| Councillor Courts on planning in the context of the West Midlands Spatial Development Strategy | Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council In September, I wrote about the challenges Solihull faces in meeting the housing targets established by government. I tried to explain the nuts and bolts of what is a really complicated legal and policy situation. Last week, I read a press release from the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) about the West Midlands Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy (SDS): that the opportunity was being given to share your views on future planning. I felt this needed clarification and an explanation of the relationship with what Solihull is doing. I think everyone understands the pressure of need for housing and Solihull has always been willing to play its part. However, the issue is the where, the how, the when, as well as the numbers; fundamental to this are the policy changes made by the new government regarding development in the Green Belt, which constitutes two thirds of our borough. In 1955 the system of Green Belt protection was set up and has endured. The rules were clear. To develop in the Green Belt, you needed to prove what is known as ‘exceptional circumstances.’ There was even an argument that housing need did not justify removing that status. Solihull won countless appeals against planning applications refused by the Council where it was seeking to protect the Green Belt. Last year’s updated National Planning Policy Framework changed all that. It says in paragraph 155 that housing need effectively trumps Green Belt protection. This is through the new concept of ‘Grey Belt’, so we are now seeing the argument crop up to whether, in effect, Green Belt protection for a particular site is justified or even applicable. For this purpose, it has also lowered the protection given against encroachment of Green Belt in the countryside and puts the emphasis on preventing merging between towns (but not villages!). We now understand that the role of the local planning committee is also to be reduced by government, but the details of this are not clear yet. Another change made was to introduce new powers for regional mayors and require the setting up of spatial development strategies. Some of you may recall that regional planning (the Regional Spatial Strategy (or RSS) as it was then) provided targets for local plans to meet, but these were removed in 2010 and were replaced by a ‘duty-to-cooperate’. The West Midlands Combined Authority, at its board meeting in July, resolved to start work on this, based on a number of principles. Initially there were set to be seven of these: co-development with councils; timelines; infrastructure first; brownfield first; additionality to local authority plans; evidence led; integration with other national / local plans; and I was pleased to get support to add an eighth ‘enhancing the functions of green spaces’. I was also able to secure an amendment introducing an additional ‘member oversight’ process, enabling councillors to engage with and comment on the work as it progresses. Solihull will be one of the three members represented on this group. What is accepted is that in total the seven councils of the WMCA will not be able to meet our housing needs, but other adjacent rural areas such as Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire have increased targets too. The map below illustrates the Green Belt in the West Midlands, and you can see how little is left in the metropolitan area (the area covered by the Combined Authority and the SDS – outlined in orange). It’s clear that the majority is located within Solihull so you can see why we are so vulnerable to attack. But the Green Belt has to be about more than just somewhere to build houses, and this is why I have been championing the added principle for the SDS and will continue to focus on the importance of our green spaces and local character. We will continue to take active steps to fight our corner in the region to protect our borough. We all know our motto is ‘Urbs in Rure’ – town in country. Locally, I continue to stress that planning needs to be done on the best principles of good design, not just developers’ boxes. We must look at development that makes best use of existing infrastructure, minimising pressure on existing congested communities. It must also provide proper green infrastructure to help address the massive decline in wildlife species that we are seeing. The houses to be built should be for local people and allow the young to buy their first home in the communities they grew up in. So let me resort to a few more Q & As, with the regional context in mind. What is the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) about? The SDS will contain a statement of policies, of “strategic” importance about land use and development; it needs to ensure collective need is met, redistributing where need cannot be met; infrastructure needs; and mitigation of climate change. Importantly it will work across administrative boundaries covering the seven metropolitan councils (Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton). Allocation of actual housing sites is down to local councils, as are detailed policies that will help shape the development that is to take place. These will be contained within a Local Plan. Will the West Midlands SDS dictate numbers of housing in Solihull? Will it say where the housing goes? The SDS is expected to indicate a housing requirement for the whole area, as well as each of the seven constituent authorities. This will need to have regard to the evidence base that sits behind it – including land supply, constraints and infrastructure. It’s important to note that we already have a housing requirement set out by government that I highlighted in my previous message. This forms the basis for the work in the SDS. Whilst the SDS may include some broad directions for growth it is not expected to allocate specific sites. Will development be infrastructure led? The statements have been clear in government announcements about the importance of infrastructure and facilities. The question is whether funding will be there to match the need, and how, in planning terms at least, that ‘need’ is defined. The SDS includes a specific principle around ‘infrastructure first’ and does offer a revised platform from which infrastructure needs can be considered on a cross-boundary basis. What will be the timing of the SDS in relation to our own Local Plan? Plan making requires a great deal of work in assembling evidence and consultation. It is not, and should not be, something that is rushed through without the opportunity for community and stakeholder input. A possible three-year period has been mentioned for the SDS, which is not dissimilar to our own Local Plan timetable. Government expects Local Plans to be in general conformity with an SDS though, and as a result this will be an important test when our Local Plan is examined. We will therefore need to review our own timescale to ensure there is necessary alignment of principles. Can any of our requirement be transferred elsewhere? We are not the only area to be faced with significantly increased numbers, and there are limited places in cities now to build, so we must be realistic. We are working closely with neighbouring authorities and the WMCA, though, and wherever we can identify appropriate opportunities we will. This may include some of the West Midlands need being accommodated in Staffordshire, Warwickshire or Worcestershire. What progress is being made with the Solihull Plan? Work is ongoing, with a report expected for Cabinet in December. However, this will need to acknowledge the timelines being established for the SDS as well as its strategic context and direction of travel. Councillor Ian Courts |
HHPC News
The Spacial Development Strategy (SDS) will set out the strategic framework for housing, infrastructure and economic growth at regional level.
Drop in events are being run (the next event is Friday 7 November at Touchwood Solihull, 9.30am to 6.30pm) and other events are being held in Dudley, Birmingham, Sandwell and Walsall, with the final event on 6 December in Coventry.
More details can be found here: West Midlands Spatial Development Strategy
Indurent are proposing and will be seeking outline planning permission for up to 980,000 sq ft of industrial and logistics space in the Parish of Hockley Heath. The consultation is open and runs until 23 November 2025. The Parish Council were made aware of this proposal by Indurent via email on Wednesday 5 November at 17:38.
The link to the consultation is here: Indurent Park – Solihull – A flagship employment development near J4 of the M42
 With planning a hot topic at the moment, and recent changes to national policy, our Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Managed Growth, Councillor Ian Courts, sets out our position in Solihull and some of the challenges we face: With these recent changes, it seems that Solihull is under siege from developers trying to get planning permission for their sites. The Council is developing a new Local Plan and is looking at what the options would be, as well as examining the results of its Call for Sites exercise, as sites in any plan must have support from the landowner in order to be deliverable. The Government has gone for a growth agenda, requiring 1.5m homes to be built in a five-year period and Solihull has been given its share. National planning policy and guidance has also been changed, in effect, making it easier to build in the Green Belt. All of this will have a dramatic effect on the borough, and everyone should be concerned about what this may mean for all of us. I am attempting here to explain some of the issues that we are facing. How the figure is calculated Since 2018 national planning policy has used a standard method for calculating an area’s ‘Local Housing Need’ and it has been used as a starting point to work out what housing requirement should be included in Councils’ Local Plans. However, the changes made to national policy last year mean that housing numbers have markedly shifted from urban authorities to rural authorities. So much so that it is no longer reasonable to call them ‘local’ housing needs. This will inevitably mean more migration into the borough. Not only does the new method drop the use of household projections, but it has also significantly increased the affordability multiplier. The affordability multiplier is based on a comparison between house prices and earnings, and the less affordable a location is the greater the multiplier becomes. What does this mean for Solihull? Previously, the Council was seeking to meet housing needs by planning for 816 additional dwellings each year. Under the new method, for calculating an area’s ‘Local Housing Need’ this has increased by 63% to 1,331 dwellings each year. Over the course of a typical plan period, this increase amounts to at least another 8,500[1] dwellings. To put this into context, this is similar in size to needing another Knowle and Dorridge. Do we have to comply? Can we not just say “no”? Ministers have made it clear[2] that these are mandatory housing targets. And this will be tested when our plan is independently examined. Do we have to build on Green Belt? Planning guidance has changed, to make it clear that Green Belt must be used to meet this new ‘need’. How this issue is tackled has also been changed, including the introduction of a concept called ‘Grey Belt’. The definition of this is not as we originally thought (redundant garage sites etc, which were always brownfield anyway), but land that is not considered to make a strong contribution to preventing unrestricted sprawl and preventing towns from merging. Whilst the Government have issued guidance around this subject, there will still be scope for this to be debated through the plan-making process and when planning applications are determined. However, the Council will do what it can, and this has included looking again at the settlement hierarchy of settlements in the rural area, in particular which are towns and which are villages. Can we not build more in our towns? We will maintain a brownfield first approach, and this includes making the most of opportunities in locations such as the town centre and at the NEC. But this will not contribute enough, there are simply not enough suitable locations. So can we go higher? Yes, in some circumstances we can, and we will continue to encourage this, but just how high do we want to go? And this must be in the right locations, not for instance on the edge of the Green Belt, or on sites that have been released from the Green Belt. We must also be careful not to overestimate the potential housing supply from these sources. As we have found previously, we must be able to demonstrate the deliverability of schemes that have such an increase in densities over and above what has been built previously. Can our neighbouring local authorities not take some of the numbers? These discussions will take place, but we need to remember that they have targets too[3]. Some authorities in Warwickshire, for instance, have had their targets increased by 63% as well. Whereas cities have seen their numbers reduce, for example Birmingham’s has fallen by 38%, but these urban areas still have limited capacities. It is in this context that a new West Midlands wide plan is being developed by the Mayor of the region, using new powers that he has available. We will continue to push for a fair distribution of housing needs through this process. So where could the new allocations go in Solihull? This is still under consideration. Government policy is that priority should be given to brownfield sites and the Grey Belt where they are in sustainable locations – this could mean areas around train stations, or settlements that have a full range of services. Does government not talk about ‘infrastructure first’? Yes, but the workings of planning practice are often very different from the reality. We must ensure that new infrastructure is necessary; related to the development being proposed; and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. This means that some infrastructure will need to be provided before the new houses are occupied, but other infrastructure may be provided on a phased basis; and we can’t be excessive in ‘our asks’, otherwise we will be challenged. Some examples of issues that arise include: Transport and highway measures – we can only ask for measures on safety grounds or if effects on the highway network are ‘severe’. School places – we work closely with our school place planning team and already secure financial contributions towards new facilities. Phasing needs to be considered carefully, for instance if a new development of around 1,000 dwellings needs a new school, then it wouldn’t be practical for it to be available on day one when the first house is built, but rather become available on a phased basis, since a development of this size would take around 10-12 years to be completed. Heath facilities – we work closely with the Integrated Care Board (who coordinate facilities) so that new infrastructure can be provided in relation to new facilities or extensions to existing premises. This ensures that physical capacity is available at premises, but it is still the responsibility of the service providers to ensure they deploy their resources to ensure services are available. Flood risk alleviation – this is assessed on a site-by-site basis and will use a variety of means to ensure run off rates from new development are managed. For instance, this can be through balancing pools and swales that regulate flows to that which would be expected from a green field. Where will development have to go? This will be determined through the plan-making process, but in the meantime, we will get planning applications for development in the Green Belt. Some of these already relate to sites previously proposed in the 2020 Local Plan Review, and indeed some of these have already been approved by planning committee. Others will be more speculative developments on sites we had not previously considered but which may be categorised as Grey Belt under the new national policy. We will be vulnerable to this type of proposal, but expect all such decisions to be taken by our Planning Committee with the support of council officers. Will the same wards have to take all the development? The additional numbers are very large, perhaps the geographical area of Knowle/Dorridge. Accommodating this will be a tough challenge. As explained above, there is a methodology that is adopted, which means that there are a limited number of areas where development can go. Challenges will include the following: In communities like Balsall Common and Knowle, we must look at development opportunities closer to the transport arteries like the motorways / UKC Hub / train stations, to take off the pressure from the community centres. Solihull is the main Green Belt infrastructure between Birmingham and Coventry. Green Belt needs to be looked at strategically, not just the Meriden Gap, but other areas around the urban area of Solihull. The town vs village argument goes on, with the latter receiving less protection under the new planning guidance. However, whatever their definition, villages have their own importance and context in the Green Belt in helping prevent coalescence and providing communities with their own sense of identity. Density needs to be looked at. We need more starter and first homes to provide the homes for our young people in the borough to buy. However, we must pay more attention to design, and review parking needs, as most developments will inevitably be in more rural areas, less well served by public transport. In planning our bus network, at regional level we have voiced the need to anticipate just where the growth will be coming from. Substantial ‘Green Infrastructure’ must be a guiding principle, to provide green spaces for people to enjoy, but also local and wider biodiversity corridors for our wildlife. As you will appreciate from my comments, the nature of the changes to national policy makes an often-complicated planning system even more complex! This will mean we are asked by developers and expected by government to make some challenging decisions. However, I want to assure you that we remain committed to navigating our way through the system with the best interests of the borough in mind at all times. Councillor Ian Courts [1] 1,331 dpa – 816 dpa = 515 dpa. Over a 17-year plan period this is 515 x 17 = 8,755. [2] See Written Ministerial Statement from Mathew Pennycook made on 12th December 2024. [3] The New Standard Method – What Does it Mean for Local Housing Need? – Pegasus Group |
Please see below, details of an emergency road closure:
Works on behalf of: Severn Trent Water.
Reason for closure: 1.6M DEEP EXCAVATION REPAIR REQUIRED TO REPAIR FRACTURED AND DEFORMED * PIPE WITH VOID IN THE BOTTOM AND SCALE WEDGED AT THE LOCATION.
Name of road and extent affected: Near no. 100 Dorridge Road, Dorridge.
Dates and times of closure: 09/09/25-12/09/25 at 16.00hrs.
Access for emergency services can be maintained: YES.
Contact Name: STW Sewerage.
Contact Details: 02079494510.
Plan of works attached: No.
If you would like to discuss any technical aspect of the closure, please contact the Council’s Highway Services Division on 0121 704 8004. or for more information on Solihull’s permanent, temporary or experimental Traffic Regulation Orders, please visit:
The Parish Council have received an update on the Preferred Options stage of the South Warwickshire Local Plan (SWLP) from Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick District Councils.
The preferred options consultation comments have now been published, which will inform the next stage in the process, which is the Regulation 19 publication stage.
There will be an opportunity to make further comments on the next stage of the Local Plan before it is submitted for public examination.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Sir/Madam,
You are receiving this email either because you are a statutory consultee, you have expressed an interest in Local Development Plans, you have previously engaged in respect of the South Warwickshire Loca Plan, or you have requested that we inform you of all planning policy updates.
Preferred Options Consultation Representations
On 10th January 2025 we launched our South Warwickshire Local Plan Preferred Options (Regulation 18) consultation. Thank you to all those who have made comments. We can confirm that the consultation ended on 7th March 2025 at 23:59pm.
The Preferred Options Consultation was the third consultation stage in the process for preparing the new South Warwickshire Local Plan. It contained a number of draft policies and policy directions that covered issues identified and analysed at earlier stages of the South Warwickshire Local Plan preparation process: Scoping, Call for Sites and Issues and Options consultation. Additionally, the Preferred Options consultation sought views on the proposed Growth Strategy which sets out the proposals for how the development needs across Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick Districts are to be met.
The summaries of the representations have now been published following the Preferred Options consultation. These comments are available to view within the online consultation portal available via the SWLP website. Instructions on how to view these representations are available on the first page when opening this link.
Thank you for your patience whilst the SWLP team worked to ensure all the submitted representations were suitable for publishing. We received an extremely large volume of responses that required verification before we could make them available online.
Please note that these are just summaries. Some representations addressed multiple questions but had been submitted under a single question. To ensure clarity, we have summarised the key points and allocated them to the relevant questions. In a few instances, responses have also been edited to remove language that was not suitable for publication. We are currently preparing a Consultation Statement that will be published on the website later this year.
We will be analysing and using the representations to the Preferred Options consultation to help inform the next stage of the South Warwickshire Local Plan preparation, which is the Regulation 19 publication stage. There will be an opportunity for people to make further comments on this next stage of the Local Plan before it is submitted for public examination.
You can find out more information about the South Warwickshire Local Plan at: www.southwarwickshire.org.uk/swlp
Further contact information for the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
Stratford-on-Avon District Council Warwick District Council
Email: swlp@stratford-dc.gov.uk Email: swlp@warwickdc.gov.uk
Phone: 01789 267575 Phone: 01926 456525