1. ‘Tidbury Green’ should be deleted from paragraph 3 bullet point i. Policy P17 ‘Countryside and Green Belt’.
2. At Policy P17 paragraph 6 Tidbury Green should be added to the list of small inset settlements in the Green Belt which are not therefore subject to Green Belt policy.
3. Justification paragraph 423 should delete reference to ‘Tidbury Green’.
4. Justification paragraph 430 should add ‘Tidbury Green’ to the list of settlements which are referred to as inset from the Green Belt.
5. The Policies Map should be amended to inset Tidbury Green settlement from the Green Belt as shown on Enclosure 2 below forming part of this representation

Tidbury Green Policy P17 ‘Countryside and Green Belt’, Justification paragraphs 423 and 430, and the Policies Map.
1. Our Client Mr S Lane submits that the settlement of Tidbury Green should be inset within the Green Belt with the introduction of a Green Belt boundary around the perimeter of the village. The absence of a settlement boundary (as shown on the Policies Map) is unsound as it is contrary to national planning policy, for the following reasons –
• Land which is unnecessary to keep open has been retained within the Green Belt – contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 139b);
• Insufficient policy weight has been given to encouraging the development of all suitable land within existing small settlements to avoid the need to adjust Green Belt boundaries beyond the plan period – contrary to NPPF paragraph 139 e);
• Insufficient account has been taken of the more recent large-scale development which has occurred at Tidbury Green and the findings of the Green Belt Assessment, 2016. It is therefore contrary to NPPF paragraph 140 to continue to include the village within the Green Belt as it is no longer necessary to ‘restrict development in the village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt’; and
• Insufficient emphasis has been placed on the requirement to prioritise the efficient use of land, particularly brownfield land lying within settlement – contrary to NPPF paragraph 68, 117, 118 and 138.
2. These representations are submitted on behalf of our Client, Mr. S Lane, who owns ‘Steve Lane Cars Limited’, Tidbury Green Garage, 1 Lowbrook Lane, Tidbury Green, B90 1QR. They affirm that without substantive changes to the Draft Sub-mission Solihull Local Plan (SLP) Policy P17 ‘Countryside and Green Belt’ supporting justification and accompanying Policies Map showing Tidbury Green partially washed over by Green Belt and partially as ‘white land’ on the Policies Map it is unsound.
3. This representation should be read alongside the representations submitted on behalf of our Client in respect Policy P5 ‘Provision of Land for Housing’. Our Client contends that Policy P5 is unsound and has not undertaken the necessary steps regarding the legal Duty to Cooperate. The deliverability and developability of many of the proposed sources of residential land supply have not been robustly demonstrated and do not satisfy national planning policy requirements.
4. The result of the Council’s failure to identify a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable housing sites means that there is an immediate need to identify additional and/or alternative sustainable, suitable sites or broad areas. This would include removal of appropriate settlements currently washed over by Green Belt to facilitate meaningful windfall development by providing an inset boundary.
5. Removing land from the Green Belt should only occur through the plan-making process when justified by ‘exceptional circumstances’, as detailed in NPPF paragraphs 136 and 137. The significant need for housing and the shortage of an adequate housing land supply outside the Green Belt has satisfied this ‘exceptional circumstances’ test. However, to ensure that the minimum amount of protected greenfield Green Belt land is required for housing, it is important to both ensure that the Green Belt boundaries will endure beyond the plan period and to ensure that the land which is removed is put to the most effective use, to reduce future pressure to review Green Belt boundaries again.
6. In order to minimise the adverse impact on the Green Belt and prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, it is logical that land within the Green Belt, which is previously developed, and which currently contributes the least towards the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, should be prioritised for removal from the Green Belt and allocated for more intensive sustainable development. This will ensure the scale of greenfield Green Belt land required to meet the growth needs for the Borough are kept to a minimum and the impact on the Green Belt minimised – in line with national sustainable development objectives to protect resources and make effective use of land (NPPF paragraph 8).
7. Paragraph 140 of the NPPF states that, ‘If it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt…’ Therefore, conversely, it must be assumed that it would be inappropriate to include a village within the Green Belt which does not make an ‘important contribution’ towards the openness of the Green Belt.
8. NPPF paragraph 139 requires, ‘when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should, amongst other objectives:
a) ensure consistency with the development plan’s strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development;
b) not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open…
e) be able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period; and
f) define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.’ (our emphasis)
9. The character of Tidbury Green has changed significantly following the grant of planning permission at appeal for residential development at Lowbrook Farm and Tidbury Green Farm – identified as ‘white land’ on the Policies Map.
10. As part of the SLP Green Belt review process, it therefore vital for SMBC to critically examine whether it is still in line with national and local plan strategic policies for the larger, more sustainable settlements, which make little contribution towards openness, to continue to be washed over by Green Belt - particularly those with significant pockets of more densely developed ‘white land’, as is the case at Tidbury Green.
11. Our Client contends that it is unnecessary to keep the village ‘permanently open’ and it is in a sustainable location suitable for accommodating higher density windfall development to make the most efficient use of the land. Indeed, it is understood that the Tidbury Green village population has more than doubled since 2011, primarily as a result of the construction of the two significant new housing estates to the east and north west of the site. The character of the village has therefore changed significantly since it was originally washed over with Green Belt.
12. NPPF paragraph 138 explains that when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, it is necessary to consider promoting sustainable patterns of development. Plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport.
13. NPPF paragraph 68 requires local planning authorities to promote the development of a good mix of sites including by giving, ‘c) support the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions – giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes…’
14. NPPF paragraph 117 requires that, ‘Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land’
15. NPPF Paragraph 118 explains that planning policies and decisions should, amongst other aims: ‘c) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, and d) promote and support the development of underutilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively.’
16. Encouragement is given to sustainable development of land, NPPF paragraph 122, states that, ‘Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land’, whilst, of course, respecting the prevailing character of the area, the availability of infrastructure and services, viability, the need for different housing types, and the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.
17. Paragraph 223 of the Draft Submission Solihull Local Plan (SLP) recognises the important contribution housing development on windfall sites can make to the housing requirement. Post 2022 it is anticipated that 200 dwellings will be provided on windfall sites per annum, which equates to approximately 21% of the borough’s housing need.
18. NPPF paragraph 123 requires that, ‘Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site.’
19. For the following reasons, the ‘washed over’ Green Belt designation for Tidbury Green settlement, (which includes our Client’s approximately 0.08ha brownfield site suitable and available for more efficient use - as set out in more detail below), should be inset into the Green Belt with a settlement boundary.
20. Tidbury Green does not have an ‘open character’ making an ‘important contribution’ towards the openness of the Green Belt. SMBC’s Green Belt Assessment published in July 2016, concluded that, other than the ribbon of development fronting onto Tilehouse Lane which scored only 3 (RP74), it has a combined score of zero out of a possible maximum score of 12 (RP76) when judged against the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt as set out at paragraph 134 of the NPPF:
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.’
21. This means that it is judged to contribute little to these purposes. The Report states on page 17 that ‘There are however Refined Parcels which do not perform against any of the first four purposes of Green Belt. These parcels include…RP76 Land between Lowbrook Lane and Norton Lane.’
22. Development on windfall sites within a new settlement boundary at Tidbury Green would cause less harm to openness and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt than the majority of the proposed site allocations in the SLP which score more highly in the Green Belt Assessment. Brownfield previously developed land is a priority for directing development to ensure effective use of resources and minimise the need for development on greenfield sites.
23. Many of the proposed sites for allocation are situated in areas which make a moderate to high contribution towards the Green Belt purposes, have landscapes sensitive to development, have a rural character, and have other constraints, such as existing playing fields, heritage assets of areas of high ecological importance – none of these constraints restrict development on brownfield land within Tidbury Green settlement.
24. Tidbury Green is in a sustainable location. Our Client’s site which is centrally located within the settlement is less than 300 metres from bus stops, to the north and north east, and Tidbury Green School lies less than 200 metres from the site. Tidbury Green also benefits from two churches, a sports and social club, a restaurant and village hall. Planning permission has recently been granted for a public house in Grade II Listed Tidbury Green Farm on Fulford Hall Road (planning application number PL/2019/00039/PPFL).
25. Wythall/Grimes Hill, about 0.9 km away, has a post office, Spar and surgery while approximately 1km north east Dickens Heath offers a wider range of retail, restaurant and community facilities.
26. There are two railway stations available for Tidbury Green residents, at Wythall and Whitlock’s End. Whitlock’s End railway station, approximately 1.5 km to the north of the existing site, provides a 20-minute service frequency to Kidderminster, Worcester, Birmingham and Stratford-on-Avon. Wythall station, which lies approximately 1 km from the centre of Tidbury Green to the west, provides hourly services to Stourbridge Junction, Birmingham and Stratford-Upon-Avon.
27. This brownfield site comprises a hard surface forecourt with space for 22 cars adjacent to the junction, and a two-storey brick and tile building adjacent to residential dwellings. The building comprises a car sales area, vehicle workshop, and two independent residential units – one within the remaining ground floor area and the other at first floor level.
28. The site is not within an area liable to the risk of flooding and none of the existing buildings or any buildings within the vicinity are of any special architectural significance and the site does not lie within a Conservation Area.
29. SMBC’s Meeting Housing Needs Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), 2004 ‘Planning for Local Housing Market Demand’ subsection, paragraph 9.6 states that, the Council will expect developments to contribute towards addressing mismatches between housing demand and supply to meet the Local Plan objective to address imbalances between housing supply and local demand. In the rural housing market area of Tidbury Green, the proportion of 1- and 2-bedroom dwellings sought will be 50% of all new market dwellings. Paragraph 9.7, Step 1, states that there is evidence of a need for flat/apartment development in all locations and provision of this type of accommodation will be supported in principle.
30. Our Client’s site provides a representative example of the scale of redevelopment which could be achieved on suitable, sustainable windfall sites within Tidbury Green. The approximately 0.08 ha roughly rectangular site is located within a residential, built-up area, at the junction of Lowbrook Lane, Dickens Heath Road, Fulford Hall Road and Tilehouse Lane within the village.
31. A potential redevelopment scheme for the site has been produced in consultation with a highway engineer. The illustrative layout (plan number 20013(ALL)01-A – Enclosure 1) demonstrates that five 1-bed and four 2-bed apartments (with 15 parking spaces) could be provided. This would also contribute towards meeting the identified local need for smaller dwellings, particularly for flats/apartments. With the site’s position on a corner, this allows the opportunity for a ‘landmark’ building to be created at this prominent entrance to the village.
32. Development within a new inset boundary, rather than development within the village of Tidbury Green being limited to purely ‘infill’ development or the complete redevelopment of previously developed land, would cause less harm to openness and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt than many/all of the proposed site allocations.
33. Introducing an inset Green Belt settlement boundary for Tidbury Green would allow small and medium sized windfall sites such as our Client’s site to be brought forward within the new boundary for residential development in this sustainable larger village, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 68 recommendations.
34. Tidbury Green settlement has clearly defined physical defensible boundaries of roads, woodland and the River Cole could form the new Green Belt boundary in accordance with NPPF requirements.
35. ‘Tidbury Green’ should be deleted from paragraph 3 bullet point i. Policy P17 ‘Countryside and Green Belt’.
36. At Policy P17 paragraph 6 Tidbury Green should be added to the list of small inset settlements in the Green Belt which are not therefore subject to Green Belt policy.
37. Justification paragraph 423 should delete reference to ‘Tidbury Green’.
38. Justification paragraph 430 should add ‘Tidbury Green’ to the list of settlements which are referred to as inset from the Green Belt.
39. The Policies Map should be amended to inset Tidbury Green settlement from the Green Belt as shown on Enclosure 2 below forming part of this representation