage from competitors who seem more interested in blocking progress than contributing to it.
Daren Whitaker and Renaker have done more for Manchester’s modern skyline and economic growth than most of these critics combined. Love or hate the towers, they’ve backed the city with real investment, real delivery, and real ambition while others hide behind consultation documents and courtroom tactics. Whitaker has consistently shown confidence in Manchester when plenty of others wouldn’t take the risk.
Meanwhile Weis Group keeps trying to weaponise “affordable housing” arguments despite offering nowhere near the same level of delivery themselves. It’s difficult not to see this as bitterness from a rival operator watching Renaker outperform them project after project.
Manchester cannot afford to have major regeneration schemes held hostage by endless objections from developers who failed to win the race commercially and now want to slow everyone else down instead.
By Anonymous
The Renaker/Simpson Haugh so called lighthouse ( looks more like an oriental lampshade) needs a redesign. Rid us of the hiddeous checkerboard effect.
By Andy
I find it amazing to see the comments, are people unable to see what is so obvious? Renaker are apparently unviable so don’t contribute any affordable housing but on the other hand are excellent developers with viable schemes, both can’t be true. It’s taken someone like Weis to stand up to this.
By Anonymous
Anon 1.35. When has anyone ever said that the renekar schemes are not viable. They clearly are as they have been funded and built and GMCA could not support an unviable scheme. The fact they they cannot contribute to affordable housing doesn’t mean that they aren’t viable. What is amazing is that you don’t understand the difference
By Roberto69
Mr Roberto, I am afraid that you are very wrong there.
Renaker themselves state repeatedly in their own FVA Appraisals to MCC that each and every scheme they have brought forward is technically “unviable” and therefore cannot support any financial contributions whatsoever to MCC.
MCC believe these appraisals and waive then through time and time again.
Then Renaker submit parallel appraisals to GMCA stating that the very same schemes are very viable indeed in order to receive the GMHILF loans.
This is the core of the argument – both of these appraisals cannot be true, they are as oxymoronic as it is possible to me.
By T Dan
Factually incorrect on many levels T Dan. The appraisals don’t support affordable housing. That doesnt mean not viable. This is tested independently and publicly. That doesn’t mean waived through. GMCA step in to deal with funding challenges. And support all appropriate schemes. Don’t believe the conspiracy and nonsense
By Roberto69