The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) must be read in conjunction with the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites August 2015 (PPTS), which provides that traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the green belt are inappropriate development.
The High Court has quashed an inspector’s decision to grant permission for change of use of land to a private gypsy and traveller site for one mobile home and associated development owing to an error of law in Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and another [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin); [2023] PLSCS 140.
The inspector accepted that the second defendant met the definition of Gypsy and Traveller in Annex 1 of the PPTS but considered that the change of use of land for a caravan did not constitute inappropriate development because it fell within the exception in paragraph 150(e) of the NPPF, which permits “material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds)”.
The inspector was satisfied that the proposal preserved the openness of the green belt and did not conflict with the purposes of including land within it, neither of which conclusion was challenged by the claimant. He decided that the PPTS, which predated the NPPF, did not alter his decision and allowed the second defendant’s appeal, granting planning permission.
The Administrative Court was clear that the inspector had erred in law in his decision letter because he failed to take into account the requirement in paragraph 4 of the NPPF which states that it must be read with the PPTS, which clearly provides that stationing caravans for a travellers’ site is inappropriate development in the green belt. By concluding that the use was not inappropriate, the inspector either failed to take into account a material consideration or materially misdirected himself on the interpretation of policy. The error was manifest.
Residential uses do not fall within section 150(e). A list beginning with the words “such as” takes its flavour or extent from the examples given, otherwise why would examples be given at all. The purpose of the section was to address a particular issue following R (on the application of Timmins) v Gedling Borough Council [2016] 1 All ER 895; [2015] EWCA Civ 10; [2015] PLSCS 21, and not to open up a broad category of change of use where the only limitation was that there was no impact on openness and no conflict with the purposes of the green belt. The inspector’s decision was quashed and the matter remitted to the secretary of state.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
