POLITICIANS from across Bury have pledged to challenge the government in a bid to protect the town’s green belt spaces.

Plans to build 9,500 homes and create industrial space will cost Bury more than a tenth of its green belt, the latest draft of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) revealed earlier this month.

A large portion of this land will form part of the Northern Gateway industrial site around Whitefield, Pilsworth and Heywood, which could potentially create 25,000 jobs, while controversial plans to build thousands of homes in Walshaw and around Elton Reservoir, remain in place.

The proposals were met with widespread criticism from opposition leaders and campaigners, who have vowed to fight them.

Last night, hundreds of residents packed into the Elizabethan Suite at Bury Town Hall to discuss the proposals.

During the meeting, which was arranged by the Bury Folk Keep it Green group, Bury South MP Ivan Lewis called on Bury Council leader Rishi Shori and Conservative leader Cllr James Daly to unite in a bid to contest the proposals.

It came following claims that the proposals were based on old population estimates and, if more up to date statistics were used, all of the town’s green belt could be saved.

Mr Lewis said: “The numbers have been set by the government, not by Bury Council.

"The framework is based on out of date figures of population growth. That does not make any sense whatsoever.

“I am asking Rishi and James if they are prepared to challenge the use of the figures. I am told that we would not be required to use any green belt land if we used the 2016 figures instead of the 2014 ones.”

Addressing the audience, Cllr Daly then called on the council to ‘tear up’ the proposals, adding: “We do not have to impose the government’s target, it is not mandatory.

“Let’s stand up and say this is not acceptable to people in Bury. Let’s put together another plan based on 2016 figures and tell the government ‘that’s what we are doing’.”

Cllr Shori promised those gathered that he would challenge the figures when he meets with the government’s housing minister James Brokenshire on February 12.

He added: “We would prefer to use the 2016 figures because that would mean no green belt loss across Greater Manchester.

“As a local authority, we do not set the amount of housing required within our borough, that is based on government methodology."

Cllr Shori explained that the council had so far struggled to reduce the impact on green belt land due to a lack of brownfield sites in comparison to other boroughs, citing Bolton as an example.

He added: “We want to use as little amount of green belt as possible. We have managed to shift 2,000 to other areas of Greater Manchester with more brownfield land.”

However, sounding a note of caution about vetoing the government’s proposals altogether, Cllr Eamonn O'Brien, the council's cabinet member for finance and housing, said: “It is right that we challenge the figures, but if you turn around and say we are going to set our own plan, as the document says we have the entitlement to do, it still has to pass the government’s tests.

“The consequences of that being rejected are not just speculative, but there are examples across the country of developers swooping in when these plans are rejected.

“We have to be honest about what might happen if you pursue a policy that goes against what the government is setting out.”

The GMSF was first drafted in 2016, before Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham ordered a “radical rewrite” of the plans.

The revised masterplan sets out Greater Manchester’s vision for jobs, homes and the environment until 2037.

Under the new GMSF, the Elton Reservoir proposals would be supported by a new tram station with park and ride facilities and a cycle hub, and a major new road linking Bury and Radcliffe.

This would complement proposals to redevelop Bury Interchange.

During the meeting, residents expressed fears that the proposals would have a detrimental impact on congestion and pollution across the borough.

Mr Lewis told the meeting that he also had concerns about the ‘disproportionate’ impact the current proposals would have on the south of the borough.

He added: “People have every right to be annoyed and concerned because of the loss of green belt, because of the impact on property prices, and because of the impact on air quality.

“The turnout tonight says it all in terms of how people feel.

“There has to be questions asked about why there is not a fairer distribution around the borough."

Liberal Democrats leader Tim Pickstone called on the council to make better use of brownfield sites, and focus more on town centre regeneration.

An eight-week consultation on the document began on Monday, and will run until March 18.