Appeal 6002301

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the material change in use of the land to a mixed use, comprising agricultural grazing for horses and a caravan site, to provide residential accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, comprising a single family pitch consisting of 1 static caravan, 1 touring caravan, parking and associated infrastructure and new access (retrospective) at [name] 469282, Northing 188288, [name], Nettlebed, [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/S2124/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

At the hearing, local residents suggested the entrance to the site is on [name] rather than [site address] . Moreover, from the information provided I am unconvinced the site is adjacent to [address] as originally claimed. As such, I consider the address given in the header and in my decision above more accurately reflects the location of the site compared to that provided on the application form. As a consequence, I have omitted reference to the new access being to [site address] in the description of development in my decision. No prejudice or injustice would be caused to any party by taking this approach.

The development includes the change in use to a residential caravan site and agricultural grazing land. The submitted site layout plan shows the supporting infrastructure referred to in the description. At the hearing, the appellant’s agent also confirmed the scheme includes the provision of surface and foul water drainage systems. The site layout plan indicates the caravan pitch demarked separately from the grazing land by proposed native hedges. As agreed at the hearing, I have assessed the appeal on the basis that the residential use would be confined to this part of the site with the remainder used for agricultural purposes.

On my visit I saw the residential use has commenced. The pitch was not laid out in accordance with the submitted plans but my assessment is based on the scheme as shown on the drawings.

The appellant’s submissions include a document entitled “Undertaking” dated 7 July 2025. This document does not appear to have been executed as a deed and it makes no reference to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Therefore, in light of part (9) of section 106, the undertaking does not constitute a planning obligation. Moreover, it relates to the actions of the appellant before this appeal decision is issued and in the event of planning permission being refused. For these reasons, the undertaking has little bearing on my assessment.

The main issues are (i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it conserves or enhances the natural, scenic and landscape beauty of the Chilterns National Landscape (the NL), and (ii) the matter of intentional unauthorised development (IUD). [name] find the development is unacceptable in these regards there is a further matter as to whether any factors in support of the scheme outweigh the harm caused so as to justify granting planning permission.

Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 includes a requirement to seek to further the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. The appeal site lies within the NL and so I have had regard to this duty (the section 245 duty) in my assessment of the appeal.

The defined appeal site forms part of a wider grassed field that lies between the B481, [name] and [site address] . The local area is strongly rural in character due to the predominance of fields, vegetated field boundaries, areas of woodland and narrow winding lanes. Also, the site is beyond the built up extent of the nearest village of Nettlebed and where the limited number of residential properties tend to be spread out along the lanes. Therefore, the site is in an attractive countryside location. The fields, hedgerows and woods in the area surrounding the site reflect some of the key characteristics of the NL.

Prior to the development, the appeal site was grassed and it would have been seen as part of the wider field. As such, it would have been consistent with the rural landscape. Also, the hedge along the [name] boundary would have added to the rural feel of the lane. In these regards, the plot would have contributed positively towards the natural and scenic qualities of the NL.

The formation of a new vehicular access has resulted in the removal of a short length of roadside hedgerow. The access is seen from the lane and it allows views into the site and of the gate and the crushed stone surfacing on the pitch. It has also opened up views from [name] of the houses on the junction of [site address] and the B481. Only a short part of the lane has been affected but the access has caused a slight erosion of its rural feel.

Moreover, the caravans currently on the pitch are seen either through vegetation or where there are gaps in hedges from several other points along [name], [site address] and the B481. Also, they are seen from the aforementioned residences at the end of [site address] . Mention is made of views of the site from local public footpaths but these do not allow easy sight of the development. As such, the pitch as it exists is visible but it is not prominent within the wider landscape due to being partially screened and its limited scale

From where they are visible, the caravans and stone surfacing stand out as a form of development encroachment onto part of an open field. Residential activities, associated paraphernalia and lighting would also bring attention to the site. The domestic use is not entirely alien to the locality as the pitch is within sight of other residences. However, the caravans look unusual in the context of nearby brick built dwellings of a traditional appearance. Also, the introduction of residential accommodation onto part of the field undermines its contribution to the intrinsic quality and beauty of the countryside. Furthermore, noise and vehicular trips associated with the development would to a minor degree be detrimental to the tranquillity and rural character of the area.

The appeal drawings indicate native hedging around the pitch and I saw some bushes had been recently planted. However, the defined appeal site includes a significant area of land beyond the pitch that is currently open. Under the appeal development, this land would be used for grazing purposes but there is scope to provide additional tree and hedge planting within the appeal site over and above that shown on the plans. For example, more substantial groups of trees or rows of hedgerows could be provided around the edges of the pitch and also around the field area that lies within the appeal site. Such planting could be reasonably secured through the imposition of a planning condition and once mature it would supplement existing vegetation in softening the visual impact of the development. Also, new planting would help offset any harm caused through the loss of the hedge to allow the new access. Indeed, extra planting that is sympathetic to the locality could enhance the site’s contribution to the natural interest and beauty of the NL. As such, the harmful effects of the pitch on the appearance of the area could be significantly reduced compared to the existing situation.

The development has resulted in the sub-division of the wider field. However, I am advised the field has been sold off as separate land parcels. On my visit, I saw fencing erected across parts of the field including on land that lies beyond the boundaries of the appeal site. It seems likely that such fencing would remain in place even if the appeal is dismissed as it demarks land in different ownerships. Therefore, the sub-division of the field as a direct result of the appeal development attracts very limited weight in my assessment of this main issue.

To summarise, I find the development undermines the attractiveness of [name] as a rural lane and the field’s contribution to the area’s open countryside qualities. Also, residential caravans are an unusual feature within the locality. The single pitch is a small scale development. It has a localised visual effect that could be further reduced through additional, sensitive planting on land within the appellant’s ownership. Even so, new planting would not fully mitigate the harmful effects of the development through introducing a residential use into part of the countryside. Activities and lighting associated with the site also spoil the rural nature of the NL.

For these reasons, I conclude the development when considered as a whole has an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area and that it does not conserve or enhance the natural, scenic and landscape beauty of the NL. In these respects, it does not accord with policies STRAT1, H14, DES1, DES2 and ENV1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan adopted 2020 (the LP). Amongst other things, these policies look to protect and enhance the landscape and the countryside, particularly those areas within the NL. Moreover, the development does not fully accord with the policies of the Chilterns National Landscape Management Plan 2025-2030 that look to only support development that is appropriate to local landscape character and that respects local vernacular.

At the same time, I consider the development causes only a limited level of harm in these regards. This would be further reduced through additional planting secured through the imposition of a planning condition. Intentional Unauthorised Development.

Whilst not a refusal reason on its decision notice, the Council through its submissions has referred to the [name] from August 2015 that establishes IUD as a material consideration in the determination of appeals. At the hearing, the appellant’s agent accepted that IUD has taken place as the development has been commenced without the required planning permission.

Before carrying out the development, the appellant lived in a house. However, this accommodation was not conducive to their Gypsy and Traveller lifestyle. The Council acknowledges that there is no suitable and available pitch elsewhere in the District for the appellant to set up a residential caravan site. Also, the planning application leading to this appeal was submitted very soon after the development was commenced. This suggests an intention from the appellant to immediately seek authorisation of the development, albeit retrospectively. As such, there are mitigating circumstances to take into account in my consideration of this matter.

Therefore, I conclude IUD has occurred but this attracts limited weight in my overall assessment of the appeal. In arriving at this view, I have noted the concerns from interested parties over breaches of planning control and a claimed failure to follow proper planning procedures. However, I am also mindful that section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 specifically allows for planning permission to be sought for development that has been carried out before the date of a planning application. Other issues raised by interested parties.

I am referred to planning appeal reference number APP/Q3115/W/24/3352693. This relates to the same site as the current appeal but to a proposal to change the land from agricultural to equestrian use, the erection of a stable and a new access. This appeal was dismissed on 20 May 2025, primarily due to the adverse effect of the proposal on the NL. I have had regard to this decision but I note the Inspector with that case considered a different development to that now before me. In any event, I too have found the current appeal development would not conserve nor enhance the NL. However, there are other factors relevant to a Gypsy and Traveller site development that the previous Inspector did not need to consider. As such, I am not bound to arrive at the same decision as the previous Inspector.

Concern is raised that allowing this appeal would provide a precedent for future proposals. However, there is little evidence before me to indicate other parts of the wider field would be subject of planning applications for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches. Any such schemes would need to be considered on their own merits having regard to the relevant policies and factors at the time.

Also, there are concerns the removal of hedgerow to create the access and the development in general have had a negative effect on the biodiversity value of the site. Any planning permission granted would be exempt from the mandatory biodiversity gain condition as the development has commenced. Nonetheless, there is scope to provide compensatory hedge and tree planting and general habitat improvements on the parts of the appeal site outside the residential pitch. Such measures could be reasonably secured through a planning condition.

Moreover, I find no reason to disagree with the Council’s Ecology Team that the appeal development causes no detriment to nearby ancient woodland. Mention was made at the hearing to Sites of Special Scientific Interest within the wider area. However, there is little evidence before me to indicate the development has had any effects on the ecological value of these sites. Again, the Council’s Ecology Team raises no objections in these regards. Also, there is little to indicate the development has caused harm to any protected species.

Paragraph 26 of the Planning Policy for [name] (PPTS) looks to limit new Gypsy and Traveller sites in open countryside away from existing settlements. This appeal site is not entirely isolated as it is within sight of other houses. Nonetheless, the surrounding area is mainly fields and woods and so it is fair to treat the development as being within open countryside.

The PPTS does not define the term “away from existing settlements”. Also, it is noteworthy that LP policy H14 on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation does not require new pitches to be within any prescribed distance of a village or town. I am taken to no policy that requires new Gypsy and Traveller pitches to be within walking distance of a settlement. Nettlebed is classed as a larger village under LP policy STRAT1. It contains a limited but potentially useful range of services such as shops, a primary school and a surgery. I envisage most trips between the appeal development and these facilities would need to be by private car but the journey time would be short. Given this context, I consider the development is near enough to Nettlebed to be in a suitable location for a Gypsy and Traveller site. In arriving at this view, I attach positive weight to the potential for occupants of the pitch to visit the nearby village and its services and so the development promotes a reasonable level of integrated co-existence with the local community.

Whilst it is visible from the nearby residences, the development is sufficiently separated from other properties to avoid unacceptable effects on living conditions through an intrusive loss of privacy. I understand a motorised electricity generator operating at the site has caused a noise nuisance. The appellant’s agent explained at the hearing of the intention to arrange a main electricity connection should permanent planning permission be granted for the development. As such, it seems a generator would not be required on the site if permission is allowed. In any event, this is a matter that could be addressed through the imposition of a planning condition that requires details of electricity provision to be submitted and approved. Such a condition could also require details of noise attenuation measures to be employed should a generator be proposed to provide electricity to the site.

I have been advised that the delivery of the static home caused traffic disruption. However, in general terms a single residential pitch is likely to lead to a very minor increase in vehicular traffic, even if residents are highly reliant on the private car. The access to the site causes no unacceptable risk to highway safety as it is a sufficient distance away from the [name] and B481 junction.

Oxfordshire County Council Archaeological Services note the site is near to recorded cropmark enclosures and recovered finds of [name] and Roman pottery. Also, there is a nearby earthwork enclosure with associated pit and ditch features. However, the development includes no extensive earthworks or excavations and so I see no need for archaeological investigations in this case.

None of the above objections or factors provide reason to refuse planning permission. As such, they fail to affect my overall assessment of the appeal. Factors in support of the development.

Under the first main issue, I have found the development to be contrary to LP policies and so it would not accord with the development plan when read as a whole. It follows to consider whether other factors justify allowing the appeal.

The development helps meet the government’s aim as set out in the PPTS to promote more private Gypsy and Traveller site provision. In addition, the PPTS states that local planning authorities should set pitch targets that address the likely site accommodation needs for Gypsies and Travellers in their areas. Authorities should also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets.

The Gypsy and Traveller, [name] and Boat Dweller Accommodation Assessment dated December 2024 (the GTAA) is the latest assessment of the need for Gypsy and Traveller sites within Oxfordshire, including the [name] district. Table ES3 (repeated as Table 7.5) of the GTAA identifies a shortfall of 34 authorised pitches within [name] in the 5 year period 2023/24 to 2027/28. The same table also identifies an additional need for 9 pitches in the period of 2028/29 to 2032/33. There is no evidence to indicate that any new pitches have been delivered to address the identified need since the GTAA was published. Also, the Council is unable to identify any pitches that have been granted planning permission or that are allocated and that would now count towards a supply of deliverable sites. It is therefore apparent the Council is unable to show a 5 years’ worth of sites as required under the terms of the PPTS. Indeed, there appears to be a significant shortfall in the supply of pitches, despite the need identified in the GTAA. This is an unsatisfactory situation as it deprives Gypsies and Travellers of suitable accommodation at a settled base and could possibly lead to unauthorised encampments.

The development provides only a single pitch but allowing the appeal would help address the identified need for more authorised sites. Also, there is a lack of available alternative sites not just for the appellant and their family but seemingly for any Gypsies and Travellers looking for accommodation pitches in South Oxfordshire District. Given the need and supply context, these factors weigh significantly in favour of allowing the development. The Framework and the Planning Balance.

Paragraph 28 of the PPTS states that where an up-to-date 5 year supply of deliverable sites does not exist then paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) applies. This dictates that planning permission should be granted unless the circumstances as set out in sub-paragraphs 11(d)(i) or 11(d)(ii) of the Framework exist. These require consideration of the adverse effects and the benefits of the development against the policies of the Framework.

At paragraph 187, the Framework states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. For the reasons given under the first main issue, I find the appeal development is contrary to this provision.

Furthermore, paragraph 189 of the Framework states great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. At the same time, paragraph 189 is permissive of limited development within designated areas. For the reasons as already set out, I consider the appeal development is limited in terms of its scale and its effects on the character and appearance of the area.

Under sub-paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework, the presumption in favour of granting planning permission under paragraph 11(d) does not apply if the Framework’s policies on National Landscapes provide a strong reason to refuse the scheme. In this case, the detrimental effects could be mitigated so as to lead to only a minor level of harm. Also, allowing the appeal would provide an opportunity through additional planting to increase the site’s contribution to the natural qualities of the area. The aim to conserve and enhance the landscape and beauty of the NL attracts great weight but the limited level of harm caused by the development to the countryside and the NL fails to provide a strong reason to dismiss the appeal. As such, the circumstances set out at sub-paragraph 11(d)(i) do not exist.

To allow the development would help meet the Government objective as set out in paragraph 61 of the Framework to significantly boost the supply of homes and to ensure a sufficient amount of land comes forward to address the needs of Gypsies and Travellers. The limited level of harm caused by the development to the character and appearance of the countryside and to the NL does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in these respects. Therefore, sub-paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework does not apply.

Accordingly, the development gains support from the presumption in favour of sustainable development and for granting planning permission as set out at paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. The limited weight I attach to the IUD issue fails to meaningfully influence my overall conclusion on the appeal. Instead, I find the support for allowing the appeal from paragraph 11(d) provides sufficient justification to grant permission, despite the conflict with LP policies.

A decision to allow the appeal would be subject to a planning condition that requires the approval and provision of new planting. The imposition of such a planning condition shows how I have sought to further the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the NL, despite the residual harm identified under the first main issue. Therefore, a decision to allow the appeal would accord with the section 245 duty.

A list of suggested conditions has been provided as part of the statement of common ground from the Council and the appellant. I have considered these in light of the tests for planning conditions as set out in the Framework. Where appropriate, I have amended the wording for reasons of precision.

Condition 1 is imposed for clarity reasons. I have reworded the condition to require the caravans to be laid out as shown on the plans. There is no need for this condition to refer to the plan showing the internal layout of the caravan.

Condition 2 requires the approval and implementation of landscaping so as to minimise the development’s visual effects and to ensure it includes natural features that contribute positively to the qualities of the NL. External lighting details are required to limit the visual effects of the development at nighttime and to avoid disturbance to commuting or foraging bats. Drainage details are required to ensure surface and foul water from the site is disposed of sustainably and without causing pollution. Servicing details are needed to ensure the site provides satisfactory living conditions for its occupants and to ensure noise from any generator on the pitch does not unduly disturb nearby residents. The condition also requires measures to ensure the development has an acceptable effect on the biodiversity value of the land. This condition is worded to reflect the situation that the development has commenced and to ensure it ceases in the event of required details not being submitted, approved or implemented.

Condition 3 is required as my assessment is based on the development providing accommodation to meet the specific needs of Gypsies and Travellers. There is limited evidence to show a wider need for the residential caravan site. Conditions 4, 5, 6 and 7 are required to minimise the visual effect of the development and its impact on the landscape. Condition 8 is necessary for the same reason and as it is more likely the development would lead to the erection of fencing and walls for security and privacy reasons. There is no need for this condition to refer to other forms of development as I am taken to no permitted development rights that relate specifically to Gypsy and Traveller residential pitches.

Conditions have been suggested that would limit the development to a temporary period and would restrict occupancy of the site to the appellant and their family. However, for the reasons as set out above, granting permanent planning permission would be acceptable. Also, the information provided on the appellant’s personal circumstances have not been determinative in my decision. Therefore, temporary and personal conditions are not required.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.

Statement of [name] dated 23 February 2026 and signed 4 March 2026.

Statement from [name] on behalf of [name], Chair of Swyncombe Parish Council.

Except where required under the terms of other conditions, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos GP/02/25/rev, GP/03/25/rev B, GP/05/24 and GP/06/24. The caravans on the development shall be laid out in accordance with the details as shown on the approved drawings.

Notwithstanding the details as shown on the approved plans listed under condition 1, the use hereby permitted shall cease and all static homes, caravans, hardstandings, concrete bases, septic tanks, soakaways, outdoor lighting, any CCTV and lighting installations, fences, entrance gates and other materials and equipment brought onto the land for the purposes of such a use shall be removed from the land and the land shall be restored to its former condition by the grading and levelling the soil and the sowing of a general purpose meadow grass mix to all disturbed areas within 4 months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in i) to iv) below: i) Within 4 months of the date of this decision a “site development scheme” shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority for written approval. The scheme shall include details of:- (a) soft and hard landscaping works to include full planting details such as plant species, location, size, density and number and an outline specification for the planting method as well as details of fencing and other means of enclosure; and (b) external lighting to serve the development; and (c) surface water drainage to serve the development, including evidence to show the site can accommodate the worst case 1:100 year storm event plus 40% climate change; and (d) foul drainage arrangements for the development; and (e) electricity and water supplies to the development including details of any noise attenuation measures if the scheme includes the provision of a motorised electricity generator on the site; and (f) biodiversity compensation and enhancement measures that show as a minimum no net loss of biodiversity value of the site, including details of habitat creation or enhancement, bat and bird boxes, details of actions to establish and maintain habitats and a biodiversity metric, and (g) a timetable for the implementation of all elements of the site development scheme. ii) If within 8 months of the date of this decision the local planning authority refuse to approve any aspect of the site development 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. iii) If an appeal is made in pursuance of ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the site development scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State. iv) The site development scheme shall have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved timetable. Upon implementation of the site development scheme, all aspects of the scheme shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. In the event of any of the soft landscaping so planted dying or being seriously damaged or destroyed within 5 years of the implementation and completion of the soft landscaping scheme, replacement planting, as the case may be, of a similar species shall be planted and properly 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 development hereby permitted shall not be occupied by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers as defined in Annex 1: Glossary of Planning Policy for [name] (or its equivalent in replacement national policy).

There shall be no more than 1 pitch on the site and there shall be no more than 1 static mobile home and 1 touring caravan stationed on it at any time.

No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes, shall be stationed, parked or stored on this site at any time; and no more than one commercial vehicle shall be parked, stored or kept on the land at any time.

No commercial activities apart from commercial agricultural activities shall take place on the land within the defined appeal site, including the storage of materials.

The residential use element of the development hereby permitted shall only be carried out on the part of the appeal site shown on the approved drawing numbered GP/03/25/[name] as lying between the lines of proposed native hedges and the adjacent road and no residential use shall be carried out on any other part of the appeal site.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any other order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modifications), no walls, fences or other means of enclosure (apart from those shown on the approved plans) shall be erected on the site unless details of their size, materials and location have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The erection of any walls, fences or other means of enclosure shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.