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 usedto 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