A South Downs traveller pitch has secured retrospective planning permission despite an Inspector finding some harm to the protected landscape of the National Park. The decision permits a single residential pitch at Lone Barn Farm, near Greatham in Hampshire.
Inspector Nick Davies allowed appeal 6008925 on 27th October 2026, overturning South Downs National Park Authority’s refusal of application SDNP/25/00081/FUL. Permission covers the stationing of caravans for residential purposes and retention of existing hardstanding, subject to detailed restrictions.
The traveller pitch decision is particularly significant because the Inspector applied the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, weighed an acknowledged shortfall in authorised pitches against National Park landscape protection, and considered intentional unauthorised development without treating it as an automatic bar.
I would not read this as a relaxation of National Park protection. The Inspector reached a specific balance between limited landscape harm, unmet traveller need and the evidence for this particular pitch.
Why the traveller pitch caused limited landscape harm
The appeal site lies about 600 metres north-west of Greatham, in countryside characterised by small fields, hedgerows and wooded boundaries. It already had a lawful equestrian use, a substantial existing building and extensive hardstanding. This was not a proposal to introduce the first built structure into untouched countryside.
The traveller pitch comprises one residential mobile home and one touring caravan behind the existing building. From Church Lane, high hedges and trees largely screen the caravans, and the Inspector regarded the driveway and parking area as consistent with other rural tracks nearby.
The position was different from part of a public right of way to the east. The static home’s metallic form could be seen against the rural backdrop, while a touring caravan would also be visible. The Inspector found this incongruous with the National Park landscape, though only over about 100 metres of the route. Existing and new planting would reduce the impact.
The Inspector therefore identified limited landscape harm and conflict with South Downs Local Plan policies SD4, SD5 and SD7. Those findings were not ignored simply because the appeal succeeded: they formed the adverse side of the planning balance.
Unmet traveller pitch need carried significant weight
South Downs policy SD33 supports suitable Gypsy and Traveller sites on land not specifically allocated, provided listed criteria are met. The Inspector found no unacceptable neighbour, access or parking impacts. The mobile home was around 60 metres from the nearest dwelling, with vegetation between, and the highway authority had not objected.
The traveller pitch would contribute towards an acknowledged need that had not been met. A 2024 accommodation assessment identified a requirement for 14 pitches to 2043, while the appellant argued for a higher short-term figure. Crucially, neither party disputed that the authority could not show a five-year supply of deliverable pitches, and its Local Plan review remained at an early stage.
The Inspector gave significant weight to the traveller pitch meeting local policy SD33 and national policy HO12. Although only one pitch was proposed, it would make a real contribution where the Council could not identify an available alternative. Planning Geek’s guide to Gypsy and Traveller site planning explains the distinction between personal accommodation needs, lawful occupation and planning permission.
The result does not mean any residential caravan arrangement is acceptable in protected countryside. Its scale, accessibility, existing development, landscape screening and policy compliance were decisive facts.
How the August 2026 NPPF changed the balance
The August 2026 Framework was published while the appeal was progressing. Its Annex A explains that the December 2024 Planning policy for traveller sites no longer represents up-to-date national government policy. The parties were invited to address the revised provisions.
Under the new Framework’s policy S5:1, development addressing evidenced unmet Gypsy and Traveller accommodation need outside settlements should be approved unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, subject to policy HO12. The Inspector also applied policy N4, requiring substantial weight to protecting National Park natural beauty.
For this traveller pitch, the Inspector accepted that the development conflicted with the development plan taken as a whole. Nevertheless, the adverse landscape effect was limited and the accommodation benefit carried substantial weight. The national planning policies provided material considerations justifying a departure from that plan-led result.
Inspector Davies wrote: The limited level of harm to the landscape, through IUD in mitigating circumstances, does not substantially outweigh this benefit.
This short quotation comes from the official Planning Inspectorate decision, reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Intentional unauthorised development did not settle the outcome
The caravans and hardstanding were already present, making the application retrospective. The Inspector accepted that intentional unauthorised development had occurred when the appellant and family began living on the land.
Policy DM8 of the 2026 Framework says this should receive substantial weight against retrospective permission. But the Inspector also took into account that the family had been living on the roadside and that no suitable available alternative pitch had been identified. Those mitigating circumstances moderated the weight attached to the intentional breach.
The traveller pitch appeal was not the site’s first dispute. A 2021 enforcement notice concerning residential caravan occupation had been upheld on appeal. Inspector Davies distinguished that earlier decision because it concerned a different justification linked to alpaca farming, engaged a different development-plan policy and required a different planning balance.
This distinction matters to anyone examining repeated applications or enforcement histories. A past refusal is relevant, but it does not determine a later appeal made under materially different policy circumstances. Our retrospective planning permission guidance explains the separate risks involved in seeking consent after development has started.
One pitch only, with strict caravan and occupation limits
The permission is limited by condition to no more than one pitch and no more than two caravans, of which at most one may be static. The caravans must occupy the positions shown on the approved plan. Occupation is restricted to people meeting the Framework definition of Gypsies and Travellers.
Commercial activities and associated materials storage are prohibited. External lighting may not be installed without the Council’s written agreement, reflecting the National Park’s relative tranquillity and landscape sensitivity.
Conditions also require schemes for drainage, landscaping and refuse and cycle storage within specified periods. These have ‘cease use’ provisions if the necessary schemes are not submitted, approved and implemented. The permission must not be described as unconditional or as a general approval for a commercial caravan park.
The traveller pitch decision illustrates the practical importance of site-specific landscaping and tightly defined occupation controls. The Inspector reasoned that meeting some of the need on a site with limited landscape harm could reduce pressure for pitches on land with more serious impacts.
Official appeal decision and wider context
The Planning Inspectorate appeal decision 6008925 was issued by Inspector Nick Davies on 27th October 2026, concerning Lone Barn Farm, Greatham, application SDNP/25/00081/FUL. It is a section 78 planning appeal, not a court judgment.
The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments