Appeal 6000463

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a temporary agricultural worker’s residential static caravan at [site address] , [site address] , Wembury, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 0837/25/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. 2329(2).01 and the site location plan.

The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture (as defined in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), or a widow or widower or surviving civil partner of such a person, or to any resident dependants.

The permission hereby granted shall be for a limited period expiring 3 years after the date of this permission, on or before which date the land shall revert to an agricultural use, the mobile home shall have been removed and the site restored to its previous condition.

Parties agreed to change the wording of the description of development, as a result the wording in the heading above is taken from the decision notice rather than the application form. I have further amended this to remove the length of time the permission is for as this is covered by a condition.

There is a temporary dwelling on the site in the form of a mobile home which I observed on my site visit. The word “retrospective” however does not constitute development under s55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Therefore, I have not referred to it in my formal decision above but have dealt with the appeal on the basis that permission is being sought retrospectively for the siting of a temporary agricultural workers dwelling.

A previous appeal for a permanent rural workers dwelling was dismissed in 20241. Although this related to the same agricultural operation the building was proposed on a different part of the site. I have had regard to that decision in my assessment of this appeal.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for housing having regard to the requirements of development plan policies, including whether there is a proven need for a temporary rural worker’s dwelling in this location.

The site is accessed from [site address] , a housing estate on the edge of the village of Wembury. It is an established agricultural enterprise which is acknowledged to have been on the site for a considerable time. The existing caravan is located between buildings on the site and is not highly visible from the surrounding area.

Policy SPT1 is a strategic policy of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (JLP) which relates to delivering sustainable growth in the area relating to economic, social, and environmental principles. Policy SPT2 supports communities which have, amongst other things, reasonable access to a mix of services for daily needs and be well served by public transport, walking and cycling opportunities.

The site is on the edge of a settlement. Growth is prioritised through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements and Policy TTV1 of the JLP stipulates that in small villages, hamlets and the countryside development will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated to support the principles of sustainable development and sustainable communities (policies SPT1 and SPT2) including the provisions of policies TTV26.

Policy TTV26 seeks to protect the countryside and avoid isolated development. Due to the proximity of the site to the farm buildings and the nearby houses it is not considered to be isolated and as a result Part 1 of the policy is not applicable. Part 2 sets out criteria that development should meet where appropriate. Criterion iv. requires development to respond to a proven agricultural, forestry and other occupational need that requires a countryside location.

It is agreed that there is an established agricultural use, however, the matter in dispute is whether there is a need for an associated dwelling. The farm has operated with an individual living on site for a significant period of time. Previously the appellant owned a bungalow adjacent to the site. However, this property was sold in order to pay for access rights over a previously unregistered piece of land which provides access to the farm. Since the bungalow was sold the appellant has been living in the caravan on the site.

The circumstances surrounding the sale of the bungalow are not in dispute. It is also of note that the Council’s officer report makes reference to the fact that the previous dwelling on the site had been sold for financial reasons and not because the dwelling was not needed. There is therefore some acceptance of a need for a dwelling on the site. Furthermore, I have not been provided with any policy which would limit a caravan being sited on the land in circumstances where other properties have been sold. 1 APP/K1128/W/23/3327837

In considering the need for a new dwelling at the farm the previous Inspector noted that he had not been provided with detailed evidence of the extent of the landholdings. There were also insufficient details in respect of the number of animals on the site and the time required to care for them. In respect of the financial test the details were limited and did not include any accounts detailing profit/loss or any business forecasting.

The proposal before me differs from the previous appeal in that it is seeking consent for a temporary period of three years and includes additional information and evidence.

The proposal includes a map detailing land which is in the ownership of the appellant, land rented by them and potential land available for rent from the National Trust. Further to this, details are provided of the number of cattle and the number of [name] by the operation which the appellant argues is sufficient to require full time occupation on the site. Occupancy of the site is also stated as being required for animal welfare and for the safety and security of the farm due to increasing rural crime.

With regards to the financial aspects, details of the end of year accounts for 31 March 2025 are provided, along with headline information of the accounts from

Although profits have been returned in previous years more recently the business has been operating at a loss. A letter provided by the business’ accountant provides some additional information in respect of why the losses have occurred, which include depreciation charges and repairs.

I am mindful of the wording of part 2 iv. of Policy TTV26 of the JLP which states that there needs to be a proven agricultural need that requires a countryside location. This is a slightly different test to part 1 of the policy which requires an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work. Taking this into consideration, even if there is some deficiency in the information supplied and doubts regarding the financial situation, the fact that permission is only sought for a temporary use for a period of three years I am minded to accept the need for a dwelling in this location. The temporary nature of the permission will give the appellant the opportunity to demonstrate that the business can be profitable. In such time the business could show a living wage and that it is a viable proposition.

In reaching this conclusion I have also taken into consideration that the proposed dwelling is located at the edge of a settlement and the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing. I accept that the housing proposed would be agriculturally tied and therefore not add to the general housing stock. However, if the appellant were required to find alternative accommodation this would be from the housing available within the area.

Taking all the above into consideration, there is sufficient evidence to justify that the appeal site is an appropriate location for the siting of a caravan for a temporary period of three years to support the needs of the agricultural business on the site. On this basis there is no conflict with Policies SPT1, SPT2, TTV1 and TTV26 of the JLP.

The site is within the South Devon National Landscape (SDNL) and under Section 245 ([name]) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 relevant authorities must ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of [name]. The Council concluded that due to the siting of the caravan between existing farm buildings the impact would be limited and would not harm the special qualities of the SDNL. From my own observations on site and upon reviewing the evidence I agree that the proposals would not harm the main statutory purposes of the designation, to conserve and enhance natural beauty.

The site falls within the zone of influence for the Plymouth Sound Estuaries Special Area of Conservation and the Tamar Estuaries Complex Special Protection Area which together form the [name] and Estuaries European Marine Site. It has been put to me that in this instance as the use would only be temporary it would not result in additional recreational visits and the Council has concluded no mitigation is required and the available evidence does not indicate otherwise.

In respect of any rights of way there is no evidence before me that the proposal would affect any existing routes and the Council has not raised this as a concern either.

A condition identifying the site location and details of the temporary dwelling is necessary for reasons of certainty. Due to the need to connect the residential and agricultural use a condition restricting occupation is both reasonable and necessary. However, as the need for residential occupancy relates to the operation of the farm it would not be reasonable for this to be linked to a specific individual. Given the temporary nature of the accommodation, a condition restricting the permission for a period of 3 years clearly relates to the development being permitted and is reasonable taking account of the financial situation referenced above.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.