View Of Deansgate Sq Manchester C.JoeGardner
Places for Everyone has been approved by nine councils. Credit: Joe Gardner for Place North West

Places for Everyone moves on to public consultation

Julia Hatmaker

After this next phase ends, the spatial framework for Greater Manchester (minus Stockport) will be ready to submit to the Secretary of State.

Public consultation will run virtually through 3 October at During this time residents, businesses and local stakeholders will have a chance to share their feedback on the plan. Specifically, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is looking for feedback on whether the plan is sound and whether it is legally compliant.

To be deemed “sound,” the framework should promote economic growth and make provisions for development. It should also be backed up by robust evidence and based on effective and achievable policies. In addition, Places for Everyone should be consistent with national policies.

Places for Everyone has already received approval from councils in Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan.

The plan changes up Green Belt designations, reducing the allocation of Green Belt land for development by 60% compared to the first draft of the plan in 2016. It also includes 20.5m sq ft of allocation for accessible office space and 35.8m sq ft of industrial and warehousing floors space. Places for Everyone also calls for 56,528 new homes to be built in the city of Manchester by 2037.

“Places for Everyone underpins a wider vision for Greater Manchester that will put us on the best possible footing to face the challenges of the future,” said Salford City Mayor Paul Dennett, the chair of the Places for Everyone Joint Committee and GMCA Lead for Housing, Planning and Homelessness.

“[Places for Everyone] will mean we decide what kind of development takes place and where, maximising the use of brownfield land and urban spaces while protecting green belt land from the risk of unplanned development,” Dennett continued. “It will benefit our places and helps us recover from the pandemic, tackle housing inequality, and pave the way for a low-carbon economy.”

Your Comments

Read our comments policy here

This is not a consultation! Councils have already approved this without the backing of residents and the greenbelt reduction is a con! Houses built since 2016 have not even been taken into consideration within the plan so all in all its the usual drivel spoken!!! In Bury at least there is a fight going on that will go the distance!


This is an absolute disgrace. They’re destroying one of the key aspects on greater Manchester, The Greenery!. Once gone, its lost forever. The Elton reservoir scheme is the worst of the lot. I was a life long labour voter until this plan. Cannot believe they would do this. I hope we can get the conservatives in the majority for bury within the next election to end this plan.


What some people fail to realise is that if this plan isn’t adopted more greenbelt will be at risk of development. In the long term Stockport will suffer from pulling out of the planning framework.

By Monty

I’m sure Peel must be rubbing their hands. They have their name on hundreds of acres of green belt just waiting to pour concrete .

By Anonymous

@Monty that is simply not the case. What is the point of having land classified as Greenbelt if you can simply build on it? In Bury the council are busy reclassifying landfill sites as Greenbelt to try and justfy the numbers contained within the plan!!!! They are saying its been reduced to 60% and papers and websites such as this are repeating the claptrap when its all a ruse!!!! As I say in Bury the fight is real and whilst the council are busy selling off land and building everything but housing on Brownfield, the residents are preparing for a legal battle that put simply, we shall win.


They’re taking 4,300 acres of green belt, out of 146,657 acres. That’s 2.9% over 15 years. Not much in the grand scheme of things.

It’s easy to say “brownfield first”, but NIMBYs find endless excuses to not build on brownfield – “this building is too tall”, “there will be a shadow”, “not enough affordable housing”, “4 trees are more important than homes for 100 families”, “we need to save this historic car park”, ad infinitum.

The only problem with the plan is that it’s not ambitious enough.


PS I am 100% correct.

By Monty

People defending building on the greenbelt are presumably pretty similar to those who defend Manchester City Council selling every scrap of open space in the city centre for development.

The point is that you will never, ever get this space back. Manchester has been here for nearly two thousand years. Councillors and leaders seem to think their job is bringing in cash over the course of a few decades – they should be more concerned with leaving an attractive city for generations to come.

By W

‘I hope we can get the conservatives in the majority for bury’

As said by everyone who doesn’t have the first clue *why* Councils are being obliged to allocate Green Belt land for development.

By Sten