[2025] EWHC 2127 (Admin)

The Council’s draft Local Plan (2020 to 2037) was, in the usual way, submitted for examination by an Examining Inspector (Ms R Barrett MRTPI IHBC) (“the EI”) on 14 February 2022 to consider, amongst other matters, whether the plan was “sound”: s.20(5)(b), Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. ‘Soundness’ in this context includes that the plan is consistent with national policy. Examination hearings were held between June and October 2022 and the EI’s report was published, after a process that included consultation on main modifications (“MMs”), on 18 September 2024. The EI Report extends to 472 paragraphs over 79 pages. At [128] to [133] of the EI Report there is an analysis of the Council’s GTAA conducted in 2018 and updated in 2021. The EI’s conclusions were as follows:

“128.

The Council conducted a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) in 2018, updated in 2021 [EDI4, EDI5]. Those assessments were based on a sound methodology, which accords with Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. Together, they concluded a need for 32 pitches in the District for households meeting the planning definition; indicating that 18 are needed within the first five years of the Plan period.

129.

The GTAA also identifies a need for 20 pitches for gypsy and traveller households who do not meet the planning definition. Taking the two groups together therefore, the need is for 52 pitches over the Plan period, 36 of which are needed in the first five years of the Plan [ED71].

130.

Existing commitments, and deliverable site allocations would deliver 32 pitches in the first five years of the Plan period, 45 pitches over the whole Plan period. That would result in a small shortfall, both within the first five years and over the whole Plan period.

131.

Policy H5 includes a criteria based policy to assess windfall development. Windfall sites come forward approximately once every six months [i.e. at the rate of two per year]. Based on historic windfall and an assessment of a theoretical intensification of existing gypsy and traveller sites, even taking a small proportion of that allowance, the outstanding gypsy and traveller need for both those meeting the planning definition and those not meeting it would be met. In the absence of the supply of additional identified sites, this is a sound and justified approach. It is consistent with the approach taken to housing need for the settled community, the need for which is not met in full.

132.

A need for 6 pitches/plots for travelling show people is also identified in the GTAA. The search for sites has not yielded a suitable candidate. However, the criteria based policy included in policy H5, will enable windfall development to come forward.

133.

Taking all these considerations into account, given existing commitments and a realistic windfall allowance, together with the inclusion of a criteria based policy to assess future proposals for gypsy and traveller and travelling show people’s accommodation, in the absence of provision to meet the full need through the Plan’s site allocations, this is a justified approach and is soundly based.”

At [172] of the EI Report, the EI noted that Policy H5 of the Local Plan, which dealt with GTAA 2021 did not include an accurate description of travelling show people and that the requirements of windfall development are not clear. The EI goes on to suggest that MM11 would address those points, in part by introducing a more accurate description of travelling show people. MM11 was not before the Court.

The Council’s Local Plan was adopted in October 2024. At [4.28] the Local Plan states that the GTAA 2021 identifies a need for 32 pitches, at least 18 of which should be provided by 2025 and that site allocations are capable of providing between 28-34 pitches, although no timeframe is stated.

In the Council’s update following publication of NPPF 2024, the identified need was revised to 52 pitches over the plan period with 36 of these within 5 years. It was also stated that windfall pitches would accrue on a “conservative estimate” at the rate of 3 per year.

Whilst the Local Plan was put before the Inspector and reference was made to it in the Decision (DL 5), the EI Report was not. It is accepted that the EI Report was neither mentioned nor relied upon before the Inspector. In the Statement of Common Ground prepared for the hearing before the Inspector, no reference is made to the EI Report under “Other material policies and documents”.