- Decision
- dismissed, 7 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Darren Hendley
- Authority
- North Lincolnshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6007474
- Application reference
- PA/2025/1360
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Static home, touring caravan pitch and surfacing on each of two plots for Traveller families (Plot 13, partly implemented; conjoined Appeal 6007477, Plot 5, PA/2025/1463)
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- open countryside, isolated, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(g), S5(3), S5(4), HO11
- Development plan policies
- North Lincolnshire Core Strategy 2011 CS2, CS3, CS5, CS6, CS18, CS19, North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003 saved RD2, DS1, DS14, DS16, LC7, HE9, Housing and Employment Land Allocations DPD
- Main issues
- spatial strategy; character and appearance; surface water flood risk; BNG; archaeology; personal needs
Summary
Two conjoined appeals for Traveller family pitches (a static home and a touring caravan each) on sub-divided plots off a rural lane well away from Winterton. Plot 13 was already partly occupied. Both dismissed. With little evidence of unmet Traveller need, the proposals did not fall within S5(1)(g). They were treated as isolated homes under S5(3)/HO11, and no exceptional circumstances were shown under S5(4). Surface water drainage and statutory BNG failures added significant weight.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The Framework was published after the site visit, and parties were invited "to comment solely on this matter" (DL ¶5).
- Isolated homes — S5(3)/HO11: FAIL. "the proposals would constitute the development of isolated homes because of a lack of proximity to settlements and groups of houses, even with the other caravans and structures on the broader site" (DL ¶10).
- Traveller need — S5(1)(g): FAIL. "While I do not question there would be some level of broader need, very limited evidence has been provided. As a consequence, I am unable to gauge the level of need, supply and what any shortfall might be" (DL ¶34).
- Surface water: FAIL. Deferring drainage to a condition "would be to potentially nullify the permissions if it transpires that a satisfactory means of surface water drainage cannot be established" (DL ¶20).
- BNG: FAIL. "static caravans do not constitute self-build development under the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 because they are not buildings" (DL ¶23).
- Archaeology: PASS. The desk-based assessments were enough, and conditions for monitoring were proportionate (DL ¶¶27–30).
Planning balance
Weights against: spatial strategy significant, character moderate, flood risk significant, BNG significant (DL ¶36). For: personal circumstances significant, broader need moderate, economic and environmental benefits limited (DL ¶37). "For the proposals to benefit from Policy S5 of the Framework, they must address evidenced unmet need ... The proposals do not therefore fall within one of the categories that should be approved and there are not exceptional circumstances" (DL ¶38). Temporary or personal permissions would not cure the harms (DL ¶39).
What made the difference
The appellants gave no quantified evidence of Traveller need (no GTAA figures, supply or shortfall). Without it S5(1)(g) could not be engaged, and the pitches fell to be judged as isolated homes. The missing drainage strategy and BNG metric were evidence gaps that could have been fixed. With a GTAA showing a shortfall, S5(1)(g) would have applied and the balance would have been the more generous "substantially outweighed" test, although the HO12 criteria and isolation would still have been tested.
Transferable points
- S5(1)(g) needs evidenced unmet Traveller need. General assertions of need, without figures, attract only moderate weight and do not engage the category (DL ¶¶34, 37–38).
- Traveller pitches remote from settlements can be "isolated homes" under S5(3)/HO11, even on a wider plotted site with other caravans (DL ¶10).
- Static caravans cannot use the self-build BNG exemption (DL ¶23).
- Surface water drainage cannot be left to a condition where it is unknown whether any scheme is achievable (DL ¶20).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(g) | fail | very limited evidence of broader Traveller need; level of need, supply and shortfall cannot be gauged, so no "evidenced unmet need" (DL 34, 38) | |
| S5(3) | fail | isolated homes, remote from settlements and groups of houses, even with other caravans on the wider plotted site (DL 10) | |
| HO11 | fail | none of the HO11 exceptions met (DL 10) | |
| S5(4) | fail | no exceptional circumstances where benefits substantially outweigh adverse effects (DL 38) | |
| DP3 | fail | moderate | caravans, hardstanding and domestic paraphernalia discordant with peaceful low-lying farmland (DL 12-16, 36) |
| F8 | fail | significant | no surface water drainage strategy; not deferrable to condition as it could nullify permission (DL 18-22, 36) |
| HE5 | pass | desk-based assessments adequate; low impact on potential archaeology, dealt with by monitoring condition (DL 26-30) |
Key facts
- Static caravans are not "buildings" so cannot claim the self-build BNG exemption; no statutory metric supplied (DL 23-25)
- Personal circumstances of Traveller families including children given significant weight; broader need moderate weight (DL 31-37)
- Temporary or personal permissions rejected; PSED and Article 8 considered (DL 39-40)
- New Framework published after site visit; parties invited to comment solely on it (DL 5)
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.