Legal challenge over Greater Manchester green belt land to be heard in High Court

The claim is being brought by campaign group Save Greater Manchester’s Green Belt (SGMGB) against the Housing Secretary and local authorities across Greater Manchester, and opposes the adoption of the Places for Everyone (PfE) plan. 

SGMGB says that the net loss of green belt land as a result of the PfE plan is not necessary to grow the region, and that Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) should be prioritising brownfield land for development instead. 

The PfE plan, originally called the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, puts forward long-term plans for the development of housing and industry in nine of the Greater Manchester boroughs (excluding Stockport - with its council having withdrawn from the plan in 2020, citing concerns over the loss of countryside as a reason). 

The plan sets out what land within the nine boroughs should be earmarked for development until 2039, and identifies which areas will be developed for housing, offices, industry and warehouses.  

Commencing in 2014, the draft PfE plan was submitted for examination in February 2022.  

The plan includes the release of almost 2,500 hectares (roughly 1,700 football pitches) of what SGMGB describe as environmentally and ecologically rich land from the green belt, and initially proposed the addition of 675 hectares of land to the green belt at 49 sites to partially offset this loss.  

However, in March 2023 during the examination period for the PfE plan, the land for green belt additions was reduced to 17 sites. The reduction was justified by what the GMCA suggested was a new legal test, which it said changed the criteria for what sites can be used as green belt space.  

GMCA’s announcement was made without warning at a hearing session on 9 March 2023 which had initially been scheduled to consider all 49 proposed green belt additions. As a result, campaigners, including SGMGB, had no chance to seek legal advice to oppose the change. 

In March 2024, the PfE plan was approved by councils in the region. Two green belt sites were added back into the plans to take the total number of additional sites to 19, but still 30 fewer than the 49 initially proposed, increasing the net loss of green belt land by more than 500 hectares. 

Following the approval of the plan, SGMGB launched its legal claim opposing the decision - which is now set to be heard in a hearing at the High Court in London.  

SGMGB says that the PfE plan should use a ‘brownfield first’ policy when allocating land for development. The group argues that green belt land should be preserved to conserve irreplaceable habitats, ensure future food security, reduce the effects of climate change, and to support physical and mental health and recreation.  

The claim is being heard on the grounds that it was an error in law for GMCA to take a revised approach and adopt the stricter legal test it used to determine which sites were eligible for being added to the green belt. 

It is being brought against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and GMCA, as well as Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan councils. 

Zoe Sherlock, chair of SGMGB, said: 

“During the examination the GMCA introduced significant policy changes that materially weakened the plan. Most of those amendments were introduced with very little notice to participants, but the huge change to green belt additions was actually presented on the morning of the hearing, effectively as a fait accompli.  Unlike councils and developers, communities did not have legal representation at the examination, so this tactic was extremely prejudicial.   

“Over 27,000 residents objected to the release of green belt, and these additions were a key element of the compensatory measures. We remain baffled as to why this change was proposed at such a late stage. Citizens have been betrayed by Mayor Andy Burnham and council leaders. What was originally a campaign of ‘no net loss of green belt’, became a developer’s charter to build on environmentally and ecologically rich sites across Greater Manchester. 

“Communities deserve better from the planning system.” 

Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents SGMGB, said: 

“Our clients are looking forward to arguing before the High Court that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority put forward the wrong legal test for whether land could be added to the green belt. They believe that the unlawful approach to green belt additions had a knock-on impact on the corresponding decision to remove land from the green belt.”