Walsall Green Belt appeal blocks two homes despite shortfall

The Walsall Green Belt appeal concerning two detached homes on Barr Lakes Lane has been dismissed after a Planning Inspector found that the scheme would cause substantial harm to openness and damage the Great Barr Conservation Area.

The decision, issued on 9th October 2026, concerns land containing equestrian buildings, hardstanding, caravans, storage containers and unused vehicles. Although the applicant relied on the land’s previous development and the area’s housing shortage, neither overcame the planning objections.

Inspector N Bromley found the proposed access arrangements acceptable. The decisive issues were instead whether the site qualified for the previously developed land exception and what the new houses would do to an open rural landscape with historic significance.

Walsall Green Belt appeal: previous use was not enough

The appeal related to application 24/0361 for two detached dwellings on land at Barr Lakes Lane, Walsall WS5 3RB. Shahzad Akram appealed against non-determination, rather than against a refusal notice issued by Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council.

That distinction matters. The Inspector referred to the council’s committee report and statement of case as setting out the position it would have adopted had it determined the application. They were not treated as proof of a formal refusal or an issued decision notice. The operative outcome is the Inspector’s dismissal of the appeal.

The site is within designated Green Belt. Policy GB7.1.e of the National Planning Policy Framework published on 17th August 2026 addresses redevelopment of previously developed land where it would not cause substantial harm to Green Belt openness. The applicant suggested that existing development enabled that exception.

The Inspector said it was unclear whether the existing uses and structures were lawful. Parts of the land remained an open field, while other parts supported horses and assorted structures. Even putting the disputed planning history to one side, the new buildings still had to satisfy the openness test.

Two substantial two-storey homes, together with an access and driveway and the domestic character accompanying their occupation, would markedly increase built development. The Inspector described a significant negative change in spatial and visual openness.

Trees and roadside vegetation would provide screening, but screening would not remove the physical reduction in openness. The houses would remain visible from the lane. The Inspector therefore found substantial harm, meaning the previously developed land exception did not apply.

The finding did not depend on proving every existing structure was unauthorised. Even had the site qualified as previously developed land, the openness impact was too great for the particular exception relied upon.

Conservation Area harm added a separate obstacle

The land also sits within Great Barr Conservation Area, whose significance includes the remains of Grade II listed Great Barr Hall, its estate and parkland, and countryside providing their setting. The decision identified the site as part of the appraisal’s wider countryside character area.

An untidy site can offer opportunities for environmental improvement, but its condition does not entitle an applicant to construct substantial new buildings. The Inspector acknowledged that clearing unsightly structures could bring a heritage benefit, while considering the proposed houses in the open landscape visually abrupt and uncharacteristic.

Contemporary architecture and carefully chosen materials did not resolve that relationship. The concern was principally the scale and disposition of substantial new buildings in a rural setting, rather than a simple objection to modern design.

The Inspector placed considerable importance and weight on conserving the designated heritage asset. Although the harm to its significance was judged at the lower end, the identified harm still required a public-benefits balance under the Framework’s heritage policies.

Removing clutter, introducing passive surveillance, possible ecology improvements, improved energy efficiency and delivering homes were all mentioned. Their collective value was not sufficient to outweigh the recognised conservation harm.

The lesson is that proposed redevelopment must be evaluated on its own effect on landscape and historic character. It is not enough to argue that replacing unattractive structures with neat houses would automatically create a net heritage gain.

Highway access was acceptable but could not rescue the scheme

The highway findings were more favourable to the applicant. A centrally positioned access off Barr Lakes Lane would replace the existing entrance, serving a short internal driveway, parking and turning areas.

Despite the narrow rural lane and some engineering work required within the sloping site, the Inspector accepted that adequate visibility splays could be achieved and considered the parking and turning arrangements satisfactory.

The Inspector was not persuaded that movements generated by two houses would create unacceptable highway safety implications. Suitable conditions could have secured the access arrangements if the proposal had otherwise been acceptable.

A development can therefore pass the highways test while failing on Green Belt and heritage grounds. The reverse is also true: the narrowness of a road is not, by itself, an adequate substitute for site-specific highways evidence.

Severe housing undersupply did not provide very special circumstances

Walsall accepted that it could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Inspector noted material from a separate appeal suggesting approximately 1.01 to 1.97 years, while explicitly recognising that the exact current shortfall had not been demonstrated in this case.

A severe shortfall was nevertheless established. Two additional energy-efficient dwellings would make a contribution to supply, and the proposal would bring an underused parcel of land into residential use.

The weight given to those benefits was restricted by the small number of homes. Claims about supporting a rural business had not been sufficiently substantiated to command greater weight. The absence of harm to neighbouring living conditions was treated as a neutral matter.

The policy test for inappropriate Green Belt development requires very special circumstances: the benefits must clearly outweigh harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. Substantial openness harm, combined with conservation area harm, made that an exacting balance.

The housing shortage and other claimed benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm. The Inspector dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission for the two dwellings.

Practical consequences for landowners and advisers

A previously developed land assessment must establish what development is genuinely lawful, which areas meet the relevant definition and whether the specific redevelopment satisfies the substantive policy exception. Old structures and hardstanding alone settle none of those points.

The revised Framework’s distinct rules on grey belt, Green Belt and brownfield land require care. This decision analysed the previously developed land exception relied upon; it did not establish that sites containing derelict structures automatically qualify as grey belt.

Applicants should compare built volume and the position of existing and proposed buildings, visibility, landscaping and the effects of drives and domestic paraphernalia. A credible assessment of spatial and visual openness has more value than a general claim that a new layout looks tidier.

Conservation area appraisal documents should also be read early. Even open land without a listed building of its own may contribute to the significance of a protected historic parkland setting, and that contribution can prove critical to the planning balance.

Finally, report the procedural stages accurately. This was a non-determination appeal. A committee report explaining how the council would have decided was not an issued refusal notice; the Inspector’s decision is the operative determination reported here.

The primary record is appeal decision 6012207 of 9th October 2026, with the Planning Inspectorate case and August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework providing further context.