Save Greater Manchester Green Belt Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Ors

At the permission stage of a planning statutory review, a ground must have a realistic prospect of success. Policy guidance on consultation of main modifications is read as a whole and does not impose an inflexible requirement to reconsult on every revised modification. Whether fairness requires consultation is an objective question, but inspectors’ evaluative judgments remain contextually relevant.

The exceptional circumstances test for altering green belt boundaries may support safeguarded land intended for longer-term development where infrastructure investment remains a genuine potential. A plan period expressed as a minimum 15-year period from adoption is not unlawful merely because it differs from an earlier period. Questions concerning housing supply, windfalls and planning evidence ordinarily involve planning judgment.

The claimant brought a planning statutory review challenge to the adoption on 21 March 2024 of the Joint Local Development Plan entitled Places for Everyone 2022 to 2039 by nine local authorities. The Plan had been examined by inspectors, whose report was published on 14 February 2024.

Four renewed grounds concerned: failure to reconsult on revised main modifications following the cancellation of HS2 phase 2b; the justification for removing land at Timperley Wedge from the green belt; the treatment of the plan period, housing land supply and windfall sites; and the inspectors’ approach to whether the Plan was a corresponding document after Stockport withdrew from the joint-plan process.

1. Disposition. Permission for statutory review on grounds 1 to 4 was refused. Costs were reserved.
2. Reconsultation. The guidance requiring consultation on main modifications had to be read sensibly and as a whole. It did not require reconsultation on every new or revised modification. The inspectors had concluded that the HS2-related changes preserved the Plan’s overall spatial strategy and policies and were needed to keep its reasoned justification factually accurate and up to date. Their evaluative assessment was adequately reasoned and did not amount to an unjustified departure from policy guidance.
3. The objective question of what procedural fairness required remained for the Court. However, the inspectors’ contextual assessments were relevant to that question. There was no realistic prospect that fairness, legitimate expectation or policy guidance required further consultation in the circumstances.
4. Green belt. The inspectors applied the exceptional circumstances test to the Timperley Wedge land. Safeguarded land could properly be justified by the potential for other infrastructure development, including continuing prospects for transport investment. The fact that the justification had weakened after the HS2 change did not mean that it had disappeared. The conclusion was an evaluative planning judgment and was not arguably unreasonable or inadequately reasoned.
5. Housing supply. The NPPF’s reference to 15 years did not impose a mandatory ceiling. A plan period running from anticipated adoption in 2024 to 2039 was permissible. The inspectors could update the evidence and assess flexibility over the modified plan period without separately applying new data to the former period. Their treatment of windfall allowances and large windfall sites fell within planning judgment and was not legally inadequate.
6. Corresponding document. Even assuming that compliance with the consultation regulations required consideration of the regulation 32 test, inspectors did not automatically step into the local authorities’ shoes and apply a correctness standard. The statutory scheme permitted the inspectors to consider whether it was reasonable to conclude that the test was met. Their conclusion that nothing indicated that the authorities’ judgment was unreasonable disclosed no arguable material error.

First-instance statutory review and permission decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.