High Court finds inspectors did not err in approach to Green Belt designations for Greater Manchester development plan

Save Greater Manchester's Green Belt launched the legal challenge in January this year over changes to the plan, which saw 30 Green Belt additions removed from the plan just before its adoption.

But in Save Greater Manchester Green Belt Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2025] EWHC 2742 (Admin), Mrs Justice Lang concluded that planning inspectors "did not err in law by adopting an unduly restrictive legal test" in determining whether exceptional circumstances for designating additional Green Belt sites had been established – as alleged by the claimants.

The group's claim centred around amendments made to the 'Places for Everyone' local development plan, which sets out how all nine boroughs should plan to meet the region's 175,000-home housing target between 2022 and 2039.

Adopted in March 2024, the plan also allocates sites for offices and infrastructure outside of the existing urban area and includes a new Green Belt boundary for Greater Manchester.

The council decided – following examination hearings held by planning inspectors – to introduce a schedule of proposed main modifications (MMs) to the plan.

The MMs, which had been recommended by the inspectors throughout the examination, included the deletion of 30 of the 49 Green Belt additions proposed in the plan.

In February 2024, the inspectors published their report on the examination of the plan, which concluded that, with its recommended MMs (plus further MMs which had not been consulted upon), the plan would be sound and legally compliant.

At council meetings held between February and March 2024, the nine local authorities resolved to approve the adoption of the plan, subject to the MMs recommended by the inspectors.

On granting permission for the legal challenge to be heard in January this year, Mr Justice Eyre considered that it was arguable that the inspectors approached the question of Green Belt additions on the footing that there could only be exceptional circumstances if there had been a fundamental change of circumstances since the previous determination of the extent of the Green Belt. To regard such a fundamental change as the only circumstance which could be an exceptional circumstance was an error of law.

The claim contended that the inspectors erred in law by narrowing the scope of "exceptional circumstances" said to be legally capable of justifying additions to the Green Belt under section 13 of the NPPF.

As a result of being persuaded by GMCA, erroneously, to apply a restrictive "legal test" as to whether exceptional circumstances could be shown, the number of sites to be designated as new Green Belt was substantially reduced, it argued.

Handing down her decision on Friday (24 October), Lang J said: "In my judgment, the Claimant's concern that the Inspectors were unlawfully constrained in the exercise of their planning judgment by the application of these criteria, because they were presented to them by the GMCA and [a developer] as a binding legal test, is not justified.

"It is apparent from [the inspectors' report] that, in addition to the application of the two criteria relied on by the GMCA, the Inspectors adopted a third category of their own, which they broadly labelled sites where 'there were circumstances …… that need addressing'.

"In their analysis of selected sites, at IR 874 to 932, the Inspectors clearly relied upon considerations which went beyond the first and second criteria (often by reference to Green Belt policy considerations)."

She added: "Furthermore, the Inspectors disagreed with the GMCA's proposed deletion of sites GBA02 and GBA34 and concluded that they should be added to the Green Belt."

The claimants also argued that the absence of detailed reasons for some of the sites meant that it was not possible to judge whether their planning judgment had been unlawfully constrained.

However, Lang J also dismissed this point, finding that the inspectors were entitled to conclude that detailed reasons were not required, "because the position in regard to the other sites were straightforward and did not involve any change to the existing Green Belt boundary".

She added: "For these reasons I conclude that the Inspectors did not err in law by adopting an unduly restrictive legal test in determining whether exceptional circumstances for designating additional Green Belt sites had been established, as alleged by the Claimant.

"Accordingly, the claim for statutory review on Ground 5 is dismissed."

Commenting on the ruling, a spokesperson for the Greater Manchester Combined Authority said the decision was a "testament to the diligence of the team of professionals who spent more than a decade working on this joint development plan".

It added: "It's a plan that will the unlock the new homes and employment spaces our communities need, maximising the use of brownfield land and protecting Green Belt land from unplanned development. 

"[This] ruling will give investors confidence to come and work with us. It will help us to ensure everyone and every place in Greater Manchester can feel the benefit of economic growth by delivering more new homes to tackle the housing crisis as well as infrastructure and jobs."

Adam Carey