- Decision
- part-allowed, 17 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Andy Harwood
- Authority
- South Gloucestershire (South West)
- Appeal reference
- APP/P0119/C/26/3378286
- Procedure
- hearing
- Development
- Enforcement appeal (ground (a) deemed application): residential caravans, hardcore, buildings and fencing; permission granted for 6 Gypsy and Traveller pitches on two sub-areas, notice upheld on the rest
- Homes
- 6
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Framework applied
- December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), AnnexB:grey-belt, HO12
- Development plan policies
- South Gloucestershire Core Strategy 2013 CS5
- Main issues
- grey belt; inappropriate development; traveller site need and supply; sustainable location
Summary
Enforcement appeal against unauthorised residential caravans on Green Belt land at the northern edge of Pilning. At the hearing the council conceded six Gypsy and Traveller pitches on two sub-areas. The inspector found those sub-areas were grey belt with an unmet pitch need and a sustainable location, so not inappropriate. Permission was granted for six pitches; the notice was upheld for the rest of the land. The letter is dated 17 August 2026 but applies the December 2024 Framework throughout.
Issues and findings
- Framework version. The letter cites 2024 paragraphs 143, 154(g), 155 and 156–157, plus footnote 7 in the grey belt definition (DL ¶10–15). The 2026 Framework is not mentioned. Hearing held 22 July 2026.
- PDL: FAIL for most of the site. "much of it cannot be considered as previously developed … the Framework definition excludes agricultural land which would seem to be the lawful use of most of the site area" (DL ¶11).
- Grey belt: PASS for the two sub-areas. "a small-scale addition occupying land that is visually and physically well-related to existing caravan sites and the built form of the settlement" (DL ¶14). "any harm to the Green Belt purpose of checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging, would be very limited" (DL ¶15).
- Unmet need: PASS. Five-year pitch target 58, supply 9, so "a 5 year supply of pitches cannot be demonstrated" (DL ¶17).
- Sustainable location: PASS. Footpaths "link with another leading into the core of Pilning which contains a good range of commercial and community facilities as well as public transport links … means of travelling elsewhere without reliance on private vehicles" (DL ¶19).
- Conclusion. "the development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt" and accords with the development plan read as a whole (DL ¶22).
Planning balance
No VSC balance was needed because the six-pitch scheme was not inappropriate. Development plan compliance (CS5 defers to the Framework) led directly to permission (DL ¶22). The wider site was refused by default, the parties having agreed to confine the deemed application to the two areas (DL ¶7).
What made the difference
The council's concession, which followed an earlier inspector's need and supply findings in the Pilning appeal 6004905. Cutting the scheme to two small pockets tucked into the settlement edge next to existing traveller sites made purposes (a) and (b) weak. Continuous footways into a village with services satisfied the sustainability test. Had the whole enforced area been pursued, grey belt status and openness would have been much harder.
Transferable points
- A decision dated 17 Aug 2026 can still apply the 2024 Framework. Check the paragraph citations before relying on such letters as 2026 authority (DL ¶10–15).
- For traveller sites, limb (ii) is met by a traveller pitch supply shortfall (PPTS), and sustainable location is read with PPTS para 13 (DL ¶16–21).
- Cutting a scheme down to small pockets well related to the settlement edge and to existing development can turn non-grey-belt land into grey belt (DL ¶14–15).
- Footways linking the site to a village core with services and buses support a sustainable-location pass (DL ¶19).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(e) | fail | most of the site is not PDL; lawful use agricultural; only a small part had a (possibly unimplemented) earlier permission. Decided under 2024 para 154(g) (DL 11) | |
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | two small sub-areas within the curve of the road on Pilning's northern edge, well related to existing caravan sites; very limited harm to purposes (a) and (b); no footnote 7 constraint (2024 definition applied) (DL 13-15) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 22) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | agreed no 5-year supply of traveller pitches — target 58, supply 9 (PPTS; following appeal 6004905) (DL 16-17) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | sustainability judged under PPTS para 13; footways along/opposite the site link into Pilning village with school, surgeries, shops, pubs and public transport (DL 18-21) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iv) | not-engaged | Golden Rules do not apply (DL 12) |
Key facts
- Dated 17 Aug 2026 (the day the new Framework took effect), but reasoned entirely under 2024 NPPF paras 143, 154, 155 and footnote 7
- Council conceded 6 pitches at the hearing, following the inspector's need/supply findings in Pilning appeal 6004905 (25 Jun 2026)
- Pitches split 3 + 3 between two areas separated by substantial open land; notice upheld on the remainder
- Traveller 5-year pitch target 58, deliverable supply 9 (DL 17)
- Occupation limited to Gypsies and Travellers (PPTS 2024 definition); site development scheme and contamination conditions
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.