
Andy Burnham’s office has come under fire in court for making late-stage changes to Greater Manchester’s enormous development plan.
Campaigners claimed late-stage changes to the Places for Everyone (PfE) plan by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) ‘erred in law’ during a High Court hearing on Wednesday (October 8).
The blueprint, adopted by nine Greater Manchester councils last spring, has been controversial ever since it was first dreamt up 11 years ago.
Opposition largely stems from how much green belt land is earmarked for development, with the GMCA confirming PfE means a 3.3pc reduction in its size.
Those fears caused Stockport councillors to pull out of PfE in 2020, and Oldham council danced with following them after rubber-stamping it last year.
Now, 19 months after it was approved, PfE is causing a stir again as campaigners have brought a legal case to the Royal Courts of Justice against the GMCA and government inspectors who approved the document.
‘Save Greater Manchester’s Green Belt’ argues the GMCA introduced a new ‘legal test’ at the late-stage government inspection, which gave them ‘very little time’ to get legal advice on the new approach.
Government lawyers hit back, claiming campaigners had ‘a number of weeks’ notice’ of the revision. Initially, government inspectors were set to examine a proposal to add 49 areas to the green belt.
However, during the 2023 inspection, this dramatically reduced to 17, later 19, after the GMCA said 30 sites ‘did not meet’ the new legal test. Officers did not explain why 28 failed to meet the new test, Jenny Wigley KC told the court on Wednesday.
“There’s no reasoning elsewhere in the inspectors’ report as to why those 28 are being deleted,” she said. “There’s no reasoning set out in the council documentation as to why. The only reasoning is the exacting legal test now applies and they do not meet it.”
Ms Wigley argued adding the ‘new test’ meant inspectors ‘erred by thinking they were constrained, that they are the only grounds for exceptional circumstances’.
She added: “They have accepted there’s a different ‘higher bar’ which has led them astray.”
However, Leon Glenister, appearing for the government, said using the ‘new test’ was accepted in the examination.
“The inspectors accepted those criteria. They were opened out and discussed in the hearing. No one questioned the approach,” he told judge Mrs Justice Lang DBE.
“There’s a benefit to having some criteria because it’s so broad otherwise. Then they know what they are trying to hit.”
And Christopher Katkowski KC, appearing for the GMCA, said the inspectors’ final decision to add 19 areas back to the green belt was not controversial.
He explained: “Whatever approach the inspectors adopted, they ended up signing off on 19 additions to the green belt.
“But there’s no challenge to the green belt additions. It’s not being said the inspectors erred in law in making those additions.”
Proceeding.