[2025] EWHC 2127 (Admin)

The Site comprises an area of rural land located within the Green Belt. It was previously a greenfield site. Ms Meloney, who is part of the traveller community, installed two caravans, drainage, hardstanding and a sewerage treatment plant on the Site without first seeking planning permission. On 5 April 2024, the Claimant issued a temporary stop notice requiring the cessation of development. On 15 April 2024, Ms Meloney sought retrospective planning permission for a two-pitch Gypsy accommodation including widening of the existing access to the Site.

On 10 June 2024, the Claimant refused planning permission for three principal reasons, among them being the “visual and spatial impact to the openness of the Green Belt”. On 17 June 2024, Ms Meloney filed an appeal against the Claimant’s decision to refuse planning permission. A couple of days later the Claimant issued an enforcement notice requiring the land not to be used for the stationing of caravans for residential occupation and the removal of ancillary development and paraphernalia. The period for compliance with the notice was six months after the taking of effect of the notice.

On 11 July 2024, Ms Meloney lodged an appeal against the enforcement notice with the Secretary of State pursuant to S.174(2)(a) and (g) of the 1990 Act.

In parallel with this planning history, the Claimant was developing its local plan in accordance with the versions of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) then in existence. The Claimant completed a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (2021) (“GTAA 2021”). The Mole Valley Local Plan (“the Local Plan”) was adopted on 15 October 2024.

On 12 December 2024, the Secretary of State promulgated new versions of the NPPF (“NPPF 2024”) and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (“PPTS”). In broad terms, the NPPF 2024 established a new exception whereby development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as “inappropriate”. This is set out at NPPF 2024 [155] which provides

“155.

The development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the following apply:

a.

The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan;

b.

There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed [F/N 56];

c.

The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework; and

d.

Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below.”

Footnote 56 explains what is meant by “demonstrable unmet need” for the purposes of [155(b)] of the NPPF 2024, and provides that, in the case of traveller sites, it means the lack of a five-year supply of deliverable traveller sites assessed in line with the PPTS.

Further, the NPPF 2024 also introduced a slight amendment to NPPF [153] with the addition of the following underlined words and new Footnote 55:

“153.

When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness [F/N 55] […]

Footnote 55, provides:

“55 Other than in the case of development on previously developed land or grey belt land, where development is not inappropriate.”

The hearing before the Inspector was held on 15January 2025. The Claimant was represented by its planning officers and Ms Meloney was represented by Counsel, Mr Whale, who also appears before me. It was submitted on behalf of Ms Meloney that the Site would now be considered to be grey belt within the meaning of NPPF 2024 and therefore not inappropriate development. The Claimant opposed that submission and submitted, amongst other matters, that in its view there was an oversupply of gypsy and traveller pitches and that the development would not be in a sustainable location. On that basis, the Claimant submitted before the Inspector that the proposal remained inappropriate development.