Planning appeal decision
Chestnuts Farm, Eastcote Lane, Hampton-In-Arden, Solihull, B92 0AS
Planning appeal 3311155 at Chestnuts Farm, Eastcote Lane, Hampton-In-Arden, Solihull, B92 0AS (Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council) was dismissed on 4 August 2025 by Inspector Curnow R, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant development plan policies.
Continued use of existing agricultural building for offices and workshops for Dovetail Group with associated vehicle parking and storage in 4 containers and screen fencing; Continued use of existing yard and building for waste recycling and ancillary skip hire – C & R Lewis - part of Dovetail Group. ___________________________________________________________________________________
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- employment-industrial · Change of use
- Inspector
- Curnow R
- Postcode
- B92 0AS
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant development plan policies
- The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt
- The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
- Whether this is a suitable location for a waste recycling facility in the light of development plan policies
- Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal
What decided it
The substantial weight attached to harm to Green Belt openness and the failure to demonstrate that the benefits of the commercial uses clearly outweighed the identified harm meant that very special circumstances did not exist to justify the inappropriate development, except for the track and bund which provided agricultural benefits and landscape mitigation.
The substantial harm to the Green Belt through inappropriate development and loss of openness, combined with significant harm to character and appearance from the waste recycling, skip hire and office/parking uses, was not outweighed by the moderate economic and social benefits of farm diversification and employment creation; however, the limited harm from the agricultural track and the substantial landscape benefits of the bund were outweighed by their agricultural and screening benefits respectively.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy P3Policy P12Policy P15Policy P17
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 88Paragraph 110Paragraph 115Paragraph 143Paragraph 150Paragraph 153Paragraph 154Paragraph 155
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Solihull
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Dismissed23 October 20266013961The Stables, Barretts Lane Farm, Barretts Lane, Balsall Common, Coventry, CV7 7GB
- Allowed23 October 20266009733Meadow View, 1A Oldwich Lane West, Chadwick End, B93 0BQ
- Planning permission granted28 September 2026337125495 Prospect Lane, Solihull, B91 1HS
- Notice upheld14 September 2026337530210 Park View, Hockley Heath, Solihull, B94 6PE
- Notice upheld14 September 2026337530110 Park View, Hockley Heath, Solihull, B94 6PE
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®