[2025] EWHC 2127 (Admin)

The Inspector allowed both appeals. He identified the main issues as follows:

On the first and second of those issues, the Inspector held that although policy EN1 of the Local Plan sets out the general approach to the Green Belt, and H5 deals with gypsy and traveller accommodation, recent changes to national policy meant that the question of inappropriateness would be considered with particular regard to the NPPF 2024.

Applying the NPPF 2024, the Inspector concluded that the Site was grey belt land and satisfied the requirements set out in Policy EN1 and NPPF 2024 [155]. He went on then to consider openness at DL [16], stating that openness:

“…is one of the essential characteristics of Green Belts and, as a matter of policy, the aim of preserving the openness of the Green Belt cannot be compromised by development that is ‘not inappropriate’. Moreover, footnote 55 of the Framework establishes that substantial weight need not be given to any harm to openness on a grey belt site where the development is ‘not inappropriate’.” (Emphasis added)

He went on to conclude that the Green Belt was not harmed and the need for VSC did not therefore arise.

In relation to “Character and Appearance”, the Inspector concluded that:

“The overall effect of these works is that the rural character of the site has been fundamentally altered, creating a far more developed appearance. The changing character of the site is very obvious from the road and the mobile homes are easily seen through the site entrance. Thus, there is clear harm to the rural character and appearance of the site and locality. The harm is limited to a degree by the hedgerow that has been retained along most of the site frontage, and this could be supplemented by further planting to reduce the impact of the development. Nevertheless, harm I have found leads to conflict with the aims for character, design and the landscape in local plan policies EN 4, EN 8 and H5.”

In respect of the third issue identified by the Inspector, i.e. that of the supply of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, the Inspector outlined that whether the Council could demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable pitches was “critical” to the application of national policy. He outlined the need arising from GTAA 2021 and the Council’s most recent assessment of the need/supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites, and accepted the Council’s assessment that 36 pitches are needed for this period. He concluded as follows (at DL [30-31]):

“30 Turning to the question of supply, it is important to note that sites must be deliverable. Footnote 4 of the PPTS advises that 'To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that development will be delivered on the site within five years. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within 5 years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans'.

31 The Council claims a total of 69 pitches. However, more than half of this figure – 35 pitches – is made up of current planning applications. As the Council accepted at the hearing, it is unable to say if planning permission will be granted for these. Consequently, these sites do not meet the definition of ‘deliverable’ in footnote 4.”

He noted that of the 19 pitches approved since 2020, 3 were occupied by non-travellers and so were not available as gypsy or traveller pitches. The remainder of the supply came from 15 pitches which were site allocations. However, the Inspector’s view was that there was “no specific evidence regarding the prospect of any of these sites coming forward”. The Council’s figures indicated that 6 pitches at 2 sites would come forward within 5 years from 2024, but given the lack of information on the remaining 9 they could not be considered part of the supply. Accordingly, even if all site allocations could come forward, the total supply from 2020-2029 was 22 (16 approvals plus 6 allocations), which fell short of the required 36 pitches.

The Council also relied on the possibility of ‘windfalls’ producing an average of 3 pitches per year to date and suggested that 15 might be so produced over the next five years, but again the Inspector considered there was:

“minimal evidence to support any assumption about the likely outcome of the current applications or future windfalls.” (DL/35).

On the basis of that evidence, the Inspector concluded that the Council could not demonstrate a deliverable 5-year supply of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.

Overall, the Inspector concluded on the planning balance that permission should be granted:

“46.

Viewed as a whole, the adverse impacts of the development do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, as described in Paragraph l1(d) of the Framework. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. This is a material consideration that leads me to conclude that, notwithstanding the conflict with the development plan, planning permission should be granted.”