- Decision
- allowed, 17 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: S McIntyre
- Authority
- Solihull (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6011148
- Application reference
- PL/2026/00023/PIP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for one dwelling in a rear garden, fronting Shortland Close
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), HO7, L2(1)(d)
- Development plan policies
- Solihull Local Plan 2013 P7, P15
- Main issues
- suitability - character and appearance
Summary
This PiP for one dwelling in the rear garden of a Knowle house, fronting the head of a cul-de-sac, was allowed. The inspector found a house could in principle respect Shortland Close's character. There was no 5YHLS. Under S4 there were two substantial-weight benefits: HO7 housing, and L2(1)(d) additional homes within existing plots. There were no substantial adverse effects.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶6).
- Character: PASS. "I am satisfied that, in principle, a single dwelling could be developed on the site that would be setback from the highway and respect the scale, massing, density, layout, materials and landscape of Shortland Close" (DL ¶11). The varied rear gardens on Longdon Road meant a shorter garden was not harmful (DL ¶12).
- Location. Within the settlement, walkable to the local centre and buses; the station was more than 800 m away (DL ¶16).
Planning balance
This was the S4 balance (DL ¶21). HO7 got substantial weight because there was no 5YHLS (DL ¶22). "Policy L2 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the benefits where a development would create additional homes within existing plots, providing they are consistent with the overall street scene, maintain safe access, provide acceptable living standards ... not occupy more than twice the footprint of the existing building and retain at least 50% of the non-developed area. While matters relating to living standards outlined in Policy L2 relate to TDC matters, the proposal otherwise accords with this policy, and I therefore afford it substantial weight" (DL ¶23). "There are substantial benefits of the proposal, and I have not concluded that there would be any substantial adverse effects" (DL ¶24).
What made the difference
The plot fronts an existing cul-de-sac head and reads as a continuation of Shortland Close, not as backland. It passed the L2(1)(d) street-scene criterion, so L2 became a benefit worth substantial weight rather than a harm. Compare PINS-6010701 and PINS-6010619, where garden plots failed L2(1)(d) and S4(2)(a)(ii) became a refusal route.
Transferable points
- At PiP stage, L2(1)(d) substantial weight can be given where the in-principle criteria are met, with living-standards limbs deferred to TDC (DL ¶23).
- S4 approval follows where there are "substantial benefits" and no "substantial adverse effects" (DL ¶24). The inspector framed the test as looking for substantial adverse effects.
- A precedent objection needs identified comparable sites (DL ¶14).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S4(1) | pass | substantial benefits; no substantial adverse effects under Framework decision-making policies (DL 21, 24) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | council cannot show 5YHLS, "significant shortfall" uncontested (DL 19, 22) |
| L2(1)(d) | benefit | substantial | additional home within existing plot; street-scene, footprint and 50% undeveloped-area criteria met; living-standards limbs left to TDC (DL 23) |
| TR3 | pass | within Knowle, walkable to local centre and bus stop; not within 800m of a station but meets LP P7 otherwise (DL 16) |
Key facts
- Site is the end of a long rear garden abutting the head of Shortland Close cul-de-sac; would front the Close (DL 8-11)
- Supply shortfall "significant" and uncontested; no figure given (DL 19)
- Precedent argument rejected without examples of comparable sites (DL 14)
Related decisions
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.