Planning permission for a gypsy and traveller pitch

A traveller pitch planning permission is decided against its own national policy document, not the NPPF alone. Planning policy for traveller sites, published in August 2015, sits alongside the Framework and contains the policies that govern plan-making and decisions on sites for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. Any application that does not engage with it directly is starting at a disadvantage.

Three things decide most cases: whether the occupiers meet the planning definition, whether the authority can show a five year supply of deliverable pitches, and whether the site is in the Green Belt. Get those three right in the planning statement and the rest is detail.

The separate national policy for traveller sites

The 2015 policy is short and structured around lettered policies. They cover plan-making, the assessment of need, sites in rural areas and the countryside, sites in the Green Belt, and the determination of applications. Policy H is the one that governs decisions, and it lists the considerations an authority should weigh: the existing level of local provision and need, the availability of alternative accommodation, other personal circumstances, and whether the site is suitable and sustainable.

The policy also sets out criteria that count against a site: locations that are isolated from services, sites that would dominate the nearest settled community, and proposals in areas at high risk of flooding.

Read it alongside the authority's own plan policy for traveller provision and its most recent accommodation assessment. Those two local documents carry the numbers that the argument turns on.

Meeting the planning definition and the evidence for it

The planning definition in the 2015 policy turns on a nomadic habit of life, with provision for those who have ceased to travel for reasons of education, health or old age. The 2015 revision narrowed that provision, and the narrowing was challenged.

In Smith v Secretary of State the Court of Appeal held in 2022 that excluding those who have permanently ceased to travel discriminated unlawfully against Romani Gypsies. Decision-makers have had to take that ruling into account since, and the position on the policy wording itself has moved, so check the current text of the policy and any amendment before drafting. This is one of the places where an out of date precedent paragraph in a planning statement does real damage.

Whatever the wording, the evidence is the same. Set out the travelling history with dates and destinations, the reason for any cessation, the family composition, school registrations, medical registrations and any prior site occupation. Statements from the occupiers, supported by documents, carry more weight than assertion by the agent. Where the occupiers are Romani Gypsies or Irish Travellers they belong to protected racial groups, and the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 applies to the decision.

Unmet need and the weight it carries

Where an authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites, that failure is a material consideration of real weight, and the policy directs that it should be taken into account when considering temporary permission. In practice this is the argument that wins the largest number of appeals.

Build it properly. Identify the authority's published supply position and its date. Identify the most recent accommodation assessment, the need figure it produced and whether the plan has allocated sites to meet it. Then show what has actually been delivered since, and whether the allocated sites are available, suitable and deliverable in fact rather than on paper.

An honest note: an unmet need argument is strong on temporary permission and weaker on permanent permission, because the authority can say that permanent consent pre-empts the plan process. Many decisions land on a temporary permission of three or five years with a personal condition attached, and that is often the realistic target rather than a disappointment.

Green Belt, countryside and very special circumstances

Traveller sites in the Green Belt, whether temporary or permanent, are inappropriate development. The 2015 policy goes further than the general Green Belt position by stating that unmet need is unlikely on its own to outweigh Green Belt harm and other harm so as to amount to very special circumstances.

That is a demanding test, and it means a Green Belt pitch case has to assemble something more: the personal circumstances of the occupiers, the absence of any alternative, the limited openness harm of a small, well screened site, the absence of harm to Green Belt purposes at that location, and the consequences of refusal for children's education or a family member's health. Each element needs evidence.

Outside the Green Belt, in open countryside, the case is a criteria-based one about landscape, access, services and the relationship with the nearest settlement. That is a much more winnable argument, and the same criteria-led approach applies to other countryside proposals, as the note on a farm reservoir application shows in a different context.

Layout, amenity buildings and drainage

The physical content of a pitch application is straightforward and is often the weakest part of the submission.

Each pitch normally needs space for one static caravan and one touring caravan, a parking space or two, an amenity building containing a kitchen, WC and shower, hardstanding, and usable amenity space rather than a strip between vehicles. Keep separation distances between caravans in line with the model standards for caravan sites, which recommend a spacing that allows for fire spread, and show those distances on the layout.

Foul drainage is the technical issue. Most sites are unsewered, so the application needs a package treatment plant or a sealed tank with a stated capacity, an emptying arrangement and, where there is a discharge, confirmation of the permitting position. A Drainage Strategy covering foul and surface water, with the outfall identified, prevents a recommendation for refusal on drainage grounds alone.

Flood risk deserves particular care. Caravans and mobile homes intended for permanent residential occupation fall into the highly vulnerable category in the flood risk vulnerability classification, which means a site in Flood Zone 3a requires the exception test and a site in the functional floodplain is not appropriate. A Flood Risk Assessment is needed wherever the site is outside Flood Zone 1, and the vulnerability point should be addressed head on rather than left for the Environment Agency to raise.

Temporary and personal permissions

Personal conditions restrict occupation to named persons and their dependants, and they fall away when those people leave. Temporary conditions set an end date. Both are common on pitch permissions, and both have consequences worth explaining to the client before the application goes in.

A personal permission has no value to a purchaser. A temporary permission creates a cliff edge, and the position at the end of the period depends on whether the plan has by then allocated sites. Where a temporary permission is granted on the basis of unmet need, keep a record of the supply position at the date of grant, because it becomes the baseline for the renewal argument.

Two further points. Planning permission is not a site licence. A caravan site normally requires a licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, and the licence follows the permission rather than replacing it. And where development has already taken place without permission, the written ministerial statement on intentional unauthorised development remains a consideration the authority can weigh.

Assembling a pitch application

A pitch application that gives officers what they need contains: a Planning Statement engaging with the 2015 policy by policy letter and with the local plan policy, a personal circumstances statement with supporting documents, a site layout with pitch dimensions and separation distances, an amenity building drawing, a drainage strategy, a flood risk assessment where required, a landscape and boundary treatment scheme, and an access and visibility drawing.

Where the site is in a sensitive landscape, add a short landscape appraisal with viewpoints. Where the authority's supply position is contested, add a supply schedule with your own assessment of each allocated site. That schedule is frequently the document that decides the appeal.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.