Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2025 by K Townend BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 June 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/Q4625/W/24/3356348 Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands B92 0HZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Peter Cooper against the decision of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is PL/2024/00195/MINFDW. • The development proposed is construction of 2no detached executive houses to include external access infrastructure and landscaping. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Both main parties have referred to the Local Plan Review which has been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. However, the appellant has also commented that the Local Plan Review has since been withdrawn and neither main party have referenced any Local Plan Review Policies within their evidence. I have, therefore, considered the appeal against the adopted development plan. Main Issues 3.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of the area; • whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities; • the effect of the development on biodiversity; • whether the proposal would provide adequate means of surface water drainage and not increase flood risk; • the effect of the development on archaeology; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to visibility; and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/W/24/3356348 • 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 proposal. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 4. Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out the categories of development which may be regarded as not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to certain criteria. New buildings within the Green Belt are inappropriate unless, amongst other things, they represent limited infilling in villages or they represent partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. 5. Policy P17 of the Solihull Local Plan, Shaping a Sustainable Future, December 2013 (the LP) reflects the Framework in resisting development in the Green Belt except in certain circumstances. The most relevant to the appeal is limited infilling within Green Belt settlements. Policy P17 defines limited infilling as the filling of a small gap within an otherwise built-up frontage with not more than two dwellings.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, Paragraph 154(e) of the Framework does not require infilling in villages to be in a built-up frontage. I have, therefore, assessed the proposal against the Framework, having regard to Policy P17. 6. For the purposes of limited infilling in a village, the village does not have to be defined or designated in the LP. When considering whether a site is in a village, the decision maker should have regard to the situation on the ground, as well as any relevant policies, as noted in the caselaw referred to by the appellant. It is for the decision-maker to form a view in light of the specific facts. 7. The settlement of Catherine de Barnes is inset from the Green Belt and, as such, Green Belt policies would not apply for development within the settlement. However, the site is outside of the settlement which is clustered around Hampton Lane, Lugtrout Lane and the smaller roads. The entrance to the village is defined by the roundabout on Hampton Lane and Friday Lane, the village signs and speed signs. Beyond the roundabout the area is open countryside with sporadic housing, including small groups of houses.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Even though the appeal site has a postal address of Catherine de Barnes, in my judgement, the appeal site is not within the settlement, and neither is it on the periphery. 8. It is currently a grassed field between Destiny Cottage and the property known as Wilderness Cottage. There is also another large, detached house beyond that property and a development of ten detached houses to the other side of Destiny Cottage. The ten modern houses are built as a small, gated estate. They have limited relationship with the other properties along this part of the road. Overall, the houses either side of the appeal site, albeit including ten houses on the estate, appear as a small group of properties in the open countryside. 9. Even if I accept the appellant’s view that the dwellings could accommodate between 50 and 100 people, the group of houses is very limited in number and does not have any services or facilities of its own. The number of people which could be accommodated would not define the area as a settlement or village. Based on the evidence before me, and my own observations of the area, the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/W/24/3356348 group of houses are not a village, or settlement, for the purposes of the Framework or Policy P17. In coming to this view, I have had regard to the Julian Wood case1. Although the appeal site is a gap between existing housing, and the proposal is for two dwellings, the development would not constitute infilling within a settlement or a village. 10. The appellant is also seeking to argue that the appeal site is previously developed land due to the previous tipping on site and, therefore, would not be inappropriate development under 154(g) of the Framework. I saw at my visit that the land is relatively level and is higher than the woodland to the side and lower than the land behind the ten house estate. Nevertheless, although the site is not high quality agricultural land, it is clearly capable of being used for growing grass or small- scale grazing. I have no compelling evidence that such uses could not be carried out on the land, even if they are not economically viable, and even if the site could not be amalgamated with other good quality agricultural land. 11.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, albeit that the evidence before me suggests that the site was used for waste material from the construction of the motorway, the site appears as a grassed field. It is not currently harmful to the appearance of the area or the Green Belt. Even if the restoration of the landfill was not achieved through development management procedures the land has a natural appearance and blends into the landscape of the countryside around it. Therefore, although the site was a landfill site, it would not fall within the definition of Previously Developed Land as set out in Annex 2 of the Framework. 12. That other houses along this part of Friday Lane have been altered or extended, and that at least one of the properties dates from before some of the more modern housing in Catherine de Barnes, would also not alter my findings on this matter. The appellant has also drawn my attention to a recent planning permission for development of 95 houses further along Friday Lane. This scheme appears to be redevelopment of previously developed land and is, therefore, materially different to the appeal before me.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Furthermore, the proposed development of a motorway service station near to the appeal site would not justify housing, even if the service station alters the Green Belt. 13. The appellant has also referred to other parts of the Framework which guide the Local Authority in reviewing Green Belt boundaries. The process for reviewing Green Belts is clearly set out in the Framework as through the plan-making process. It is not for individual planning applications to review or alter Green Belt boundaries. Therefore, a number of the paragraphs referred to are not material to the consideration of the appeal. 14. For the above reasons, the proposal would not constitute limited infilling within a village, or settlement, neither would it constitute the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land. The proposed development would, therefore, be inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to Paragraph 154(e) and 154(g) of the Framework and Policy P17 of the LP. 1 Julian Wood v SSCLG and Gravesham Borough Council [2014] EWHC 683 (Admin)|[2015] EWCA Civ 195 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/W/24/3356348 Openness of the Green Belt 15. The appeal site has the appearance of a paddock, or small field, between existing dwellings. Although the appeal development would sit between houses on Friday Lane it currently forms part of the open countryside. Moreover, the site currently contributes positively to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would result in two dwellings and other domestic paraphernalia that would lead to encroachment into the countryside, contrary to one of the aims of the Green Belt. 16. I acknowledge that the frontage of the appeal site, along Friday Lane, includes a well-established hedge and a bank of trees which are set behind a wide grass verge. Nevertheless, at the time of my visit, the road was visible through this landscaping buffer and the appeal site was visible from the road. Although views from the road would be in passing there would be views of the appeal proposal. Furthermore, the appeal scheme would be seen from the neighbouring properties either side.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The visual impact of the development would be limited but would still result in a harmful visual impact to the openness of the Green Belt, even with the landscaping and grass verge retained and even with the gaps proposed either side of the two dwellings. 17. Openness also has a spatial aspect which is an absence of development, rather than an absence of a view. The appeal proposal would introduce development on a site where there is currently none. Even though the site is between existing houses and there is a large agricultural building behind Destiny Cottage the proposal would have a significant spatial impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The limited views of the appeal proposal do not alter the spatial impact. 18. The appellant asserts that other developments in the area, including the ten detached houses nearby, the 95 houses closer to Catherine de Barnes and the motorway services have had, and will have, a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the appeal before me. However, all of the other developments referred to by the appellant have different circumstances and different justification for being approved.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, that an existing development has impacted the openness of the Green Belt would not justify further harmful impact. Even taking account of consistency in decision making, each scheme must, in any case, be considered on its own merits. 19. The appeal site is currently open land, albeit partially screened by the landscape buffer along the front. It has an absence of development and is visible from surrounding properties and the road. As such the proposal would have both a spatial and a visual impact which would result in a significant loss of the openness of the Green Belt contrary to Paragraph 142 of the Framework which identifies the essential characteristics of Green Belts as their openness and their permanence. I give substantial weight to the harm to openness, as set out in the Framework. Character and appearance 20. The appeal site is located in the open countryside in an area beyond the settlement of Catherine de Barnes. The surrounding area is made up of sporadic houses and groups of houses with open fields around and between. The appeal site currently forms a gap between existing housing and positively contributes to the character of the area. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/W/24/3356348 21. Although the design, scale and materials of the proposal are not objectionable, it would result in two new dwellings on an existing green gap. The loss of the gap, and the building of two houses and associated domestic alterations would urbanise the site. This would alter the character and appearance of the area by further urbanising this small group of houses in the countryside. The trees and hedge along the frontage would not mitigate the harm to the character and appearance of the area. 22. The materials to be used in the development would be capable of being controlled through a condition. However, it would not be appropriate or reasonable to condition alterations to the design of the houses. Moreover, even though I have no objection to the design and detailing of the houses, even with suitable materials for the area, this would not overcome the adverse urbanising effect. 23. For the above reasons, the proposal would have a detrimental adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area contrary to the requirements of Policies P5 and P15 of the LP.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Collectively these policies seek to ensure that new housing contributes to enhancing local character and distinctiveness, ensure that all development achieves good quality and sustainable design which, amongst other matters, conserves and enhances local character, distinctiveness, and streetscape quality, and contributes to or creates a sense of place. Suitability of location 24. Catherine de Barnes is the nearest settlement with services and facilities. The shop in the village, albeit not a large food store, would be less than 800m walk from the appeal site and would, therefore, comply with the distance requirement of the first bullet point of Policy P7a) of the LP. However, the policy seeks to ensure that housing development is within the indicated distances of all of the services and facilities listed, so as to provide a sustainable location. 25. Although the proposed site would be within 800m of a small shop I have no compelling evidence that it would be within 800m of a school, doctor’s surgery, or rail station. It is also further than 400m to the nearest bus stop. The development of the appeal site for housing would, therefore, be contrary to Policy P7. 26.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, the walk would be along a country lane where the wide grass verge, which is provided outside the existing houses, narrows significantly between the housing and the village. There are no pavements and no street lighting. Albeit that the walk would be on fairly level ground, the journey would be likely to take more than 10 minutes. It is unlikely that residents of the development would walk between the site and the nearby settlement for day-to-day facilities and unlikely that the residents would walk to Catherine de Barnes to catch a bus to facilities in other settlements. Cycling would be a reasonable option for travel between the site and the larger settlement, though residents are unlikely to cycle for shopping trips. 27. Given the location of the site, beyond the settlement, there are limited opportunities for sustainable transport modes or for residents to undertake many activities without the use of the private car. In my judgement, the occupants of the future development would be likely to rely on the private car for the majority of journeys. Even if the occupants had low emissions vehicles, as suggested by the appellant, the scheme would not promote sustainable modes of transport.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/W/24/3356348 28. Furthermore, I have no compelling evidence that the development of the 95 dwellings, nearer to Catherine de Barnes, would improve the public transport or pedestrian linkages of the appeal site. 29. Policy P7 sets an exception for proposals of fewer than three dwellings in urban areas west of the M42 and in rural settlements. I have already found that the site is not within a rural settlement, it is also not within an urban area. Therefore, this exception would not apply. 30. There is nothing within Policy P7 that limits it to major developments, or even suggests that the policy seeks to target major developments, as the appellant asserts. The wording of the Policy refers to all new development, thereby encompassing even single plots. The aim of the policy is to provide development in areas with access to services and facilities and to encourage a shift to sustainable forms of travel. I have, therefore, given full weight to Policy P7 and the appeal proposal fails to comply with the requirements of the policy. 31.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision I do not have the full details of the other developments referred to by the appellant or whether they were justified by the circumstances of each scheme, as is accepted as exception to the requirements of Policy P7 of the LP. Nevertheless, I have considered the appeal before me based on the submitted evidence. 32. For the above reasons, I find that the site is not a suitable location for housing, having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities and would be contrary to Policies P5 and P7 of the LP which, taken together, seek to resist new housing in locations where accessibility to employment, centres, and a range of services and facilities is poor, and seek to ensure that all development is focused in the most accessible locations through meeting the accessibility criteria listed, unless justified by local circumstances. Biodiversity 33. The planning application was submitted before the 2 April 2024. Therefore, it is not subject to statutory biodiversity net gain. Nevertheless, Policy P10 of the LP seeks to conserve, enhance and restore biodiversity and provide opportunities for biodiversity enhancement.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The Policy requires development to undertake a full ecological survey and to deliver a net gain or enhancement to biodiversity, unless it is demonstrated that this is not appropriate or feasible. 34. The appeal scheme has not been supported by a full ecological survey or any evidence that the development would deliver a net gain or enhancements to biodiversity. Although the copse and hedge at the front of the site would be retained, a gap would be provided between Destiny Cottage and the new houses, and the development would be wholly within the grassed field, the development of the site would require groundworks to be carried out and would result in housing near to the copse and the ancient woodland at the rear. As such I consider that there is a likelihood of protected species being present in the locality. 35.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Circular 06/20052 states that “it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the 2 ODPM Circular 06/2005: Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their impact within the planning system. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Circular 06/20052 states that “it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the 2 ODPM Circular 06/2005: Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their impact within the planning system. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/W/24/3356348 decision”. Ecological mitigation should only be employed where it is not possible to avoid the impact. Furthermore, mitigation measures should be specific to an identified harm. Without fully understanding the baseline ecological potential of the site it is not possible to know whether there is an impact on biodiversity, whether there is an opportunity to avoid the impact, or what mitigation could be used. 36. The finer details of the mitigation strategy and landscaping could be secured by condition, once the baseline and presence, or otherwise, of protected species has been established. It is not appropriate to condition the requirements for a survey to establish the baseline. Given the advice in Circular 06/2005, without an ecological assessment I cannot be certain that any harmful effects arising from the proposal could be adequately avoided or mitigated. 37. In the absence of this detailed information the proposal would be likely to result in harm to biodiversity contrary to the requirement of Policy P10 of the LP which seeks to protect, restore and enhance biodiversity and requires developers to deliver a net gain or enhancement to biodiversity. Flood risk 38.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appeal site lies within flood zone 1. However, the evidence before me advises that the site is at risk of surface water flooding. Policy P11 of the LP requires developers to undertake thorough risk assessments of the impact of proposals on surface and groundwater systems and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures where necessary. 39. No details have been provided of the surface water drainage proposals. Neither has any evidence been provided to show that the site is capable of accommodating the potential run-off rates and sustainable drainage scheme indicated on the plans. 40. For the above reasons, I find that insufficient information has been provided to indicate that the development can be satisfactorily provided with adequate means of surface water drainage and not increase flood risk. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policy P11 of the LP. Archaeology 41. The appeal site lies in an area of significant archaeological potential with the evidence indicating possible features associated with Bronze Age activity. There is, therefore, a potential for archaeological features to be disturbed or lost by the proposed development. 42.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appeal before me is not supported by an archaeological desk-based assessment or any on-site evaluation work to establish the potential for archaeology within the site. Without understanding the archaeological potential, I cannot be certain that the development of the site would not result in adverse effects on archaeology. 43. For these reasons, the development of the site would be contrary to Policy P16 of the LP which requires development to preserve or enhance heritage assets, including archaeological sites, and requires applications that affect the historic environment to have considered and used the evidence in the Solihull Historic Environment Record to inform the design of the proposal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/W/24/3356348 Highway safety 44. The proposal is to utilise the existing vehicular access which currently serves the field. The proposal would provide a drive to the two dwellings and retain access to the remainder of the field at the rear of the houses. From the appellant’s evidence the access has been in use for a number of years. 45. Although the appellant has not submitted plans indicating the visibility splays, I saw that visibility is available in both directions. The access is immediately to the side of that for Wilderness Cottage and would share the same visibility splays across the wide grass verges along this side of Friday Lane. I also have no compelling evidence to counter the details submitted by the appellant that visibility is available in both directions for a distance of approximately 200m. 46. For these reasons, in my judgement, the use of the access to serve two dwellings and the remainder of the field would not have a severe impact on highway safety, with particular regard to visibility.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposal would, therefore, comply with Policy P8 of the LP which requires all development to have regard to highway safety, and resists development that would result in a reduction in safety for any users of the highway. Other considerations 47. The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. I have found that the proposal would comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt, even considering its previous use. In addition, there are adverse impacts to the visual and spatial aspects of openness. Substantial weight is given to the harm to the Green Belt and very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harms, are clearly outweighed by other considerations. 48. There would also be adverse harm to the character and appearance of the area, to biodiversity, flood risk, and archaeology, and adverse harm from the location of the site. I give significant to moderate weight to these matters. The appeal proposal would also fail to comply with one of the five purposes of the Green Belt in that it would result in encroachment into the countryside. 49.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The development would have associated social and economic benefits both during and post construction and add to the supply of housing in the local authority area with two, executive homes. However, as a development of two houses, these benefits would be limited. I also have no compelling evidence that such developments are not provided on sites within the identified settlements. I therefore afford significant weight to the limited benefits. 50. The scheme would have a neutral effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and, in my judgement, a neutral effect on highway safety. These matters weigh neither for, nor against the proposal. 51. For the above reasons I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified to the Green Belt and other matters. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/W/24/3356348 Other Matters 52. I consider that the harm and policy conflict I have identified would be such that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. An important material consideration is the Framework. In this regard, the Council has confirmed that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land with the housing supply, at the time of the decision, being 3.60 years, which is a moderate shortfall. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework therefore applies. 53. However, as set out at footnote 7, if the policies in the Framework relating to the Green Belt provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed, then the ‘tilted balance’ is disengaged. In this case, I have found that the harm to the Green Belt would not be outweighed by the benefits, and this provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11d) of the Framework does not apply. Conclusion 54. The development conflicts with the development plan and the Framework.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision There are no material considerations to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Land South of Destiny Cottage, Friday Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 0HZ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — K Townend INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9