A traveller site appeal at Burntwood, Staffordshire, has failed after a Planning Inspector upheld an enforcement notice requiring a three-pitch residential caravan site to be removed. The decision, issued on 5 November 2026, leaves Lichfield District Council’s enforcement action in place but gives the occupants twelve months to comply instead of five.
The land beside Woodhouses Road, near the hamlet of Woodhouses, is in the West Midlands Green Belt. Both sides accepted that it met the new national definition of grey belt, while the council also accepted an unmet need for traveller accommodation. Neither point, however, was enough to secure planning permission for this particular site.
Inspector Zoë Franks found that the evidence did not establish whether the intended occupants would be able to reach the services they needed or whether the site would make a sustainable settled base. At the same time, the Inspector recognised the difficulty some families, including children, would face in finding somewhere else to live, leading to the longer compliance period.
Why the traveller site appeal failed
The council’s notice, dated 22 May 2026, alleged an unauthorised change of use to a residential Gypsy and Traveller site, together with hard surfacing, drainage infrastructure and a sewage tank. There were three static caravans on the land when the notice was issued. David Price and Kevin Clee appealed the notice under various grounds in section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
One appellant also pursued ground (a), which allowed the Inspector to consider a deemed planning application for three pitches. The other grounds concerned whether a breach had occurred, whether the notice demanded excessive remedial works and whether five months was enough time to comply. The Inspector dismissed the substantive planning case and upheld the notice, altering only the compliance period.
In the traveller site appeal, the appellants argued that some hardstanding had existed before the caravans arrived. They did not produce first-hand evidence demonstrating its earlier extent. Photographs, including drone images accepted as showing Easter 2026 groundworks, instead demonstrated substantial new hard surfacing. That was insufficient to establish the claimed ground (c) defence on the balance of probabilities.
Grey belt status did not provide automatic permission
Policy GB7(g) of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework can allow development on grey belt land where the remaining Green Belt purposes are not fundamentally undermined and the other policy requirements are met. The council accepted the site’s limited effect on wider Green Belt purposes and acknowledged the lack of a five-year supply of traveller pitches.
The crucial stumbling block was sustainability. Policy HO12 recognises that a traveller site outside an existing settlement may still be acceptable, but the Inspector needed sufficient information about who would actually live there, their everyday needs and access to frequently used services. Accounts of intended occupation differed between the written submission and the hearing.
In the traveller site appeal, the Inspector said it was not possible to conclude that the development would be a sustainable location
under Policy GB7(g). The scheme therefore did not qualify for the grey belt route to development that would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt. The development remained inappropriate, with additional harm to openness from the caravans, surfaced areas and associated activity.
The decision is a reminder that grey belt is a policy test, not an automatic exemption from Green Belt restrictions. Even where a council accepts unmet need and the site’s wider Green Belt impact, the applicant still needs to demonstrate that the particular proposal meets the relevant national criteria. The Inspector also found it had not been shown that the site was all previously developed land.
Occupancy evidence, highways and personal circumstances
A significant feature of the traveller site appeal was the uncertainty over which adults and children would occupy the three pitches. The appellant’s account of the proposed households changed between the written evidence and the hearing, while other housing and a separate caravan site appeared to remain potentially available to some family members. The Inspector could not reliably determine the full weight to give to individual circumstances.
That did not mean every practical objection succeeded. The appellants supplied a planning obligation to address potential effects on the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation, removing that concern as a reason for refusal. Biodiversity measures could have been secured by condition. Although the surrounding country lanes were narrow, the evidence did not establish a severe highway impact or an unacceptable location for traveller use solely on accessibility grounds.
Questions were also raised about a gas pipeline crossing the land and complaints involving noise and behaviour. The Health and Safety Executive and pipeline operator had not objected to the current arrangement on the evidence before the Inspector. The Inspector had limited information about the extent of the complaints and noted that other statutory powers exist to deal with such matters.
The appellants acknowledged that the unauthorised development had been intentional. Under Policy DM8 of the Framework, the Inspector gave that fact substantial weight against permission. Substantial weight was also attached to Green Belt harm, while recognising the unmet need for pitches, the interests of children and the right to a home and family life. Taken together, the positive considerations did not amount to the very special circumstances needed for approval.
Enforcement remains, but families get twelve months
The final outcome of the traveller site appeal is therefore more nuanced than a straightforward dismissal. The Inspector rejected the challenges to the substance of the notice and its restoration requirements, including removal of the newly laid hardstanding. Yet the Inspector allowed the appeal under ground (g), deciding that the period for compliance should be extended.
The notice originally gave five months to stop the residential use and remove caravans and associated works. That period has been replaced with twelve months. The Inspector recognised that many people, including children, were living on the land and that some did not have somewhere else to go. The district’s lack of alternative pitches also mattered to the practical timetable.
That distinction is important for anyone facing an enforcement notice. A successful ground (g) argument changes the time allowed for compliance; it does not grant planning permission or cancel the notice. Our guide to enforcement notices and appeals explains how the individual grounds work and why the remedy under each one is different.
What this tells applicants and councils
The dispute had already prompted separate legal proceedings. Lichfield Live reported in June 2026 that Lichfield District Council had obtained an interim High Court injunction against further unauthorised works and occupation at the site, subject to limited exceptions for basic facilities. That injunction was separate from the Inspector’s subsequent decision on the enforcement notice.
The Burntwood traveller site appeal illustrates two practical lessons. First, evidence about the identities, numbers and needs of the proposed occupants may be decisive where the sustainability of a traveller site and personal planning circumstances are central to the policy assessment. General statements about unmet accommodation need cannot fill gaps in site-specific evidence.
Secondly, an Inspector can uphold an enforcement notice while varying the compliance period to reflect real accommodation difficulties and children’s welfare. That is an important distinction for councils choosing proportionate remedies, as well as for appellants deciding which statutory grounds to advance.
The full decision covers linked enforcement appeal references APP/K3415/C/26/3378636 and APP/K3415/C/26/3378639, determined by Inspector Zoë Franks on 5 November 2026. The official Planning Inspectorate records are available for appeal 3378636 and appeal 3378639. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments