Appeal 6004957

The appeal is dismissed.

I note that Three Rivers District Council is preparing a new Local Plan. Consultation on the draft under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 is due to commence in July 2026. Taking account of the stage it has reached it is unclear whether the policies concerned will be considered as consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Consequently, in accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework I give it limited weight.

My attention was drawn at the hearing to Policy CP5 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (CS) that provides development plan policy relating to provision for Gypsies and Travellers. This was not referred to in the reasons for refusal. I will set out the weight to be attached to, or any conflict with, the policy in coming to my decision.

In determining this appeal involving listed buildings or their settings I have had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The main issues are: • The effect of traffic and parking relating to the development on the safe and efficient operation of the highway network in the vicinity of the appeal site; • Whether the proposed works would preserve the [name] listed buildings known as Greys and [address] or their settings or any features of special architectural and historic interest (or significance) which they possess; • The effect of the development on the intrinsic character and beauty of the landscape and adjacent rural lane; • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • 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 required to justify the proposal.

The proposal would result in a new access formed to the road through [site address] . The amount of traffic using the proposed access would be modest, similar to that for a house, and it would be designed to enable access by larger vehicles, including those delivering the mobile homes. The road is narrow with limited spaces for vehicles to pass. To the front of the site are parking spaces in an area that provided a bus stop at some point in the past. This results in a slightly wider road with the hedgerow set back from the road edge at this point and space for parking where the bus stop was located.

No formal checks of vehicle speeds have been provided. The appellant accepts that speeds may be close to the posted speed limit of 30mph outside the site. I note that residents indicate vehicle speeds are regularly higher than the official limit, some considerably so. Nevertheless, my attention has been drawn to the normal practice of using 85th percentile speeds that ensure exceptional speeds are excluded. Taking account of the evidence provided, it is not possible for me to estimate what that speed might be.

I note that the lack of accident history in the vicinity and that there are other junctions, including that of [address], with poor visibility. This is likely to affect driver behaviour with reduced speeds and more anticipation of vehicles manoeuvring around accesses as well as care taken by those using those accesses. I have taken these factors into account in coming to my decision on this matter.

Assuming that the appellant is correct that vehicle speeds are close to 30mph, visibility splays in accordance with the requirements of Manual for Streets could not be achieved. Without adequate visibility splays, there is potential for conflict between vehicles accessing and egressing the site and traffic travelling along the road. In these circumstances, there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety arising from the development.

If planning permission were granted, any access would need to go through a road safety audit in accordance with section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. The appellant suggests a condition could be attached to any consent requiring information be submitted in order to ensure the final design of the access and visibility splays on site would result in a safe access. However, it is unclear what modifications might be required, whether they could be achieved and whether they would successfully overcome the risk to highway safety. Consequently, it appears such a scheme may not be capable of implementation and would not be deliverable, such that a condition would not be enforceable or reasonable. On this basis, I consider that such a condition, or relying on the road safety audit, would not be appropriate in this instance.

For these reasons, on balance I conclude that the traffic and parking relating to the development would harm the safe and efficient operation of the highway network in the vicinity of the appeal site. As such, it would conflict with Policies CP5 and CP10 of the CS, Policy DM13 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document ([name]) and paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework that seeks to ensure safe and adequate means of access and that parking would be provided in accordance with appropriate standards.

The listed building of Greys is located directly over the road from the access to the proposed caravan pitches. It is a house that was constructed in the mid to late 18 th century that has been altered and extended during the 20 th century. Externally it is constructed in brick with a dentilled course below the eaves and the end wall facing up the road is rendered. It has a tiled roof. It is modest in scale and its appearance suggests a historic link to surrounding agricultural activity, albeit evidence has not been provided of a direct link with the fields opposite. Consequently, its significance is derived from its historic and architectural interest as a typical building of its age and form, to which its location within this rural landscape contributes.

The proposal would introduce a residential caravan use directly opposite Greys. There would be some intervisibility between the development and the listed building, particularly given the proposed opening through the hedge to provide access to the pitches. The access would result in a break in the hedge and be visible opposite Greys in views along the road, altering the experience of the listed building within its rural setting. This would compromise the relationship of the listed building with that setting taking account of the proximity of the proposed development. As a result, it would harm that setting.

The harm to the setting would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of Greys as a heritage asset. This would be low on the scale of such harm. Nevertheless, paragraph 212 of the Framework is clear that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets.

[address] is located a short distance along the road from the site, separated by the houses neighbouring the site and the field in which the proposed caravan site would be located that wraps around them. It comprises a house of late 16th century origins that was part rebuilt and extended in the 18 th century and subsequently extended and altered in the 20th century. It is of timber frame construction with red brick casing and tiled roofs. It was formerly the Rose and [address]. Its significance as a heritage assets derives from its appearance and historic contribution to the surrounding settlement of [site address] as a public house.

Taking account of the separation of the proposed caravan site from [address] and intervening houses, the development would not affect the setting of the [name] listed building. As a result, it would not harm the significance of the building as a heritage asset.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework establishes that, where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The public benefits in this instance relate to the addition of a two pitches to contribute to the supply of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, for which there is an identified need, and the personal circumstances of the appellants. These are set out in more detail later in my decision. Nevertheless, in this instance I consider that the public benefits do not outweigh the harm to the heritage asset.

In conclusion, the proposed change of use to a residential caravan site would harm the setting of Greys that is listed [name] and, consequently, its significance as a heritage asset and that would not be outweighed by public benefits. As such, it would conflict with Policies CP1, CP5 and CP12 of the CS, Policy DM3 of the [name], Policies 1 and 2 of the Sarratt Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and the Framework that seek the highest standard of design, including conserving and enhancing heritage assets and the historic character of [site address] , with development only supported where it would at least sustain and conserve the significance, character and setting of the asset and surrounding historic environment.

However, taking all the above into account this is not a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

The landscape around [site address] comprises rolling hills of generally small fields surrounded by hedges interspersed with settlements and woodland. It is located close to the Chilterns National Landscape and is similar in terms of landscape character. The appeal site reflects that character, being a field surrounded by hedgerows. It is an unusual shape extending around houses within the small settlement of [site address] .

The pitches would be located at the top part of the field, the smaller area next to the houses. Access would be formed through the frontage hedge, which would allow views into the site. Some landscaping could take place to limit those views and the hedges surrounding the site from other sides would also mean views into the site would be limited.

The proposal would introduce hardstanding into the field with caravans and associated parking and paraphernalia associated with that residential use, albeit the appellants are not seeking to locate touring caravans on the site. Taking account of surrounding development, the hedges around the field and the potential for additional landscaping to further screen the development, the effects of the development on the landscape would be modest.

For these reasons, I conclude that the development would harm the intrinsic character and beauty of the landscape and adjacent rural lane. It would thereby conflict with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the CS, Policy DM1 of the [name] and Policies 1 and 2 of the NP that seek the highest standard of design, including conserving and enhancing natural assets and responding to the local context.

Policy DM3 of the [name] has also been drawn to my attention. That relates to the historic built environment and it is unclear whether that would be relevant to this main issue.

Policy CP5 of the CS refers to avoiding an adverse impact on areas of landscape importance. [name] have concluded that there would be harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the landscape and adjacent rural lane, this is not an area that is of particular landscape importance. Consequently, I consider that the development would not conflict with Policy CP5 of the CS in this regard.

Policy CP11 of the CS and DM2 of the [name] provide a general presumption against inappropriate development and set out some exceptions. The Framework also states that development within the Green Belt is inappropriate with a number of exceptions. These include, at paragraph 155, the development of homes using grey belt land that would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed and it would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework and paragraph 13 of the planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS).

Grey belt land is land in the Green Belt that does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) of the Green Belt. However, it excludes land where the application of policies, such as in relation to heritage assets, would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. I have already found that the effect on the setting of heritage assets would not provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development

In this case, the site is located away from large built-up areas or towns, such that it would not affect their sprawl, nor assist in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. Its development would not affect the setting and special character of historic towns. On that basis, this land does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) of the Green Belt. In addition, it would be a modest development of two Gypsy and Traveller pitches that would lead to limited encroachment on the countryside and would not materially affect urban regeneration. As a result, the development proposed would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. As a result, the land is grey belt.

I have concluded that the development does not comply with paragraph 115 of the Framework as safe and suitable access cannot be achieved. The site is located a short distance from services and facilities, including those in the closest settlements of Sarratt, Chipperfield and [site address] , such that access to them would most likely be by car. Even if the site would be located in an otherwise sustainable location in relation to the remainder of paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework and paragraph 13 of the PPTS, the lack of safe access would mean it is not a sustainable location as set out in paragraph 155c. of the Framework.

In order to benefit from the exception to inappropriate development set out at paragraph 155 of the Framework, the development would need to comply with all the criteria within that paragraph. [name] have found that it would not comply with paragraph 155c., the development must be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. As a result, it conflicts with Policy CP11 of the CS and DM2 of the [name] and the Framework.

The proposed Gypsy and Traveller pitches are located within an open field surrounded by hedgerows. Access would be formed through the frontage hedge, which would allow views into the site. Some landscaping could take place to limit those views and the hedges surrounding the site from other sides would also restrict views into the site.

The proposal would require hardstanding on the pitches and access drive. This would be at ground level, such that it would have little visual effect on the Green Belt, nor would it affect spatial aspects of openness.

The development would result in two substantial caravans, or mobile homes, being stationed on the site. These would be likely to be surrounded by other domestic paraphernalia such as parked vehicles, albeit any touring caravans would be stored elsewhere. These would have visual and spatial effects on openness.

This would also result in development encroaching into the countryside contrary to the purpose of the Green Belt relating to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

Taking account of the above, I conclude that there would be modest effects arising from the development on the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt. Nevertheless, the Framework sets out that substantial weight needs to be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. It would also conflict with a purpose of the Green Belt. As a result, it would conflict with Policies CP5, CP11 of CS, Policy DM2 of [name] and the Framework that seek to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Other considerations

The Three Rivers District Council Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) dated July 2025 confirmed a need for 37 pitches in the period 2025 and 2041 for those meeting the definition of a traveller in the PPTS and a further 4 pitches for undetermined households. The local planning authority are unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. This means that there is a significant demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed such that there is a lack of available accommodation for the prospective occupiers of this site.

I note that the emerging Local Plan is expected to contain allocations of sites that would seek to meet the identified needs for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. However, it is unclear when that is likely to be adopted and, given its stage of preparation, I have concluded that this can only be given limited weight in the

My attention was drawn to the increase of demand for pitches following a fire at the [name] site. I understand that site is located within a neighbouring local planning authority’s area and those needs must be accounted for within their Local Plan. Nevertheless, it has added to the pressure for sites within the wider area.

Paragraph 28 of the PPTS states that in circumstances where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date 5 year supply of deliverable sites, the provisions in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework apply. I will return to that in the

The occupants of the site would comprise the appellant occupying one caravan and his daughter occupying the other with her partner. The appellant has moved away from his previous settled base and is not able to return. Currently he is living in a caravan, moving around, doubling up on other pitches or living on the roadside. His daughter has more options for alternative accommodation but is seeking to stay with her father.

The prospective occupants of the site have several health conditions and are registered with a GP locally. Specialist care is also provided at [name], also within the local area. If they had a permanent site locally this would aid access to health appointments and allow the degree of care necessary for the prospective occupants of the site.

I note that, if this appeal were to be dismissed, the appellant, his daughter and her partner would be likely to continue living on the roadside or doubling up on pitches of family and friends. It would have an impact on access to health care. They need a settled base to ensure access to the services and facilities they need as the alternative may be unauthorised encampment and they need to stay together to provide mutual care and support. As a result, this carries substantial weight in considering this appeal. Policy CP5 of the CS

Policy CP5 of the CS provides a number of criteria to be taken into account when considering proposals for Gypsy and Traveller provision. I have concluded that it would conflict with criteria relating to impacts on heritage and openness of the Green Belt and that there would not be safe and convenient vehicular access to the site.

However, the final criteria refers to the circumstances of the appellant and their need for pitches on the site. I have set out the need for pitches above and summarised the personal circumstances of the prospective occupiers. However, on balance and particularly taking account of the lack of safe access to the site and harm to the Green Belt, this would not outweigh the conflict with other parts of Policy CP5 of the CS in this instance.

My attention has been drawn to inconsistency with the PPTS. Paragraph 25 of the PPTS states that locally specific criteria form the policy to assess applications where there is no identified need for pitches. I have found that there is an identified need for pitches in this instance. Nevertheless, I note that section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan, including the CS, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I will return to that in the planning balance.

Concern relating to the effect of development on the Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) arises from its location within the 12.6km zone of influence. This is the area from which visitors to the SAC derive. The SAC is designated for the importance of its habitats which qualified under Annex 1 of the [name] 92/43/EEC. It is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designated under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

I have been provided with two emails setting out the Council’s approach. The first, dated 21 June 2022 confirmed that part of Three Rivers District fell within the zone of influence of the SAC such that development within that area may have likely significant effects arising from recreational pressure on the integrity of the SAC. However, the later email dated 9 May 2023 from Natural England indicated that, taking a pragmatic approach, [name] was excluded from the strategic solution. They suggested that larger developments of 100 or more houses may require Habitat Regulations Assessments (HRA). However, smaller developments such as this do not appear to be subject of HRA.

I note that the appellant has accepted the need for biodiversity net gain and submitted the information required at this stage. [name] were to allow the appeal, any permission would be subject of the statutory net gain condition. Balances and Conclusion

I have concluded that the development comprises inappropriate development within the Green Belt and that it harms openness and conflicts with its purposes. The Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

I have identified that the Council is unable to meet its requirements in relation to the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites and, if the appeal were dismissed, the prospective occupiers of the site do not have alternative accommodation and would need to live on the roadside or stop with family or friends such that they would remain, effectively, homeless. These are factors of considerable importance. Nevertheless, in this case I consider the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and the other harms set out above, is not clearly outweighed by these other considerations, whether considered individually or cumulatively. This is a strong reason for refusing the development.

I have concluded that the development would conflict with Policies CP1, CP5, CP10, CP11 and CP12 of the CS, Policies DM1, DM2, DM3 and DM13 of the [name] and Policies 1 and 2 of the NP. On balance and taking account of my conclusions relating to Policy CP5 of the CS that includes taking account of the circumstances of the appellant and their need for pitches on the site, I conclude that the development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole.

The Framework and PPTS form material considerations of great weight in this appeal. I have set out above that this appeal needs to be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 11 of the Framework. Paragraph 11(d) states that policies most important to determining the appeal are out-of-date where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. As set out above, this is the case here. However, I have concluded that the conflict with policies relating to the Green Belt provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. On that basis, I conclude that the proposal would not benefit from the presumption.

I note that it would be possible to allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to conditions restricting occupancy to the appellant and his family, or for a limited period. I consider that a condition limiting occupation would not overcome the conflict with development plan policy that I have identified. Granting consent for a limited period would allow time for the development plan to be adopted, at which point alternative accommodation should become available. Nevertheless, the harms I have identified would continue for that period. With particular regard to the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, in this case I consider such a condition would not be appropriate.

I conclude that the change of use to a residential caravan site, for occupation by Gypsies/Travellers, comprising the siting of 2 static caravans with associated access and hardstanding would conflict with the development plan. I have not found any material considerations that indicate I should determine the appeal other than in accordance with the development plan.

For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.