Appeal 6000816

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of an existing caravan from agriculture to temporary rural workers’ dwelling at [site address] , [site address] , Hittisleigh, Devon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/01763/FULL, and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Mid Devon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The description of development in my above decision differs to that provided in the application form and the banner heading above. The main parties agreed at the hearing to remove reference to the term “incidental”, as it is not a specific land use in itself. The main parties also agreed that the appeal proposal can be described as a temporary rural workers’ dwelling. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the District Council within the prescribed period. The Council has since indicated that it would have refused planning permission due to an alleged lack of an essential need for the temporary rural workers’ dwelling.

As also set out in the hearing discussions, the appellant implemented an agricultural building as approved under [name] (“the [name] building”), along with an access track to it from [address] that was subsequently granted planning permission retrospectively by the Council. Shortly afterwards, the caravan subject of this appeal was then brought on to the site, and is used full-time by the appellant and his family as a self-contained residence.

The site is also already being used for the keeping and breeding of horses and sheep, which I observed on site, along with some poultry that are not currently producing for commercial purposes. I have therefore determined the appeal as being retrospective in nature. During my site visit, I also noted stable structures within the appeal site that are not included in the submitted plans. These do not therefore form part of the appeal scheme.

Having regard to the above, the main issue is whether there is an essential need for a rural workers’ dwelling at the appeal site.

Policy DM8 of the Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013 - 2033 (MDLPR) (adopted

governs rural workers’ dwellings. The main parties agreed at the hearing that although the appellant’s rural business has already commenced, for the purposes of the above policy, the appellant’s rural business is not yet established. Therefore, a grant of planning permission would start the clock in terms of fully implementing the appellant’s three-year financial forecast.

MDLPR Policy DM8 sets out that where a rural business is not yet established, a mobile home may be permitted for a temporary period, on the basis of criteria b) and c) of Policy DM8, and evidence of: (i) An essential need for one or more workers to be readily available at most times (ii) A firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise (iii) Sound financial planning.

Supporting text to Policy DM8 also sets out that “essential need” means a specific management activity or combination of activities which require the ready presence of a worker at most times if the proper functioning of an enterprise is not to be prejudiced and which cannot be achieved by any other practical means such as electronic surveillance. Such need would relate to any particular event or combination of events that could lead to adverse animal welfare, or health and safety consequences which might threaten the stability and economic well-being of an enterprise. In all cases, these would be events which could not be properly managed within normal working hours. Security concerns on their own will not be sufficient to justify a new dwelling.

The Council describes the rural business as being low scale or small in nature, such that it does not generate an essential need for a worker to be readily available on site at most times. The purpose of this appeal is not to establish or draw a line at the scale or size in which a rural business can demonstrate an essential need for residential use. Rather, I must determine the appeal based on its own planning merits, the evidence before and having regard to the above relevant policy, which does not set out a minimum quantitative scale or size for a rural business.

It was clarified that the appellant’s business plan, along with his commissioned labour and essential need analysis figures and three-year financial forecast figures, were authored or compiled in the final quarter of 2024. The appellant’s agent clarified that the working hours figures reflect the anticipated output when the rural business is fully functioning, following implementation of the whole enterprise on the appeal site. The abovementioned figures were compiled by the appellant’s agent, following an interview with the appellant and analysis of the actual work practices at the appeal site, rather than a sole reliance on national average figures.

During the hearing, the Council’s agricultural advisor referred to the standard approach to calculating labour unit figures as set out in the [address] [name]. Under that approach, 100 ewes would generate 1.25 labour units. By comparison, the appellant’s calculated labour unit figure for 25 ewes is 0.6. I accept that this is a significantly enhanced figure, but I have no reason to dispute the reliability of the appellant’s bespoke approach in calculating the labour unit figures. Working hours however do not in themselves justify an essential need for on-site residential use, as the functional needs of the holding must also be considered.

In this respect, the appellant’s written evidence refers to another 5.5 acre holding at Whimple, located many miles away from the appeal site. However, the hearing discussions established that in terms of its functional relationship with the appeal site, its primary purpose is for hay baling, to be transported back for use at the appeal site.

Going forward, if the Whimple holding were to be used by the appellant for the keeping of livestock, vulnerable animals would however be kept at the appeal site. I was also told that the Whimple holding is accounted for in the appellant’s labour figures in respect of tasks such as hedge maintenance, which is presented separately from the essential need figures.

Within the appeal site, there are currently two brood mares, as well as a Friesian stallion who has sired two foals, with another two foals due at the time of the hearing. I was told by the appellant that the stallion is very expensive and high-breeding, and has been acquired following extensive research to ensure no crossing of bloodlines.

The rural business tries to foal during the spring and summer, but one foal is due in October or November. The appellant expects to keep up to four of his own mares on the site, with each mare foaling once per year. At the time of the hearing, no livery mares were kept at the appeal site. Any on-site livery foaling and early life care would be dependent on client preference, as clients often want to foal themselves. I heard that the appellant anticipates that some client foals would be birthed on the appeal site. Artificial insemination sales are also planned as part of the appellant’s three-year financial forecast going forward.

The appellant explained that successful natural pregnancy requires close watch of the stallion to ensure that the mare is receptive. Foaling on the site is subject to strict timing in terms of standing, walking and first feed. Timing delays could lead to an emergency incident, including a vet visit. Friesians are renowned for retaining placentas which requires presence of a worker to identify and a vet to resolve.

I was also told that horses are prone to laminitis in spring when the grass is sugary, but that life-threatening instances of colic and choke could happen at any time of the year. During my site visit, I observed a paddock and foaling area close to the mobile home. I was also told at the hearing that the appellant’s partner, who works full time at the rural business, observed a horse suffering from cast from the kitchen window, which required a vet call out and emergency intestine surgery at hospital. I also heard that a mare got choke when pregnant, requiring another vet call.

The appellant clarified that there have been four vet callouts to the appeal site in the year prior to the hearing, including outside of normal working hours which the main parties agreed as being from 9am to 6pm. Whilst this number is clearly not significant, the appellant considers that the ongoing on-site presence has led to fewer issues resulting in emergency callouts. I have no reason to dispute this, and I heard that a nightly check of the holding is undertaken every night, which has found instances of colic and physical livestock injury.

Turning to the sheep and lambing element of the enterprise, the appellant stated that the existing overall number of sheep and lambs kept on the appeal site is slightly greater than the forecasted figure of 25. Following my site visit, I have no reason to dispute this, and I also observed the open-sided building by the site’s western boundary (as indicated on the location plan) being utilised for this part of the rural enterprise.

I was told at the hearing that [name] sheep have less of a confined lambing period and tend to be housed over winter in the abovementioned building. They require checking all year round and lamb throughout the night. The appellant cited an instance of twin lambs birthed out in the field, one of which got stuck in a hedge and thus taken by a fox. The above is a further indicator of an essential need in the context of a rural business yet to be established.

The appellant confirmed at the hearing that the current amount of poultry is not of a scale that forms an essential need for the proposal, and this reflects what I saw during my visit. A future commercial-scale poultry operation would involve an overall flock of 150 purebred birds to be reared for sale as well as the sale of hatching eggs, as set in the appellant’s evidence. This would require nightly checks of incubators, heating systems and ventilation systems throughout the year, as well as bird and chick welfare checks.

The appellant described the use of CCTV as an aide to monitor livestock, and the Council clarified that such cameras are the only form of electronic surveillance for the rural enterprise. I accept that such surveillance cannot cover all open areas within the appeal site, and that it would often be difficult to determine if a horse is sleeping, foaling or in distress, particularly at night. It would thus not be practical for the rural enterprise at the appeal site to be wholly reliant on CCTV for maintaining the health and welfare of its livestock.

In the particular circumstances of this appeal, I accept that unexpected loss of livestock within the appellant’s relatively small-scale holding would likely have far greater adverse consequences than such losses within a larger holding. Therefore, whilst there are some seasonal variations in terms of foaling and lambing, the available evidence indicates that there is an essential need for one or more workers to be readily available at most times. The appeal scheme thus complies with criterion (i) to MDLPR Policy DM8.

Supporting text to Policy DM8 advises that a ‘firm intention’ and sound financial planning might be demonstrated by a combination of measures such as the construction of new buildings; the purchase of stock needed to operate a rural business; appropriate agricultural or rural business training and qualifications; work experience; and evidence of sufficient finances to establish the enterprise.

With reference to the three-year financial forecast, I heard that the appellant’s business progression is still at an early stage. I accept that there has been an element of “limbo” as the appellant’s expectation was to receive a decision in early

Some on-site infrastructure was also damaged by storm weather which also hampered progress of the rural business. Based on the hearing discussions and what I observed on site, the rural business has not regressed since its inception on site. On the contrary, the appellant has invested in necessary on-site infrastructure and has successfully invested in a Friesian stallion that is now of breeding age.

I was told that the [name] building is used for hay and machinery storage, and for animal storage only for emergencies, which reflected my site visit observations. Although the equestrian element of the site’s use would likely require additional planning permission, the provision of the stables is a further on-site investment and firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise. I also have no reason to doubt that the appellant and his partner are appropriately trained and qualified to manage the rural business.

Relevant business costs have undoubtedly increased since the submission of the financial forecast, which also does not include Council Tax costs. However, I have no reason to dispute that the markets in which the rural business operates in could not absorb some price increases, or that the widespread demand for the Friesian related services would not persist due to the rarity value of that breed. The appellant is also not reliant on a mortgage to finance the appeal site. The submitted forecasts and costs thus appear broadly realistic and demonstrate sound financial planning.

Granting permission for residential use of the caravan for a temporary period of three years would provide a period of opportunity for the appellant to purchase additional mares, to market and further train the stallion to increase its value and income stream, to develop the artificial insemination service, and to also produce a Warlander stallion. This would also allow for the sheep and poultry elements of the rural enterprise to be developed and consolidated.

Having found that the appeal scheme complies with criteria (i), (ii) and (iii) of MDLPR Policy DM8, I must now consider its criterion b). This sets out that rural workers’ dwellings will be permitted where the need cannot be met within a nearby settlement, or by existing housing at or near the site or through the conversion of a suitable redundant or disused rural building at the site.

The village of [name] is raised by the Council as a potential alternative for residential accommodation, which I found to be an approximate 10-minute drive away from the appeal site. To promote sustainable patterns of development, the Policy DM8 supporting text advises that rural workers will usually be expected to find housing in existing rural communities. However, an exception to this approach can be justified where it can be shown that a rural worker has an essential need to be available at most times as part of the operation of a rural business.

I have no reason to dispute that there may be suitable properties available at [name] for purchase. However, I have found that the needs of the rural enterprise are such that the travel time to the appeal site could fatally jeopardise the viability of the rural business in the event of an emergency incident relating to its livestock, particularly at this early stage of inception. The value and characteristics of the appellant’s livestock, namely equestrian, necessitates a swift ability to react to key issues that threaten livestock health and welfare.

Criterion c) to Policy DM8 sets out that the size and scale of rural workers dwellings will be commensurate with the scale of the operation and designed to reflect the location and setting of the proposed site. The Council accepts that the size and scale of the caravan is acceptable and based on my site visit observations, I have no reason to disagree.

In terms of the site’s setting, from within the appeal site, dwellings are visible beyond its western and southern boundaries. Even if the closeboard fencing near the site entrance were to be removed, views of the caravan from along [address] to be fleeting. Whilst the caravan is visible from some vantage points north of the appeal site, along [address] as it crosses a valley to a public footpath running further north, it is sited alongside the [name] building and in the context of other dwellings. Along the wider road network, the [name] building is visible from higher ground to the south and southwest, but the caravan is not. For the above reasons, the caravan complies with criterion c) to Policy DM8.

In conclusion, I find that allowing use of the existing caravan as a rural workers’ dwelling for a temporary period of three years would not conflict with the relevant provisions of MDLPR Policy DM8.

Interested parties have made representations in respect of a number of issues. The appellant accepted at the hearing that he undertakes night time works at the appeal site, which a neighbour has reported hearing down the valley, causing noise disturbances. Residents also state that the rural business has made [address] very muddy, slippery and dangerous, and that highway and hedgerow damage has been caused by large vehicles travelling to and from the appeal site’s access on a blind corner.

There is however no evidence before me indicating that there are existing planning restrictions on the appeal site in respect of the nature of agricultural use, including working hours and vehicle movements. Any further night time noise disturbances could however be reported to the Council for investigation under separate environmental health legislation. The number of vehicular trips arising from the residential use of the caravan would not be significant relative to the number of existing dwellings served by [address]. The above matters thus do not justify dismissing this appeal.

Reference is also made to minimum industry recommended land ratio requirements for horses and sheep. However, the horses kept or to be kept on the appeal site are not for the purposes of permanent grazing. Based on my site visit observations, there is sufficient land within the appeal site for sheep to graze and for the rural business to become established as set out in the appellant’s written evidence.

The circumstances in which the prior approval building was allowed is not a matter that can be considered under this appeal. The precise requirements for further planning permission for the equestrian element of the rural business is a matter for the Council to clarify with the appellant. MDLPR Policy DM8 does not preclude rural businesses that do not entirely fall within the Act’s definition of agriculture. Allowing this appeal however does not infer an acceptance of further development proposals within the appeal site, including a permanent dwelling, which would be determined on their own merits.

The Statement of [name] includes a list of suggested conditions which I have considered against the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. During the hearing, I provided my amendments to their wording for discussion with the parties.

Condition 1 is necessary to clarify the approved plan details. For clarity, I have added the plan references. Condition 2, limiting this permission to a period of three years, is necessary because with reference to MDLPR Policy DM8, the rural business is not yet established. I have amended its wording to reflect the agreed description of development.

Condition 3 is necessary to ensure that the caravan remains tied to the occupational use and is not sold or rented to unsuitable occupants. I have amended its wording to reflect the agreed description of development, and that the rural business includes the breeding of horses.

Condition 4 is necessary in the interests of securing an acceptable foul water drainage system for the caravan. As the appeal scheme is retrospective in nature, it is not possible to use a negatively worded condition to secure the approval and implementation of this outstanding matter before development takes place. This condition would ensure that the development can be enforced against if the required details are not submitted for approval within the period given. It also provides for potential scenarios whereby the details are not approved by the Local Planning Authority or the Secretary of State on appeal, or if the details are approved but not implemented in accordance with an approved timetable.

For the above reasons, the appeal scheme is in accordance with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations before me do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore allowed.

The permission hereby granted shall in all respects accord strictly with the following plans: Location Plan produced on 6th December 2024 - Unique plan reference: #00944919-0FC28D; Site Plan produced on 6th December 2024 - Unique plan reference: #00944920-E0BD54.

The permission hereby granted shall be for a limited period of three years from the date of this decision. The use of the caravan hereby permitted as a temporary rural workers’ dwelling shall be discontinued on or before three years from the date of this decision unless an application for permanent permission is successful in the meantime.

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

The use of the existing caravan hereby permitted as a temporary rural workers dwelling shall cease within two months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in i) to iv) below: i) Within one month of the date of this decision, a scheme of details for a foul water drainage system to serve the caravan hereby permitted, including a relevant management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development, is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval, and the scheme shall include a timetable for its implementation. ii) If within four months of the date of this decision the local planning authority refuses to approve the scheme or fails to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of State. iii) If an appeal is made in pursuance of ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State. iv) The approved scheme shall have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved timetable. Upon implementation of the approved scheme specified in this condition, that scheme shall thereafter be retained and maintained. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined. ***End of Schedule*** [name]: [name] (appellant) [name] (appellant’s partner) [name] (planning consultant) FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: [name] (planning officer) [name] (chartered surveyor and agricultural valuer - role at hearing: agricultural advisor) [name]: [name] (local resident)