Appeal 6000911

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for between 1 and 5 self and custom-build plots/dwellings, at [site address] , Solihull, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/00922/PIP.

An application for costs has been made by the appellants, [name] & [name], against the Council. This is subject to a separate decision.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (permission in principle) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle and the second stage (‘technical details consent’) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted, as set out in the PPG. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly and considered the indicative layout plan as illustrative only.

While the Council failed to determine the application within the relevant time period, its evidence sets out that it would have refused the application, due to the harmful effect of the proposed quantum of development on the biodiversity of the Earlswood Meadow Local Wildlife Site and the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the [name] landscape character area and the local wildlife site.

The main issues are whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, land use and the amount of development, with particular regard to the quantum of development proposed. This includes: • whether the appeal site is grey belt land and whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, including where necessary, the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the Earlswood Meadow Local Wildlife Site (LWS) in particular regard to biodiversity; and, • the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the LWS.

The appeal site is part of a paddock used for the keeping of ponies. It principally comprises open grazing land within the open countryside, with a stable block and hardstanding to one corner. There is open post and rail fencing to the paddock boundaries and along the footpath traversing the paddock areas. Therefore, the appeal site is prominently visible from nearby public footpaths. Additionally, there is a significant hedgerow with intervening trees along the site’s road frontage, which provides an attractive verdant character to the streetscape.

The appeal site is within the Green Belt. However, it is undisputed by the main parties that it is ‘grey belt,’ comprising previously developed land that does not strongly contribute to any purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework. Furthermore, the Council has a demonstrated unmet need for the type of development proposed, with a 5 year housing land supply of 2.13 years as of April 2024.

I concur that the appeal site falls within the definition of previously developed land, as it includes a stable block, hardstanding and associated land which has been lawfully developed for such purposes. Additionally, the land lies between and does not extend further to the rear into the wider open countryside, than existing dwellings and their built form either side of it. Therefore, the appeal site does not strongly contribute to the purposes of preventing unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, preventing neighbouring towns from merging, nor does it contribute to preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

The appeal site is on the edge of the built-up area of the settlement, within reasonable walking distance of bus stops. Furthermore, even though the new dwellings would be further away from certain facilities and services than the distances recommended in Policy P7 of the Solihull Local Plan (December 2013) (LP) it is undisputed by the main parties, that the proposed development would be in a sustainable location and so, would align with the overall provisions of Policy P7 of the LP, which requires new development to be focused in the most accessible locations.

Having regard to the above and paragraph 155 of the Framework, the appeal site would utilise grey belt land and the proposed development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, I do not need to consider the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt and, there would be no conflict with Policy P17 of the LP, which seeks to prevent inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Most of the appeal site is part of the designated LWS, where Policy P10 of the LP sets out that development likely to have an adverse effect on an LWS will only be permitted if the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site and its contribution to wider biodiversity objectives.

Policy P10 of the LP also sets out that, where development is likely to have significant harmful effects on the natural environment, as a result of the development itself, developers must demonstrate that all possible alternatives that would result in less harm have been considered. Where development is permitted, appropriate mitigation of the impacts and compensation where relevant will be required, amongst other things, to deliver a net gain in biodiversity and habitat creation. Additionally, Policy P15 requires all development to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Therefore, even though the LWS does not have statutory protection, the aforementioned development plan policies seek to protect its biodiversity interests.

The importance of the LWS includes species-rich sward, containing several nationally declining herbs and two pools and, it forms part of the meadow habitat network with other locally present meadows. Also, there is evidence of existing and likely other protected species within the appeal site that may be affected by the proposal. These species are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2017 (the Habitat Regulations) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act,1981. Consequently, even though features, such as ponds and trees within the LWS, are outside the appeal site and so would remain as existing; by adding built form to the appeal site, the proposed development could cause harm to protected species and their habitats.

However, while the appeal site is a sizeable portion of the designated LWS, the LWS citation in 2019 and the [name] (July 2019), identifies that the grazing of horses/ponies has compromised its value. Furthermore, as there is planning permission in place for the keeping of horses and the site is within private ownership, there is no guarantee that mitigation would be carried out to improve or restore the effects of the existing land use and, that biodiversity improvements would be achieved within the LWS going forward.

The indicative layout plan shows that five new large, detached dwellings extending across the appeal site would add considerable built form to this part of the LWS. This would diminish the extent of the LWS and potentially harm the important sward and other biodiversity within it. Although, this is only an illustrative plan and so, an alternative layout and scale of development could be provided, with dwellings occupying a smaller area of the site. Additionally, even though the hedgerows surrounding the LWS are identified as being of medium to high distinctiveness, it is not known at this permission in principle stage that there would be significant loss of hedgerows and that any harm would be caused to their biodiversity importance by the proposal.

Therefore, subject to the scale and layout of the proposed development and with appropriate conditions and or mechanisms in place, biodiversity enhancement could be achieved, which would likely improve parts of the degraded quality of the LWS where development does not take place. Additionally, as asserted by the appellant there would be opportunities on other land they own; to mitigate the harmful impacts of the proposed development and deliver biodiversity net gain. This would be considered and subsequently managed at the technical details consent stage.

Consequently, in view of the existing site context, including its use and current state, subject to the scale and layout of the proposed development, it would likely be possible to develop the appeal site with up to five dwellings, while ensuring the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity within the LWS. Additionally, based on the evidence provided, the proposed development would likely ensure the better management of the LWS overall going forward.

Circular 06/20051 sets out that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration and it is essential to establish the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, before planning permission is granted. Such matters cannot be left to conditions. However, while these issues relate to the principle of development, planning permission is only granted once both permission in principle and technical details consent are approved. Therefore, it is at the technical details consent stage when it is necessary to demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause harm to protected species or their habitats. Accordingly, I am satisfied that granting permission in principle for the proposed development would not conflict with the requirements of Circular 06/2005.

In view of the above, having regard to the location, land use and amount of development, in regard to the quantum of development, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the LWS in particular regard to biodiversity. Consequently, the proposal would not conflict with Policies P10 and P15 of the LP, which require the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

The appeal site is within the [name] landscape character area. Part v of Policy P15 of the LP requires development to conserve and enhance landscape quality and consider green infrastructure. Also, Policy P10 of the LP seeks to protect, enhance and restore the diverse landscape features of the Borough, and where possible, reverse the degradation of the Arden landscape.

The evidence provided sets out that according to the [name] (1993), a dominant characteristic of the Arden Pastures Landscape Character Area (National Character Area 97) is open pasture. The appeal site remains in active grazing use and so, it contributes positively to this landscape character. [name] do not have substantive details of the previous Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment carried out for development on the appeal site (Council ref. PL/2019/00723/PPOL for the erection of a care home), the evidence sets out that this assessed the ‘landscape value’ as ‘high’ at a regional level, as it is within the [name] character area and [site address] Green Belt. In view of such, 1 Office of the [name] 06/2005- Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation-statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system. the Council’s Landscape Architects considered in that case, that the Arden pasture character would be severely compromised by the quantum of development. Based on my site observations and with no substantive evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to dispute the value of the appeal site in terms of its contribution to the landscape character area.

Even if the appeal proposal relates to a smaller area and is a different form of development compared to the previous application proposal, the appeal site remains predominantly open grazing land. Therefore, it makes a positive contribution to the [name] landscape character area. The introduction of up to 5 dwellings together with access and associated development, would reduce openness and erode the undeveloped pastureland character of the appeal site. As such, the proposal would fail to protect, enhance and restore the [name] landscape character.

The appeal site is prominently visible from nearby public footpaths2, from the south and southeast, with open public views across the land. These footpaths principally have a tranquil, rural feel. Therefore, while the adjacent public footpath would be retained and protected from the proposed development, the new dwellings would diminish the site’s open, rural character and harm the visual and recreation enjoyment of the nearby public footpaths.

Additionally, the roadside vegetation of the appeal site currently provides an attractive verdant streetscape feature and provides an important link between [address], the open countryside and the nearby public footpaths. Therefore, even partial removal of the vegetation to accommodate a new shared access for the proposed dwellings, would detract from the existing rural, verdant character and so would be harmful to the visual quality of the street scene.

Subject to the scale and layout of the proposed development, together with the retention of much of the surrounding vegetation and additional landscaping, would likely provide screening and some visual containment of the appeal site from wider public viewpoints. However, such measures would not preserve the open pastureland character of the site itself, nor negate the urbanising effect the proposed development would have on it. Consequently, the site’s contribution to the wider Arden landscape and the rural, verdant character of the site would still be harmed by the proposed development.

[address] [name] project citation (November 2019) identifies that it comprises semi-improved and damp neutral meadow. While parts of the appeal site have been degraded by overgrazing, the site forms a composite part of the LWS and remains primarily open in character. Therefore, the introduction of built form and loss of a substantial part of the meadow area would harm the open character and appearance of the LWS as a whole.

The appeal site lies between and opposite existing detached dwellings along [address]. While only indicative, the proposed site layout shows that new dwellings could reflect the general scale, pattern and density of nearby residential development and so, would integrate well with the linear built form of the street. Accordingly, while the proposal would harm the Arden landscape character and the character and appearance of the LWS, the proposed dwellings themselves would 2 Public Footpaths SL50 and SL51 likely be in keeping with the form and character of surrounding residential development.

In view of the above, having regard to its location, land use and the amount of development, with particular regard to the quantum of development, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, particularly with regard to the [name] landscape and the LWS. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policies P10 and P15 of the LP and Policies VC1 and D1 of the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Plan (January 2019) (NP), which, amongst other matters, require development to conserve or enhance landscape character and the natural environment.

Also, there would be conflict with Policy VC5 of the NP, which requires new development to respect, maintain and enhance the green character of residential roads.

The Council does not have a 5 year supply of housing land, stated to be 2.13 years as of April 2024. Therefore, the proposal would deliver additional housing in an area where there is a shortfall and demand for new housing. I give significant weight to this consideration in favour of the proposed development.

Also, the proposal would have other social and economic benefits from the construction and occupation of the new dwellings, although this would not be that significant based on the scale of the development. Therefore, I give moderate positive weight to these benefits.

The proposed development would provide some ecological enhancements and likely ensure better long term management of the undeveloped parts of the LWS. It is also proposed that 10% biodiversity net gain would be provided. Full details of such are unknown at this time, although matters related to such would come forward at the technical details consent stage. As ecological enhancements, including biodiversity net gain cannot be secured by conditions as part of a permission in principle, I give moderate weight to these considerations.

It is proposed the dwellings would be custom or self-build. However, even if the Council has a shortfall and is failing to meet demand for such types of dwellings, no mechanism is in place to restrict the dwellings to custom or self-build. Therefore, I give limited weight to this consideration in support of the proposal.

As per my findings above, future residents of the proposed development would have good accessibility to local services and facilities and the location of the site is undisputed by the main parties. Although, lack of policy conflict in regard to the sustainable location of the proposed dwellings does not affect my findings with regard to character and appearance. Therefore, I give limited weight to this consideration.

The lack of highway, drainage and contaminated land objections from statutory consultees and that the adjacent public right of way would be retained do not affect my findings on the main issues. Therefore, such considerations do not weigh for or against the proposal.

In view of the size of the site and number of units proposed, subject to the siting of the new dwellings, I am satisfied that up to five dwellings could be located within the site without causing harm to existing trees and the living conditions of nearby residents by reason of overlooking, loss of light or privacy. Although, matters related to siting, access, parking, drainage, and contamination would be considered at the technical details consent stage. Additionally, each application for development would be determined based on their individual merits and so, no precedent would be set in regard to the development of other land nearby by allowing this permission in principle. Consequently, these matters have neutral weight in regard to the main issues and my findings on them.

The proposal would conflict with policies contained within the LP with regard to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, due to harm caused to the [name] landscape character area and the LWS. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. In such circumstances paragraph 11 d) and footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date. Furthermore, in regard to footnote 7 of the Framework, the LWS is not a protected area or asset of particular importance protected in the Framework.

The Council’s housing supply position of 2.13 years as of April 2024 is considerably below the Government’s expectations. Therefore, the provision of any additional dwellings would make a positive contribution towards meeting the Council’s shortfall. I give significant positive weight to this, as up to five additional dwellings could be provided. Also, the proposal would provide other economic and social benefits, which I give moderate positive weight to, in view of the small scale of the development.

The proposal would not be sympathetic to local character, particularly in regard to landscape setting. However, subject to the scale and layout of the new development and landscaping, it would be possible to reduce some of the harm caused to the character and appearance, particularly with regard to the wider landscape character. Also, at the technical details consent stage there would be opportunities to enhance the natural and local environment, by providing enhancements to the biodiversity quality of the LWS and better management of it. I give moderate positive weight to these benefits.

Balanced against the significant benefits of housing delivery, supporting the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, together with the other positive benefits of the scheme, the adverse impacts arising from the conflict with Policies P10 and P15 of the LP and Policies VC1 and D1 of the NP, in regard to character and appearance, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.

The PPG advises that there is a default time limit duration of 3 years for a permission in principle and that, it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle. Also, in accordance with the requirements of the PPG, it would be necessary to express the development as a range, to indicate the minimum and maximum net number of dwellings permitted.

For the reasons given above, while the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, material considerations, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework, indicates that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it.

Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed and permission in principle is granted.