Draft Submission Plan (Regulation 19)
Spatial Strategy Comment
75.The 2020 plan was based on a spatial strategy that sought to accommodate development needs close to where they arise. As around 75% of the Borough’s population live within the urban area, it was appropriate to (at least initially) follow options that made more efficient use of land in this area. Comment
76.However, it was acknowledged that there was extremely limited land available that could fulfil this approach, and therefore it was necessary to look elsewhere, and this included looking at Green Belt options as follows: Comment
- The UK Central Hub Area & HS2
- Limited Expansion of Rural Villages/Settlements
- New Settlements, Large Scale Urban Extensions or Significant Expansion of Rural Villages/Settlements
77.With the exception of a new settlement, a combination of the above options was included as the basis for the spatial strategy. It was noted that this approach would strike a balance between concentrating development in a relatively small number of locations and dispersing development over a greater number of locations – a ‘balanced dispersal’ approach. The publication of the new NPPF and NDMPs (in August 2026 following a period of consultation that commenced in December 2025) has some effect on this overall approach, most notably in relation to the introduction of national policy promoting growth around railway stations. The location of the majority of stations within the Borough (and in very close proximity to its boundaries with neighbouring authorities) however means that directing growth to such areas will still remain with broad alignment to the spatial strategy. It is considered that this approach therefore remains an appropriate basis for seeking to accommodate the development needs in this plan. Comment
78.The strategy also seeks to focus significant developments in locations that are, or can be made, accessible and sustainable. These locations will typically be on the edge of the urban area or within the rural settlements that have a greater range of services. This will be achieved by focussing development on the following locations: Comment
- Located adjacent to the urban edge/a highly accessible settlement or;
- Located adjacent to a settlement that although it may be less accessible, it has a wide range of local services (e.g. towns) or;
- Development that would be a proportionate addition adjacent to an existing settlement that although is less accessible still has a limited range of services available within it (e.g. larger villages).
- Unless captured within the three points above, development that would be located within close proximity to a suitable railway station that is or can be made accessible to necessary services.
79.This approach will have the following advantages: Comment
- Concentration could support the UK Central masterplan and HS2 growth strategy, and the investment priorities in ‘Solihull Connected’;
- Focussing on urban areas and sustainable urban extensions provides the best opportunity for achieving accessibility and delivering public transport improvements;
- Larger scale developments offer the opportunity for significant infrastructure improvements;
- Provision for some smaller sites will assist the early delivery of housing during the Plan period and support existing services;
- A totally dispersed pattern of growth would be unlikely to deliver the scale of growth required and be more likely to result in adverse impacts associated with piecemeal development which would affect a greater area.
80.This approach would thus discourage development that is: Comment
- Isolated from any settlement;
- A disproportionate addition to a settlement that only has a limited range of facilities;
- Occurs in relatively less accessible locations;
81.Focussing development in existing sustainable locations and/or those that can be made sustainable through the delivery of additional infrastructure allows an ‘infrastructure first’ approach to be followed. Comment
82.To help determine which settlements ought to be the focus for larger scale developments (i.e. towns), the Council has considered a settlement hierarchy as set out in the following paragraphs. This is to help inform the spatial strategy as set out above. Comment
Settlement Hierarchy
83.Following publication of the 2024 NPPF, the associated Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was updated in February 2025. One of the aspects of the new PPG is that for Green Belt purposes A[13], B[14] and D[15]; it makes it explicit that these purposes relate to large built-up areas (purpose A) and towns (purposes B & D) not villages. Comment
84.As this represented the first-time policy/guidance was so explicit, the Council undertook a review of the Borough’s rural settlements to determine which ought to be considered as towns and which are villages[16]. This was in the context of neither the NPPF or PPG setting out a definition of either a town or a village. Comment
85.Following publication of a draft settlement hierarchy, the Council confirmed its position though a “Solihull Rural Settlement - Hierarchy Assessment” adopted in October 2025. This assessment concluded it was appropriate to use a combination of population size and availability of services to determine whether a settlement ought to be considered as a town. The assessment considered in detail the settlements inset[17] (or partially inset) from the Green Belt, which are as follows: Comment
- Balsall Common
- Blythe Valley Park
- Catherine-de-Barnes
- Cheswick Green
- Dickens Heath
- Hampton-in-Arden
- Hockley Heath
- Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath (KDBH)
- Meriden
- Tidbury Green
86.Following an assessment of each of these settlements, it was concluded that two were of such a size (in terms of their population and availability of services) that they ought to be considered as towns. These are as follows: Comment
- Balsall Common
- Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath (KDBH)
87.It was recognised that this was a ‘snapshot in time’, and that circumstances could change in the future, as settlements evolve and change such that a settlement that may now be considered to be a village, could expand to the extent that it could in the future be considered as a town. Comment
88.Although this work was principally undertaken to establish an evidential basis for considering whether any of the Borough’s rural settlements ought to be considered as towns, it is also useful to help distinguish between what may be larger villages and smaller villages/other settlements. Whilst this will not be relevant in the application of Green Belt policy, it is useful in the context of a finer grain to the settlement hierarchy. Comment
89.Using the presence of a primary school, a GP surgery and at least some convenience retail facilities, the following settlements can be considered as larger villages[18]: Comment
- Cheswick Green
- Dickens Heath
- Hampton in Arden
- Hockley Heath
- Meriden
90.In overall terms, this results in a settlement hierarchy as set out in the policy below. Comment
Policy SMBC/SS1: Solihull Settlement Hierarchy Comment
- The settlement hierarchy for the Borough is as follows:
- Urban Area: which includes Solihull, Shirley, UK Central Hub area and North Solihull.
- Towns: Balsall Common and Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath
- Larger Villages: Cheswick Green, Dickens Heath, Hampton in Arden, Hockley Heath and Meriden
- Smaller Villages & other settlements: All other rural settlements not listed above.
Vulnerable Gaps
91.The Borough’s smaller rural settlements have a sense of identity and character that sets them apart from their neighbours which are often located in a different parish, yet the physical gaps between the settlements can be quite narrow and vulnerable to development that could see them merge into one amorphous conglomeration that would result in the loss of identity and character. Comment
92.This is particularly the case in the Blythe area (west of the M42 and north of the M40) that accommodates four settlements (Blythe Valley, Dickens Heath, Cheswick Green and Tidbury Green) in close proximity to each other that are separated by short distances. Comment
93.It is considered that the gaps between these settlements are particularly small such that even modest development between them could cause the settlements to merge either physically or visually, if only a token strip or area remains open. Comment
94.It is not considered necessary for this approach to be applied Borough wide and therefore it will only apply in specified locations set out in the policy. Comment
Policy SMBC/SS2: Protection of Vulnerable Gaps Comment
- In order to prevent coalescence (either physically or visually) of rural settlements and to maintain the separate identity of settlements, the generally open and undeveloped nature of the following vulnerable gaps will be protected.
- Between the urban edge and Dickens Heath.
- Between the urban edge and Cheswick Green.
- Between Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green.
- Between Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green.
- Between Cheswick Green and Blythe Valley Park.
- Development will only be permitted where:
- It would not diminish the physical and/or visual separation; and
- It would not compromise the integrity of the gap either individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development.
95.NDMP S2(1)(c) of the 2026 NPPF states: Comment
“Designations and associated policies to safeguard gaps between settlements should be used only where they are necessary to maintain the separate identities of the settlements and their physical separation, should be no larger than needed to achieve this aim, and should not apply to land in the Green Belt”.
96.Whilst the above gaps are acknowledged as being within the defined Green Belt, they are also clearly important in terms of maintaining physical separation or defined settlements. As the majority of these settlements are also deemed villages then national Green Belt policy affords them lesser weight when having regard to grey belt considerations. Notwithstanding, NDMPs GB4 and GB7 also recognise that boundaries should not be changed or development considered appropriate where it would “fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan”. Chapter 14 of the new NPPF also places great weight on high-quality design, placemaking and recognising the importance of local characteristics. This is encapsulated by NDMP DE1 which states “Ensuring the vision for the plan reflects the desired design and placemaking outcomes. This should be informed by an evaluation of the area’s existing characteristics and potential”. Comment
97.When read as a whole therefore, the NPPF clearly recognises and supports the importance of maintaining settlements individual characteristics and integrity of what makes a settlement ‘unique’ or ‘special’. The NPPF does not advocate the merging or coalescence of settlements and indeed actively includes a purpose of Green Belt that actively discourages such an action. Comment
98.This matter has also been considered within the Green Belt Assessment in terms of how development within certain areas of the Borough could have a fundamental impact on the Green Belt when considered as a whole. See the Green Belt Chapter. Comment
99.As a result, the approach put forward by Policy SMBC/SS2 (above) is considered in accordance with the overall principles of both the 2024 and 2026 NPPF when taken as a whole. Comment
100.It is important to note that respective relationships between settlements within Solihull and neighbouring areas also remain important considerations. The two primary examples include: Comment
- Hockley Heath and Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Heath – whilst both settlements are within Solihull Borough, much of the land between the two sits within South Warwickshire. This relationship will be managed through an ongoing Duty to Cooperate as respective plans evolve, and planning applications are considered.
- Tidbury Green and Wythall – the gap between settlements is already relatively small and is pressurised by the presence of accessible railway stations. This relationship will continue to be managed through an ongoing Duty to Cooperate as respective plans evolve, and planning applications are considered, whilst it will also be strongly influenced by the River Cole and land immediately surrounding it.
[13] to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
[14] to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
[15] to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
[16] Previous to this, the Borough’s rural settlements were often referred to as villages, but this was in the absence of an objective assessment of them, and was left as such as it tended not to have any significant implications in policy terms.
[17] The assessment noted that it was clear that the rural settlements washed over by the Green Belt each had a small population and limited range of services such that they would clearly not reach a threshold for being considered as a town.
[18] In population terms, these are also the five villages in the Borough with the higher populations.
