Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Hearing held on 4 April 2023 Site visit made on 4 April 2023 by Darren Hendley BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 May 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 Land off Bury Hill, Hambrook BS16 1SS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr D Smith against the decision of South Gloucestershire Council. • The application Ref: P21/00326/F, dated 19 January 2021, was refused by notice dated 5 April 2022. • The development proposed is the change of use of land for the proposed creation of two Gypsy/Traveller pitches, comprising the siting of two mobile homes and two touring caravans, and the erection of 2 dayrooms. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use of land for the proposed creation of two Gypsy/Traveller pitches, comprising the siting of two mobile homes and two touring caravans, and the erection of 2 dayrooms at land off Bury Hill, Hambrook BS16 1SS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: P21/00326/F, dated 19 January 2021, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Procedural Matters 2.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision The appellant submitted a number of documents during the hearing. After seeking views of the other parties, I accepted these documents as late evidence as they are of relevance to my decision. In the interests of fairness, the other parties were given the opportunity to review these documents during an adjournment and then afforded the opportunity to comment on them later in the hearing. Hence, no party has been disadvantaged by my acceptance of these documents. For the same reason, I also accepted a recent appeal decision1 at Land at Bristol Road that the Council submitted prior to the hearing and the parties also referred to this decision. Main Issues 3. The main issues are a) whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and the development plan policy, b) the effect on the openness of the Green Belt, c) the effect on a Scheduled Monument (SM), Bury Hill Fort, d) the effect on undesignated archaeological remains, and e) if it is 1 Appeal ref: APP/P0119/W/21/3289677 Land at Bristol Road, Frampton Cotterell BS36 2AW https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons 4. The appeal site lies to the south of a narrow lane known as Bury Hill. It contains a partly demolished stables building and an adjacent area of hardstanding closest to the site access. This area is raised over the remainder of the site which has a largely undeveloped appearance. There is however some loose stone and outside storage of materials. The site is separated from Bury Hill by a stone wall and a row of trees. It is delineated from a field/paddock area to the south by a line of recent planting. There is also planting and fencing on the side boundaries. The site has planning permission2 for a replacement stable block and associated works, including the access which has already been implemented. 5. Fields and paddocks make up the majority of the undulating land in the vicinity of the site which is intersected by narrow country lanes. There is other occasional development along Bury Hill, or small clusters.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision These include a dwelling to the west of the site and a small agricultural education facility to the east. Bury Hill Fort, which is itself an open feature, lies on the opposite side of the lane. To the south, in the distance, is the edge of the Bristol urban area. The site lies in the Green Belt. Inappropriate Development 6. Policy CS5 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy 2006 -2027 (2013) (Core Strategy) confirms the extent of the Green Belt and, amongst other matters, sets out that proposals will need to comply with the related national planning policy. Policy CS34 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect the designated Green Belt from inappropriate development, whilst Policy PSP7 of the Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) (Policies, Sites and Places Plan) reiterates national planning policy in the Green Belt and explains how it is to be applied in South Gloucestershire. 7. Paragraph 147 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. This is re-iterated by Policy E of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (2015) (PPTS).

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Policy E goes on to state that Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development. This is regardless of the consideration of the effect of a proposal on openness. 8. None of the provisions in the Framework which concern exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt can apply. This is because of the type of development which is proposed, namely a Gypsy and Traveller site. Accordingly, when judged against the Framework and Policies CS5, CS34 and PSP7, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 9. The Council’s Green Belt reason for refusal includes the Development in the Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (2007). It does not provide particular guidance on Gypsy and Traveller sites. As I have found the proposal 2 Council ref: PT16/6467/F https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 to be inappropriate development, it does not take my deliberations substantively further. Openness 10. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. The proposal would alter the area of land on which it would be sited so that it would contain the two mobile homes, two dayroom buildings and two touring caravans (when on site). It would introduce buildings on part of the site where there are currently none. As land in the vicinity of the site is itself largely open, the proposal would also cause a loss of openness by consolidating the more sporadic development along this part of Bury Hill between the adjacent uses. 11. The proposal would also increase the likelihood of additional vehicles on the site compared to the existing use, because a residential use would be introduced to the site for two households. Nor is there any indication that the site would not continue to be used for stables. There would also likely be some domestic paraphernalia on the site. 12. With regard to the visual aspect of openness, some screening would be afforded by the enclosure along the boundary with Bury Hill and on or close to the boundaries with the neighbouring uses.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision The recent planting on the boundary with the field/paddock to the south seems to be taking and so in time this would also provide some screening along this boundary. There would however still be some likely residual visibility of the proposal. 13. In terms of the potential for a reversibility to the effect, it would still occur for a not insignificant amount of time, even if a temporary planning permission was granted. A personal permission would likely prolong the time period that the proposal would be on site, compared to a temporary permission. None of this alters my view on this issue, notwithstanding that in any event the appellant is seeking a permanent permission in the first instance. 14. The Council agreed at the hearing there would not be conflict with Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, which concerns design matters. While the appellant still considered this was of relevance to the Green Belt, it is a policy which is related to character and appearance and so has a limited bearing on this issue. 15. In considering these factors together, the proposal would result in a moderate adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. It would not therefore preserve the openness. Scheduled Monument 16.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Bury Hill Fort is a SM and so is a designated heritage asset for the purposes of the Framework. It is an Iron Age Hillfort which comprises two closely located banks with ditches that largely enclose a central oval shaped grassed area. There is also a grassed area which extends down to the lane which separates the site from this designated heritage asset. The SM sits at a relatively lofty position and is a dominant feature. It is crossed by a Public Right of Way (PRoW) which allows a ready appreciation of its interest, which is noticeably intact. 17. The setting of the SM does not benefit from statutory protection, including under legislation related to archaeology, as well as the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. However, paragraph 199 of the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 Framework advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It confirms that the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. SMs are assets of the highest significance. 18. The setting forms part of the significance of the asset. The SM is in a prominent position and the land slopes away from it to the south, including the site. From this position, the SM would have commanded this land. The historical relationship between the SM and this land is still appreciable today because much of the land in this direction is still open. It is also on this side of the SM where the banks and ditches are most obvious and impressive, as I observed from the PRoW. Where quarrying has taken place in the vicinity of the SM, it is not on the side nearest the site. The original landform of the land here is still largely unbroken. 19. Where development has extended along the lane, it has eroded this significance to a degree, notwithstanding the quantum of such development is still modest.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Some tree screening is also afforded, but with the positioning of the SM above this land the vegetation does not lessen the significance to an appreciable degree. Moreover, much of the land in any event remains open and so the physical relationship to the SM is also largely maintained and has not been unduly compromised. This is also evident from the PRoW where it emerges from the south east corner of the SM. The northern built-up edge of Bristol is too distant to reduce this relationship to a significant degree. 20. The proposal would reduce the significance of the SM because it would introduce further development onto open land within the setting and which is in close proximity to it. It would cause infill between the existing development on either side of the site, and this would further erode the relationship between this land and the SM. It would therefore cause some degree of harm to the significance. The setting is not defined by the lane and so that the proposal would not intrude between the lane and the SM does not overcome this harm. 21.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Further planting within the site, or in the field/paddock beyond, would not adequately address the harm because the importance of the setting to the significance of the asset is simply greater than seeking to reduce intervisibility. Altering the indicated orientation of the proposed caravans would not make an appreciable difference because the amount of development and the land in question would still be the same. While I was referred to paragraph 206 of the Framework where it concerns opportunities within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance, further planting and caravan orientation would not amount to such a betterment. This is when compared to the current more open form of the site. 22. I was also referred to photographic evidence that both main parties provided from commercial mapping sources and the potential shortcomings with such an approach was also indicated to me. In coming to my views, I have though considered the totality of the evidence before me.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Matters have also been raised in relation to the overall number of SM in the Council area and their protection, but as it is the effect on the Bury Hill Fort SM which is in dispute, it forms the basis of my considerations on this matter. 23. For the purposes of paragraph 202 of the Framework, less than substantial harm would arise. While the Framework does not require a differentiation https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Matters have also been raised in relation to the overall number of SM in the Council area and their protection, but as it is the effect on the Bury Hill Fort SM which is in dispute, it forms the basis of my considerations on this matter. 23. For the purposes of paragraph 202 of the Framework, less than substantial harm would arise. While the Framework does not require a differentiation https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 within such a judgment and the Planning Practice Guidance: Historic Environment simply states that the extent of the harm may vary and should clearly be articulated3, given that the scale and mass of the proposal would be moderate, it would be towards the lower end of this level of harm. Nevertheless, there would be a conflict between the asset’s conservation and the proposal. 24. I conclude that the effect of the proposal would be to cause harm to the significance of a SM, Bury Hill Fort. As such, it would not comply with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy where it states that new development will be expected to ensure that heritage assets are conserved, respected and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance. It would also not comply with Policy PSP17 of the Policies, Sites and Places Plan in as far as it concerns SMs and states that proposals will be expected to preserve and where appropriate, enhance the setting of archaeological heritage assets, and those elements which contribute to their significance. 25. I deal with weighing this harm against the public benefits of the proposal under the Framework and Policy PSP17 later in my decision.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Undesignated Archaeological Remains 26. There is the potential for the presence of archaeological remains on the site due to its proximity to the SM. While I am aware of comments that such remains could themselves necessitate a SM designation, the position as it stands would be that they would constitute non-designated heritage assets for the purposes of the Framework. I have proceeded on this basis. 27. Paragraph 194 of the Framework establishes that where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. Such information was not submitted to the Council and so evidence in line with paragraph 194 is not before me. 28. It is agreed between the main parties that the site is previously developed land. It is not though evident why this would necessitate not providing an assessment in accordance with paragraph 194. The Framework does not caveat this paragraph to exclude previously developed land.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision The Council acknowledged that it was in error not to require such an assessment prior to determining the planning application for the stables block. However, this does not justify a decision maker not following paragraph 194 in subsequent applications because it is national planning policy. The same applies as regards how other development in the vicinity of the site was treated, notwithstanding this was contested by the Council at the hearing. 29. With regard to the use of a related pre-commencement condition on a planning permission, if an assessment and where necessary a field evaluation has not been carried out, it is not known what the archaeological interest might be. Hence, such a condition would have the potential to nullify a permission if the assessment shows archaeological interest which means that the proposal cannot be implemented as permitted. It would not therefore be reasonable to utilise such a condition in an attempt to address this issue. 3 Paragraph: 018 Reference ID: 18a-018-20190723 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 30. In taking these factors together, there is insufficient information before me to establish what the archaeological remains might be, their significance and the potential effect of the proposal on any remains. 31. On this basis, I conclude that the effect on undesignated archaeological remains would be unacceptable. Hence, it would not comply with Policy CS9 as regards heritage assets being conserved, respected and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance, and with Policy PSP17 where it concerns archaeology, understanding the heritage asset and the impact of development. The proposal would also not comply with paragraph 194 of the Framework, in the absence of an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. Other Considerations Need and Supply of Pitches 32. The PPTS requires local planning authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets. The Council use the South Gloucestershire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (2017) and an Explanatory Note (2018) in relation to supply.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision The GTAA identifies a need for 75 additional pitches from 2016 until 2032, whilst the Explanatory Note reduces this figure to 61 based on a number of permissions that were subsequently granted. The Council now considers there remains a need for 54 pitches, in having regard to further permissions which have been granted. 33. It is not in dispute that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable sites in accordance with the PPTS. The recent Land at Bristol Road, appeal decision identifies that the unmet need is significant and I see no reason to depart from this finding. Other previous appeal decisions in the Council area that I have been referred to reach a similar conclusion. 34. Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy states that provision will be made for Gypsy and/ Traveller accommodation through the Policies, Sites and Places DPD or a replacement local plan (whichever is the sooner) following a review of the need for further pitches up to 2027.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision The Policies, Sites and Places DPD did not make provision for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and whilst the Council is undertaking a review of its Local Plan and has appointed consultants to carry out a new GTAA exercise, it is unlikely that the review will be in place for some time. It has a limited bearing on my decision. 35. Policy CS21 goes on to state that additional provision will be addressed through the intensification of existing sites in the first instance while not excluding sites in new neighbourhoods. Such an approach does not appear to have been effective as the Council has not been able to meet the need for the supply of pitches through the grant of planning permissions. When this is considered with the time period over which the supply has not been met, which is also evidenced by the appeal decisions that I have been referred to, this amounts to a policy failure. It is not disputed by the Council. 36. The appellant is not required to prove that no other sites are available. However, whether there are alternative sites is useful in further understanding local provision in practical terms.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision The appellant has pointed to matters in relation to a lack of site availability, difficulties between different Gypsy and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision The appellant has pointed to matters in relation to a lack of site availability, difficulties between different Gypsy and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 Traveller groups and that other sites are full. The Council accept there is a lack of available, suitable and affordable sites. On this basis, there are no obvious alternative sites that the appellant and his family could occupy. Matters in relation to need and supply carry significant weight in my decision. Circumstances of the Appellant 37. There is not substantive evidence to suggest that the appellant and his family are not Gypsies and Travellers. The appellant is a Romany Gypsy. The appellant works as a landscape gardener and travels in relation to his work, for 4 months of the year. The appellant is married. The appellant’s son, who also works as a landscape gardener and travels for work, is married and has 2 young children. He has local connections being registered with a local doctor’s surgery and dentists. The site would also provide good access to education facilities for the children in due course. 38. The appellant is currently renting a pitch in nearby Winterbourne, where the family of the owner of that site are themselves in need of a pitch and this could necessitate the appellant having to move off that site.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision The appellant’s son and dependants are looking for a settled base. They are doubling up on the appellant’s pitch and with a family member in a different part of the country. There is not room for them on the appellant’s pitch with regard to planning controls and this is why they can only stay on that pitch for a few weeks at a time. 39. The appeal site is owned by the appellant and has been utilising it for his equestrian needs. It is said it would meet the appellant and his family’s needs. In the absence of alternative sites, the appellant could potentially be homeless and rely on a roadside existence. The same would apply as regards the appellant’s son and his dependants. 40. In taking these matters together, I am not unsympathetic to the appellant’s circumstances and having such a base would clearly be advantageous to the appellant and his son, and their dependants, as well as serving the best interests of the children. This also carries significant weight in my decision. Other Matters 41. Policy PSP11 of the Policies, Sites and Places Plan concerns traffic impact management, including accessibility to services and facilities.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision The distances to services and facilities that are contained within the policy justification are themselves described as the starting point. While the future occupiers would be reliant on private vehicles, this is a feature of Gypsy and Traveller sites because of the need for travelling, including for economic reasons. Thus, the site would not amount to an unsuitable location for the proposal due to accessibility. The PPTS, whilst very strictly limiting new Traveller development in the countryside, does not prohibit it because this depends on a consideration of the merits of the case in such locations. Nor would the proposal dominate the nearest settled community or place undue pressure on local infrastructure, given its moderate scale. 42. The site is found in an attractive landscape. It is open and undulating, with limited development. Local residents clearly value the area for recreational purposes, including for walking, cycling and horse-riding, whether using the lanes or the PRoW network, including named routes. The scale of the proposal https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 would not though be appreciably different from that already found in its vicinity and it would be respectful of the rural area. With regard to the visual effect and encroachment, the proposal would be contained within the well-defined boundaries of the site and some screening would be afforded. The effects of external lighting could ably be controlled through planning condition. The level of visibility would not equate to an unacceptable effect in character and appearance terms. 43. The neighbouring property to the west has an outlook over the site. The submitted proposed site block plan shows the proposal would be set in from this boundary and the structures themselves would be of a modest height. The change in outlook would not be unacceptable. 44. The traffic generated from the proposal would be unlikely to be significant. The lanes in the vicinity of the site, although narrow and enclosed, would be able to deal with the likely level of traffic and nor would undue associated air quality or light pollution reasonably arise. Foul drainage can ably be addressed through a planning condition and the same applies in relation to biodiversity and associated mitigation measures.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision There is not substantive evidence before me that flood risk and surface water drainage would be a particular concern. The vegetation would be maintained. 45. A number of listed buildings lie at Moorend, which is found to the west along Bury Hill. They consist of a farmhouse, gateposts, outhouses and a barn. These buildings lie at a noticeably lower land level than the site and are well screened from it by the topography, as well as by intervening land and vegetation, and a further residential property. As a result, I am not persuaded that the site falls within the setting of these assets. It would not have an unacceptable effect in this regard. 46. The proposal would not become any other form of housing because it would be restricted to Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. As the site would be occupied, this would seem to act as a deterrent to the fly tipping and rubbish concerns that have been raised. The effect on property values is not a matter for my consideration, and nor is compliance with conditions on the existing stables permission, as this would be a Council matter. The precise circumstances lead me to my overall conclusion, and so my decision would not set a particular precedent. Balancing Exercise 47.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Paragraph 202 of the Framework sets out that where less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset would arise, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits. The harm to the significance of the SM must be given great importance and weight. 48. The public benefits are themselves very significant. The proposal would assist in lessening the shortfall against the identified need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches. It would also make a contribution to dealing with the lack of supply caused by at least in part the policy failure, as well as a lack of alternative sites available to the Gypsy and Traveller community. The Council also confirmed at the hearing that it was not seeking a personal permission, in the event that permission would be granted. As such, the proposal’s contribution to need and supply would also not need to be limited in this way. I consider that the public benefits would outweigh the less than substantial harm to the SM. The https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 proposal would therefore comply with Policy PSP17 and the Framework in this regard. 49. The balancing exercise under paragraph 203 of the Framework concerning undesignated heritage assets is somewhat of a vexed question because of a lack of substantive evidence from the appellant, to inform what the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the archaeological remains. However, in exercising my function on behalf of a public authority, I am also consciously aware of my duties under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained within the Equality Act 2010 which sets out to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality and foster good relations, and the protected characteristics under the PSED, including for Gypsy and Traveller groups. I am also aware of my duties under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8) that bestows the right to private and family life and for the home, and that the Article 8 rights of a child should be viewed in the context of Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision It would seem to me that the application of such duties in this case would outweigh any harm to undesignated heritage assets. 50. The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 148 states that substantial weight is to be given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I have also identified harm by way of the effect on the significance of a SM, Bury Hill Fort, and potentially on undesignated archaeological remains. There would be conflict with the policies of the development plan and the Framework in these respects. 51. It is necessary then to appraise the other considerations. These include the outstanding need and lack of supply of Gypsy and Traveller pitches. There has been the clear policy failure that has resulted in the accommodation needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community not been met and any remediation through the local plan process is some way off.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision I am also mindful that the Council recognise that Green Belt sites will need to come forward. Alternative sites are not available. 52. The personal circumstances centre on the need for a settled base, in particular for the appellant’s son and his dependants. The appellant could also face homelessness and they could all be left with nowhere to reside, other than by the roadside. This would be highly unsatisfactory, especially as there would be children involved. 53. The PPTS states that subject to the best interests of the child, personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances. In this case, all of these factors come into play. I find that the other considerations in this case clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. 54. As a consequence and looking at the case as a whole, I consider that very special circumstances exist which justify the development. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies CS5, CS34 and PSP7 and the Framework in relation to their overall approach to the Green Belt as regards inappropriate development, openness and very special circumstances.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 55. Whilst I have found in particular conflict with the heritage policies of the development plan, I am not persuaded this amounts to not complying with the development plan as a whole. Compliance with Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy which is central to the consideration of Gypsy and Traveller sites is not in dispute between the main parties and nor have I found there is conflict with it. Conditions 56. In addition to the timescale for implementation, I have imposed a condition concerning the approved plans in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed conditions by way of the occupancy of the site and the number of pitches and caravans as sought under the proposal for reasons of, respectively, meeting the needs of Gypsy and Travellers, and in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area. 57. I have also imposed conditions preventing commercial activities taking place on the site, removing permitted development rights for built boundary enclosure and controls over external lighting, also in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision I have also imposed conditions in relation to the submitted ecological mitigation measures and ecological enhancements, in the interests of biodiversity, and in relation to tree protection during construction in order to protect their amenity value. 58. Landscaping conditions are also imposed in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area. I have also imposed a condition requiring submission of access related details. Whilst I was made aware that such details already form part of the planning permission for the stables building, without such details, they would not be tied to the proposal which is for my consideration. This condition is imposed in the interests of highway safety. I have also imposed a condition concerning foul drainage details in the interests of providing for satisfactory drainage. 59. I have not imposed a condition concerning archaeological investigation and recording because for the reasons that I have set out earlier in my decision, I am concerned this could nullify a permission. It would not thus be reasonable and necessary.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision It is a case where the potential harm to such remains, in the absence of a condition, is outweighed by matters related to the PSED, Article 8 and the best interests of the child. 60. I have also not imposed a condition about fires, chemicals and storage in relation to trees because it would not be reasonable and necessary for what is a form of residential development. Commercial activities would in any event not be permitted on site through condition. 61. Where conditions are pre-commencement, there is agreement by the appellant through the agreed Statement of Common Ground which includes these conditions. Where I have altered the wording of the remaining conditions put forward by the parties, I have done so in the interests of precision and without changing their overall intention. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 Conclusion 62. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all matters raised, the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Darren Hendley INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Darren Hendley INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Darren Hendley Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: J003709-DD-01-A – Site Location Plan, J003709-DD-02 – As Existing Site Block Plan, J003709-DD-03 – As Proposed Site Block Plan, J003709-DD-04 – As Proposed Dayroom Plans & Elevations 3) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers, defined as persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such. 4) There shall be no more than 2 pitches on the site and on each of the 2 pitches hereby approved no more than 2 caravans shall be stationed at any time, of which only 1 caravan shall be a static caravan. 5) No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Darren Hendley 6) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any other order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modifications), no fences, gates or walls shall be erected other than those shown on the approved plans or those approved under condition 12. 7) The development hereby permitted shall proceed in strict accordance with the Mitigation Measures provided in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (David Archer Associates, February 2022). This includes a pre-works survey six weeks prior to works starting and a further one immediately prior to works commencing, and if setts have been constructed full details, any mitigation and a timetable for associated works are to be submitted in writing and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of these works. 8) The development hereby permitted shall only be brought into use in accordance with details of external lighting, if any, which has previously been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the location and specification of lighting.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Darren Hendley 9) The development hereby permitted shall only be brought into use in accordance with the ecological enhancements as detailed within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (David Archer Associates, February 2022). These are to include native hedgerow planting, bird boxes, insect houses and the creation of a swathe of wildflower grassland. The ecological enhancements shall thereafter be retained. 10) No development hereby permitted shall commence until the trees on the site, which are to be retained, have been enclosed by protective fencing, in accordance with British Standard 5837 (2012): Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations in accordance with approved Tree Protection Plan TPP 01. After the protective fencing https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 12

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Darren Hendley Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 has been erected, it shall be maintained for the duration of the construction works and no vehicle, plant, temporary building or materials, including raising and or, lowering of ground levels, shall be allowed within the protected areas. 11) No development hereby permitted shall commence until a detailed planting plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The planting plan shall specify the location, species, stock size, planting centres and quantities of all proposed tree and structure planting, to be implemented in the first planting season following the completion of construction works and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 12) No development hereby permitted shall commence until a hard landscaping plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The hard landscaping plan shall specify all boundary and surface treatments, including proposed levels and any soil/retaining walls.

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Darren Hendley The approved details shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use and shall thereafter be retained. 13) The development hereby permitted shall only be brought into use in accordance with details of the access visibility splays 2m set back x 43m to the nearside road edge and surfacing with a consolidated material (not loose stone or gravel) for at least the first 10m which have previously been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The visibility splays and surfacing material shall thereafter be retained. 14) The development hereby permitted shall only be brought into use in accordance with details of the sewage package treatment plant which has previously been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details must include location, the method of irrigation for the effluent overflow and a percolation test for discharge to a Drainage Field. Package Treatment Plants must be located 10 metres away from any watercourse and structures including the public highway. The sewage package treatment plant shall thereafter be retained. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 13

Land Off Bury Hill, Hambrook, South Gloucestershire, BS16 1SS — South Gloucestershire Council — Darren Hendley Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/22/3307503 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Stephen Cottle Counsel Brian Woods WS Planning & Architecture Mark Sanderson The Heritage Advisory Dean Smith Appellant Dean Smith (Junior) Son of Appellant FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Rae Mepham Senior Planning Officer Rob Levenston Senior Planning and Policy Officer Dr Paul Driscoll Historic Environment Record Officer INTERESTED PARTIES: Christopher Dance LPC (Trull) Ltd, on behalf of local residents Michael Joyce Local Resident DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING 1 Common Ground Equality, good race relations and sites for Gypsies Irish Travellers, Report of a CRE inquiry in England and Wales 2 Hilda Rafferty & Bessie Jones v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and North Somerset Council [2009] EWCA Civ 809 3 ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC4 4 Appellant Note on Public Benefits & Less than Substantial Harm https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 14