A Solihull grey belt appeal for four proposed self-build and custom-build homes has been dismissed, despite the council having only 2.13 years of deliverable housing land. Inspector C McDonagh decided on 30 October 2026 that land at Earlesmere House, Warings Green Road, Hockley Heath, was not in a sufficiently sustainable location for the development.
The Inspector accepted the parties’ common position that the site could be regarded as grey belt. The difficulty was the final location test in the new National Planning Policy Framework. A narrow country road without pavements or street lighting meant everyday trips would be very likely to depend on private cars.
The Solihull grey belt decision matters beyond this particular garden plot. It shows why agreement about grey belt status and a serious housing shortfall do not, by themselves, establish that an application should succeed. It also illustrates the limits of permission in principle, which cannot simply postpone an unsuitable location to a later design stage.
Why the Solihull grey belt proposal failed GB7
The appeal concerned application PL/2026/01173/PIP, refused by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. The applicant, Kealie Ahmad, sought permission in principle for up to four self-build or custom-build dwellings within the garden area of Earlesmere House. The land is in the Green Belt and the surrounding area is predominantly rural, with detached homes, farmsteads and agricultural fields.
Both main parties agreed that the land qualified as grey belt and that the first two limbs of the exception in national policy GB7(1)(g) were satisfied. The Inspector also found that the additional requirement for major housing development was not applicable to this proposal. That left one decisive question: was the proposed housing in a sustainable location?
The 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, policy GB7, requires the relevant grey belt development to be in a sustainable location, with particular regard to policy TR3. These national decision-making policies came into force with the revised Framework on 17 August 2026. Failure to meet that location requirement meant the development remained inappropriate in the Green Belt.
The Inspector concluded that the appeal site would not be sustainable in the context of policy TR3
. That is the central finding in this Solihull grey belt appeal, rather than any dispute over whether the garden was technically grey belt land. The quotation is from Inspector C McDonagh’s decision, published by the Planning Inspectorate under the Open Government Licence.
A narrow road and little evidence of alternatives to driving
Warings Green Road was described in the decision as narrow, unlit and without footpaths at the time of the Inspector’s visit. The nearest everyday services appeared to be primarily in Earlswood and Cheswick Green. Although their exact distances were not supplied to the Inspector, the council said the location failed its normal walking-distance expectations and the appellant did not dispute that point.
Solihull Local Plan policy P7 identifies walking distances to services and facilities as part of its assessment of suitable housing locations. The Inspector observed that the glossary to the 2026 Framework also refers to a similar 800-metre walking distance. This was not a finding that every rural home must be within an inflexible 800-metre radius; the actual quality and practicality of access remained crucial.
The Inspector considered it very unlikely that future residents would choose to walk or cycle along the road to meet ordinary needs. Bus services were said to operate in neighbouring settlements, but their frequency and the destinations served had not been provided. That left insufficient evidence that public transport was a realistic alternative to driving from the appeal site.
Online shopping was not accepted as a substitute for journeys to school, social activities or other facilities. Nor could the Inspector simply assume future residents would use electric vehicles. National policy TR3 on sustainable transport asks about realistic patterns of movement, not merely the theoretical existence of alternatives.
For other Solihull grey belt proposals, the point is to demonstrate the whole journey rather than produce a map showing a nearby bus stop. Pavement continuity, lighting, traffic conditions, routes to services and actual bus timetables may all be relevant. Evidence needs to answer whether alternatives are genuinely practical for future occupiers.
Why the 2.13-year housing supply did not change the result
There was no dispute that Solihull could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The council’s figure was 2.13 years, and the Inspector accepted that up to four additional homes would help address that shortfall. However, the contribution from such a small proposal attracted only limited positive weight, as did the temporary economic activity associated with construction.
The homes were described as self-build, potentially adding another useful benefit. Yet the decision records that there was no planning obligation or other mechanism before the Inspector to secure the plots for self-build. He therefore gave that claimed benefit no weight. Similarly, suggested ecological and environmental advantages were not supported by details sufficient to affect the planning balance.
The Green Belt balance went the other way. While existing hedges limited views of the site and any visual effect on openness, four dwellings and their associated gardens and hardstanding would replace part of the existing garden. The Inspector judged the overall loss of openness to be limited, but national policy still required substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm.
That harm arose both because the proposed development fell outside the GB7 exception and because it would reduce spatial openness. The local housing shortfall and the limited benefits could not clearly outweigh it. Anyone weighing a similar scheme against a weak housing supply should also read Planning Geek’s five-year housing land supply guidance.
Permission in principle still tests the location
Permission in principle is a two-stage route for housing-led development. At its first stage, the decision concerns only location, land use and the amount of development. Detailed matters such as house design, layout and materials ordinarily follow through a separate technical details consent application. The Planning Geek permission in principle guide explains how those stages operate.
That distinction actually helped the appellant on one issue. The Inspector accepted that, without definitive house designs, it was not possible to conclude that a suitable layout and design could not respect the rural setting. He considered those matters capable of being addressed at the technical details stage rather than forming an additional reason to refuse the principle.
But the same approach could not rescue the location. The lack of practical alternatives to driving went directly to the site’s suitability in principle. The Solihull grey belt refusal is therefore a reminder that technical details consent is not a holding area for evidence needed to justify the proposed location in the first place.
Other grey belt decisions are not automatic precedents
Two recent decisions provide a useful comparison. In Surrey, an Oxted grey belt appeal allowed permission in principle for four homes after the Inspector accepted the relevant policy tests. By contrast, a South Nutfield grey belt appeal was dismissed because its sustainable-location test failed. The different results turn on the evidence and individual sites, not on a universal rule for four-home applications.
The appellant in the Solihull case also drew attention to an earlier appeal at Chadwick End. Inspector McDonagh said that decision had not been provided to him and that the outcome would have depended on its own circumstances. He did not treat another Inspector’s reported conclusion about housing supply as a reason to set aside the unsustainable-location finding here.
That approach is important. An Inspector’s appeal decision is a material consideration where relevant, but it is not a binding court judgment. Comparisons are most useful where the facts, applicable policies and submitted evidence are genuinely similar. Merely finding another allowed grey belt appeal is not a substitute for examining the specific policy requirements.
What landowners can take from the Solihull grey belt appeal
A landowner considering a Solihull grey belt application should investigate the routes people could actually use before relying on a favourable land designation. Identify walking and cycling connections, measure practical routes to services and provide verified public transport details. Where shortcomings can be addressed, explain precisely what is proposed, how it would be funded and what would make it deliverable.
An application seeking permission in principle should deal directly with the principle of the location, not postpone crucial access questions. For the underlying land classification and policy distinction, see Planning Geek’s grey belt and Green Belt guidance. The applicant also needs clear evidence of the housing benefit claimed and, where relevant, a credible mechanism to secure self-build use.
The Inspector did not conclude that no new homes could ever be acceptable along Warings Green Road. Nor did the decision reject the principle of self-build housing or rule that a different scheme with better evidence must fail. It determined this specific permission in principle application, on the evidence available, against the current development plan and 2026 Framework.
The Solihull grey belt appeal is reference 6014214, application PL/2026/01173/PIP, decided on 30 October 2026 by Inspector C McDonagh. Read the official Planning Inspectorate appeal record for the decision. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments