Staffordshire council area

Selling Land in South Staffordshire

Checked on 29 September 2026

Four fifths of South Staffordshire is West Midlands Green Belt, and the council's own statement counts 0.87 years of housing land, because it measures against the government's figure and counts only sites with permission plus a small windfall allowance. For most fields on the edge of its villages the question is therefore grey belt. A Local Plan Review to 2041 has reached main modifications, and work on a further plan to 2044 began in June 2026.

Free review of your land in South Staffordshire or call 07958 351879

We pay for the planning, at our own cost and risk
Your price is agreed up front, in writing
If planning is refused, you keep your land and owe nothing

In short

We buy land in South Staffordshire and welcome land of every kind there: fields and paddocks, inherited land, old yards and larger holdings.

South Staffordshire can show 0.87 years of housing land, short of the five years national policy expects. That shortfall is evidence of need which decisions must weigh, so a well placed field next to a town or village can make a case outside the local plan. It is not a guarantee. Land in the Green Belt faces stricter national tests. Its local plan dates from December 2012, and a new one was submitted for examination in December 2024.

We look for 2 acres or more next to, or well related to, a town or village, with a road frontage or a way to get one.

The next step is a free, confidential desktop review. We tell you which route, if any, suits your land, with no obligation.

South Staffordshire in Figures

The government's latest figures for the council, its latest five-year housing land supply, and where its local plan stands.

Housing Delivery Test 2025
171%
Meeting its housing requirement.
Five-year housing land supply
0.87 years
Short of five years: national policy treats this as evidence of unmet housing need. Position at 1 April 2025, measured against local housing need by the standard method, 649 homes a year, plus a 5% buffer. Stated by South Staffordshire Council.
Checked source
Homes built against homes needed
1,201
of 701 needed, April 2022 to March 2025
Most recent strategic plan adopted
December 2012
More than five years old, so its housing figures are usually replaced by the government's standard method.
New plan progress
Latest step
Local Plan Review submitted in December 2024; the inspectors' letter of 14 April 2026 found it could be made sound with main modifications, consultation on them ran from 14 May to 26 June 2026 and a further consultation on Appendix 01 began on 7 September 2026, with the inspectors' report awaited; a new plan to 2044 under the government's timetable started on 2 June 2026, with Gateway 1 on 30 October 2026
Checked source

See how South Staffordshire compares with the other 143 councils we cover

Sources: Housing Delivery Test: 2025 measurement, MHCLG, published 17 August 2026; Local plans: monitoring progress, Planning Inspectorate, August 2026. Local plans move quickly, so always check the council's own website for the latest position.

The Land We Look for in South Staffordshire

Green Belt fields enclosed by housing, roads or the railway on the edge of Codsall, Bilbrook, Penkridge, Cheslyn Hay or Great Wyrley, where a grey belt case can be tested now.
Yards, depots, former works and other previously developed land in the Green Belt, which have routes of their own.
Land in the Open Countryside beyond the Green Belt, north of Penkridge, where policy S5 can apply.
Plots, backland and large gardens inside the villages.
Larger holdings near the tier 1 and tier 2 villages that could suit the plan to 2044.

Inside a village, policy S4 applies: the starting point is approval unless the harm would substantially outweigh the benefits. Our page on brownfield and yards page. For a field, we pay for the Green Belt, highways, school and ecology work under an option at a price agreed on day one, above the land's current use value. You keep using it meanwhile, and should permission not be secured the land stays yours and you owe nothing, as our how it works page explains.

The planning detail in full

Four Fifths Green Belt on the Conurbation's North Western Edge

The Core Strategy, adopted in December 2012 and still the district's main plan 13 years on, describes the district as rural, lying on the conurbation's north western edge, with a strategy built around villages rather than towns.

Green Belt across four fifths. The Core Strategy records 32,310 hectares, 80% of the district, in the West Midlands Green Belt. The rest, north of the boundary, is Open Countryside under policy OC1.
Villages ranked for growth. Core Policy 1 names nine main service villages: Bilbrook, Brewood, Cheslyn Hay, Codsall, Great Wyrley, Kinver, Penkridge, Perton and Wombourne. The Local Plan Review would put Bilbrook, Cheslyn Hay, Codsall, Great Wyrley and Penkridge in a new top tier.
Big employment sites. The 2024 publication plan notes that i54 has drawn businesses such as Jaguar Land Rover, that the West Midlands Interchange rail freight terminal has a development consent order, and that unmet Black Country employment needs supported allocations at i54 and the former Royal Ordnance Factory at Featherstone.
Delivery well above the test. The Housing Delivery Test 2025 counted 1,201 homes built over three years against 701 required, a result of 171%.

Yet the district is short of housing land, as the table on our county page shows, because of how supply is counted.

A Supply Built From Permissions, Not the New Plan

The council's five-year housing land supply statement, published in November 2025 for the five years from 1 April 2025, finds 0.87 years. It uses the government's standard method because, in its words, the last strategic housing requirement was set over five years ago in the 2012 Core Strategy. The figures behind it:

Source: South Staffordshire Council five-year housing land supply statement, April 2025 base date (November 2025). 591 divided by 682.
Part of the calculation	Council's figure
Standard method, yearly	649 homes: a baseline of 0.8% of the district's 49,405 homes (395 a year), raised by an affordability factor of 1.6422
Five years of need	3,245 homes
With a 5% buffer	3,408 homes, or 682 a year
Small sites under construction	123 homes
Small sites with permission, less 19% for those never built	113 homes
Large sites with full permission or under construction	275 homes
Windfall, 40 a year in years four and five	80 homes
Total deliverable supply	591 homes
Result	0.87 years

Nothing from the Local Plan Review is counted, not even the two strategic sites. The statement adds that, with a plan past the Regulation 19 stage, the council need only show four years under the transitional rules it cites; on its own figures it falls well short of either.

A Second Figure, 1.17 Years, From a Penkridge Appeal

A Planning Inspectorate decision of 18 November 2025 records a different number. Allowing up to 135 homes on land east of the A449, north of Penkridge, the inspector wrote that "it is not in dispute that the supply is 1.17 years" against the December 2024 standard method, a shortfall of 2,615 homes. The decision gives no base date. The council's statement counts from 1 April 2025 and appeared in November 2025, after that October inquiry, so a newer base date is the likely reason for the lower figure, and the council was still quoting 0.87 years in September 2026. For a landowner the point is the same: supply is a fraction of five years. The site was Open Countryside beside the village boundary. The inspector found it conflicted with Core Policies 1 and 6 and policy OC1, but that those policies were out of date because of the shortfall and that the scheme complied with the plan as a whole.

Why the Shortfall Has a Shelf Life

In their December 2025 letter the inspectors told the council that, for the review to be sound, it must provide a housing trajectory which demonstrates a five-year supply at the point of adoption. The present figure describes the district between two plans.

Grey Belt Is Where the Shortfall Does Its Work

Policy S5 of the August 2026 framework, which supports land well related to a settlement and served by infrastructure once unmet need is evidenced, has no reach inside the Green Belt. So for most edge-of-village land here the question is whether it is grey belt. Homes on grey belt land are not inappropriate where all of these tests are met:

The land is grey belt. It is previously developed, or does not strongly contribute to checking sprawl, preventing towns merging or preserving the setting of historic towns.
The remaining Green Belt holds together. Its purposes are not fundamentally undermined.
The need is evidenced. Grey belt carries a need test of its own, met in most cases by fewer than five years of supply or delivery under 75%. Here the council's own 0.87 years is the evidence.
The place is sustainable. Schools, shops, jobs and transport are within reach.
Larger schemes meet the Golden Rules. Extra affordable housing, infrastructure and accessible green space.

In many councils the need test is where a grey belt case fails. Here it is usually met, so the case turns on what the land does in Green Belt terms: land near the edge of the conurbation is tested hardest against checking sprawl, and land in gaps between villages against keeping places apart.

The Codsall Refusal

The Express and Star reported in September 2026 that council officers had refused outline plans for up to 550 homes, an 80-unit extra care scheme and a shop on 35 hectares at Heath House Lane, Codsall, with 50% affordable housing. The applicant argued the land was grey belt. The report says the refusal rested on harm from inappropriate development in the Green Belt and loss of openness, with first school capacity and highways as further reasons, and that the harms significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits, even though the council confirmed its 0.87 years.

The lesson is not that grey belt fails here. It is that the shortfall does not carry an unsuitable parcel, and that a large scheme needs its Green Belt, school and highway evidence settled first. Our grey belt guide explains how each purpose is scored.

From 4,000 Homes for the Conurbation to 640

The version of the review published in November 2022 offered 4,000 homes towards unmet needs across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country housing market area. Work paused in December 2022 when national policy changes were proposed, and once the December 2023 framework made Green Belt review a matter of choice the council moved to what its 2024 publication plan calls a capacity-led approach: sites outside the Green Belt, with limited release in tier 1 villages well served by public transport.

The council's schedule of main modifications, updated in April 2026, proposes policy DS4 at a minimum of 4,726 homes from 2023 to 2041: 4,086 for the district's own need and 640 towards the housing market area's shortfall, with roughly 10% more supply identified for flexibility. It would take 38.1 hectares out of the Green Belt:

Source: main modification MM002, South Staffordshire Local Plan schedule of main modifications (April 2026).
Site	Hectares removed from the Green Belt	Policy
Land East of Bilbrook	25.3	SA1, strategic site
Land off Holly Lane, Cheslyn Hay	4.0	SA3
Land at Boscomoor Lane, Penkridge	3.8	SA3
Land adjacent to 44 Station Road, Codsall	3.4	SA3
Land off Norton Lane, Great Wyrley	1.3	SA3
Fishers Farm, Great Wyrley	0.3	SA3

The second strategic site, Land North of Penkridge (policy SA2), needs no Green Belt change: the publication plan describes a large extension in the Open Countryside with a first school, shops and a country park.

Through the Examination

Hearings and the December letter. After hearings that opened on 27 May 2025, the letter of 5 December 2025 raised the Golden Rules for Green Belt releases such as Bilbrook, and asked whether an early review of housing, employment and traveller provision was needed.
Sound with changes. In a letter dated 14 April 2026 and published on 15 April, the inspectors could not conclude the plan, as drafted, was sound, but found it can be made sound through main modifications.
Consultation. Consultation on the modifications began on 14 May 2026 and the council published the responses on 4 August. On 7 September it invited comments on Appendix 01, referred to in MM235 but left out of the May material.

Cannock Chase Mitigation, First Schools and a 45% Affordable Share

Cannock Chase. The Chase is a Special Area of Conservation, protected by Core Strategy policy EQ2; the review's policy NB3, as modified, secures mitigation through developer contributions unless another form is agreed with Natural England.
First school places. Both strategic sites carry a new first school, and the Codsall refusal cited first school capacity.
Affordable homes. The review's policy HC3 is set at 30%, the share its viability evidence supports. On larger schemes on Green Belt land, national policy adds 15 percentage points, capped at 50%.

How the Council Reads the Golden Rules

In its response to the inspectors of February 2026 the council confirmed, in line with its pre-application advice, that the Golden Rules apply to site 006, which the main modifications name as Land at Boscomoor Lane, Penkridge and release from the Green Belt, so the affordable requirement there would be 45%. It also called the Golden Rules one material consideration rather than a mandatory requirement: a scheme that falls short loses the significant weight in favour of granting that compliance brings. Outside the Green Belt the figure stays at 30%. We allow for the larger Green Belt share, and for the Cannock Chase payment, from the first appraisal.

Between the Inspectors' Report and a Plan to 2044

The next change is the inspectors' report. On adoption, the yardstick moves from the government's 649 a year to the plan's 4,726 homes over eighteen years, about 263 a year, and the allocations join the count. With five years required at adoption, the evidenced need behind grey belt cases is likely to weaken then.

One rule runs the other way. From 1 July 2026, for decisions only, a 20% buffer also applies to any housing requirement that was adopted within the last five years, tested under a framework from before December 2024, and sits at 80% or less of the standard method figure. The inspectors have written that the review is tested against the 2023 framework, and 263 a year is about two fifths of 649, so the council's first statement after adoption will show how the rule applies.

The Housing Delivery Test 2025 was published on 17 August 2026, and a new edition follows each year. At 171% the district sits above every threshold (an action plan below 95%, a 20% buffer below 85%, unmet need treated as evidenced below 75%), so the supply figure is what matters here.

The 2044 Plan and Reorganisation

The council's plan timetable, in force since 2 June 2026, sets out the new-style plan to 2044:

From the South Staffordshire Local Plan timetable (June 2026). The dates are the council's own and can move.
Stage	Council's timetable
Scoping consultation	10 June to 22 July 2026
Gateway 1 self-assessment published	30 October 2026
Consultation on proposed plan content and evidence	1 June to 14 July 2027
Consultation on the proposed draft plan	1 February to 29 March 2028
Submission for examination	2 October 2028
Adoption	30 April 2029

Our guide to local plan stages explains what each stage asks of a site.

On reorganisation, the Secretary of State told the Commons on 7 September 2026 of a full review of the programme, covering 14 areas including Staffordshire, with elections in May 2027 going ahead on existing boundaries.

On timing, a grey belt case is best tested before the review is adopted, while the shortfall supplies the evidence of need, and land for the 2044 plan is best prepared before the consultation the council's timetable shows for June 2027.

Questions About Land in South Staffordshire

The council is so short of land. Why was the Heath House Lane scheme in Codsall still refused?

The shortfall only speaks to need. Officers found the scheme inappropriate development in the Green Belt despite the applicant's grey belt case, and added school and highway reasons. A shortfall helps a parcel that genuinely qualifies; it does not make every field qualify.

My land is north of Penkridge, outside the Green Belt. Is it treated differently?

Yes. Open Countryside is not Green Belt, so policy S5 can apply to land well related to a settlement and served by infrastructure, with the shortfall weighed as evidence of need, not an automatic finding. An inspector allowed 135 homes on Open Countryside beside Penkridge in November 2025, though every site is judged on its own facts.

If my field counts as grey belt, how much of a scheme has to be affordable housing?

On larger schemes the Golden Rules add 15 percentage points to the usual share. With the review's 30%, the council has confirmed 45% for a Green Belt site it releases at Penkridge, and we build that into our appraisal from the start.

Should I wait for the Local Plan Review to be adopted?

It depends on the land. For a grey belt case, adoption is likely to make the need harder to show, so waiting rarely helps. For land the council might allocate, the plan to 2044 is the route, and the council's timetable shows its first consultation on proposed content in June 2027.

My land is a short drive from i54 and the rail freight site. Does that count for anything?

It can support the case that a location is sustainable, because jobs within reach are part of that test, but it does not replace the Green Belt tests.

What price will you pay for my land?

We agree a fixed price with you at the start, before any planning work begins, and it is set above what your land is worth today. We cannot name a figure before we have looked at your land, because it depends on the site itself: its size, its access, how many homes it could take and the costs that come off land value, such as affordable housing, road works and drainage. After the free desktop review we can talk about a price, and once agreed it is written into the agreement.

When would I be paid?

You receive the agreed price on completion, once planning permission has been secured. The agreement sets out the milestones along the way, and it continues while any planning application or appeal is being decided. Until completion you carry on using your land as you do now, and we pay for all of the planning. If permission is not granted, you keep your land and owe nothing.

Tell Us About Your Land in South Staffordshire

It takes about two minutes. We only need your postcode, your name and a phone number or email; the rest helps us look properly.

We reply within 2 working days, by phone or email, whichever you prefer.
The desktop review is free and confidential, with no obligation.
If we agree terms, we pay for all of the planning, which on a larger site can reach £300,000.

About your land

Which council area is the land in?

Type a few letters to find a council. Own land in more than one area? Give one here and tell us about the others below.

Postcode or nearest village *

Approximate size in acres

Not sure? Give your best guess.

Current use

Where is it?

Access

Land Registry title number (optional)

Your details

We need a phone number or an email address, whichever you prefer.

Your name *

Phone

Best time to call (optional)

Anything else we should know? (optional)

We use your details only to reply about your land. We do not contact the council or anyone else about it without your agreement. See our privacy notice.

Sources

Figures on this page come from the Housing Delivery Test 2025 (published 17 August 2026) and the Planning Inspectorate's local plan monitoring to August 2026, with newer plan milestones checked on 24 September 2026. We update the page when new results or plan milestones are published. Planning positions change quickly, so always check the council's own website before relying on it.