Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Solihull Metropolitan?
Use the selected examples to test Green Belt objections and site facts against your refusal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 19 of 78
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 4
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 14
- of 19 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Solihull LPA (52.41314, −1.727065). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Why Green Belt schemes were found inappropriate
The displayed allowed evidence is narrow, while several dismissed extracts give conclusions rather than full reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Why these Green Belt proposals failed
Additions were not shown proportionate
The inspector said it had not been demonstrated that the proposal and consented extensions avoided disproportionate additions to the original building.
Framework criteria or exceptions failed
The inspector concluded the replacement dwelling did not meet all cited Framework criteria or exceptions and was inappropriate Green Belt development.
Other considerations did not outweigh Green Belt harm
The inspector concluded the other considerations did not clearly outweigh Green Belt and other harm.
Helped or needed
What supported the allowed Green Belt extension
Contained, screened domestic curtilage
The site was well contained within the domestic curtilage and well screened, so the proposal would not encroach into open countryside.
Some Green Belt purposes were irrelevant
The inspector found the purposes concerning built-up areas, town merging, historic towns and urban regeneration irrelevant to this site.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify disproportionate additions when earlier consents are included?
- Does it explain why other considerations do not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm?
- Does it assess containment and screening from open countryside?
The Solihull Metropolitan allowed evidence is narrow, and several dismissed extracts give conclusions without earlier analysis. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
4 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of detached garage & rear single storey extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are: Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and any relevant development plan policies, and If the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In terms of Local Plan Policy P17, there is nothing to suggest that the dwelling needs to be retained as smaller affordable housing. In terms of Green Belt purposes, the Planning Policy Guidance makes clear that large built-up areas, the merging of towns, and preserving the setting of historic towns do not relate to villages, nor is the site within an urban area to assist urban regeneration. Therefore, these purposes of the Green Belt are not relevant in this instance. Furthermore, the site is well contained within the existing domestic curtilage and well screened such that the proposed development would not encroach into the open countryside and hence would not conflict with the remaining Green Belt purpose.
Paragraph 17 · Source page 4
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
8 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
addition of outbuilding/garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: -Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; -The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and -Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
It has not been demonstrated that the proposal, in combination with consented extensions, would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies. The proposal would conflict with those aims of LP policy P17 and NP policy VC1 and would not be an exception to new buildings in the Green Belt under Paragraph 154 of the Framework. The Framework advises that inappropriate development in the Green Belt is by definition harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
27 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of existing side conservatory and the erection of a single storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and any relevant development plan policies, ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it, and iii) whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed extension would have limited visibility in public views as it would be located on the side furthest from the road and be partly screened by the appeal property. When viewed from the vehicle access point providing views into the site, the scale of the proposed development would be no greater than what is there currently. The visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt would therefore be acceptable.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
24 February 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
replacement of an existing extended bungalow with a detached two storey dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies including the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, whilst the appeal site is in the Grey belt and would, in my planning judgement, be a sustainable location for the proposal, it remains that it does not comply with all the relevant criterion outlined in paragraph 155 of the Framework nor the exceptions outlined in paragraphs 154(d) and 154(g). Therefore, the appeal scheme would be inappropriate in the Green Belt. Accordingly, it would not comply with Policy P17 of the SLP insofar as it seeks to ensure that development in the Green Belt is not inappropriate
Paragraph 32 · Source page 5
28 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
extension to existing building, laying of hardstanding and changing the use of land from agricultural to residential garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm as to amount to very special circumstances.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework states that the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the development must be clearly outweighed by other considerations for permission to be granted. The other considerations in this case, as detailed above, do not have sufficient cumulative weight to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify this development do not exist. This would be contrary to the Framework and SLP Policy P17.
Paragraph 24 · Source page 4