Gypsy and Traveller sites: planning and permission explained

 

Gypsy and Traveller sites now have their main national planning rules inside the National Planning Policy Framework. Since 17th August 2026 the former separate Planning Policy for Traveller Sites is no longer the current policy document: its key rules have been incorporated into the new Framework, including the definition of travellers, the five-year supply of pitches and plots, the decision-making policy in HO12 and new routes for sites outside settlements and on qualifying grey belt land. The older GOV.UK publication remains accessible online, but Annex A of the current NPPF lists it among the documents incorporated or superseded.

A pitch is a pitch on a Gypsy and Traveller site. A plot, often called a yard, is for travelling showpeople and may also need room for equipment. Planning permission controls whether the land can be used and developed as a residential or mixed-use traveller site. A separate caravan site licence may also be needed under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, subject to the statutory exemptions.

This page explains who falls within the planning definitions, how councils assess need, why a five-year supply matters, what HO12 requires, and how the August 2026 rules now affect countryside and Green Belt applications.

 

Who counts for Gypsy and Traveller sites planning policy?

 

The August 2026 NPPF has its own planning definitions. Gypsies and travellers include people of a nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, people who have ceased travelling temporarily or permanently only because of their own or their family’s educational or health needs or old age, and people with a cultural tradition of nomadism or of living in a caravan.

Travelling showpeople and circus people travelling together as an organised group are excluded from that definition because the Framework defines travelling showpeople separately. The umbrella term travellers covers both gypsies and travellers and travelling showpeople.

The planning definition is important because the traveller-specific policies in HO12, S5 and GB7 depend on the proposal being a traveller site for NPPF purposes. It is not, however, a test of a person’s ethnicity or of whether other Equality Act or human-rights considerations may apply.

 

Why the definition changed: the Smith case

 

The definition has changed several times. In 2015 the government removed people who had permanently ceased travelling because of old age, illness or disability from the traveller-site definition. That change was central to Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] EWCA Civ 1391.

Lisa Smith lived with a Romani Gypsy family at a site near Coalville. Two of her adult sons were severely disabled and could not travel for work. The Secretary of State accepted that the 2015 exclusion indirectly discriminated against elderly and disabled Gypsies and Travellers. The Court of Appeal held that, in Ms Smith’s case, the discrimination on grounds including age, race and disability had not been justified. It allowed her appeal, quashed the inspector’s decision and sent the planning appeal back for redetermination.

The court was careful about the extent of its ruling. It was deciding Ms Smith’s section 288 challenge to the inspector’s decision; it was not making a declaration that struck down the whole 2015 policy. The government nevertheless changed the definition. In December 2023 it restored people who had ceased travelling permanently on the specified grounds, and in December 2024 broadened the definition further to include people with a cultural tradition of nomadism or of living in a caravan. The August 2026 NPPF now carries that wider definition in its own glossary.

 

Councils must assess Traveller accommodation needs

 

Policy HO1 now requires plan-making to be based on an assessment of the permanent and transit site accommodation needs of travellers over the plan period. Councils commonly still call this evidence a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, or GTAA.

The legal history is worth knowing. The old sections 225 and 226 of the Housing Act 2004, and the 2007 statutory GTAA guidance made under them, were revoked in 2016. Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 was amended instead so that local housing authorities consider the needs of everyone residing in or resorting to their district, including needs for caravan sites. The planning-policy requirement to assess permanent and transit Traveller needs now sits expressly in HO1 of the NPPF.

Under HO2, a Spatial Development Strategy should set pitch and plot requirements for each local planning authority where a need has been identified. Where no Spatial Development Strategy is in place, the local plan should establish those requirements. They should reflect the extent to which identified permanent and transit needs can be accommodated over the plan period as fully as possible.

 

The five-year supply of Traveller sites really matters

 

Traveller supply is separate from the ordinary five-year housing land supply. Under HO3 and Annex D, councils should identify specific deliverable Traveller sites sufficient for at least five years’ worth of pitches and plots, assessed against the pitch and plot requirement in the development plan. Plans should then identify developable sites or broad locations for years 6 to 10 and, where possible, for the rest of a longer plan period.

Unlike the ordinary housing supply calculation, Annex D does not add the 5% or 20% housing buffers to the Traveller-site requirement.

A failure to demonstrate the Traveller five-year supply has direct consequences in the new Framework. Outside settlements, the lack of a five-year supply is expressly identified as evidence of unmet Gypsy, Traveller or travelling showpeople accommodation need for policy S5. In the Green Belt, footnote 41 to GB7 specifically says that evidenced unmet need for a Traveller site means the council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable Traveller sites.

So this is no longer best described by analogy with the old tilted balance. The August 2026 NPPF gives Traveller need its own express routes through S5 and GB7.

 

Gypsy and Traveller sites outside settlements

 

Policy S5 controls development outside settlement boundaries. One of its express categories is development which would address an evidenced unmet need for Gypsy, Traveller or travelling showpeople accommodation, provided the proposal meets HO12.

The lack of a five-year supply is an important way of demonstrating that unmet need, but the Framework says the route is not limited to that situation. Other robust evidence of unmet need can also be relevant.

This is important because HO12 recognises something that ordinary housing policy does not always accommodate comfortably: a Traveller site’s traditional residential and working pattern may contribute to sustainability and can mean that a location which is not well-related to an existing settlement may still be appropriate.

S5 does not apply to proposals in the Green Belt. Those are dealt with under GB6, GB7 and, where applicable, GB8.

 

What HO12 says about the location of a Traveller site

 

HO12 is now the central national decision-making policy for Traveller sites. It says proposals should be located so that they:

• provide a settled base while recognising that some traditional lifestyles involve living and working from the same place
• enable access to frequently used services such as education, welfare and health services
• allow children to attend school on a regular basis

When deciding a proposal, including when assessing need under S5 or GB7, the council should take into account:

• the existing level of local provision
• the need for additional sites
• relevant personal circumstances
• applications from any Traveller, not only people with a local connection

That last point is easy to miss. A council cannot make a local connection a gateway that prevents it considering an otherwise valid Traveller-site application.

If an authorised Traveller site has to be permanently or temporarily relocated because of another development, HO12 says an alternative site should be identified and provided, taking account of residents’ views and existing family or community groupings where possible.

 

Travelling showpeople need plots, not ordinary pitches

 

The NPPF separately defines travelling showpeople as members of a group organised for holding fairs, circuses or shows, whether or not they travel together. The definition includes people who have stopped travelling temporarily or permanently because of more localised trading, education or health needs, or old age.

A Gypsy or Traveller household uses a pitch. A travelling showperson uses a plot, often called a yard. The difference is practical as well as linguistic: showpeople may need space for residential accommodation together with storage and maintenance of fairground or show equipment.

HO5 therefore tells plans to identify sites suitable for Gypsies, Travellers and travelling showpeople, including mixed residential and business uses where appropriate, and specifically to have regard to showpeople’s need for mixed-use yards.

 

Green Belt and grey belt Traveller sites

 

The August 2026 position is very different from the old Traveller Sites policy. Under GB6, development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within a category in GB7. If it is inappropriate, it should not be approved unless very special circumstances clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm and any other harm.

But a Traveller site can now benefit from the grey belt route in GB7(g). Development is not inappropriate where all the relevant conditions are met, including that:

• the development uses grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area
• there is an evidenced unmet need for the type of development proposed
• the development is in a sustainable location, with Traveller proposals assessed with particular reference to HO12

For Traveller sites, GB7’s footnote defines evidenced unmet need as the council being unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable Traveller sites. The NPPF also expressly says the Green Belt Golden Rules do not apply to Traveller sites.

This does not make every Green Belt Traveller site acceptable. The site must actually satisfy a GB7 category and the rest of the Framework still applies. But it does mean it is now wrong to say that every Traveller site in the Green Belt automatically starts by having to prove very special circumstances, or that grey belt does not apply to Traveller sites.

 

How a planning application is decided

 

The statutory starting point remains the development plan. Applications must be determined in accordance with it unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The August 2026 NPPF is a material consideration of critical importance and contains the current Traveller-site policies.

For the particular proposal, the council will need to consider HO12 alongside other relevant national and local policies. Typical issues include access and highway safety, landscape and visual effects, flood risk, drainage, ecology, neighbouring amenity and whether the site can function safely for its proposed residential or mixed use.

Need and personal circumstances can be especially important. HO7 says substantial weight should be given to the benefits of homes which contribute towards meeting evidenced accommodation needs, while HO12 expressly requires relevant personal circumstances to be taken into account. Health, education, caring responsibilities, family circumstances and the availability of alternative accommodation can therefore be important evidence in an individual case.

 

Alternative sites and long-standing under-provision

 

An applicant does not have to prove that every other conceivable site in the district has been ruled out. But evidence about realistic alternatives can be important, particularly where the case relies on personal need or the absence of suitable accommodation.

If you have looked at other land, keep a record. That might include advertisements, asking prices, correspondence with landowners, reasons why access or flood risk made a site unsuitable, or evidence that an authorised pitch was unavailable. The point is not to manufacture an exhaustive search. It is to show the decision-maker what the practical alternatives really are.

Long-standing under-provision can matter too. In Hedges & Hedges v Secretary of State for the Environment and East Cambridgeshire District Council [1996] EWHC Admin 240, it was common ground that there were no available residential Gypsy pitches in the district, whether on council, tolerated or private sites. The court also found that the adopted Local Plan policy had become out of date, while the interim supplementary guidance provided criteria for assessing sites but did not actually identify or make provision for them.

The inspector had treated need largely as part of the Hedges family’s personal circumstances. Moriarty QC held that this failed to grapple adequately with need for Gypsy-site provision as an important planning issue in its own right, including the extent of need and the absence of actual provision. The inspector’s decision was therefore quashed. The Article 8 challenge and the separate attack on the inspector’s visual-impact judgment did not succeed. The 1996 policy framework is historic, but the case remains a useful reminder that where unmet Traveller need and lack of provision form a substantial part of an applicant’s case, the decision-maker must address them properly and give intelligible reasons for the way they enter the planning balance.

Do not treat the phrase “failure of policy” as a separate legal test which automatically produces permission. The stronger argument is evidence-based: identified unmet need, allocations which have not delivered, repeated five-year supply shortfalls, and a planning history showing that suitable accommodation has not materialised.

 

Children, human rights and equality

 

Where children are affected, their best interests are a primary consideration. In Stevens v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 792 (Admin), the High Court explained that this is not the same as making children’s interests paramount or automatically determinative. Their interests must first be identified, kept at the forefront of the decision-maker’s mind and considered as part of the overall planning and proportionality exercise. A child is not to be blamed for a parent’s breach of planning control.

The more recent East Hertfordshire District Council v Flynn & Ors [2025] EWHC 1458 (KB) applied that approach in an enforcement case involving a Traveller family. The court treated the children’s and family’s accommodation needs as important countervailing considerations, but not as determinative, and allowed nine months for compliance so that alternative accommodation and schooling could be addressed. Evidence on a planning application can therefore include school attendance, special educational needs, healthcare, stability, caring arrangements and what displacement or relocation would mean in practice.

Blackpool Borough Council v Beale & Ors [2026] EWHC 2237 (KB) is a current section 187B example involving a Romani Gypsy family. The court found repeated Public Sector Equality Duty failures by the council, but still granted an injunction after weighing the planning harm, enforcement history, children, alternative accommodation and proportionality.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights can also be relevant because it protects respect for private and family life and the home. Importantly, Rafferty & Jones v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & North Somerset Council [2009] EWCA Civ 809 confirms that Article 8 can be engaged even where a Traveller family has not yet moved onto the application site. The Court of Appeal treated their caravans as their home and held that refusal of permission to station them on their own land could engage their private and family life. The appeal nevertheless failed because the inspector had already carried out the necessary balancing exercise and the outcome would inevitably have been the same.

Article 8 does not create a right to planning permission or a right to live on a particular parcel of land. The planning authority or inspector must consider any interference lawfully and proportionately alongside the legitimate public interest in maintaining planning control.

There is also a separate equality duty. Under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, public authorities must have due regard to the need to eliminate prohibited discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers can have a protected racial characteristic, and disability may independently engage the Equality Act. Smith is particularly useful in showing why the planning-policy Traveller definition and protected ethnic status are not the same question.

This is different from the NPPF Traveller definition. A person’s status for HO12 and the Traveller-specific planning policies is one question; whether race, disability or another protected characteristic engages Equality Act duties is another.

 

Temporary and personal planning permissions

 

Planning permission normally runs with the land, but there are circumstances where a temporary or personal permission can be justified.

Government guidance says a temporary permission can be appropriate where a trial period is genuinely needed or planning circumstances are expected to change by the end of the period. It also says a second temporary permission will rarely be justified unless changing circumstances provide a clear rationale. A temporary permission therefore should not be treated simply as a routine way to postpone a decision on whether a site is acceptable permanently.

An older but still useful illustration is Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 692. The Court of Appeal restored a temporary permission where permanent permission was not justified, but the combination of unmet need, no immediate alternative site, family circumstances and an expectation that new sites would become available supported a time-limited permission. Its Green Belt and Traveller policy framework is historic, so the current NPPF and current conditions guidance must be applied today, but the case remains a useful example of how several considerations can combine differently for a temporary permission.

A personal condition is also exceptional. It can be appropriate where development which would not normally be permitted is justified because of the particular person or class of people who will benefit. Any such condition still has to satisfy the normal tests of necessity, planning relevance, enforceability, precision and reasonableness.

 

Traveller occupancy conditions

 

A Traveller-site permission may also contain an occupancy condition restricting occupation to people who fall within the relevant Gypsy and Traveller or travelling showpeople definition. That is different from making the permission personal to one named family.

An occupancy condition controls the class of occupier. A personal permission ties the planning permission to a particular named person or household and is much more exceptional. The wording matters, especially now that the national Traveller definitions sit in the August 2026 NPPF rather than the former standalone Traveller Sites policy.

Always read the actual condition on an existing site. Do not assume that an older permission uses the current definition, and do not assume that a change in national policy automatically rewrites the wording of an existing planning condition.

 

Setting up the site before permission is risky

 

The new NPPF keeps a strong policy on intentional unauthorised development, now in DM8. Where a retrospective planning application or an enforcement appeal is being considered and the decision-maker concludes on the evidence that the unauthorised development was intentional, that fact should receive substantial weight when deciding whether to grant planning permission.

That is not a Traveller-specific penalty: DM8 applies generally. But it is particularly relevant where caravans are moved onto land and hardstanding, access, utility buildings or other works are carried out before permission has been obtained.

If development has already taken place, see our guide to retrospective planning permission and our wider planning enforcement section.

 

Check the planning and enforcement history before buying

 

Before buying land, search the council’s planning register for previous applications, appeals and enforcement notices. An old refusal is not automatically fatal, because policy, evidence or the proposal itself may have changed. An extant enforcement notice is much more serious because it binds the land and can affect what the council is required to determine later.

Section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 can allow a council to decline to determine an application where granting permission would involve permitting matters already covered by a pre-existing enforcement notice. That makes the enforcement history a potentially expensive issue to discover only after completion.

A particularly relevant recent case is R (Connors) v Bromley London Borough Council [2026] EWHC 1517 (Admin). It concerned an application for two Gypsy Traveller pitches on land subject to enforcement notices issued in 2019. The owner relied on the fundamental change in national Green Belt and Traveller policy from December 2024 when arguing that Bromley should determine the new application on its planning merits.

The High Court accepted that those arguments were properly arguable, but it dismissed the substantive judicial review claim. Section 70C gives a council a broad discretion once its statutory conditions are met, and the court did not hold that a change in national policy automatically requires the authority to reconsider the planning merits. On the particular facts, the enforcement notices had remained extant and disobeyed for years, the land had never been restored and there had been no “reset”. Those matters entitled Bromley to decline to determine the application without engaging with the changed-policy merits.

There is an important nuance. Fordham J said the position could be very different if there had been a reset, because that would remove a central part of Bromley’s reasoning. Whether changed policy or changed planning merits are considerations a council must address under section 70C is therefore fact-specific. The case is a strong reason to investigate and understand an enforcement notice before buying the land, rather than assuming a new national policy gives a clean slate.

 

Planning permission and caravan site licensing are different

 

Planning permission answers whether the land may be used and developed as the proposed Traveller site. A caravan site licence is a separate regulatory control under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and may also be required, subject to the exemptions in that Act.

Do not assume that a licence creates planning permission, or that planning permission automatically removes every licensing requirement. Our Class A caravan-site page explains one particular permitted-development route connected with caravan site licensing, but a new residential Traveller site should be assessed on its own planning and licensing facts.

 

Fees, refusals and appeals

 

A planning application for a Traveller site carries the planning application fee appropriate to the development proposed. Rather than reproduce a figure which may change, use our current planning application fees page.

If the council refuses permission, or fails to determine the application within the relevant period, an applicant may have a right of appeal. The strength of a Traveller-site appeal often depends heavily on evidence: the council’s pitch and plot requirement, its five-year supply, the GTAA or other needs assessment, the development plan, HO12, site-specific impacts and the occupiers’ personal circumstances. See our planning appeals section.

 

Before buying land for a Gypsy and Traveller site

 

The best time to identify a planning problem is before you buy the land. A cheap field can become very expensive if safe access, flooding, landscape constraints or an enforcement notice makes the intended use unrealistic.

• Services and schools: consider practical access to education, health, welfare and everyday services, bearing HO12 in mind
• Highway access: check whether cars and vehicles towing caravans can enter and leave safely, whether adequate visibility can be achieved and whether the approach roads are suitable
• Landscape and visual impact: look at long views, topography and whether native landscaping can integrate the site rather than simply attempting to hide it
• Flood risk and drainage: check river, coastal and surface-water risk before purchase and establish how foul and surface-water drainage would actually work
• Green Belt and other designations: check Green Belt and grey belt status, National Landscapes, heritage constraints, ecology, ancient woodland and other relevant designations
• Utilities and easements: establish how water, electricity and drainage will be provided and whether pipes, cables or easements restrict where development can go
• Planning and enforcement history: read previous applications, appeal decisions, enforcement notices and any section 70C history affecting the land
• Traveller need: read the current GTAA or other needs evidence, the development-plan pitch and plot requirement and the latest five-year Traveller-site supply position
• Alternative sites: if the case may rely on lack of suitable accommodation, keep sensible evidence of other land or pitches considered and why they were not realistic alternatives

Do not rely on a single generic highway visibility measurement or assume that being outside walking distance of a school automatically makes a site unacceptable. The correct standards and planning balance depend on the road, the location, HO12 and the facts of the proposal.

 

Checklist before submitting the application

 

• Check the current NPPF definition and identify whether the proposal is for Gypsies and Travellers or travelling showpeople
• Read the council’s latest GTAA or other Traveller needs assessment
• Find the pitch and plot requirement in the development plan
• Check whether the council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable Traveller sites
• Check whether the land is inside a settlement, outside a settlement or in the Green Belt
• If it is Green Belt, establish whether the land is grey belt and whether a GB7 category can apply
• Address HO12 directly, including services, education, health and the way the proposed site supports the household’s traditional lifestyle
• Evidence personal circumstances, children’s interests and any equality or human-rights considerations rather than merely referring to them
• Deal properly with access, drainage, flood risk, landscape, ecology and neighbouring amenity
• Include relevant evidence about alternative accommodation where it assists the case
• Do not start unauthorised development in the hope that a retrospective application will be easier
• Check separately whether a caravan site licence will be needed

 

For the wider policy context, see our guides to the NPPF, development plan, local plans and five-year housing land supply. The ordinary housing supply page is useful background, but remember that Traveller pitches and plots have their own separate five-year calculation.

 

Relevant policy, law and case law for Gypsy and Traveller sites

 

• National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, including S5, HO1 to HO12, GB6 to GB8, Annex D and the glossary definitions
• Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 38, the statutory development-plan starting point
• Housing Act 1985, section 8, the current housing-needs review duty which includes caravan accommodation needs
• Housing and Planning Act 2016, section 124, which replaced the former separate Gypsy and Traveller accommodation-assessment regime
• Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, including the separate caravan-site licensing regime and exemptions
• Equality Act 2010, section 19, on indirect discrimination
• Equality Act 2010, section 149, the Public Sector Equality Duty
• Human Rights Act 1998, Schedule 1, including Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
• Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 70C, the power to decline to determine certain applications where a pre-existing enforcement notice applies
• Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] EWCA Civ 1391, the Court of Appeal case concerning the discriminatory 2015 Traveller definition
• Rafferty & Jones v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & North Somerset Council [2009] EWCA Civ 809, confirming that Article 8 can be engaged before a Traveller family moves onto the application site
• Stevens v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 792 (Admin), on children’s best interests as a primary consideration in planning
• R (Connors) v Bromley London Borough Council [2026] EWHC 1517 (Admin), on section 70C, extant enforcement notices and changed Traveller/Green Belt policy
• East Hertfordshire District Council v Flynn & Ors [2025] EWHC 1458 (KB), a recent application of children’s interests, equality considerations and planning enforcement
• Hedges & Hedges v Secretary of State for the Environment and East Cambridgeshire District Council [1996] EWHC Admin 240, on the need to grapple properly with unmet Traveller need and the absence of actual pitch provision
• Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 692, an older authority illustrating how need, alternatives and personal circumstances can support temporary permission
• O’Brien & Ors v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1159, on Traveller enforcement, equality considerations and arguments about alternative sites
• Planning Practice Guidance: use of planning conditions, including temporary and personal permissions

 

Other Housing Sections

 

 

Gypsy and Traveller Sites Page Updated: 29th August 2026