Campaigners had months to complain about 11th hour Places for Everyone changes, court told

Claims Places for Everyone campaigners had ‘very little time’ to respond to last-minute changes have been slapped down by landowners’ lawyers.

The development blueprint, adopted by nine Greater Manchester boroughs last year, has been controversial since its inception 11 years ago due to how much green belt land it earmarks for development.

Even after being approved, Places for Everyone (PfE) remains a hot topic as Oldham flirted with pulling out of it last year, which would have followed Stockport’s 2020 example.

Now, ‘Save Greater Manchester’s Green Belt’ campaigners have taken Andy Burnham’s office (GMCA) and the government to court, arguing they ‘erred in law’ by ‘introducing a new legal test’ with ‘very little’ notice.

The test cut the number of areas set to be added to the green belt from 49 to 17, later 19.

But on the second and final day of hearings in London, lawyers representing major landowners said campaigners had ‘weeks’ to raise their complaints.

“It starts with the premise ‘this was sprung on us and we did not get chance to respond’,” Vincent Fraser KC, representing Wain Estates, said on Thursday (October 9). 

“That sounds like a procedural challenge and not an error in law. The inspectors allowed discussion almost three weeks later.

“But very importantly the changes then being made, i.e. the removal of the 28 sites proposed to be put into the green belt and not put into the green belt, had to be made by main modification to the plan. 

“That was subject to further consultation. That took place for two months.”

Christopher Young KC, for Peel Group, added: “The modification consultation was the opportunity to say whatever they wanted to about that plan.

“They just did not take that opportunity. The inspectors explicitly recognised the main modification procedure. [They wrote it] was ‘subject to public consultation for eight weeks. We have taken into account the consultation responses’.

“They could have made a representation. In any event they did not.”

But Jenny Wigley, KC for the campaigners, countered they had brought the case over an ‘error in law’.

“[Inspectors] were legally constrained about exceptional circumstances — it’s that issue we complain about,” she told Mrs Justice Lang DBE.

“We do not accept there were no objections to the deletion. In any event, in my submission, it’s irrelevant the error in law was pointed out. 
“If it was an error in law it remains an error in law whether or not someone made the point it was.”

On Wednesday, Ms Wigley KC argued inspectors ‘erred by thinking they were constrained’ by the GMCA’s ‘new test’ during the examination, suggesting they believed this test was ‘the only grounds’ to allow land to be added to the green belt.

She said: “They have accepted there’s a different ‘higher bar’ which has led them astray.”

Hearings in the case have now concluded. Mrs Justice Lang is expected to deliver a judgement in due course.