Land adjacent to Orchard Farm Cottage, Pomphrey Hill, Mangotsfield: appeal APP/P0119/C/26/3378284 allowed

Decision: allowed, 4 September 2026
Decided by: Planning Inspector: R Merrett
Authority: South Gloucestershire (South West)
Appeal reference: APP/P0119/C/26/3378284
Procedure: hearing
Development: Enforcement appeal (ground (a) deemed application): change of use of land to a residential caravan site (9 static caravans + 1 touring pitch), hardcore and utility building
Homes: 9
Site context: green belt, settlement edge, PDL
Green Belt: Yes (grey belt accepted)
Housing land supply: 3.93 years
Framework applied: August 2026 NPPF
Determinative policies: GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), GB7(1)(g)(iv), AnnexB:grey-belt, S5(5)
Development plan policies: South Gloucestershire Core Strategy 2013 CS1, CS5, CS9, CS34, Policies, Sites and Places Plan 2017 PSP1, PSP2, PSP7, PSP21, PSP40
Main issues: grey belt; inappropriate development; character and appearance; contamination; intentional unauthorised development

Summary

An enforcement notice against a ten-caravan residential site (9 statics, 1 touring pitch) on previously developed Green Belt land just outside Mangotsfield. The notice was quashed and planning permission granted on the ground (a) deemed application. The earlier permission for 3 mobile homes had lapsed because a contamination condition precedent had not been discharged in time. But the site was grey belt and met every GB7(1)(g) limb. The scheme was below the "major" threshold, so the Golden Rules did not apply, and the S5 "substantially outweighed" balance favoured approval.

Issues and findings

Transition. Parties were invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4).
Grey belt, purpose (a): PASS. Mangotsfield is "technically a village" but "has effectively been subsumed within the wider Bristol conurbation, it would be appropriate in my judgment to interpret it as part of a large built-up area" (DL ¶36). Even so, "the overall site boundary characteristics mean the site cannot be said to lack physical features in reasonable proximity that could restrict and contain development" (DL ¶39). "when assessed in the round, the appeal site does not make a strong contribution" (DL ¶40). The inspector applied the PPG as "reflected in Annex E of the Framework" (DL ¶36).
GB7(1)(g)(ii) and (iii): PASS, both uncontested (DL ¶42–43).
GB7(1)(g)(iv) / GB8: not engaged. "I do not regard the provision of a plot that may or may not become used as a base for a permanent home, as contributing to the ten-unit threshold" (DL ¶45).
Consequence. "as the development is not inappropriate it should not be regarded as harmful to the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶46).
Character: no harm, subject to repositioning, landscaping and a dark boundary finish (DL ¶52–53).
DM8 intentional unauthorised development: not engaged. "whilst there may have been intention not to comply with the relevant condition, this does not equate to the intentional unauthorised development opposed by the Framework" (DL ¶60).

Planning balance

The S5 route for a not-inappropriate Green Belt scheme: "where development in the Green Belt would not be inappropriate, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶69). Significant weight went to the supply shortfall and to more affordable rented units, very limited weight to local spending. Absence of harm was neutral (DL ¶66–67). The benefits were not substantially outweighed, and the scheme was in accordance with the development plan read as a whole (DL ¶70–71).

What made the difference

The site was PDL, and it was physically contained on three sides by a traveller site, playing fields behind deep mature planting, and the road. That defeated purpose (a) even though the inspector accepted the settlement was part of a large built-up area. The council had conceded unmet need and sustainable location. Keeping the unit count at nine permanent homes kept it below "major", so no Golden Rules affordable housing was required. An open-sided or greenfield site, or ten permanent pitches, would have faced a harder test.

Transferable points

A village absorbed into a conurbation can be treated as part of a "large built-up area" for purpose (a) (DL ¶36).
PDL status does not by itself make land grey belt. Purpose (a) still requires a fact-and-degree assessment, so a council is not unreasonable to contest it (costs DL ¶9).
A touring-caravan pitch that "may or may not" become a permanent home does not count toward the 10-dwelling "major" threshold for GB8 (DL ¶45).
Where GB7(1)(g) is met, the S5 "substantially outweighed" test is applied to the Green Belt site (DL ¶69–70).
Breaching a unit-number condition in the belief that permission existed is not "intentional unauthorised development" under DM8 (DL ¶60).

Policy findings

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

Policy	Finding	Weight	Note
AnnexB:grey-belt	pass		PDL undisputed; not strong on (b)/(d); Mangotsfield treated as part of the Bristol large built-up area but site contained by roads, playing fields, dense planting and existing development so not strong on (a) (DL 34-40)
GB7(1)(g)(i)	pass		would not affect ability of remaining GB across plan area to serve purposes "in a meaningful way" (DL 41)
GB7(1)(g)(ii)	pass		council accepts no 5YHLS (3.93 yrs) so evidenced unmet need (DL 42)
GB7(1)(g)(iii)	pass		sustainable location undisputed (DL 43)
GB7(1)(g)(iv)	not-engaged		9 statics + a touring pitch is not "major"; the touring plot does not count toward the 10-unit threshold; site <0.5 ha (DL 44-45)
DM8	neutral		breach of the 3-unit condition was not "intentional unauthorised development" because appellant believed permission existed (DL 57-60)
S5(5)	pass		GB site not inappropriate so S5 "substantially outweighed" test applied; no adverse effects under national policies (DL 69-70)
HO7	benefit	significant	small number of cheaper rented units against ~1,900-home shortfall (DL 61-62, 67)

Key facts

Earlier 2022 permission for 3 mobile homes lapsed because contamination condition precedent not discharged before 15 Jul 2025 (DL 17-23)
Site had 9 statics + 1 touring caravan + utility building; PDL agreed
Bounded by traveller site, playing fields behind deep mature planting, Pomphrey Hill; open only to a paddock then the A4174
Council supply 3.93 years, shortfall ~1,900 dwellings (DL 61)
Costs application by appellant refused — grey belt status was a matter of judgment, not "inevitable" even for PDL (costs DL 9)

Sources

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.