Court case continues for Places for Everyone
Greater Manchester’s spatial strategy remains a point of contention, with a judge affirming that at least one legal challenge of the framework merits consideration by the High Court.
Justice Fordham of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice published a ruling on Tuesday that advocacy group Save Greater Manchester Green Belt can continue its crusade against Places for Everyone, which was adopted in March. However, the judgement only permitted one of the campaign’s five challenges to proceed – confirming a decision made in August.
The challenge permitted to go forward refers to the reduction in the number of additions to the Green Belt to compensate for loss elsewhere in the plan. Previously, the plan had included 49 sites to be added but this was reduced to 19.
The challenges that were shot down as being inarguable in court comprised frustrations over a lack of consultation on Places for Everyone to reflect on the dissolution of HS2’s Northern leg, the release of Timperley Wedge from the Green Belt, the changed timescale of the plan from being valid from 2037 to 2039, and Stockport’s withdrawal from the plan.
A date has not yet been set for the High Court to hear the arguments around Places for Everyone. The plan remains active until the court decides otherwise.
Those defending the plan include Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the nine local authorities involved, and deputy prime minister Angela Rayner in her role as secretary of state for housing, communities, and local government. Interested parties in the case include Wain Estates, Peel, and RLUKREF Nominees.
“The GMCA and the nine Places for Everyone authorities will continue to defend this statutory review,” said a GMCA spokesperson. “We await a date from the court for the forthcoming hearing.”
They continued: “Places for Everyone is our plan to deliver the new homes that our communities need, maximising the use of brownfield land while protecting and enhancing green spaces, and is the best line of defence against costly unplanned development.
“Unless the High Court decides otherwise, all policies within Places for Everyone, including those relating to Green Belt additions, remain valid and will continue to be used to determine planning applications in the nine districts.”
Leigh Day is acting for Save Greater Manchester Green Belt on the legal case, with the government legal department and Manchester City Council legal services representing the government and local authorities. Milles and Reeve is working for Wain Estates, Shoosmiths for Peel, and Gowling WLG for RLUKREF. working for the interested parties.
In Oldham councillors were battling – literally- over a discussion on Places for Everyone at the Council meeting this week. Conservative councillors were apparently squaring up to each other, fists at the ready. Several police cars and the Riot police van turned up!!! It might be the best way to sort the issues out – never mind the Court, pass the boxing gloves out!
By A. R.
I don’t think the NIMBY group will pursue the remaining ground. Chances of success v low, cost v high, and the remedy in the event of success doesn’t give them what they want – no development anywhere near anyone. Personally, i think that’s good news and anyone that cares about the housing crisis, homelessness or poverty should agree.
By YIMBY
What do the NIMBY groups hope to achieve from this? Even if they are successful and the plan is quashed, any subsequent plan would need to factor in the increased housing figures so would need to release even more Green Belt. Seems to be a case of the turkeys voting for Christmas!
By Christmas Turkey
Yimby, I agree with you that the Nimby’s chance of success are really slim but if they do pursue it, I hope GMCA go for full costs.
By Anonymous
Anon @ 2.45 – Sadly, GMCA agreed to a costs cap. They should’ve gone after them individually and collectively.
By YIMBY
Hopefully we’ll see the back of this nonsensical plan and get back to reality. Too many people consuming too much and not enough places to put them . Conclusion..we need fewer people. That’s going to take time but probably not much more time than the never ending drone of Places for Everyone or whatever Bureaucratic wittering title they can come with next.
By Anonymous
This case really shines a window into a broken system. 4 out of 5 issues raised are without merit, the last will likely fail at the high court, but it’s designed to impose cost, delay, a defensive mindset on anyone considering greenbelt development, and shows contempt for the democratic process.
By Rich X