My question concerns the relationship between NPPF paragraph 89 and PPTS paragraph 16:
PPTS paragraph 16 states that Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development. NPPF paragraph 89 states that some forms of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, including the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed (brownfield) sites ... which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
If a proposed development of Traveller accommodation in the Green Belt involved the demolition of (non-agricultural, therefore brownfield) buildings and their replacement with (smaller) caravans such that the impact on the openness of the Green Belt were less, would this be "not inappropriate" (under NPPF 89), or does PPTS outweigh the NPPF by defining Traveller sites as inappropriate, regardless of how they fare against NPPF 89?
[Rhetorical question: when the person who wrote PPTS 16 talked about Traveller sites, did they only envisage Traveller sites on 'open' (development-free) land, or did they mean any type of land, including brownfield sites with buildings?]
PPTS23 states that "applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the National Planning Policy Framework and this planning policy for traveller sites." I'd take specific policies in the NPPF to include paragraph 89. Regardless of that, I am guessing that a lawyer would say PPTS16 prevails as it has no "get-out clause", and that Traveller sites are inappropriate development in the Green Belt, regardless of NPPF89, but I'd be interested in others' views.
