Five gypsy pitches at Little Lily, Toms Lane, Kings Langley
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Three Rivers Planning Committee on 16 Jul 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought permission for five gypsy pitches with ten static caravans, hardstanding and landscaping, replacing touring caravans and a day room.
“This application seeks part retrospective planning permission for the change of use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 5 no. gypsy pitches (comprising 10 statics), including formation of hardstanding and landscaping. This application follows a previously withdrawn application (LPA ref: 25/1106/FUL) which sought to remove planning conditions pursuant to planning permission 23/1618/FUL.”
“Omission of amenity building from the site (previously permitted adjacent to the pre-existing traveller site. The submitted Planning Statement (dated 21 October 2025), sets out that one of the static caravans per pitch would be used to accommodate amenities, in lieu of a communal amenity building. Consultee 4.1 Summary of Consultation Responses: Abbots Langley Parish Council – Objection and call in request.”
Officer report
The site
The site is a traveller-pitch area in the Metropolitan Green Belt, behind homes on Toms Lane, accessed by a private track and enclosed by timber fencing.
“No such need has been proved R2 The proposed bungalow would constitute an undesirable intensification of building development detracting from the rural character of this locality within the Metropolitan Green Belt An Enforcement Notice was served in September 1983 against the unauthorised material change in the use of the land from agriculture to a use for the purposes of stationing caravans for human habitation (ref 8/956/85).”
“Toms Lane), including Kings View Farm on the opposite side of the track and Bel Air and Oak Lodge to the north. A separate access into the site also currently exists from Toms Lane via a driveway fronting No.63 Toms Lane (also under the applicant’s ownership). The site is enclosed by timber fencing. There is no physical separation between the existing traveller site (to the rear of No.59) and the application site (to the rear of Nos. 61-65).”
Officer report
Earlier permissions
Earlier permissions established five pitches, while a previous application to increase static caravans was withdrawn.
“Relevant planning history 1.1 The site has an extensive planning history, set out below. However, the most relevant to this application is: 23/1618/FUL - Change of use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for 5 no. gypsy pitches with the formation of hardstanding and amenity block. Personal planning permission approved 29.05.25.”
“14/1661/FUL – Retention of the existing residential caravan site, with four Gypsy pitches/plots, consisting of four static caravans and four touring caravans, shared utility/dayroom and associated hardstanding and parking – Temporary and personal planning permission approved for 3 years (expires 21 November 2017).”
Officer report
What members debated
Members discussed occupancy, enforcement, noise, boundaries, fire separation, waste, parking, access, landscaping, over-intensification and unmet need.
“A Committee Member raised concerns about the over-intensification of the site and expressed the view that the provision of 10 static caravans would result in greater occupancy than would the case with one static caravan and one touring caravan per pitch, and additionally that the static caravans may be used to accommodate more people than was intended.”
“A Committee Member expressed the view that unless the development addressed unmet need it would not be appropriate development in the Green Belt. The issue of whether or not the proposal would meet unmet development need was therefore key.”
Minutes
The committee’s decision
Members unanimously refused the application because additional static caravans would harm neighbouring and visual amenity, with insufficient landscaping and poor waste management.
“Councillor Giles-Medhurst moved, and Councillor Mitchell seconded, that the application be refused due to the impact on neighbouring amenity and impacts on visual amenity of the area through the intensification of additional static caravans across the site in conjunction with associated paraphernalia and activities, a lack of soft landscaping and poor waste management.”
“That the application be refused due to the impact on neighbouring amenity and impacts on visual amenity of the area through the intensification of additional static caravans across the site in conjunction with associated paraphernalia and activities, a lack of soft landscaping and poor waste management.”
Minutes
The members' reasons
The members' reasons are quoted from the minutes above, under “What members debated” and “The committee’s decision”.
Sources
- Three Rivers Planning Committee minutes, 16 July 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Three Rivers's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Three Rivers Planning Committee
- Council
- Three Rivers
- Date
- Thursday 16 July 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Refused, against officer advice
- Vote
- Unanimous
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Three Rivers committee decisions →
This committee's year
70 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 5 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.