Legal battle over Greater Manchester green belt

Initiated by Save Greater Manchester’s Green Belt against the Housing Secretary and local authorities as they oppose the Places for Everyone plan aimed at land development rather than prioritising brownfield sites as proposed by the campaign group SGMGB which argues for the preservation of vital ecosystems and community health.

A legal challenge over green belt land in Greater Manchester will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice on 8 and 9 October 2025. 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, outlines long-term plans for housing and industrial developments in nine Greater Manchester boroughs, excluding Stockport, which withdrew from the plan amid concerns over countryside loss in 2020. This plan earmarks land for development until 2039 and specifies areas designated for housing, offices, industry, and warehouses. Commencing in 2014, the draft PfE was submitted for examination in February 2022.

Notably, the plan includes the release of nearly 2,500 hectares of what SGMGB describes as environmentally rich green belt land, initially proposing the addition of 675 hectares to green belt at 49 sites to partially mitigate this loss. However, during the examination period in March 2023, the number of sites for green belt additions was cut to 17, justified by the GMCA's assertion of a new legal test altering the criteria for green belt site eligibility. This announcement came unexpectedly during a hearing session, leaving campaigners with no opportunity to seek legal counsel against the changes.

In March 2024, councils in the region approved the PfE plan after reinstating two green belt sites, bringing the total number of added sites to 19. However, this still reflected a net loss of over 500 hectares from the green belt compared to the original proposals. Following this approval, SGMGB initiated its legal claim, which is now to be reviewed by the High Court in London.

SGMGB advocates for a ‘brownfield first’ policy in land allocation for development, emphasising the necessity to conserve green belt land for habitat preservation, future food security, mitigating climate change, and supporting public health and recreation. The legal challenge argues that GMCA made a significant error in law by implementing a tighter legal test for site selection pertaining to green belt inclusion.

This challenge is directed against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, GMCA, and several local councils including Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford, and Wigan. Zoe Sherlock, chair of SGMGB, expressed grave concerns about the process, stating that significant policy changes were made with scant notice, compromising community representation. She remarked, “Over 27,000 residents objected to the release of green belt... 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.”

Ricardo Gama, a partner at Leigh Day representing SGMGB, added, “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." The implications of this legal battle extend beyond just the green belt, touching on broader issues of community rights, environmental preservation, and governance in urban planning.

Copyright & permissions