AC-2025-LON-001100 - [2025] EWHC 2742 (Admin)

The Claimant applies for statutory review, under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“PCPA 2004”), of the adoption, on 21 March 2024, by the 3^rd to 11^th Defendants (“the Councils”) of a joint development plan document (“DPD”) called ‘Places for Everyone 2022 – 2039’(“the Plan”), under section 23(1) PCPA 2004.

The Second Defendant (“the GMCA”) is made up of the ten Greater Manchester Councils and the Mayor of Greater Manchester. The GMCA submitted the Plan to the First Defendant (“the Secretary of State”) for examination on behalf of nine of the ten Councils. (Footnote: ¹) The Secretary of State appointed three Inspectors to examine the Plan, who recommended that the Plan be adopted, subject to main modifications (“MMs”), in their report (“IR”) dated 14 February 2024.

The Claimant is the incorporated manifestation of a previously unincorporated umbrella group of concerned citizens from over 40 greenspace groups across Greater Manchester who oppose the development of housing on Green Belt land, as proposed under the Plan. The Claimant, along with about 15 groups, submitted representations to the Councils and the GMCA and were active participants during the examination of the Plan.

IP1 and IP2 are land owners and promoters of two sites allocated by the Plan (Footnote: ²). They participated in the Examination and made representations. Those two sites involve the release of Green Belt land, but the allocations are not the subject of challenge in this claim. IP1 and IP2 do not have any specific land interest within any of the proposed Green Belt additions which are the subject of Ground 5 of the claim. However they oppose the claim on the basis that the quashing of the Plan would undermine the allocation of their landholdings and land interests, and cause planning uncertainty and expense.

IP3 also opposes the claim. It is the landowner of six sites (Footnote: ³) which were proposed for addition to the Green Belt but the proposed designations were removed by way of MMs, on the recommendation of the Inspectors. A seventh site was added to the Green Belt by the Plan (which IP3 did not resist) (Footnote: ⁴).

IP4 and IP5, referred to as “Royal London”, oppose the claim, for the reasons relied upon by the Defendants. They are the largest land owner within the Temperley Wedge allocation (JPA3.2). They did not participate in the hearing before me.