Planning appeal decision
Plot 1, Carousel Park, Basingstoke Road, Winchester, SO21 3BW
Planning appeal 3296767 at Plot 1, Carousel Park, Basingstoke Road, Winchester, SO21 3BW (Winchester City Council) was allowed on 8 April 2024 by Inspector Merrett R, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Material change of use of the land to a residential caravan site, including the stationing of caravans for residential use
- Authority
- Winchester City Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Change of use
- Inspector
- Merrett R
- Postcode
- SO21 3BW
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
- Whether the site is in a sustainable location
- The effect of the development on the layout of and space within the site
- Foul drainage and nutrient neutrality issues
- Need for Travelling Showpersons and Gypsy and Traveller sites
- Personal circumstances of site occupiers
What decided it
The acute and pressing unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, with the Council unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of such sites or identify alternative provision, outweighed the loss of the safeguarded Travelling Showpeople site.
The substantial weight attached to the acute need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches and the personal circumstances of occupiers outweighed the significant harm from loss of the safeguarded Travelling Showpeople site and the moderate harm from the site's unsustainable location, so the appeal was allowed despite conflict with the development plan as a whole
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy MTRA4Policy DM1Policy DM4Policy DM16Policy DM17Policy DM18Policy DM23Policy CP5Policy TR1Policy TR3Policy TR5Policy TR7
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11
- Judgments
- Butcher v SSE & Maidstone BC [1996] JPL 636; Church Commissioners v SSE [1996] JPL 669; Hawkey v SSE [1971] 22 P&CR 610; Rawlins v SSE [1989] JPL 439; Lisa Smith v SSLUHC & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1391
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Winchester
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Dismissed15 October 20266012051Cupressus, Durley Brook Road, Southampton, SO32 2AR
- Allowed10 August 20266005547Land at Lower Paddock, Bent Lane, Hambledon, PO7 4QP
- Allowed22 May 20266003190Hiawatha, Chapel Road, Swanmore, Hampshire, SO322QA
- Dismissed28 April 20266002399Anthill Farmlands, Hambledon Road, Denmead, Hampshire, PO7 6ES
- Notice upheld26 March 202633271522 Calpe Yard St. Thomas Street, Winchester, SO23 9HE
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®