Important Questions for local residents to 3 very close West Midlands Villages
This intro is taken from the KDBH web site and the article “When is a village not a Village”
For most residents of Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath (KDBH), the area is (and always will be) a village – or perhaps three villages joined together. To suggest anything else would be unthinkable. But that is just what the Neighbourhood Forum is having to consider. Here’s why – and it’s all to do with the Green Belt.
For decades, the residents of KDBH have enjoyed the protection of the Green Belt. Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath is an island within the Green Belt. The built-up area is surrounded by the Green Belt on all sides. This has helped the area benefit from two of the main purposes of Green Belts – protection from unrestricted urban sprawl; and prevention of the merger of towns (such as Solihull with KDBH). But the world order is changing (and not just because of tariffs!). The Government is keen to relax controls over building in the Green Belt. A category called “grey belt” has been invented (Green Belt that doesn’t contribute strongly to certain Green Belt purposes) – and building in the grey belt has become a whole lot easier.
The Government has called on Councils such as Solihull to take a fresh look at its Green Belt and see what land doesn’t perform so well. At the same time, the Council is preparing a replacement Local Plan. This will allocate new sites to meet the Borough’s housing needs, many of them on the new grey belt. In a “Call for Sites” exercise, the Council has asked people to suggest sites where the new development might go. Nearly 50 of these sites are on the fringes of KDBH in the current Green Belt.* Continued protection depends on full Green Belt status being maintained. Grey belt sites are ripe for development.
The current problem comes from the Government’s new rules. For example, checking urban sprawl relates to the sprawl of built up areas and it is stated that “village should not be considered large built up areas”. And when it comes to preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another, “The purpose relates to the merging of towns, not villages”. See the problem? If KDBH continues to be regarded as a village, KDBH can hardly be said to be contributing strongly to Green Belt purposes. It will become grey belt, vulnerable to new building.
Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath has many of the characteristics of a town. It is a continuous built-up area with a population approaching 20,000. It is larger than the ‘town’ of Marston Green. It has a population not much smaller than traditional towns such as Kenilworth; and places like Oakham, the county town of Rutland, are much smaller altogether. It is hardly a settlement ‘smaller than a town, usually in the countryside’ which is a common definition of a village.
With this in mind, the Forum is arguing that, for the purposes of protecting the Green Belt, KDBH can be regarded as a large built up area or town. That doesn’t change residents’ vision of a cherished village or series of villages, or the Forum’s efforts to preserve its unique atmosphere. Long may that continue; and long may we continue to enjoy the full protection of our surrounding Green Belt.
The following article is my follow up to the excellent article on the KDBH web site and is a question and answer overviw of the problems we face. For the technical people reading this article, I hope it opens up a heap of questions for you to research and add to your Knowledge base, I certainly had loads of questions, and I openly acknowledge the long text chats I had with Google Gemini, clarifying the law and strategy.
See my article on opening up to an AI, its so important to not just demand an article you have to give context, your feelings and knowledge of the subject, even the many preliminary articles I had written, before a consensus was reached.
See the article “How I Teach Students to use an AI”
The scays Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
A brief summary of the Green Belt in the UK re planning
The UK Green Belt is a key and highly restrictive land-use planning policy. Its fundamental aim is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, with openness and permanence being its essential characteristics.
It currently covers about 12.6% of England’s land area, clustered around 15 major urban cores like London and Manchester.
Key Purposes of the Green Belt
The policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), serves five specific purposes:
Check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
Prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another.
Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
Assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land (often referred to as brownfield sites).
Restrictions on Development
In the Green Belt, there is a general presumption against “inappropriate development.” This makes it a highly restrictive policy, essentially reversing the typical presumption in favour of development.
The General Rule
Inappropriate Development: This is considered harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in “very special circumstances.” The burden of proof is on the developer to demonstrate that the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm.
Main Exceptions
While the policy is highly restrictive, certain types of development are not considered “inappropriate” (or are otherwise permitted) provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt:
Buildings for Agriculture and Forestry: Essential facilities for these uses.
Outdoor Sport and Recreation: Facilities like changing rooms or small structures for golf courses, provided they don’t impact openness.
Limited Alterations: The extension or alteration of an existing building, provided it is not disproportionate to the original building.
Replacement Buildings: Replacing an existing building, provided the new one is in the same use and not materially larger.
Redevelopment of Previously Developed Land (Brownfield/Grey Belt): This is allowed if it does not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development.
Thanks for reading The scays Newsletter! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Boundary Changes
The boundaries of the Green Belt are intended to be permanent. They should only be altered by a Local Planning Authority (LPA) through the Local Plan process when “exceptional circumstances” are fully evidenced and justified, often to meet housing needs that cannot be met on non-Green Belt land. Recent policy changes also encourage the assessment of a new category of land known as ‘Grey Belt’ (previously developed land in the Green Belt that makes a limited contribution to its purposes) to focus new development there first.
What if the village changes to a town because three villages merge
That scenario brings into sharp focus the purpose and permanence of the Green Belt policy, as well as the ongoing political and technical debates in UK planning.
Here is a summary of what happens in planning terms if the coalescence of villages creates a larger settlement, effectively a new town:
1. Coalescence and the Green Belt Purpose
The coalescence (merging) of settlements directly engages two key purposes of the Green Belt:
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
If three villages expand and merge due to development, the Green Belt land that historically separated them would have failed in its purpose (or that of a locally defined Strategic Gap).
The Problem: The land separating those settlements (the “gaps”) was intended to maintain their separate identities. Once they effectively merge into a single, larger town, that specific function of the Green Belt land in that area is arguably lost.
2. Policy Implications and Boundary Review
The Green Belt boundaries themselves do not automatically change just because a settlement grows or merges. Boundaries are only altered through the formal process of a Local Plan Review by the Local Planning Authority (LPA).
Exceptional Circumstances: Altering a Green Belt boundary requires “exceptional circumstances.” The creation of a new, larger town (or conurbation) that merges once-separate settlements can be part of the justification to review the boundaries.
Settlement Hierarchy: The LPA would typically review its settlement hierarchy in the Local Plan. If the combined area is now formally designated as a “town,” the planning policy for the surrounding Green Belt must be reviewed in this new context.
The Critical Difference: Recent planning guidance has explicitly stated that the Green Belt purpose to prevent merging relates to towns, not villages. If the newly merged area is now classified as a town, the policy protecting the gap between it and other towns intensifies. However, the land between the original villages, now part of the town’s footprint, has lost its original purpose for separation.
“Grey Belt” Assessment: In the review, the LPA would assess this land using the new ‘Grey Belt’ criteria. Land that no longer contributes strongly to the Green Belt’s purposes (such as the land already built upon or the ineffective former gaps) is a candidate for de-designation.
3. The Outcome: Green Belt Land Release
If the Local Plan Review confirms the coalescence has effectively rendered the Green Belt land redundant for its intended separation function, the likely outcome is the release of that land from the Green Belt designation.
Re-designation: The LPA must then propose an amended boundary for the new, larger town. This process would require clear justification that the removal of this land does not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the wider area of the plan.
Focus on the New Edge: Once the new, consolidated town is established, the focus of the Green Belt protection shifts to the new outer edge, which acts to check the unrestricted sprawl of the now-larger built-up area.
What if the LPA then designate the green belt to the edge of the new town as poor land not worthy of being greenbelt and predesignate as Greybelt
That move by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is precisely what the new ‘Grey Belt’ policy is designed to enable. It provides a formal route to unlock specific parcels of land for development without entirely dismantling the Green Belt’s protection.
Here is a breakdown of the implications for the land on the edge of a newly merged town:
1. Formal Definition of ‘Grey Belt’
The LPA would formally identify the land as ‘Grey Belt’ through a Green Belt Assessment during the preparation or review of their Local Plan.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines Grey Belt as land in the Green Belt that is:
Previously Developed Land (PDL/Brownfield), and/or
Any other land that does not strongly contribute to the core Green Belt purposes of:
(a) Checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
(b) Preventing neighbouring towns merging.
(d) Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.
In our scenario, the merged villages now forming a town means the Green Belt land right on the new edge would likely be assessed as not strongly contributing to Purpose (b) (stopping the merge) or Purpose (a) (checking sprawl), especially if the land is already visually degraded, enclosed by existing development, or poorly performing.
2. Shift in Planning Test (The ‘Openness’ Test)
This is the most significant consequence of the Grey Belt designation:
Original Green Belt: Any development is considered “inappropriate” unless rescued by “very special circumstances.” Harm to the “openness” of the Green Belt is given substantial weight against a proposal.
New Grey Belt: Once land is designated as Grey Belt, the presumption against development is weakened. Proposals are considered “not inappropriate” development if they meet certain criteria (see Section 3 below). Crucially, development on Grey Belt land is not subject to the same strict openness test, making it much easier to approve new buildings.
3. Conditions for Development (The Golden Rules)
The release of Grey Belt land, particularly for major housing, is subject to a strict sequential approach and “Golden Rules” to ensure development benefits the local community:
A. Sequential Test Priority
The LPA must demonstrate they have exhausted all other options first:
Prioritise Brownfield land outside the Green Belt.
Prioritise Brownfield land within the Green Belt (a sub-set of Grey Belt).
Prioritise other Grey Belt land that is not previously developed.
Only then consider higher-performing Green Belt land.
B. The ‘Not Inappropriate’ Tests
For a proposal on Grey Belt land to be approved, it must meet these tests:
No Undermining: The development must not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the wider area.
Demonstrable Need: There must be a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed (e.g., housing, commercial, or other).
Sustainable Location: The site must be in a sustainable location, with good access to transport and amenities.
Golden Rules (for major housing): The development must include:
A contribution to affordable housing (often set at 50% in policy discussions).
Necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure.
Provision of new, or improvements to existing, accessible green spaces for the public.
Are there any benefits to the three villages if they are forces to merge and be valled a small town
This is an excellent question that gets right to the heart of the trade-offs in local planning. While the loss of a distinct village identity is often the primary local concern, the coalescence and reclassification as a small town can unlock significant tangible benefits for the residents.
Here are the key advantages for the merged villages and the surrounding community:
1. Major Infrastructure Investment (The ‘Golden Rules’)
The most significant benefit comes from the ability to trigger large-scale infrastructure funding. Villages, as smaller settlements, rarely attract the investment required for major upgrades. A larger, reclassified town can:
Trigger Developer Contributions (Golden Rules): If the land on the periphery is released as ‘Grey Belt’ for major housing development, the Golden Rules of the planning system require significant investment in:
Necessary improvements to local infrastructure: This can include entirely new or expanded public services like a new or extended GP surgery, new primary or secondary schools, and significant highway improvements to handle the increased population.
Affordable Housing: A substantial proportion of the new homes built on the Grey Belt must be designated as affordable housing (often a 50% target), directly helping local families who might otherwise be priced out.
Viable Public Transport: A larger population base makes new or more frequent bus routes, or even better rail service, economically viable for operators, reducing reliance on cars and improving access to jobs and services.
2. Improved Access to Services and Amenities
A larger settlement is more sustainable and attractive to businesses, leading to better day-to-day living for residents:
Retail and Amenities: Increased population supports a wider range of shops, supermarkets (the “Tesco Express Test” in planning circles), restaurants, and local services that a single village could not sustain. This means residents don’t have to drive long distances for basic needs.
Healthcare and Education: A town is more likely to be prioritised for a larger health centre or the retention/expansion of a secondary school, ensuring better provision for the community’s long-term needs.
Employment Opportunities: Increased scale and a more diverse workforce can attract new employers, leading to local jobs and reducing the need for lengthy commutes.
3. Stronger Planning Protection (The “Town Loophole”)
Counterintuitively, the move from “village” to “town” can sometimes be a strategic defensive measure for the Local Planning Authority (LPA):
Stronger Green Belt Defence: National planning guidance draws a crucial distinction between a town and a village. For Green Belt purposes:
The rule about preventing the merging of settlements specifically refers to towns, not villages.
The rule about checking unrestricted sprawl refers to large built-up areas, which usually includes towns but not villages.
Exploiting Policy Gaps: Some LPAs (like Solihull Council) have proposed reclassifying large villages as towns to strengthen their policy position, arguing that Green Belt protection is meant to be stronger around major established settlements. This makes it harder for speculative developers to argue that Green Belt land on the new periphery should be released.
In short, while the merged town may lose the quiet, distinct character of its former villages, the residents gain a critical mass that justifies and finances the high-quality infrastructure and sustainable amenities necessary for a thriving modern community.
General comments on the scenario, for Dorridge, Knowle and Bently Heath,
Knowle, Dorridge, and Bentley Heath (KDBH), along with Balsall Common, are at the centre of an ongoing, very real planning debate in Solihull about settlement reclassification and the Grey Belt.
The council’s proposal to group KDBH and classify it as a single “town” for planning purposes is a deliberate, proactive strategy to navigate the UK’s updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the introduction of the ‘Grey Belt.’
Here is a summary of the situation and why the council is taking this unique approach:
The Solihull Strategy: Reclassify to Protect
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council’s (SMBC) proposal to redefine these large settlements as “towns” is directly aimed at strengthening Green Belt protection, exploiting a recent policy distinction:
The Critical Policy Loophole
The most recent planning guidance states that when assessing whether land is “Grey Belt” (i.e., low-performing and therefore suitable for development), the assessment criteria are softer for land surrounding villages than for land separating towns:
Preventing Coalescence (Merging): This Green Belt purpose explicitly relates to “the merging of towns, not villages.”
Checking Sprawl: This purpose relates to the sprawl of “large built-up areas,” which specifically do not include villages.
The Council’s Logic
If KDBH is a ‘Village’ (Current Status): The land between KDBH and other major towns (like Solihull itself, or the gap between KDBH and Balsall Common) is viewed as only weakly contributing to the Green Belt’s purposes because villages don’t qualify for the strongest protections. This makes the land immediately vulnerable to being labelled ‘Grey Belt’ and allocated for development.
If KDBH is a ‘Town’ (Proposed Status): KDBH’s combined population (approaching 20,000) and full range of services (including secondary schools, health services, etc.) support a technical reclassification as a small town. This change means the Green Belt land surrounding it and separating it from other towns (like Balsall Common) suddenly serves the strong purpose of preventing the merging of towns. This instantly makes it harder to classify that land as low-performing ‘Grey Belt,’ giving it significantly stronger protection.
What Does This Means on the Ground for Residents (Identity vs. Protection)
Reassurance on Identity: The council has stressed that the reclassification is for planning purposes only; residents are still free to refer to their communities as villages. The goal is to protect the local character, not erase it.
Concerns about Overdevelopment: Despite the protective intent, residents are understandably concerned about the large number of new homes already planned for the area (over 2,000 homes in KDBH in the pipeline) and whether the infrastructure (roads, schools) can cope. The reclassification is seen by some as a necessary measure to stop a bad situation from becoming much worse.
For Future Development (The Trade-Off)
A “Planning Barrier”: The move is an attempt to create a legal and policy-based barrier to unwanted, speculative Green Belt development.
Focus on Existing Sites: By protecting the remaining Green Belt gaps, the council is signalling that development will need to be concentrated on the already identified and less protected land, or brownfield/grey belt land within the new town’s boundary, where the “Golden Rules” for affordable housing and infrastructure contributions will be strictly applied.
The Solihull approach highlights the increasing tension between national mandates to deliver housing (via policies like the Grey Belt) and local desire to maintain Green Belt integrity and community character. The validity of Solihull’s interpretation will likely be rigorously tested by developers during the Local Plan Examination in Public.
Sources
Section 106 Agreements: The Legal Mechanism
The Section 106 (S106) Agreement is a legally binding obligation used to offset external costs associated with a development. This agreement is the critical legal tool that enforces the “Golden Rules” for development on Grey Belt land, ensuring that:
The developer provides necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure.
Items like drainage, a major point in any application, are adequately dealt with.
A contribution to affordable housing is secured.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit scays.substack.com/subscribe