Green Belt infill has secured permission for two self-build homes at Meadow View, Chadwick End, Solihull, after Inspector P Brennan allowed appeal 6009733 on 23rd October 2026. The Council had refused the scheme over its Green Belt context and the limited accessibility of the rural village.
The homes would occupy part of a grassed corner site beside 1A Oldwich Lane West and Warwick Road. The Inspector found that the development would fill a small gap in the existing built-up village, making it an exception to the normal Green Belt restrictions rather than inappropriate development requiring very special circumstances.
I think the important lesson is not simply that Green Belt infill succeeded. Solihull’s concerns about reliance on cars were largely upheld, but the August 2026 national planning policies changed how that harm was weighed against the shortage of housing and serviced plots for people wishing to build their own homes.
Why Green Belt infill passed the village test
The starting point was national Policy GB7(1)(c), which treats limited infilling in villages within the Green Belt as development that is not inappropriate. Neither village nor limited infilling has a fixed definition in the 2026 National Planning Policy Framework. How the site relates to existing development therefore matters more than relying only on the absence of a formal settlement boundary.
Chadwick End has no defined settlement boundary in the adopted Solihull Local Plan. The Inspector nevertheless found that its ribbon of houses extending from Warwick Road, Oldwich Lane West and Netherwood Lane formed a recognisable village. The appeal plot stood at the end of a row of housing, on land screened by tall hedgerows and trees.
The Council put the frontage at about 64 metres, while the appellants measured 55.75 metres. The proposed dwellings would occupy plots approximately 26.25 metres and 29.5 metres wide, broadly comparable with nearby plots ranging from 21.5 to 51 metres. Those figures supported the Green Belt infill case, but the Inspector did not rely on measurements alone.
Although positioned on a corner, the scheme would continue the existing frontage and follow a dispersed pattern of nearby residential development. The rear half of the open land would remain as a paddock, while the houses would sit in generous grounds with existing screening largely retained. The Council and appellant also disputed whether the land was residential curtilage or agricultural land, but that dispute did not prevent the Inspector from treating the land as a grassed village site.
Local Plan Policy P17 expressly supported a small gap being filled by not more than two houses, provided village character was protected. The Inspector decided this scheme fitted that description and the national exception. Importantly, once Green Belt infill was found not to be inappropriate, a separate assessment of Green Belt openness and very special circumstances was not required. This was not a grey belt determination.
Poor bus services did not disappear from the balance
Accessibility remained a substantial planning issue. The village had a hall and a pub or restaurant around 200 metres away, but everyday services such as shops, schools and healthcare were two to three miles away at Lapworth or Dorridge. There was a bus stop roughly ten metres from the appeal land. The service, however, was described as hourly rather than the high-frequency service envisaged by the Council’s accessibility criteria.
The Inspector found clear conflict with Solihull Local Plan Policies P5 and P7, which direct housing towards accessible locations. There was also conflict with national Policy TR3(1)(a), which seeks to limit unnecessary car travel and provide genuine transport choice. The Council’s accessibility objections were therefore not brushed aside or treated as irrelevant simply because the homes were within a village.
The significance of this Green Belt infill appeal lies in the weight attached to that conflict. Two homes would produce relatively few extra vehicle movements. Limited travel alternatives remained available even if most journeys would be by car. Having found a genuine transport shortcoming, the Inspector regarded the resulting practical harm as limited when tested against the national decision-making policies.
Housing shortages and self-build commitments
The main parties agreed that Solihull could demonstrate only 2.13 years of deliverable housing land, far below a five-year supply. The Inspector treated that deficiency as a significant reason to favour additional homes, even where the proposed quantity was modest. National housing Policy HO7 requires substantial weight to be given to meeting evidenced accommodation needs.
The evidence also pointed to a large shortage of self-build and custom-build plots. As at November 2023, 593 people had registered an interest in self-build within Solihull. A February 2025 appeal had identified a shortage of between 471 and 606 plots, and the Council had not supplied evidence that the position had materially improved. The Inspector therefore gave substantial weight to supplying two new self-build homes.
Importantly, the commitment was enforceable. A section 106 unilateral undertaking obliged the site to deliver the two homes as self-build or custom-build housing, binding the landowner and successors. That meant the Inspector could rely on an identifiable housing benefit, rather than an unsupported assertion that purchasers might undertake some of their own building work.
The Inspector also found that the proposed two-storey houses, individually designed with gabled or hipped roofs, could sit comfortably within the village. Their gardens, garages and retained hedges would protect the rural character, with landscaping and tree safeguards controlled by conditions. Renewable energy generation and reduced energy consumption were additional benefits given substantial weight.
There was a specific biodiversity net gain point as well. Because the application had been submitted before the 6 August 2026 change to the self-build exemption, and the undertaking secured self-build delivery, the Inspector found that statutory biodiversity net gain was not required in this particular case. That is not a general exemption for later self-build applications.
How the new national planning balance was applied
The 2026 Framework’s Policy S5(5) was central. For development that is not inappropriate in the Green Belt, the policy sets a presumption towards approval unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects when assessed against national decision-making policies. The Inspector assessed the harm from car dependence against housing need, self-build provision, village character and the other project benefits.
Although there was significant conflict with the Local Plan’s accessibility objectives, the overall benefits substantially outweighed the adverse effects. The national presumption in favour was therefore engaged, and material considerations justified permission notwithstanding the conflict with the development plan considered as a whole. The Inspector allowed the appeal subject to conditions.
The case shows why applicants should separate the threshold Green Belt infill question from the wider planning balance. Passing Policy GB7 does not mean transport, design or local policies cease to matter. It means that the proposal is assessed without the additional presumption against inappropriate Green Belt development, while remaining weaknesses must be evidenced and weighed.
Practical lessons for applicants
A credible Green Belt infill submission should set out the existing built pattern, plot widths, gaps in the frontage, screening, and the relationship of the proposal to the village as experienced on the ground. A hedge does not automatically make open land an acceptable infill site, and a site beyond a plan’s settlement boundary is not necessarily excluded. Every site requires its own evidence and planning judgement.
Where self-build demand is being relied upon, the applicant should produce current register and plot-supply evidence and consider how the promised benefit will be secured. The Inspector was able to give weight to an enforceable obligation and quantified housing shortfalls. Conversely, rural car dependence must be assessed candidly rather than dismissed because a bus stop appears nearby on a plan.
Appeal 6009733 was allowed on 23rd October 2026 following Solihull application PL/2025/00738/PPFL. Read the Planning Inspectorate appeal record, the national sustainable development policies, and our earlier report on village infill near Merstham for comparison. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments