A court case against the mayor’s office concluded last month(Image: Kenny Brown | Manchester Evening News)

Andy Burnham’s office and Manchester council have hit back against allegations ‘there is something amiss in the way Manchester’s governing bodies function’.

The Weis Group claims Renaker, behind Manchester’s tallest tower, told the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) two proposed projects were financially viable enough to secure £140m of loans.

The firm, major city centre landowners, also claims Renaker told Manchester council ‘Trinity Islands’ and ‘Contour’ were not viable enough to build affordable housing. Council rules say affordable units must be included if a developer will make more than 20pc profit.

To see planning applications; traffic and road diversions and layout changes; and more, visit the Public Notices Portal HERE

Weis claims Renaker’s ability to be viable in the GMCA’s eyes, but not viable enough in Manchester council’s, suggest ‘there is something amiss in the way Manchester’s governing bodies function’.

The allegations were first made in court at the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) by lawyers acting for Aubrey Weis in May.

“The CAT ruling stated that for the Trinity Island and Plot F/Contour sites the ‘Renaker Group provide[d] substantial information and data which projected that the projects were viable’ to the GMCA,” a Weis Group spokesperson said after proceedings finished.

“As such the CAT argued ‘there were solid grounds to conclude that the developments were both viable and profitable’.

“Yet Manchester council required no material affordable housing contributions on the same developments because they were provided with different information. The apparent manipulation of the planning system has been brought to the attention of both the GMCA and Manchester City Council but they continue to turn a blind eye, leading to the troubling conclusion that there is something amiss in the way Manchester’s governing bodies function.”

Mr Weis sued the GMCA last year, claiming its decision to approve the two loans ‘distorted’ Manchester city centre’s property market.

But chair Hodge Malek KC ruled in the GMCA’s favour last month, judging ‘it is clearly not the case’ that ‘the Renaker Group was being provided with loans at unduly favourable rates’ due to ‘a possible cosy relationship’.

After Weis repeated the allegations, both the GMCA and Manchester council hit back.

A spokesperson for the GMCA said the court ‘dismissed the claim’ it should ‘consider information submitted’ to the council in its loan application evaluation.

They added: “In its judgment the Competition Appeals Tribunal recognised the robust processes we’ve put in place and clearly rejected claims that they fell short.

“Specifically, they dismissed the claim that the GMCA should have considered information submitted to Manchester City Council as part of an entirely separate planning process.

“Throughout this case there have been flagrant attempts to undermine our reputation and cast doubt on our processes. The Tribunal’s judgment definitively debunked the false ideas of corruption and cosy relationships, and we remain proud of the Housing Investment Loans Fund and the team that managed it.”

A Manchester council spokesperson said it had ‘robust and fair processes in place’ for planning submissions.

A statement added: “There are robust and fair processes in place which ensure that all planning applications made to the council, regardless of their source, are considered on their merits and determined in accordance with both national and local policy. This includes how viability assessments are tested.”

Renaker declined to comment.