Salford MP objects to plans for 3,300 homes
Rebecca Long-Bailey has formally hit out at Henley Investment Management’s plans for Regent Retail Park, citing concerns with the lack of affordable housing, “low number” of parking spaces, and loss of retail.
The proposal for a mixed development scheme including 3,300 flats on the 10-acre site was submitted in July.
Henley expressed surprise at Long-Bailey’s objections, having met with her and discussed the scheme before.
The masterplan includes seven new tower blocks, the tallest of which would have 77 storeys, as well as commercial and community spaces with a gross internal area of 108,000 sq ft.
Long-Bailey delivered a letter to Salford City Council accusing Henley of failing to commit to the area’s local plan, which requires developments of this size to provide 20% affordable homes.
The member of Parliament said: “The 3,300 residential dwellings the application proposes are instead to be split, with half for market sale, and half for buy to rent, completely disregarding the requirements in the local plan.”
In a statement the company said it was “absolutely committed to delivering a material number of affordable homes.”
The estimated construction cost for the project, without an affordable housing requirement, is almost £1bn, according to the planning application’s viability statement.
Additionally, Long-Bailey suggested that the proposed 600 parking spaces are insufficient for 3,300 homes.
She said: “The low number of parking spaces will likely lead to parking issues in nearby communities, increasing traffic congestion and negatively affecting the quality of life for current residents.”
Finally, she expressed concerns about the loss of shops and employment following the demolition of the retail park, and the subsequent lack of mitigation proposed by Henley.
The development plans state construction will provide an “enhanced local centre with an improved retail offer for local people.”
The company’s statement said “the plans are estimated to generate new employment opportunities – delivering an increase of at least 160 jobs on site.”
Although Long-Bailey has reiterated her support for building more housing, she has concluded that the application “needs to be refused in the first instance” due to the reasons outlined in her letter.
Details of the application can be found on Salford Council’s planning portal by searching the application number PA/2024/0962.
The masterplanner and architect for the project is Matt Brook Architects. The landscape architect is LDA Design.
Trium and Twin & Earth are the environment and sustainability consultants, while Savills is the planning consultant.
The project is being managed by Buro Four and the application team includes engineers AKT II, HDR, and OFR.
Other contributors include GIA Surveyors, Roger Hannah, Turley, JLL, Disrkt, Vectos, and Lexington Communications.
Gardiner & Theobald is the cost consultant, while Tim Cole is covering construction logistics.
She is absolutely right it’s about time housing was built to match local need and not for benefit of property developers who have zero moral values and just a love of money
By Barbara Smith
Never understand how these developers claim these sites to be not viable with affordable housing provision. Councils need to enforce provision to see land prices falls to a level where they can be provided. These are not complex sites, they have road and utility infrastructure already provided. They have been previously developed so presumably decontaminated. Every application should be rejected with the affordable housing provision, where viability is an issue due to contamination then brownfield funds should be the bridge not reduced affordable provision.
By J
She’s obviously too left wing for Starmer’s capitalist Labour Party
By Anonymous
Shops will come to the area when there is demand
Most people in these type of high rise developments don’t have cars and even if they did some expansion of under grounding parking could be added
As for affordable housing – there is no need for this as other this residential scheme is adding to the housing stock which will keep surrounding rents and prices low than would have been otherwise
By Stuart wood
A proposal which will never get built anyway.
By Anonymous
Did she mention how much traffic and pollution Regent Retail Park currently generates? Has she seen the high street and all the empty shops?
By Anonymous
Well done Bailey,not what Ordsall needs.Was a perfectly acceptable retail are
By Joyce Breadney
I thought the Sainsburys is remaining? if the ground floor of these buildings will consist of retail then the likes on Home Bargains can relocate, same as Boots, plus this site is near the city centre and surrounded by other retail offerings. It makes perfect sense for prime sites on city centre fringes to be regenerated in to providing more homes. A compromise of the affordable housing issue, could be that the developer gifts some land next to Oldfield Road to a housing association to build on. I suspect the actual end result for this site will always be a lot lower (no more than 20 storeys) and its all a plan to bump the land value up and sell it on.
By GetItBuilt!
Rebecca is the people’s hero. Thankyou for speaking out and holding these money grabbers to task.
By Andrew Robinson
Henley are flying the kite. Long Bailey is right. Wither Lucy Powell in Manchester?
By Anonymous
Boo to Rebecca Long-Bailey, she’s got this one wrong.
By Verticality
So she is suggesting that more car parking spaces are needed to reduce congestion in the area??? Fewer car parking spaces = fewer cars = less congestion. The sooner politicians accept this, the better for everyone.
By Anonymous
usually Nimby behaviour by the Bailey, better doing nothing then try to improve an area
By Paul
Stuart wood, most people at Deansgate Square have cars so what makes you think people here won’t? It’s much further out
By Anonymous
She really does not care about the possibilities to improve the local area and community, being so shortsighted is quite sad
By Toby
nimby
By Anonymous
Good. 20% affordable units or GTFO. Sick of developers skirting around the rules on this, not a single one of the new developments in Manchester have any affordable homes and it’s pricing people out of the area and making it a playground for toffs
By Anonymous
I always find it amusing when a politician complains that a private company is not building enough affordable housing, when they as a government don’t build enough social housing. Perhaps if they done their job by building more social housing, there would be less people finding it difficult to afford a home. And secondly to that, by blocking the building of more homes, that increases the scarcity of available properties on the market and increases the cost of housing as it is then a sellers market, making less affordable homes for more people. Basically, she is trying to make things worse.
By EOD
@August 21, 2024 at 2:24 pm
By Anonymous
Have you done a survey of the Deansgate Residents’ car ownership?
By Anonymous
This is not just a ‘NIMBY vs YIMBY’ situation (there is a need for more housing in the area, but it’s not unreasonable to ask if affordable housing is genuinely not ‘viable’ or if developers who want to do something as dramatic as this might simply have to accept a lower return, for example; and whilst there might be commercial space added at the foot of new buildings, what chance is there of that being taken up by the vet and discount stores which are currently very well-used in the area?) but sadly the comments seem to have fallen into the ‘this is stupid development’ vs ‘this is a wonderful development’ dichotomy that characterises so much of the ‘discussion’ around housing developments.
I live nearby, I want more housing built in the area. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think there should be any standards applied to what housing gets built, and what gets built/added alongside it.
A knee-jerk ‘Yes to any new proposal’ and knee-jerk ‘No to any new proposal’ are equally ridiculous positions to take.
By Chapel St Resident
Why is there such persistence for affordable housing in prime locations. If you need an affordable home, there are many more affordable options outside of prime central locations. Or the council/gov could actually build some affordable/social homes rather than all the blame falling at developers’ feet..
By Anonymous
Remember when we went through in the 1990s a full bout of gentrification to love Salfordians out of Salford because they were living in blocks of flats that were “eyesores”? Now they are going to build 7 of them…but again nothing Salford people can afford to live there.
By Dave
Won’t somebody please think of the parking spaces!?
I stand with Poundland #SaveSportsDirect from demolition. Won’t somebody please think of TK Maxx!?
3,300 new homes clustered beside the city centre and Salford Central train station. What’s not to like!?
Although Ms LB is right, such a massive and easy site, brimming with deliver profits, can support some affordable homes.
With or without affordable homes, that many new homes can only be good news for Salford, creating vibrant local communities and supporting amenities for existing and new residents that isn’t car-centric. Whilst lowering demand on existing stock.
By DenseCity
She is absolutely right. We live on Ordsall Lane and have seen block after block of over priced accommodation thrown up in the last three years, with no investment into infrastructure and local services to support the increased population. This is corporate greed at its worst
By Anonymous
Common sense prevails in Salford.
By The don't build anything brigade
Rebecca Wrong Daily, wants to keep Salford in the dark ages. This is near Manchester City centre, so therefore prime real estate, in the booming central area.
By Elephant
I’ve no time whatsoever for Long-Bailey, but on this occasion she’s tight. Moreover, given her background as a corporate real estate and planning lawyer, she’ll be a formidable opponent, as she knows exact what she’s talking about.
By Grump Old Gut
I agree that the current plan as it is should be rejected. I live nearby in one of the older developments on Ordsall Lane, we and those in nearby Regent Plaza are already having big problems with parking as the blocks are not provided with enough undercover parking spaces and yellow lines being expanded. I also feel for the lack of local shops for those living in and around Ordsall, shops that are for everyday shopping, not the higher end shopping from the city centre or White City. I am not against redevelopment but the plan needs to be scaled down and take into account the local needs and the environment as a whole.
By Anonymous
If the retail park goes, where are the retail amenities for the rest of us? Will we lose Sainsburys, Boots, Home Bargains, Pets at Home etc and end up with more apartments and empty work/retail space below them because the units are either not affordable or too small for anything other than a Sainsburys local. It’s not what we need.
By Anonymous
Agree with REBECCA LONG BAILEY
By Anonymous
All I see is apartment after apartment, it’s getting too congested in Salford. Some people seem to forget that you get more people from other areas moving in which then makes the roads even more congested. Start building more houses in other areas which are as congested as Salford. It’s all about profit to Henley they’re not bothered about me or you.
By Anonymous
Unlike most of the people in these comments I live facing these proposed developments and have lived in Ordsall for over a decade and before that was born and raised in Old Trafford. Most Ordsall residents can’t afford to shop in Sainsbury’s and rely on Home Bargains and Poundland. I saw a comment about empty units, there isn’t a single one and hasn’t been for a long time. “Other retail opportunities in the city centre”, the city centre is a 30 minute walk and very impractical for a low cost weekly food shop. Speaking to neighbours, we suspect these new buildings will be similar to the ones over on Deansgate, empty and only affordable to those earning above 30k. And are there any plans for GP’s or schools for 3000 new people?
By Anonymous
@Anonymous London has affordable housing across Zone 1 in Mayfair, Soho, Holborn and the City. Key workers need to be able to live in central Manchester or the city will not function.
By CG
The label ” Affordable Housing” doesn`t mean a thing if you can`t afford that.
By Anonymous
@August 21, 2024 at 3:42 pm
By Chapel St Resident
Wise words.
By Anonymous
Get Britain building… or not…
I’d be interested to hear where those in the comments have travelled besides the USA, where retail parks with more surface level parking provision that shops, are located 1km from the city centre.
Sainsbury’s is retained & if Home Bargains is doing as well as some in the comments suggest, it’ll do even better in the new retail provision, given new residents, and better public realm / safer crossings / active travel links for existing residents.
Why fixate on 20% units, why not 50%, why not 100%? The comments section seems to know more about the viability of sites & profit margins of developers in Manchester than journalists at PNW. Let’s all object to housing supply, then complain as prices rise. The site is lucky to have Henley’s interest and GM is lucky to have the GM housing investment fund – there’s a choice between investment or investment moving to other city regions.
A cursory look on rightmove would show 150+ properties with 2 or more bedrooms in Salford under 190k. That’s 80% of av. price in Salford, affordable by definition. I’m genuinely struggling to understand comments in the thread.
Affordable means less than 80%? There’s no place for private sector developers, because profit is a dirty word? We’re fed up of traffic, but want more roads and parking? We don’t want ‘toffs’ in Salford, but want to provide more public services without increasing our Council Tax tax base?
By Anonymous
Most people will chant the mantra that we need more housing, but then vilify house builders as being greedy. Affordable housing is a nonsense – it is the other home buyers who are typically not rich, but are forced to subsidise it, yet we pretend it is some sort of tax on greedy corporations.
There is no room in the modern planning zeitgeist for RLB’s traditional client, the sort that would park up somewhere in a £500 banger leaking oil. The model citizen in an Ordsall rower block is now a media executive that drives a Tesla, or better yet uses “active travel” (ie walks) – surely RLB needs to get with the times here.
By Desmond
Disappointing to see Rebecca Long-Bailey playing politics and sucking up to the noise from a small number of residents in the locality rather than doing the right thing.
By Anonymous
Whilst there may be viability arguments there does need to be some mechanism to revisit. It’s a fine balance to bring forward regeneration but we also need more new, good quality affordable housing in GM. My guess is that the application is about arbitrage. Will Henley stay in if they get a consent ?
By Gum
Just get it through!
By Tom
@elephant prime real estate? For who, greedy developers with no interest in the people who live in the area? If you get your way then the whole of Manchester will be a mass of tower blocks that people can’t afford, owned by foreign investors. There’s nothing at street level in these towers which leaves areas feeling soul-less and lonely. We don’t need dozens of these towers ruining communities, build affordable houses for locals! Salford says no!!!
By I smith
‘A proposal which will never get built anyway.’?…really? You’re at the wrong end of the M62 for that kind of thinking !
By Anonymous
‘The whole of Manchester will be a mass of these towers blocks that people can’t afford’…give me strength! These towers are mostly in zoned areas..the vast majority of Manchester has zero towers and that’s the way it will stay. This is North west England not Hong Kong .
By Anonymous
I can see Long Bailey resigning as a MP and quitting the Labour Party first by-election of the 2024-29 Parliament likely to be in Salford
By Anonymous