Appeal 6001550

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use of land to a travellers’ caravan site at land off [address], on the north side of [address], Rangeworthy [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P24/02831/F, subject to the conditions in the attached Conditions Schedule.

The main issues in this case are a) whether the development is acceptable in principle in this location, b) whether its effect on the setting of the [name]* listed Church of the [name] and the [name]* listed [address] would cause harm to the significance of either or both of those designated heritage assets, c) the effect on the character and appearance of the area, d) the impact on biodiversity, e) the effect on neighbouring living conditions and, if any heritage harm and/or development plan conflict would result from any or all of the above, f) whether public benefits would outweigh that heritage harm identified, and, whether any material considerations exist that justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

This appeal concerns land that runs from [address] in the north-east round the back of 2 dwellings, called [address] and The Old Vicarage, to [address] to the south. The bulk of the site is a grassed paddock that is used for the grazing of horses, though a spinney is against the eastern frontage by [address]. The proposal is for 4 Gypsy and traveller pitches, and I was given no reason to conclude the households intended to occupy each of them did not fall under the definition of Gypsies and travellers found in Planning policy for traveller sites (the PPTS). I shall therefore consider the appeal on the basis that they comply with that definition.

The site is outside of but adjacent to the settlement boundary for Rangeworthy, which at this point broadly runs along its eastern side. Policy PSP40 in the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (the Local Plan) lists acceptable residential uses outside of settlement boundaries, and does not mention Gypsy and traveller caravan pitches in that list. However, in the [site address] Local Plan Core Strategy (the [name]), Policy CS21, which is the criteria-based policy that specifically concerns Gypsy and traveller accommodation, makes no explicit reference to whether or not the accommodation needs to be in a settlement boundary. Indeed, by saying that preferably sites should be within a reasonable distance of local services but more remote ones may be acceptable, there appears to be a clear acknowledgement that they can be located outside of such boundaries. This is in line with guidance in the PPTS.

There have been 3 previous appeals relating to this site. These were for 10 houses in 2015, 6 houses in 2017, and 2 bungalows in 2020, and all were dismissed. While the third was silent on the matter, the 2015 and the 2017 decisions both challenged the principle of the development, by finding it in conflict with the settlement strategy. However, each of those appeals was for bricks-and-mortar housing and so, in relation to this issue, they were materially different to the development before me.

It was also contended that, because of heritage concerns (discussed below) the Inspectors in those previous appeals had established an ‘in principle’ objection to development on this site. I do not see that in their decisions though, and it is a position I consider does not sit comfortably with Government guidance. As the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes clear, if there is less than substantial heritage harm it has to be balanced against public benefits. Therefore, the possibility that public benefits could exist that outweighed identified heritage harm cannot be ruled out.

Despite an acknowledged awareness of the concerns raised in those 3 previous decisions, the part of the site closest to [address] was allocated for 6 Gypsy and traveller pitches in an early iteration of the emerging Local Plan. The Council is now proposing that allocation be withdrawn though, so it cannot be given significant weight in my reasoning.

Accordingly, I conclude that, in principle, the development is acceptable in this location, and does not conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS21 or the PPTS.

[address] is a short lane that runs westwards off [address], with the school on one side and the southern boundary of the appeal site on the other. It then passes [address] (the Court) and terminates a little beyond, outside the Church of the [name] (the church).

Both the Court and the church are [name]* listed. The former is a large and impressive house that I was told in the submissions dates back to the 14th Century, but which was said to be from the early 17th Century in the listing information. Although it has been altered over the years, building styles, details and patterns from its original construction are apparent still, and, when looking from the lane, it stands in a plot of sufficient size to reflect its status. The church is smaller and dates back to the 11th century. Although it is again much altered, its origins and its age can still be recognised. Insofar as this appeal is concerned, the significance of each of these buildings is enhanced by them appearing to be of high status in this rural area, and this is emphasised by the manner in which they stand substantially apart from the rest of the village.

The appeal site was for a while part of an orchard that ran eastwards from the Court. This though has now gone and indeed a modern bungalow, Green Acre, has been built in between. As a result, intervisibility between the appeal site and these 2 listed buildings is limited to just sightings of the Court’s gable and the church’s belfry, while there are few places from where the appeal site and either of these listed buildings can be both readily seen.

However, [address] has a strong and informal rural character, with a narrow carriageway, few kerbs, no pavements and little lighting. At the eastern end, by the junction with [address], this character has been affected to a limited degree by road signage and markings, as well as by buildings, fences and walls to either side. However, the buildings and walls are of a generally sympathetic design and historic character (indeed with some of the buildings being non-designated heritage assets), while the road signage and markings are not untypical of a rural lane.

Moving further west though, beyond the school, the appeal site on one side and the open fields on the other help to establish a more tranquil character on the remainder of the lane. This has the effect of drawing you out of the activity of 21st century life, and into the quieter environs around the Court and the church that befit their rural character and history. As the last remaining piece of agricultural open land on the north side of the lane between the Court and [address], the appeal site, to some degree, serves to reflect and maintain the separation that has existed historically between these 2 listed buildings on the one hand and the village on the other. Whilst, when travelling westwards, Green Acre is visible over the land, the site’s undeveloped nature still provides some sense of openness. How intentional or otherwise it was to keep the church and the Court separate from the village has not been established by the submissions. However, its effect has been to underline the higher status of these 2 listed buildings by maintaining the way they stand apart in rural surroundings. The construction of The Old Vicarage and then, more recently, of Green Acre has reduced this separation from what it was originally, and I appreciate that the site has a limited frontage to the lane. These factors though do not mean the site’s value in contributing to this sense of separation has been lost.

Coming to this view I recognise that there is a certain amount of activity around the school when children are playing or are being dropped off and collected, but this does not undermine the tranquillity experienced outside those times or further along the lane. It was also said in the [address], being a hotel, eroded this sense of tranquillity, but I understand it is no longer used for that purpose.

Looking from [address], the gables of the Court were visible when I visited, and the church’s belfry could also be seen. The restricted nature of such views inevitably limited an appreciation of these 2 buildings, but from what was visible it could be assumed that certainly the Court was of some status. In this view the presence of the appeal site was apparent in the foreground. Although the hedge along the site’s northern boundary concealed it to a degree and allowed only the top of the open-sided barn on the land to be seen, the lack of any more buildings implied the site was otherwise undeveloped. This was confirmed from near where the northern boundary joined [address], as it was possible to see across the site and note its open nature. Consequently, when looking from [address] there was an awareness that, due in part to the appeal site, a property of status stood aside from the village.

The lengthy row of utilitarian agricultural buildings running northwards from the northern side of the Court were also apparent from [address]. However, whatever the effect this has on the setting and significance of these 2 listed buildings, in my opinion it does not dilute their sense of separation from the village that I have identified.

Therefore, I find that, because of its effect on their respective settings, the appeal site assists in an understanding of these 2 designated heritage assets by maintaining a sense of separation from the rest of Rangeworthy, and so emphasises the higher status that they have historically enjoyed in that community. Consequently, I share the view expressed in the 2020 decision that it makes a small, but positive, contribution to the significance of each.

The 4 Gypsy and traveller pitches now proposed would be sited in a row running north-eastwards from the western boundary up to the northern one. The households that are to occupy them have confirmed none would require a day room to be built. Rather, each pitch would comprise a static caravan (also called a mobile home), and space for a touring caravan and parking for 2 cars. In the north-west corner would be a triangular area for children’s play. Vehicular access to the site would be off [address] through the spinney now present, and the drive, providing access to each individual plot, would then run along behind [address] and The Old Vicarage.

[address], the caravans, the associated ancillary works and the surrounding paraphernalia would, in my opinion, erode the open and undeveloped character that the site currently displays. The inevitable activity would also diminish the sense of tranquillity now experienced. As a result, from [address] any contribution it now makes to the significance of the Court and the Church by separating them from the remainder of the village would be reduced.

The southernmost pitch would be set back from the [address] boundary behind an orchard. This though would take time to be established and, even when matured, I have little to show it would deliver any meaningful screening either during the day, or during the hours of darkness when lights are in use. It was said this would bring a heritage benefit as it would be re-instating what was historically there. In my opinion though, because this orchard would be so small and would have Gypsy and traveller pitches immediately behind, its benefit in this regard would be extremely limited.

The appellant is also proposing a wall on the [address] frontage that matches what is found elsewhere along the road. However, considering the rural character of [address] and the contribution this makes to the approach to these listed buildings I am not persuaded that, when compared to the hedging and scrub there now, a wall would be a benefit in this regard.

Travelling along [address] from the north, the development would be less apparent due to the site’s northern boundary hedge. Despite this though there would be an awareness of the static caravans as they would project above, and views into the site would be possible from near the access to the neighbouring farm track as well as along the proposal’s drive itself. As a result, again from here any role the site now plays in the separation of these 2 listed buildings from the village would be diminished.

In wider views though, the scheme would have no effect on the settings of these buildings. Looking from the footpaths to the south and the north-west, the caravans would be concealed by buildings and planting, and, mindful the Green Acre and the prefabricated school building are also low, the church and the Court would continue to be seen as standing separate and apart from the rest of the village.

The Rose and [address] is [name] listed from the mid-19th Century, and insofar as this appeal is concerned, its significance lies in its external detail and appearance reflecting its age, and its function as a long-standing social hub in the village. That though is situated on the opposite side of [address] at its junction with [address], and it would be substantially screened from this development by the housing in between. As a result, I consider that any effect the proposal may have on its setting does not harm the significance of this public house.

There are also 2 non-designated heritage assets near to the site, namely The Old Vicarage and the older school building. Again, the significance of these is shown in their external appearance which, in each case, reflects its historic origins and purpose. I consider that this paddock does not play a role in defining the significance of either building, and, particularly once the landscaping was taken into account, any significance they enjoy would not be diminished.

[name] conclude that the development would adversely affect the setting of [address] and the Church of the [name] as it would erode their separation from the village and undermine their tranquil rural context. As a result, this would diminish the manner in which these 2 [name]* designated heritage assets were experienced, so causing harm to their significance. This harm would be less than substantial, and indeed would be towards the lowest end of that scale.

Hedges substantially bound this horse paddock on 3 sides, while fencing is on the fourth. Houses are to the east and west, a field is to the north and, across [address], is the prefabricated school building and a further field.

Looking from [address], although the tall hedge on the northern boundary obscures much of the site and allows just the top of the agricultural building there to be seen, and although Green Acre and [address] are visible to the west, it is clear the appellant’s land is undeveloped and open. While the farm track is in this view immediately next to the hedge, it is at ground level and so not dominant.

[address] the hedge on the northern boundary reduces what can be seen beyond, but constrained views in rural locations are not uncommon and do not necessarily result in the sense that a site is divorced from its wider countryside setting. In any event, trees are nonetheless visible above it and, while housing on [address] can be seen to the north-east, it is notable that no such built development is apparent beyond the hedge to the north. As a result, even though this view is constrained to a degree, I consider there is an appreciation that the countryside extends northwards. Furthermore, when on the site itself looking south, views are possible across the field next to the school towards the open rural landscape beyond. When this is taken with my comments above about the appreciation of what is to the north, I consider the site forms part of the band of countryside bounding the west of Rangeworthy.

Therefore, although it has housing to either side and the school to the south, when assessed in the wider context, I consider that visually the site is not in the built-up part of the village, but rather is perceived as contributing to the countryside, and sitting just outside of the settlement.

As stated above, from [address] the proposed wall, orchard, and general planting will maybe soften the scheme to some extent, but these aspects would not totally screen the fencing, mobile homes, lighting and associated paraphernalia. Rather, the sense of an open paddock and what it contributes to the rural landscape would be lost, and would be replaced with a relatively dense form of development. Views from Green Acre and [address] to either side would be similarly affected, with the planting and fencing only mitigating the impact partially.

Looking from [address], as the tops of the mobile homes would be apparent above the hedge, their presence would be appreciated from there, eroding what is now the space between those 2 neighbouring dwellings. Moreover, the creation of the access through the trees and underscrub next to [address] would open up views into the site, with its formal driveway and the presence of the northernmost pitch.

I nonetheless acknowledge though that, whilst I consider the scheme harms the character and appearance of the area, the visually constrained nature of the site resulting from housing to either side and the prefabricated school building to the south, means the adverse effects in this regard are limited.

Concern was also expressed about the effects of commercial activities, larger vehicles and storage on site. If the presence of these were sufficient to constitute a material change of use they could require planning permission, but otherwise they can be subject to controls under planning conditions.

Taking these factors together. I am therefore of the view that by eroding the openness of this rural paddock, the scheme would detract unacceptably from the character and appearance of this countryside location, in conflict with Policies CS9 and CS34 in the [name], and Local Plan Policies PSP1 and PSP2, which together seek to conserve and enhance the distinctive character of the local landscape.

Circular 06/2005 says that the presence of protected species is a material consideration when assessing a planning proposal that would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. It goes on to say that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.

The Ecological Assessment identified no unacceptable adverse effects on wildlife. In particular it screened out any potential effect on [name], considering the identified ponds were too distant. At the Hearing though it was confirmed that a further pond containing a [name] population was in fact about 80m from the site.

Being heavily grazed, the Council and the appellant agreed that much of the site would not have been attractive for [name]. However, the trees and underscrub by [address], some 142m2 in area, could offer potential cover for them, though this was at the furthest end of the site relative to the pond, some 127m distant, albeit apparently linked by a ditch. Following this, the Natural England Rapid Risk Assessment Tool was used. Given the limited suitability of the habitats on site, the distance from the known population, and the level of connectivity between the site and the pond, it recorded a result of Green, finding an offence in relation to [name] would be unlikely and the probability of impacting them low. Accordingly, in the light of this it was said that a condition requiring a [name] was a suitable and sufficient way forward.

To my mind this work has established sufficiently the likely effect of the development on this protected species before the planning permission is granted, in line with the Circular, and as a material consideration this advice has been taken into account. I have no reason to disagree with the findings of the appellant and the Council, and so conclude that, subject to the imposition of such a condition, the scheme would not have an adverse effect on [name].

Being a site in the countryside it is to be expected it would be used by wildlife for foraging, but again there is no basis to consider other fauna would be harmed unacceptably.

Diverse and varied planting is being introduced. The appellant has entered into a legal agreement with the Council requiring him to provide a [name], and committing the Council to use the money for monitoring implementation and on-going compliance of the Biodiversity Gain Plan. I have noted the comments of the neighbours’ consultant, but I have no reason to consider this agreement, as executed, does not comply with the requirements of Regulation 122 in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

Accordingly, I conclude the scheme would not have an unacceptable effect on the biodiversity of the area and so in this regard would not conflict with [name] CS9 and CS21(1), which seek to conserve and enhance the natural environment and avoid Gypsy and traveller developments from having unacceptable environmental effects.

From Green Acre, views from within its rear facing rooms down its garden would be unaffected, and an outlook over the fields to the north would still be possible. Views over the appeal site though are possible from a rear-facing bedroom and from a side window in the breakfast room area as well as from the garden. However, to my mind whilst what could be seen from these points would undoubtedly change, I consider the separation involved and the height of the caravans would mean they were not unduly dominant or oppressive. A 1.8m fence is also proposed along that boundary, but of itself that does not generate unreasonable living conditions, mindful it could be erected as permitted development. There is also a bedroom window in the side elevation that would face towards the site. This though would maintain some aspect into the proposed orchard. However, again the principal effect on its outlook would result from the fence, 3.5 to 4m away, but as this is in accord with what could be erected as permitted development I am not satisfied its presence is a reason to resist the scheme.

A further concern was also raised about overlooking arising from people using the touring caravans as living accommodation. The boundary fencing though should restrict this to a great extent, and it could also be overcome by a condition preventing the caravans being used in this manner. A requirement that the mobile homes were only in the positions shown would further reduce the chance of a loss of privacy.

The main rear aspect from [address] is over the appellant’s paddock. Again, from the garden this will change as a fence is to be erected within the appeal site to screen the development. This will give an increased sense of enclosure, especially as the appeal site itself is about 0.5m higher. However, taking into account the size of the garden, I am not satisfied the harm resulting from this would create unreasonable living conditions. From the upper floors of this neighbouring house views will also change, but that of itself is not a basis to resist the development. The separation will mean that the scheme will not be unacceptably oppressive in these views and will not result in an unsatisfactory loss of privacy.

The Old Vicarage also backs onto the site. Its rear garden though is longer than at [address], and at the end there is dense planting that significantly impedes intervisibility between that neighbouring property and the site. Consequently the living conditions there would not be harmed.

The development would also create more noise and disturbance when compared to currently, whether that be from traffic, children’s play, or just general activity around the site. Given it is a residential use though, and noting the controls over commercial activity, I consider the resultant noise would not be unreasonable for those adjacent.

Accordingly, I conclude the development would not unreasonably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring houses, and so would not conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS21(3), which says Gypsy and traveller accommodation should not unacceptably prejudice the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Refuse collection vehicles would park on the highway. A neighbour said that the designated collection point for bins should be where refuse operatives would have to take them no more than 25m to the refuse vehicle, and where residents would have to take them no more than 10m from where they were otherwise stored. The site of the proposed bin store complies with the first of these distances but not necessarily the second. However, I am not aware of anywhere where this 10m distance is supported by planning policy, and even if it was deemed to have merit, it is not a basis to resist the scheme.

The access to the site would be on the outside of a bend on a stretch of road where traffic is subject to a speed limit of up to 30mph. As such, visibility for emerging drivers is satisfactory, and is not impeded by the overhanging trees to the front of [address]. I also consider the forward visibility is suitable for drivers waiting to turn right into the site.

Although there is the school nearby, the scheme would not have an access onto [address], and the residual cumulative impacts of any traffic on the highway network or pedestrian activity would not be severe. With adequate on-site parking and manoeuvring, I have no reason to consider highway safety would be compromised.

Subject to the imposition of a suitable condition, there is no technical evidence to support resisting the scheme on the grounds of flooding or drainage. There was also a concern that the manhole cover and sewer serving Green Acre would be beneath a caravan. Even if that is to be the case, given the possibility of technical solutions in my judgement this is not something that is sufficient to justify dismissing the appeal. If a condition is imposed restricting the locations of static caravans only to those shown, and it transpires that needs to be changed to accommodate the manhole, then permission could need to be sought for an alternative.

Rangeworthy itself has few services, and the residents of the development would be reliant on the car to access shops, medical care, much education, employment and so on. However, a number of houses have recently been accepted in the village and Yate, with all it offers, is relatively close. Furthermore, Core Strategy Policy CS21, says Gypsy and traveller sites, should ‘preferably ́ be in ‘reasonable’ distance of facilities, though ‘more remote sites may be acceptable’. Taking these factors together, the sustainability of the location is not a ground to resist the scheme.

I have found that less than substantial harm, albeit towards the lowest end of that scale, would be caused to the significance of 2 [name]* listed buildings by reason of the proposal’s effect on their settings. Moreover, I have also found there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area, though this would be limited by the visually constrained nature of the site.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset (the more important the asset the greater the weight should be). Moreover, any harm to its significance, including from development within its setting, requires clear and convincing justification. It adds that if less than substantial harm is caused to the significance of any asset, that harm should be weighed against the public benefits in what I shall call the heritage balance. As said above, by providing this balance the Framework is accepting development that harms the significance of a listed building should not be automatically refused, but rather should only be resisted if the harm is not outweighed by whatever public benefits exist.

A second balance (the planning balance) is found in section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the 2004 Act), which says development should be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

In support of his case the appellant has drawn upon the Council’s consistent failure to deliver the necessary number of Gypsy and traveller pitches for over 20 years, and a consequent appreciable unmet need. The precise size of the shortfall and was debated, but the Council accepted it was ‘not insignificant’. I have no reason to disagree, and so find there to be a policy failure over this time. Furthermore, I was told no alternative sites were available, and the Council was unable to demonstrate an up-to-date 5-year supply of deliverable sites. In the Statement of [name] the parties agreed that all these matters should be given substantial weight.

Furthermore, while it was said the appellant did not seek a personal permission, he nonetheless emphasised the personal circumstances of the 4 households who would occupy the pitches, and in particular highlighted those of the 13 children to live there, some of whom have medical needs. It was said that the owner of where they currently lived had required them to leave (see Document APP1), and without being able to occupy the appeal site, and in the agreed absence of alternatives, they would have to adopt a roadside existence.

I am aware that the shortfall means the so-called ‘tilted balance’ in Framework paragraph 11(d) applies. This says that planning permission should be granted unless (i) the application of policies in the Framework provides a strong reason for refusal or (ii) any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Moreover, the best interests of the children is a primary consideration in this case. At the outset no consideration must therefore be regarded as more important or, in advance of the subsequent assessment of the individual circumstances, be given greater weight. However, these best interests will not always outweigh other considerations including those that impact negatively on the environment.

Turning now to balance these factors in support of the scheme against the harms identified, I share the view that the shortfall in the delivery of pitches, the lack of alternative sites, the policy failure and the significant unmet need should be given substantial weight in favour of the scheme. Providing 4 pitches would be a public benefit that would contribute to addressing the shortfall in the delivery of Gypsy and traveller pitches, and the related policy failure. Although this contribution would be relatively small, given the scale of the shortfall to my mind it would nonetheless be valuable.

By providing more pitches the scheme would also reduce the likelihood of unauthorised encampments, whether associated with these households or by others who could now occupy the existing Gypsy and traveller site where they currently live. This would be a second public benefit of the scheme to which I afford notable weight.

Finally, I recognise too that a settled base would allow these households in general, and the children in particular, better access to medical care, education and social opportunities, as well as bringing a stability to their lives. This is especially important to the younger children and those with medical needs. Although this is primarily a private benefit, I share the view of the Inspector in the Pucklechurch decision (Document APP3) that there is a more general social advantage to ensuring people are healthy and can be educated and treated appropriately. Again, it is a matter to which I afford significant weight.

Taking these factors together and turning first to the heritage balance, I consider they constitute a convincing justification for the effect on the settings of the church and the Court, and are public benefits sufficient to outweigh readily the level of less than substantial harm I have identified in relation to this effect on the significance of these 2 listed buildings. As a result, the scheme does not conflict with Local Plan Policy PSP17 and the Framework, which say less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset will only be accepted if the proposed public benefits outweigh that harm. Given this, I find the application of policies in the Framework does not provide a strong reason for refusal, and so Framework paragraph 11(d)(i) does not apply.

I therefore turn to the planning balance. Again, I find the limited remaining harm I have identified does not outweigh the weight I have afforded to the matters around the delivery of Gypsy and traveller pitches, the effect on unauthorised encampments and the personal circumstances (including the best interests of the child). I therefore consider the scheme does not conflict with Framework paragraph 11(d)(ii) or section 38(6) of the 2004 Act.

In coming to my view, I have no basis to find the appellant’s position in relation to needing new pitches has been in any way orchestrated. I have therefore placed weight on the personal circumstances of him and the other households, and so will impose a condition restricting it to their occupancy only. In an appeal decision at [address] (reference APP/P0119/W/21/3289677) an Inspector had ‘some sympathy’ with the argument that personal permissions had been a key factor in contributing to the Council’s longstanding policy failure in this area, and found it ‘a consideration of significant weight’. However, I am unaware of the evidence put to that previous Inspector that led him to express such a view. I also see nothing in that decision that meant he found personal permissions, which are potentially an option when considering changes of use, should not be issued in this District. [name] accept that such a condition prevents others occupying the site without first obtaining the necessary planning permission and so, in that sense could be contended to affect the availability of pitches, I am also aware that not issuing personal permissions could well reduce the number of new pitches as cases could be refused that otherwise could be allowed. Indeed, as such a condition could well make an unacceptable development acceptable such an approach could be contrary to Government guidance. Consequently, I find that appeal decision does not prevent me from granting a personal permission in this instance.

Neighbouring residents had offered to buy the appeal site from the appellant, and, they said, this would have enabled him to acquire a site elsewhere. I am unclear as to how that offer was made or how financially realistic it was. Moreover, I see no reason why this should affect the planning merits of the case before me. It was also said that, even if unallocated sites have to be brought forward to meet the need, more suitable ones than this exist elsewhere in the District. While no doubt there are other appropriate sites across [site address] , those are not before me and indeed I have no basis to consider they will be subject to applications in the future. Rather, I have to consider this case on its own merits.

A further contention was that there were vacant Gypsy and traveller pitches in the District, or permissions that had not yet been implemented. Requiring occupation or implementation lie beyond the scope of the planning system, and, in any event, I consider the scale of the shortfall means further pitches will inevitably still be required.

I am aware too that in each of the 3 previous appeals the Inspectors found, as I have, that there would be less than substantial harm to the significance of the Church of the [name] and [address], as well as an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. Two of the decisions also found a further harm resulting from the development’s conflict with the settlement strategy. When they then undertook the balancing exercise though, and even with the shortfall in housing land supply acknowledged, they all considered the harms outweighed the benefits and dismissed the appeals. In the light of these decisions I also understand that a neighbour was advised there was little prospect of him getting planning permission for a home for a family member on the site.

It is apparent that the balancing I have done has resulted in a different outcome to those previous Inspectors. This though is because I am weighing the harms against benefits relating not to a proposal for bricks-and-mortar housing, but rather to a scheme to use land for the delivery of Gypsy and traveller accommodation. As a result, when balancing the harms and benefits, the weights to be attached to locational factors, to the size of the Council’s shortfall in Gypsy and traveller provision compared to its shortfall in bricks-and-mortar housing, to policy deficiencies, to the visual impact of the scheme and to personal circumstances, the best interests of the child, and alternative accommodation are all materially different to those before the Inspectors who made the previous decisions. As such, my decision is not inconsistent with those.

I agree that the delivery of Gypsy and traveller pitches is a matter best addressed through the development plan system. However, the Council’s reliance on a criteria-based policy in its adopted development plan rather than just specific allocations shows an expectancy that sites will nonetheless be coming forward other than on allocated sites. Moreover, when, as in this District, the development plan framework has not managed to deliver the necessary numbers of pitches, so resulting in a ‘not insignificant’ shortfall, it is inevitable that ’windfall’ proposals will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the ‘tilted balance’ in Framework paragraph 11(d). While an emerging Local Plan is in preparation, I picked up no confidence that it would satisfactorily resolve issues around the delivery of Gypsy and traveller pitches, or indeed the timescale as to when that plan would be forthcoming. In any event, proposals will continue to come forward in the meantime that will need considering, and those will therefore have to be assessed on their merits having regard to the existing development plan and all other relevant material considerations.

During the [name] was told that a local resident was experiencing severe stress over this proposal. No further information was supplied though, and so while I have taken this matter into account it does not result in me changing my findings.

Finally, the appellant said weight should be afforded to the site lying outside the Green Belt, but as I have found in favour of the scheme on the other matters raised above, that is not something I have had to explore.

Accordingly, aware that development should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, I consider that, on balance, the public benefits and factors cited in support of the development outweigh any harm and any development plan conflict I have identified.

For the avoidance of doubt the standard commencement condition should be imposed, and the scheme should be in accordance with the approved plans.

In considering this development I have afforded weight to the personal circumstances of the named householders and their dependents. Given this, I need to restrict occupancy to those residents only. Moreover, the delivery of Gypsy and traveller pitches has also carried significant weight in my decision-making. However, as I have proceeded on the basis that the intended residents are Gypsies and travellers, and as only they can live there in the light of the personal condition, a condition explicitly restricting occupancy to Gypsies and travellers only does not need to be imposed.

In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and mindful of its proximity to listed buildings, conditions should impose controls over the number of pitches, the layout of the static caravans, commercial operations/storage, vehicle storage, bin storage, tree protection, the wall to [address], landscaping and landscape replacement. For this reason too site restoration should also be approved so that it can be restored when the named occupiers no longer live there.

Mindful of ecological implications, the following should be approved and then implemented – a Construction Environmental Management Plan, a [name] and Monitoring Plan, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, and a [name]. The development should also otherwise comply with the Ecological Assessment, and external lighting should be agreed. However, due to the provisions of Schedule 7 of the 1990 Act and as none of the statutory exemptions apply in this case, the development may not be begun unless a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Therefore, as there are separate provisions governing the delivery of this Plan, there is no specific need to impose a condition on this decision for that purpose.

To protect neighbouring living conditions the touring caravans should not be used as overnight accommodation and the hours of construction should be controlled. For this reason too the siting of the static caravans should be as shown. In the interests of drainage and flooding, the foul and surface drainage should be approved, and mindful of the possibility of archaeological value, a programme of archaeological works should also be approved. Having regard to highway safety the access and on-site parking and manoeuvring should be provided, the location and opening of gates should be agreed, and vehicular access should be from [address] only. Refuse vehicles are not to enter the site, but on the evidence before me though I am not aware of a need for swept path analyses to be submitted for emergency vehicles.

Amongst the conditions are many that require approval of matters before the development begins. I consider there to be a clear justification for these because the matters to which they relate need to be addressed at the outset, either to ensure their timely delivery or because they could influence how the development was implemented.

I have found less than substantial harm at the lower end of that scale would be caused by the development to the significance of the [name]* listed buildings of the Church of the [name] and [address], but this harm is outweighed by the scheme’s public benefits.

I have also found development plan conflict in relation to the effect on the character and appearance of the area, but have judged that there are material considerations indicating a decision otherwise than in accordance with the

[name] conclude the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision.

Unless otherwise amended under the conditions below, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan Dwg No. TDA.2961.01 Existing Site Layout Dwg No. TDA.2961.02 Proposed Site Layout & [name]. TDA.2961.03 [name] No. TDA.2961.04

The site shall be occupied solely by John & [name] and their resident dependents, Darren & [name] and their resident dependents, Jason & [name] and their resident dependents, and [name] and her resident dependents.

There shall be no more than 4 pitches on the land subject of this permission, and within each individual pitch at any one time there shall be no more than one static caravan and one touring caravan (as defined under the [name] and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968).

No touring caravan on any of the pitches hereby approved shall be used as living accommodation or as overnight accommodation.

The static caravans shall be sited in accordance with the approved ‘Proposed Site Layout & [name]. TDA.2961.03 [name] (or in accordance with any amendment to that plan approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority as a result of compliance with other conditions on this permission).

No commercial activities, including the storage of materials, shall take place on the land subject of this permission.

No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the land subject of this permission.

Prior to the first occupation of the development, the car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas shall be provided in accordance with the approved ‘Proposed Site Layout & [name]. TDA.2961.03 [name] (or in accordance with any amendment to that plan approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority as a result of compliance with other conditions on this permission) and thereafter retained as such for the purposes intended.

Vehicular access to the development hereby permitted shall be from [address] only.

Prior to the first occupation of the development, the vehicular access shall be provided, with sight splays, in accordance with the approved ‘Highway Visibility Plan’ Dwg No. TDA.2961.04. Thereafter the access shall be maintained, and the sight splays kept free of any obstruction above 0.9m in height when measured from the adjacent carriageway.

The location and direction of opening of any gates should be in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the first occupation of the development, a Waste and [name] and [name], comprising the location of bin storage and the design of the collection point shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, along with a timetable for its provision. The Waste and [name] and [name] shall then be provided in accordance with the approved strategy and timetable and thereafter retained.

The hours of working on site during the period of demolition and construction associated with this development shall not take place outside the hours of 0730h to 1800h on Mondays to Fridays (excluding [name]) and 0800h to 1300h on Saturdays. No working shall take place on Sundays or [name]. The term ‘working’ shall, for the purpose of this condition, include the use of any plant or machinery (mechanical or other), the carrying out of any maintenance or cleaning work on any plant or machinery, deliveries to the site, and the movement of vehicles within the site.

Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall be written in accordance with BS42020, and will include mitigation details for commuting and foraging bats and other protected species that might be present within the area as well as any pollution prevention measures and a strategy for eradicating Japanese knotweed. The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the commencement of the development a [name] and Monitoring Plan (HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, together with a timetable for its implementation. The HMMP shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable.

Prior to the commencement of development, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) identifying existing and proposed landscape and ecology related site assets, associated management objectives, schedules of annual maintenance work for the establishment period years 1-5, longer term management prescriptions for each landscape treatment, SuDS and hard landscape areas, boundary structures, and a timetable for its implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The LEMP shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable.

Prior to the commencement of development, a [name] (PWMS) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The PWMS shall include practical measures to avoid potential impacts to [name] during the construction phase together with a timetable for those works. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved statement and timetable.

Unless otherwise amendments have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority under other conditions on this decision, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the mitigation measures and enhancements (and their phasings or timings) contained in the Ecological Assessment by [name] dated November 2024, and any ecological enhancements cited in that document shall be installed prior to first occupation and thereafter retained.

Prior to the commencement of the development, details of protective measures and practices to be used to safeguard all existing planting on and adjacent to the site that is to be retained, together with a timetable for their use, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and these protective measures and practices shall then be employed in accordance with the approved details and timetable.

No external lighting shall be installed until its details have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Such details shall include lighting specifications and locations designed to prevent light spill over boundary vegetation, bat commuting/foraging habitat and new roost provisions. All external lighting shall then be installed in accordance with the approved details only.

Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape scheme shall include, the location, species, stock size, planting centres and quantities of all proposed tree and structure planting, together with the location and details of all fencing and hard landscape surface treatments. All planting, fencing and hardsurfacing is to be implemented prior to first occupation of the development in accordance with the approved scheme.

If, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, any tree, hedging or shrub in the approved landscaping scheme (or any tree, hedging or shrub planted as a replacement) is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, a tree, hedging or shrub of the same size and species as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first planting season following the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of the original tree, hedging or shrub.

Prior to the commencement of development, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval of a scheme for the restoration of the land once it ceases to be occupied by those named in Condition 3 above, together with a timetable for its implementation. The development shall not be occupied until those details have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once the land is no longer occupied by those named in Condition 3 above the land shall then be restored in accordance with the approved scheme and the approved timetable.

Prior to the commencement of development, details of schemes for the foul and surface water drainage, along with a timetable for their implementation and a scheme for the maintenance and monitoring of any [name] (SuDS), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schemes shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetables, and thereafter retained.

Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed design for the SuDS basin to demonstrate how this will be sympathetically integrated into the landscape character of the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the SuDS basin shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained.

Prior to the commencement of development, details of the new wall to [address], comprising materials, elevations and the manner of construction, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction of the wall shall then be erected in accordance with the approved details and timetable.

No development shall take place until the applicant, or his agents or successors in title, has secured and had implemented a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation and timetable which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. [name]: N Burley Heritage consultant [name] consultant A Murdoch Planning consultant [name] LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: R Hemming Senior Planning Officer [name] R Levenston Senior Planning Officer R Nicholson Conservation Officer INTERESTED PARTIES: A Beard Planning consultant representing [name] and [name] resident D Hardwick Local resident representing the Church of the Holy Trinity Harmsworth Local resident T Lakeman Local resident Plus one contributor who wished to remain anonymous [name] THE HEARING FROM THE APPELLANT APP1: Email from [name] to [name] (dated 4 March 2026) APP2: [name] APP3: Appeal decision APP/P0119/W/25/3369680 concerning Land opposite [address], [address], Pucklechurch [postcode] (dated 26 January 2026) APP4: Medical information concerning one of the intended residents APP5: Email to the Planning Inspectorate relating to the legal agreement, the [name] and conditions (dated 13 March 2026) APP6: Email to the Planning Inspectorate relating to [name] (dated 31 March 2026) APP7: Email to the Planning Inspectorate relating to drainage with a completed section 106 Agreement attached (dated 9 April 2026) FROM THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY LPA1: Set of application plans at A3 size. LPA2: Completed section 106 Agreement (received 8 April 2026) [name] TP1: Letter from [name] dated 25 March 2025 and modified on 4 March 2026 TP2 Letter from [name] to the Planning Inspectorate (dated 27 March 2026)