Appeal 6001004

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of land for a single pitch Gypsy residential site, installation of septic tank, creation of access, driveway, parking area and patio, construction of bunds and erection of gate at [site address] , [site address] , Cliff, Kingsbury, [postcode] , in accordance with the application [name]/2024/0549, without compliance with condition numbers 1, 12 and 13 previously imposed on planning permission [name]/2023/0191 (APP/R3705/W/24/3338275 dated 26 July 2024 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The two static caravans which form the basis of the appeal have been sited on the appeal site since around July 2025 in breach of the aforementioned conditions. I have proceeded on the basis that the appeal is largely retrospective in nature.

Condition 13 of the original planning permission granted by the ‘2024 appeal decision’ defines the area within which the residential use of land and associated hard landscaping were permitted. As the appeal proposal would also extend the use of land beyond the originally defined areas, it is necessary to bring a variation to condition 13 within the scope of this appeal. In the context of the Wheatcroft1 and Holborn Studio2 cases, incorporating reference to this condition would not 1 Wheatcroft Ltd V SSE [1982] 2 Holborn Studios Ltd v CLBH [2017] EWHC 2823 cause prejudice to any other parties. I have accordingly reflected this in my decision above.

The main issues are whether the disputed conditions are reasonable and necessary with regard to: • the effect of the development on openness and on the purposes of Green Belt policy; • the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • the fear of crime; and • if inappropriate, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

The appeal site lies within the West Midlands Green Belt. Since the original planning permission was granted, a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (December 2024) has been published which introduced the concept of ‘Grey Belt’ land. The submitted Statement of [name] (SoCG) sets out that the main parties agree that the appeal site constitutes Grey Belt land. Whether the status of Grey Belt land applies to the smaller contained residential part of the site or the full extent of the red line site area has not been detailed in the evidence, but in any event, I do not disagree with its relevance to the area specific to this appeal proposal on which the two additional static caravans would be sited.

Under paragraph 155 of the Framework, the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where a number of criteria are met. The parties disagree on whether criterion (a) is met. Criterion a) refers to the utilisation of Grey Belt land provided the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. It is agreed between the main parties that criteria (b) and (c) are met and that (d) is not applicable. These respectively refer to there being a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed (b), the site being in a sustainable location (c) and (d) that the development meets the Framework’s ‘[name].

Though agreed between the parties, the demonstrable need for the development under 155 (b) is not a matter on which I strictly agree. The Council conceded this point as there is a shortfall in the five year supply of pitches for Gypsies and Travellers as required by the Planning Policy for [name] (2024) (PPTS). I do not disagree that there is an unmet need for pitches more generally, despite that the extent of the shortfall has not been precisely quantified. However, the proposal is not strictly seeking to increase the number of pitches. It is seeking to intensify the use of an existing single family pitch to provide additional caravans for the appellant’s adult children. It may be that there would be nowhere else for them to go if they were actively seeking their own pitches, either on site or away from the family pitch. As part of the current proposal, they are not. Whilst additional space, independence and privacy may be desirable, the unmet need for such is not so evident or demonstrable that I agree that Framework paragraph 155 (b) is met. Therefore, as the proposal would not strictly increase the number of pitches, it does not meet the threshold of demonstrable unmet need as per Framework paragraph 155 (b).

Though it would be close to the existing approved static caravan and other caravans and features of the single family pitch, the development would add cumulatively to the number of caravans and domestic paraphernalia and would lead to a further moderate loss of both spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt. This would result in a further degree of countryside encroachment at odds with paragraph 143 (c) of the Framework.

In view of the above, I find that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt, with countryside encroachment and a moderate loss of visual and spatial openness. It would therefore conflict with policy LP3 of the North Warwickshire Local Plan (adopted 2021) (Local Plan) and with the Framework. Insofar as relates to Green Belt protection, policy LP3 of the Local Plan is generally consistent with the Framework and PPTS.

Despite the absence of a reason for refusal on this aspect and a finding of no unacceptable harm to character and appearance to the site or wider Tamworth – [name] Farmlands3 area under the 2024 appeal decision, the addition of two further static caravans would add to the spread and extent of residential land use within the site which was not envisaged at that time.

The landscaping scheme on the bunds is yet to be implemented to provide visual screening to the extent anticipated in the 2024 appeal decision. Whilst the landscaping at the front has been planted, it is still not mature and allows views through into the site. If and until the landscaping scheme is implemented and establishes, the stark, light-coloured additional caravans are clearly visible from local public vantage points. Thereafter, it is still likely that filtered views will be afforded of the greater expanse of caravans and associated residential activity and paraphernalia. Thus, there would be a degree of erosive effect on the character and appearance of the area in conflict with policies LP10 and LP14 of the Local Plan which seek to ensure that sites assimilate into their surroundings without significant adverse effects so as to conserve, enhance or restore landscape character.

The proposed caravans are to be occupied by family members that are permitted to live at [address]. The proposal would continue to facilitate this, albeit with two additional caravans to accommodate the two adult children.

[name] agree that the fear of crime is a material planning consideration 4, the particular individual at the centre of concerns raised in connection with this appeal is the subject of other proceedings outside of the planning process. Allowing the adult children to continue to reside on the site, albeit with a greater degree of comfort and privacy, would not materially increase the likelihood of crime or local 3 the relevant defined landscape character area under the North Warwickshire Landscape Character Assessment 2010 4 West Midlands Probation Committee v SSE and [name] [1997] JPL 323 residents’ fear of crime and does not appear to have done so within the months that the site has been occupied this way thus far.

Given that the existing permission is personalised to only the named family members, other adults would be precluded from becoming a permanent resident of the site and forming separate households without a further variation of conditions being sought.

In view of the above, the proposal would not give rise to a further likelihood of crime occurring and therefore accords with policy LP29(17) of the Local Plan which aims to ensure development seeks to reduce crime.

I have taken into account the representations of local residents, some against and some in support of the appeal scheme. The representations raise numerous matters which I have addressed above or which are not decisive in the context of the proposal in relation to the personalised permanent permission for the existing pitch.

In terms of the wider considerations on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs, the Council indicate that it has commissioned another Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTAA) to support the work already underway on the emerging Local Plan (eLP). The eLP is intended to address the need for pitches in the area through either allocations or an appropriate policy response. How it will do so is as yet unknown, but it is anticipated that such a process would conclude within 3 years, even allowing for slippage of the timetable. This is a relevant aspect insofar as the intended occupiers’ future needs for a pitch of their own, if desired, should be reflected in any such GTAA and resultant policy response.

The appeal proposal represents definitionally inappropriate development in the Green Belt which the PPTS and Framework advise should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The harms would arise by reason of inappropriateness and by loss of openness and failure to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. I also find moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area from the additional spread and extent of residential use and paraphernalia.

The development would not materially increase the number of pitches but would intensify the use of an existing family pitch. The adult children would benefit from greater space and independence but would stay sufficiently close to continue to support the family. As they have permission to reside on site in any event, the benefits of granting permission would be relatively minor. As such the totality of harm as a result of the development would not be clearly outweighed and very special circumstances do not exist such as to justify an exception to Local Plan policy LP3 or the Framework.

I have considered whether it would be appropriate to impose a condition that allows for the development for a temporary time period which would thereafter require cessation of the intensified use of the pitch. In this case, the circumstances now warrant the adult children seeking more space on the family pitch but these circumstances may not persist for a long duration. In time, they may wish to move elsewhere to form their own household, particularly given the ages of the intended occupiers. Allowing a temporary permission would not subject the occupiers to any disproportionate uncertainty over their living arrangements given that their occupation within the main family caravans would be lawful in any event. Granting a temporary permission would permit the additional comfort sought for an appropriate duration, following which, a revisitation of the considerations would be appropriate. Such considerations include the personal circumstances of the adult children; the need, or otherwise for additional pitches and the relevant planning policy context relevant at that time.

A temporary permission would mean that the harms to the Green Belt would be time limited, as too would the additional harm to the character and appearance of the area. The time limited nature of such harms reduces the weight that they attract. As such, whilst I have found the intensification of the residential use of the pitch unacceptable on a permanent basis, I conclude that the considerations outweigh the combined harms such as to amount to very special circumstances on a temporary basis.

In reaching this decision, I have had sufficient regard to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, in particular the Public Sector Equality Duty. Any interference with the intended occupiers’ Article 8 rights through a grant of temporary rather than permanent planning permission is in the public interest and cannot be achieved by means less interfering.

It is necessary to impose planning conditions relating to the appeal proposal, firstly to specify the approved plans to which the permission relates and to specify the occupation of the site only by the named occupants and the cessation of the use in the event that they opt not to reside on the site at any point in the future. A condition is also necessary to control the temporary duration of this specific permission, after which the site shall revert to that granted under appeal decision APP/R3705/W/24/3338275.

Whilst the status of the named occupiers is not in doubt, a condition requiring site occupiers to accord with the current Gypsy and Traveller definition is necessary.

In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition is required to clarify that the landscaping scheme already approved shall be fully implemented. The adherence to this condition is necessary in accordance with the permission and relevant discharge of conditions approval5 in any event so whilst I have included it, it is not disproportionate to the temporary permission being granted. The same applies for the conditions requiring retention of the bin store, inwardly opening gates and site access.

The specific site layout of the caravans and extent of hardsurfacing appeared to deviate between the site and the plan submitted with the appeal. Furthermore, little has been detailed about the need for any adaptations to surface or foul drainage infrastructure or lighting to accommodate the additional caravans. Therefore, a 5 DOC/2024/0069 condition requiring such details is necessary in the interests of clarity and due to the retrospective nature of the appeal, the condition is formulated so as to require compliance within the specified time limits.

A condition is also needed to specify the permissible number of caravans and their types for the duration of the temporary permission.

For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the appeal should succeed and temporary planning permission should be granted.

Unless where varied under the terms of any other conditions below, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with drawing no’s SA47316-BRY-ST-PL-A-0001 (Location Plan) and SA52227-BRY-ST-PL-A- 0005-E (Proposed Site Plan).

When the site ceases to be occupied by those named in condition 3, the use hereby permitted shall cease and all caravans, buildings, structures, materials and equipment brought on to the land or works undertaken to it in connection with the use, shall be removed and the land restored to its condition before the development took place.

The Gypsy residential site use hereby permitted shall be carried out only by the following persons and their resident dependents – [name] and [name] and their children [name] and [name]. If the site is not occupied by these persons within 2 years of the date of this decision, or when the site ceases to be occupied by these persons, the use hereby permitted shall cease and the land restored to its condition before the development took place.

The mobile homes labelled as 'Static 1' and 'Static 2' and their associated parking and paving areas as depicted on drawing SA52227-BRY-ST-PL-A-0005-E, or any such plan approved under Condition 6, shall be removed, and the land returned to a condition to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, on or before three years beginning with the date of this decision.

Landscaping of the site shall be completed in full accordance with the details approved under application DOC/2024/0069 by the end of the next available planting and seeding seasons. Thereafter, the landscaping scheme, shall be maintained and any tree, hedge or shrub that is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies within five years of planting or becomes seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced with another of the same species and size as that originally planted.

The mobile homes labelled as 'Static 1' and 'Static 2' and their associated parking and paving areas (as depicted on drawing SA52227-BRY-ST-PL-A-0005-E) shall be removed, and the land returned to its condition as approved under appeal decision APP/R3705/W/24/3338275 within 30 days of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in i) to iv) below: Within 3 months of the date of this decision submits schemes for: • foul water drainage and surface water drainage; • external lighting, inclusive of design, location and specification of the illuminance; • the internal layout of the site, hereafter referred to as the Site Development Scheme (SDS), the layout of the pitches, hard standings, the size and siting of the caravans and the design and layout of amenity areas, parking and manoeuvring areas. The schemes shall have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their written approval and shall include a timetable for their implementation. No residential use including the stationing of caravans, parking or erection or provision of domestic paraphernalia shall take place on any part of the site outside of the SDS approved under this condition. If within 11 months of the date of this decision the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of State. If an appeal is made in pursuance of ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined, and the submitted scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State. The approved schemes shall have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved timetable. Upon implementation of the approved schemes specified in this condition, those schemes shall thereafter be maintained. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

The approved means of access to the site, and the associated visibility splays, shall be retained in accordance with the approved details, and the visibility splays shall be kept clear of obstruction that prevents sight of vehicles on the road.

The bin collection point approved under application DOC/2024/0069 shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

No gates or barriers or means of enclosure shall be erected across the approved vehicular access within 12 metres of the highway boundary and all such features should open inward away from the highway.

The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers, defined as persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, and all other persons with a cultural tradition of nomadism or of living in a caravan, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such, in accordance with Planning Policy for [name] or replacement planning policy or guidance.

There shall be no more than one pitch on the site and no more than four caravans (as defined by the [name] and Control of Development Act 1990 as amended by the Caravan Sites Act 1968 as amended) shall be stationed on the site at any one time for the duration specified in Condition 4, of which only three caravans shall be static caravans. ENDS----