Build first, ask later? What England’s new planning rules really mean for Gypsies and Travellers
TT regular Claire Rice cuts through the political noise to reveal what the new planning rules really mean: tougher consequences for intentional unauthorised development, but no guarantee of the lawful pitches families need. The real measure of reform, she argues, is whether fewer Traveller families are forced into unauthorised sites at all.
Headlines about “illegal Traveller sites” have once again appeared across the national press, but beneath the political noise something genuinely significant has changed. On 17 August 2026, the Government introduced a completely rewritten National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). For the first time, national policy states that where unauthorised development was carried out intentionally, that fact must be given substantial weight against granting retrospective planning permission. That matters to Gypsy and Traveller families — but not in the way some headlines suggest.
The new rule does not create a special category for Travellers. It applies to unauthorised development generally. Nor has the Government made Traveller sites “easier to approve”. In one important respect, it has made deliberately developing land before obtaining permission harder to justify than it was before 17 August. At the same time, the Government has retained reforms recognising a long‑standing argument from Traveller organisations: councils cannot continually fail to provide lawful pitches and then treat the resulting accommodation crisis purely as an enforcement issue.
Understanding this requires going back to basics. An unauthorised Traveller development and an unauthorised encampment are not the same thing. An unauthorised development usually involves Travellers living on land they own but without planning permission. An unauthorised encampment is typically on land they do not own. Government statistics make this distinction clearly, yet newspapers often collapse everything into “illegal camps”. Buying land does not give anyone an automatic right to develop it, but development without permission is not itself a criminal offence. Planning enforcement is a regulatory system.
Retrospective planning applications exist throughout the planning system. The real question is how councils and inspectors should treat situations where someone deliberately develops first and seeks permission afterwards. In 2015, the Conservative Government made intentional unauthorised development a material consideration. Inspectors had discretion over how much weight to give it. The old system was neither “build first and there are no consequences” nor “build first and permission must be refused”.
A major shift came in December 2024, when Labour broadened the planning definition of Gypsies and Travellers so that people who had permanently ceased travelling — often because of age, disability, education or caring responsibilities — could again fall within it. Councils were also required to assess Traveller accommodation need, set pitch targets and maintain a five‑year supply of deliverable sites. Planning policy cannot credibly demand that families use authorised pitches if the planning system repeatedly fails to ensure those pitches exist.
These reforms interacted with changes to Green Belt and “grey belt” policy. None of this created an automatic right to build a Traveller site. Legitimate planning considerations — highways, flooding, ecology, landscape, heritage, amenity — remained relevant. But unmet Traveller accommodation need became part of the planning balance.
The August 2026 NPPF goes further. Policy DM8 requires decision‑makers to give substantial weight to evidence that unauthorised development was intentional. Previously, deliberate unauthorised development was simply a material consideration. Now national policy prescribes how seriously it must be regarded. It is a meaningful tightening: anyone who knowingly develops first and seeks retrospective permission later begins the planning balance with a significant factor weighing against them. But intentional unauthorised development is not an automatic reason for refusal. Planning remains an exercise in judgement.
It is also crucial to emphasise that DM8 is not Traveller‑specific. A householder, landowner, commercial developer or Traveller who deliberately carries out development requiring permission before obtaining that permission can all be affected. Equality before the planning system must work both ways. Travellers should not receive immunity from legitimate planning controls, but nor should a routine retrospective application be labelled an “illegal Traveller camp” simply because the applicant is a Gypsy or Traveller.
Traveller‑site policy itself has also shifted. The 2026 NPPF incorporates Traveller‑site planning into the mainstream framework, replacing the old Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS). Symbolically, this matters. Traveller accommodation is housing policy, not an annex concerned with controlling “the Traveller problem”.
This creates a tension. Councils have responsibilities too. They must assess need, plan for sites, identify deliverable land and maintain an adequate supply. A family cannot occupy a pitch that was never provided. Decades of inadequate provision cannot simply be erased from the planning balance. The Government appears to be drawing a distinction: provide lawful routes to Traveller accommodation but take a firmer line where someone intentionally bypasses the planning process. The test will be whether both halves of the bargain are delivered.
The numbers illustrate the complexity. In January 2026, England recorded 29,402 Traveller caravans. Of these, 83.2% were on authorised sites. The remaining 4,950 caravans were “unauthorised”, but 4,335 of them were on land owned by Travellers. Only 615 were on land not owned by Travellers. The overwhelming majority of unauthorised caravans were not roadside encampments. There has been a real increase, but the statistics do not explain why. Improved reporting has contributed to rises in the past. The Caravan Count does not identify the drivers behind changes — an enormous caveat.
Provision figures tell another story. Of the 29,402 caravans, 17,973 were on authorised privately funded sites, while only 6,479 were on socially rented sites. Private Traveller provision is now doing a huge amount of the work. Without authorised private development, England would have nowhere lawful for a very large proportion of its Traveller caravan population.
This is where a serious article must go somewhere headlines rarely do. It is possible to condemn deliberate breaches of planning control while still asking why they happen. For many families, planning is not an abstract development exercise — it concerns where their children sleep that night. A Traveller family may be making an accommodation decision while living in overcrowded conditions, doubled‑up on a relative’s pitch, on roadside encampments or in unsuitable bricks‑and‑mortar housing. None of this provides an automatic planning justification, but it is relevant context. So is the availability — or absence — of alternative pitches. Enforcement alone will never solve the problem.
Green Belt controversies also require nuance. The Green Belt was never intended to prohibit all development. Traveller accommodation need can be relevant, but nothing in policy creates an automatic right to build in the Green Belt. Site‑specific considerations remain. The courts are already grappling with the changing landscape, as shown in Baker v Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, where the High Court accepted that changes in national policy could alter the planning merits of a Traveller‑site proposal.
So did Angela Rayner make unauthorised Traveller development easier? Not in the simplistic way being claimed. Some earlier Labour reforms improved the planning position for Traveller accommodation, but the August 2026 NPPF simultaneously strengthens policy against intentional unauthorised development. Moving from “material consideration” to “substantial weight” is plainly a tightening.
The bigger question is structural. England needs somewhere for Gypsies and Travellers to live. A functioning planning system must accommodate families who want socially rented pitches, private sites, transit provision or culturally appropriate accommodation. If authorised provision expands and unauthorised development falls, the policy will have succeeded. If provision remains inadequate while enforcement becomes harsher, the Government will simply have made displacement easier to enforce.
Enforcement and provision are two sides of the same policy. The lawful route must be a real route. Councils cannot repeatedly assess Traveller need, repeatedly document it and repeatedly fail to meet it while treating enforcement as evidence that the system is working. Provide sufficient lawful pitches and families have less reason to resort to unauthorised land use. Fail to provide them and no amount of enforcement will abolish the human need for somewhere to live.
The impact of DM8 now needs careful monitoring: pitch assessments, allocations, delivery, five‑year supply, appeal times and the reasons unauthorised developments arise. Better information is urgently needed. Simply counting unauthorised caravans is no longer enough. Policy must recognise the difference between a refused application, a pending appeal, an overcrowded authorised site, an adult child forming a new household or a deliberate breach of planning control.
“Everyone should play by the same rules” is often heard in this debate. Fine — but equality before the planning system cannot mean only enforcing rules against Gypsies and Travellers. If families are expected to use authorised sites, councils must genuinely plan for authorised sites. If Travellers are expected to respect the development plan, the development plan must include them.
The real test of these reforms will not be how many unauthorised Traveller sites England manages to close. It will be whether, five or ten years from now, fewer families need to establish them in the first place.
By Claire Rice
(Lead photograph: The Meriden green belt Traveller site under development. Meriden Traveller site became a news staple in the national and local media for three years around 2010, after local residents and other non-local supporters ganged-up to successfully campaign to get the site evicted © Damian Le Bas)