For those of us advising on major development in Greater Manchester, the current planning landscape feels both more supportive and more demanding than at any point in recent years. The policy direction is unmistakably pro-growth. But policy support, on its own, does not deliver planning permissions that are robust, commercially workable and capable of surviving challenge.

Nationally, the planning reform agenda is significant. Grey belt has reopened debates around sites that would have been discounted for years, and the early appeal decisions are already showing that success will turn on careful evidence rather than broad assertion. Biodiversity net gain is now embedded in mainstream development strategy, with off-site markets maturing but still uneven. At the same time, viability remains the point at which policy ambition meets commercial reality: higher housing expectations, infrastructure costs and delivery assumptions may produce attractive allocations on paper, while in reality they leave developers and authorities wrestling with whether schemes can get out of the ground.

What makes Greater Manchester different is that it has the strategic planning policy architecture in place to rise above this noise. Places for Everyone is evidence that this city region understands that housing, employment land and infrastructure need to be planned at scale. That matters even more now that strategic planning is back on the agenda following recent legislative changes. In practice, devolution gives Greater Manchester something many places still lack: the ability to align transport, regeneration, investment and planning around delivery rather than rhetoric. That is why the region remains ahead of the curve and at least five years ahead of some other Combined Authorities.

That said the politics have not become easier. If anything, they have become more fragile. Across the North West, anti-development sentiment remains strong, particularly where green belt release has moved from abstraction into real site promotion. That tension is not unique to Manchester; it reflects a national contradiction. Most people accept there is a housing crisis, but many remain resistant to where that crisis should be addressed geographically. Deeply felt resistance to development on the ground feels jarring against the current and emerging National Planning policy landscape.

However, there are reasons to be cheerful, and hopeful. The proposed committee reform should reduce the scope for well-evidenced applications to be lost to political theatre, and Greater Manchester’s devolved model remains a genuine delivery advantage. The wider lesson, though, is this: the current window is real, but it is not easy. The planning system is offering more opportunities through strategic planning, grey belt policy and reform of delivery tools. The price of taking those opportunities is that applicants must be more sophisticated, more forensic and better prepared than ever. In the Manchester market, those who combine legal discipline with a realistic understanding of politics and delivery will be the ones who succeed.

For more information, please contact our Manchester team: Kathryn Jump, Lisa Tye, and David Mathias.