There has been a lot of noise about the new planning rules.
Depending on which newspaper or Facebook comment you read, apparently Gypsies and Travellers can now buy a field, pull on with a caravan and planning permission is almost guaranteed.
I wish.
Equally, I still hear Gypsy and Traveller families say:
“It’s Green Belt. There’s no point applying because they’ll never pass it.”
That is not necessarily true either.
So I wanted to strip all the politics and planning language away and ask a much simpler question.
If I were a Gypsy woman who had found a piece of land and wanted to make a lawful home for my family, what would I actually do?
Because after reading the new National Planning Policy Framework in full, there are some significant changes that families need to understand.
And there is one particularly important message:
If at all possible, I would now apply for planning permission before moving onto the land.
Not because retrospective planning permission has disappeared. It absolutely has not.
But because the rules around intentional unauthorised development have changed, and that makes the order in which you do things more important than it was before.
This article relates to planning law and policy in England and is a general guide, not individual planning or legal advice.
So if I found a promising piece of land tomorrow, my first question would not be:
“Can I afford it?”
It would be:
“What are my chances of getting planning permission on it?”
Preferably before I handed over all my money.
And Green Belt does not simply mean “a green field”
This gets confused constantly.
A field being green, agricultural or in the countryside does not automatically make it Green Belt.
Green Belt is a specific planning designation.
So the first thing I would do is check the council’s Local Plan and policies map to find out exactly what the land is designated as.
If it is not Green Belt, that does not automatically make permission easy. There may still be countryside policies, flood risk, ecology, highways, landscape, heritage or other restrictions.
But if it is Green Belt, the new rules become particularly interesting.
If my land is Green Belt, I would now ask: is it “grey belt”?
This is probably one of the biggest practical changes.
The new NPPF defines grey belt as Green Belt land which is previously developed land and/or other Green Belt land that does not strongly contribute to particular Green Belt purposes.
That does not mean every scruffy field is grey belt.
It requires a proper planning assessment.
But it also means grey belt is not restricted to old factories, concrete yards and obviously brownfield sites.
And this matters enormously because the new Green Belt policy says development on Green Belt is normally inappropriate unless it falls within one of the exceptions in policy GB7. Normally, inappropriate Green Belt development needs Very Special Circumstances strong enough to clearly outweigh the harm.
But development meeting the grey-belt route in GB7 can be treated as not inappropriate development.
That changes the starting point of the planning balance.
And here is the bit Gypsy and Traveller families really need to know
For grey-belt development, GB7 asks whether there is an evidenced unmet need for the type of development being proposed.
The NPPF then specifically tells us what that means for a Traveller site.
For a Gypsy or Traveller site, evidenced unmet need exists where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable Traveller sites.
Read that again.
If I am looking at Green Belt land which can properly be classified as grey belt, one of the questions I should be asking my council is:
“Can you demonstrate five years of deliverable Gypsy and Traveller site supply?”
Because the new framework also requires councils to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable Traveller sites sufficient for at least five years against their pitch and plot requirement.
That five-year supply is no longer some background document that only planning consultants need to worry about.
For certain Green Belt applications, it can become directly relevant to whether my development meets national planning policy.
That is significant.
What if my Green Belt land isn’t grey belt?
Then I have not necessarily reached the end of the road.
There are other Green Belt exceptions — for example certain previously developed land — but if my proposed Traveller site remains “inappropriate development”, then I am back into the territory many families will already recognise:
Very Special Circumstances.
That means showing that the harm to the Green Belt, together with any other planning harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The NPPF requires substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm.
This is where I would stop thinking of my planning application as simply:
“I am a Gypsy woman and I need somewhere to live.”
That matters. But it is not the entire planning case.
I would want to build a much wider evidence base around the site itself, local accommodation need, whether the council has sufficient Traveller pitches, what realistic alternatives actually exist, my family’s circumstances where relevant, children’s schooling, health or disability considerations where relevant, access to services, highway safety, drainage, landscape impact and how the site could be designed to minimise harm.
One of the lessons from PGT’s planning and welfare work has been that need and welfare evidence are strongest when they sit alongside a proper land-use planning case, rather than being expected to carry the whole application by themselves.
The new Traveller policy helps with another old problem
For years, Gypsy and Traveller planning applications have been refused because a site was regarded as too rural, too isolated or insufficiently connected to a settlement.
That creates an obvious problem.
Land beside towns and villages is usually more expensive and competes with mainstream housing development. Small family Traveller sites have historically tended to be found further out precisely because that is where families have been able to obtain land.
PGT raised this directly in our March 2026 response to the NPPF consultation.
We warned that restricting development outside settlements could make new Traveller provision effectively impossible and argued that small family sites are often the only realistic delivery mechanism. We also explained that rural locations reflect affordability, historic settlement patterns and cultural traditions.
The Government listened to this particular concern.
Its formal consultation response says it changed the final policy specifically because of concerns that Traveller sites might otherwise find it more difficult to gain permission.
The final HO12 now says traditional Traveller lifestyles may mean that locations not well-related to existing settlements may be appropriate. It still expects access to frequently used services such as schools, welfare and healthcare, but being outside a settlement is no longer, by itself, the answer to the question.
That does not mean every remote field is suitable.
It means the conversation should be considerably more intelligent than:
“It’s outside the village, therefore no.”
I would also establish my planning status as a Traveller
There is another change here which could easily get overlooked.
Ethnic identity and the technical planning definition of a “Gypsy or Traveller” have never been exactly the same question.
I do not become more or less ethnically Gypsy according to whether a planning officer thinks I travel enough.
But Traveller planning policy historically had its own definition, and establishing that status could become part of an application.
The new NPPF definition is considerably broader. It includes people of a nomadic habit of life, including people who have stopped travelling temporarily or permanently for education, health or old age, and also people with a cultural tradition of nomadism or living in a caravan.
So if I were making an application, I would make sure this was dealt with properly rather than assuming my ethnicity alone answered the planning question.
And importantly, the new HO12 also says applications should be considered from any Traveller, not merely people with local connections.
That does not make local connections irrelevant to personal circumstances or site need. It does mean they should not operate as a gate through which only locally connected Travellers are allowed to apply.
Now let’s talk about retrospective planning permission
This is the bit I really wanted to explain because I suspect it will become badly misunderstood.
A retrospective planning application is still a lawful part of the planning system.
Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a planning application to be made after development has taken place.
Government enforcement guidance actually says councils can invite someone to submit a retrospective application where they consider that an application is the appropriate way of regularising what has happened. Since 2024, councils can even issue an Enforcement Warning Notice where unauthorised development appears to have a reasonable prospect of being acceptable in planning terms.
So retrospective planning permission has not been abolished.
It is not an application the council is legally required to refuse.
And it is not some secret “Gypsy loophole”. It is part of ordinary English planning law and is available to everyone.
But something important has changed.
Intentional unauthorised development now carries “substantial weight”
Under the new national policy DM8, if there has been unauthorised development and the decision-maker concludes on evidence that it was intentional, that fact must be given substantial weight when deciding a retrospective planning application or an enforcement appeal where planning permission is being sought.
That sounds frightening, so let’s be very clear about what it does — and does not — mean.
It does not say:
“Intentional development without permission must be refused.”
When the Government proposed the policy it expressly explained that retrospective applications would not automatically be refused and that the final decision would remain a matter of planning judgement according to the circumstances of each case.
The Government kept that DM8 wording in the final NPPF despite consultation responses specifically warning that it could reduce the ability to consider why development happened, including in relation to Traveller sites.
So there are now two things sitting in the planning balance.
The council might say:
“You knew permission was required and intentionally developed the site first. We must give that substantial weight.”
But the rest of the planning case has not disappeared.
The council must still assess the actual development, the relevant development plan, national policy and material considerations.
And for a Traveller application that may include site availability, the five-year supply, personal circumstances, and the HO12 requirements. HO12 itself specifically requires councils to take into account existing local provision, the need for additional Traveller sites and relevant personal circumstances.
Substantial weight is important. It is not an automatic veto.
So would I move onto the land first and apply retrospectively?
Today, knowing what the new policy says?
If I had a realistic choice, no.
I would try to apply first.
This is where I think families need very clear advice following the new NPPF.
Historically, we know why retrospective applications happen.
PGT said exactly this in our consultation response: many Traveller retrospective applications arise because there is no authorised accommodation available. Families can be faced with an impossible choice between creating a home on land they own without permission or remaining roadside with all the consequences that can bring. We asked Government to retain the ability to consider site availability, welfare, children’s education and health.
Our wider planning and welfare work has found the same pattern. PGT’s March policy briefing records families facing repeated planning and enforcement processes and describes lack of authorised provision as one reason families end up making retrospective applications in the first place.
I do not think that reality has magically disappeared because DM8 exists.
But DM8 means I would not create an extra argument against myself if I could reasonably avoid doing so.
If I can buy the land, put in the application, establish the planning arguments and wait before pulling on, that is now the safer route.
But what if I’m already living there?
This is equally important.
Do not read this and panic.
If I had already pulled onto my land without permission, I would not conclude that the case was hopeless.
I would get proper planning advice quickly.
And particularly if an enforcement notice had arrived, I would get that advice before simply firing off a retrospective planning application.
That is because the law now restricts the routes available after unauthorised development.
Government guidance says a person generally has one opportunity to obtain planning permission after the event: either through a section 73A retrospective application or through the relevant ground of an enforcement appeal. In some circumstances, once one route has been used, the other will not remain available. A council can also decline to determine a retrospective application where an enforcement notice has already been issued.
That is not the time for a rushed application downloaded from the council website.
The sequence matters.
I would want someone to look at the enforcement position, planning merits and appeal options together.
And I would start gathering evidence immediately — not just medical letters, but evidence about the planning situation itself.
What pitches actually exist?
Are they available?
Are they habitable?
Is there a waiting list?
Can the council demonstrate its five-year supply?
What does its latest Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment say?
Does that assessment actually reflect the community?
What alternative accommodation is the council saying I should use?
Is that alternative genuinely available to my family, now?
Those questions can matter.
“But the council says there are pitches available…”
I would ask them to show me.
This is another area where PGT has repeatedly raised concerns.
Our NPPF submission explained that Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments can miss people living overcrowded on family sites, people in bricks and mortar who want or need to return to site living, and hidden homelessness.
We also recorded a case where an authority relied on supposedly available pitches even though the site being cited had been uninhabitable for more than two years.
A number in a spreadsheet is not necessarily a home.
And under the new NPPF, councils are required to maintain a five-year supply of specific deliverable Traveller sites.
That word — deliverable — matters.
The national figures tell an interesting story
The latest official Traveller Caravan Count recorded 29,402 Traveller caravans in England in January 2026.
About 83% were on authorised land and 17% were classed as unauthorised.
But look more closely at that unauthorised figure.
There were 4,950 unauthorised caravans.
Of those, 4,335 were on land owned by Travellers.
Only 615 were recorded as unauthorised encampments on land not owned by Travellers.
In other words, roughly 88% of the caravans officially counted as unauthorised were on Traveller-owned land without the necessary authorisation, rather than being roadside encampments on somebody else’s land.
That is extraordinarily important when we talk about planning policy.
The dominant picture in the data is not simply people refusing to settle or roaming around looking for somewhere to stop.
It includes thousands of caravans belonging to people who have obtained land but have not managed to secure planning authorisation for their homes.
The Caravan Count is a snapshot of caravans, not a count of families or planning applications, so we should not pretend it tells us more than it does. But it certainly challenges some of the political rhetoric.
And are Traveller planning applications actually easy to get?
No.
The Government does collect statistics on decisions involving Traveller pitches.
In the most recent quarter, January to March 2026, councils decided 100 major and minor Traveller-pitch applications and granted 66 of them.
Looking across the four published quarters from April 2025 to March 2026, the official figures record 391 decisions on major and minor Traveller-pitch applications, with 258 granted — around 66%.
For context, 76% of ordinary residential development decisions were granted nationally in the year ending March 2026, while 87% of all planning decisions were granted. Those categories are not directly comparable — Traveller sites have different characteristics and often involve rural land — but they certainly do not support the idea that Traveller planning permission is some automatic “yes”.
What PGT’s planning work has taught me
The more planning cases we become involved with, the less I believe you can separate “planning” from everything happening in a family’s life.
We have seen how planning instability affects school attendance, healthcare, mental health, safeguarding and family finances.
We have also seen how extraordinarily detailed the regulation of a Traveller home can become.
One PGT welfare case involved an authorised rural family site where enforcement action was being taken over features including low fencing, a small children’s play area and a garden shed being used as a sensory space for a disabled child — things which, in the garden of a conventional house, would barely raise an eyebrow.
That experience has changed the way I think about applications.
I would not only think about getting a caravan permitted.
I would think about creating a home.
What does the permission actually cover?
What hardstanding is shown?
What fencing?
What drainage?
What amenity space?
Is there provision for children?
What landscaping?
What outbuildings or day room?
How many caravans?
How many pitches?
Who can occupy it?
Is the permission permanent, temporary or personal?
Because a badly drafted permission can create the next planning battle before the ink is dry on the first one.
If I were doing it tomorrow, this would be my checklist
- I would check the land before buying it. I would look at the Local Plan, planning history, Green Belt status, flood risk, access, landscape and ecological constraints — and where possible consider buying subject to planning.
- If it is Green Belt, I would get someone to assess whether it could genuinely be grey belt. I would not rely on the estate agent calling it grey belt, but I would not accept somebody saying “Green Belt means impossible” either.
- I would find the council’s latest GTAA and five-year Traveller-site supply evidence. If they say they have five years’ supply, I would look at the actual sites behind the number and ask whether they are genuinely deliverable.
- I would establish how I meet the NPPF Traveller definition and explain it properly within the application rather than leaving it until somebody challenges it.
- I would design a small sensible site that genuinely meets my family’s needs. Safe access, sensible hardstanding, drainage, landscaping and screening can be as important as the principle of the site itself.
- I would evidence my need and realistic alternatives. If I am overcrowded, roadside, living somewhere unsuitable, on a waiting list or unable to access an existing pitch, I would evidence that rather than simply stating it.
- I would include relevant family circumstances without turning my whole life into a planning document.Health, disability, children’s education and safeguarding can be material, but people should not have to expose every intimate detail merely to prove they deserve a home.
- Where possible, I would apply before moving on. DM8 means deliberately developing first can now carry substantial adverse weight.
- If I were already living there, I would get advice before choosing the retrospective route. Especially once enforcement action has begun, the relationship between retrospective applications and enforcement appeals matters.
- If permission were granted, I would read every condition before celebrating. A permission that unnecessarily restricts occupation, family succession, caravans or ordinary domestic facilities may store up serious problems later.
Has the new NPPF fixed Gypsy and Traveller planning?
No.
There is still plenty that concerns me.
I remain worried about how intentional unauthorised development will operate in practice for families who genuinely had nowhere lawful to go.
There is a profound difference between a developer deliberately constructing something for commercial gain and a family putting a caravan onto land they own because they have exhausted every other realistic accommodation option.
The Government was explicitly warned about this distinction during consultation and retained DM8 anyway.
So we will need to watch the decisions and appeals very carefully.
But there are also changes here that should not be lost amongst the political shouting.
Traveller accommodation has now been incorporated into the main NPPF.
The definition of Gypsies and Travellers for planning purposes is broader.
Councils must maintain a five-year supply of deliverable Traveller sites.
A lack of that supply has an explicit role in the new grey-belt test.
The policy expressly recognises that Traveller sites may appropriately sit away from existing settlements.
And councils considering Traveller applications must consider local provision, additional need and relevant personal circumstances.
Those are not insignificant changes.
Perhaps the biggest change is the question we should be asking
For decades, the question asked of Gypsy and Traveller families has often been:
“Why did you put a caravan there without permission?”
Sometimes that is a perfectly legitimate question.
But it cannot be the only question.
We also need to ask:
Where could they have gone with permission?
If a council has assessed its need properly, identified enough pitches, made those sites deliverable and provided a realistic lawful route, then it is entirely reasonable to expect families to use that route.
But if that route does not exist, enforcement does not magically create it.
It simply moves the family somewhere else.
That is why PGT has consistently argued for planning policy that deals with the cause of unauthorised development as well as its consequences.
And perhaps that is the simplest way of understanding these new rules.
They do not mean Gypsies and Travellers can live wherever we want.
They do not abolish Green Belt protections.
They do not abolish planning permission.
They do not guarantee retrospective applications.
What they potentially do is create more realistic routes through which a family can say:
“I have bought land. I want to live lawfully. Tell me how the planning system allows me to do that.”
That is the direction we should be heading in.
Because if we genuinely want fewer unauthorised sites, the answer cannot only be tougher enforcement after a family has created a home.
It has to include a planning system through which securing that home lawfully is actually possible.
You cannot punish your way out of an accommodation shortage.
And perhaps, finally, the planning system is beginning to understand that.
