Land north of Bottomdale Road, Halton

Decision

dismissed, 23 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Grahame J Kean

Authority

Lancaster (North West)

Appeal reference

APP/A2335/C/26/3378663

Procedure

hearing

Development

Enforcement appeals A-C (3378663/4/5): material change of use of field to storage of caravans and significant land-level changes (appellants claimed a 3-pitch traveller site)

Site context

green belt, open countryside

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt not argued)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(5), GB6(2), GB7(1)(e), GB7(1)(g)(ii), N2

Development plan policies

Lancaster Development Management DPD 2025 DM29

Main issues

whether the breach occurred; inappropriate development; openness; character

Summary

Three linked enforcement appeals against caravans stored on a Green Belt field at Halton, with substantial earthworks. The appellants argued it was a three-pitch traveller site, but the inspector found the land was being used to store caravans, and the deemed application could only be for that use. Unlawful development cannot create PDL, so GB7(1)(e) failed. There was no evidence of unmet need for caravan storage, so (g) failed. The notice was upheld.

Issues and findings

• Route. "The development is outside a settlement boundary, therefore National Policy (NP) S5.5 … applies, which states that development proposals in the Green Belt should be determined in accordance with certain NPs of which GB6 and GB7 are relevant here" (DL ¶29).
• GB7(1)(e): FAIL. "development that has never been lawful development is not capable of rendering land PDL, therefore the exception in sub-paragraph (e) does not apply" (DL ¶30).
• GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL. "No evidence is advanced to suggest that there is an unmet need for the unauthorised storage use or indeed the embankment" (DL ¶31).
• Openness: harm. "visual as well as some spatial harm", and the land-level changes "have had a deleterious visual impact on the previously undisturbed contours of the field" (DL ¶33).

Planning balance

GB6(2): substantial weight to inappropriateness and openness harm, plus character harm (DM29 and N2). No VSC was advanced (DL ¶35–36).

What made the difference

The appellants' pleaded case did not match the development actually enforced against. With no residential occupation proven at the date of the notice, the only use before the inspector was caravan storage, for which no need case existed. Traveller need arguments could only help a properly made application for a traveller site.

Transferable points

• Unauthorised development cannot make land previously developed land for GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶30).
• Limb (ii) is tied to the "type of development proposed". In an enforcement appeal that means the use alleged, not what the appellant would like to do (DL ¶6, 31).
• S5(5) is read as sending Green Belt proposals outside settlements through GB6/GB7 (DL ¶29).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Three touring caravans stored on a former open field plus land-level changes up to about 2 m (DL 11-13)
• [object Object]
• Deemed application limited to the alleged storage use; could not grant a traveller site (DL 6, 28, 38)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate casework portal
• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate casework portal

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.