More than 50 residents of Tidbury Green in Solihull have launched a campaign against the potential construction of over 1,000 new homes on green belt land in their village. The protest comes as the borough faces a government-imposed target of building 8,500 new homes before 2029.
Over 100 signs have appeared in front gardens across the village in recent days, displaying slogans such as 'Green Belt not Grey Belt', 'Keep Tidbury Green' and '1,700 homes who asked us'. The campaign event on August 18 featured a protest walk, with passing drivers showing support by beeping their horns.
Grey belt designation sparks village anger
The protest follows a recent report by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) which revealed that sites around Tidbury Green had been labelled as potential 'grey belt' locations in an independent study. 'Grey belt' refers to lower-quality, low-value portions of protected green belt land that could potentially be suitable for development.
Adding to residents' concerns, a scheme from developer Rainier Developments Limited to build 110 homes on land in Rumbush Lane in the village was recently approved by Solihull planners.
MP and councillors join the fight
The village's MP Neil Shastri-Hurst described the campaign as a "battle" and voiced strong support for the residents' position. He told the LDRS: "There is strong sense (among villagers) this is the wrong move for the area.
"Nobody disagrees with the principle we need more homes, but we need to build them in the right place and that's where the government has this wrong. We should be focusing on brownfield sites.
"It's a tough battle and the government has made it harder. But I was in the Army, you don't just walk away from a battle because it is tough."
Ward councillor Keith Green echoed these concerns, focusing on the scale of the proposed development. "It's the volume - 100 homes here or there would be one thing," he said. "But when you are talking about large sites like 800 it becomes unmanageable. The government is putting expectations on the council because of huge housing targets.
"But if they make a mistake you can't go back, once the green belt is gone it is gone."
Infrastructure concerns raised by long-term residents
Andrew Pugh-Zange, who helped start the campaign, said the protest was just the first step, with other plans already in the pipeline. He thanked residents for their support so far.
Lloyd Hudson, who has lived in the village for more than 50 years, expressed serious reservations about the area's ability to cope with additional housing. "The infrastructure isn't capable of handling what is here now," he said. "Unless they make major alterations it is going to be problematic. You won't find anybody in favour of these houses being built."
Another resident raised environmental concerns, saying: "I'm disgusted. They grow crops, corn, wheat round here - how is that land grey belt? We have been flooded before. If green belt is built on, the water is all going to come off, that's what worries me."
Coun Andy Mackiewicz, the authority's cabinet member for climate change and planning, previously stated: "Decisions about whether any sites should be released from the green belt to meet future development needs across the borough will be made through the local plan process.
"The identification of potential grey belt land does not mean those areas are suitable for development. Nor does it mean entire land parcels assessed as containing grey belt would automatically be considered for development."
