Appeal 6001888

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a temporary 5 year permission for the siting of a mobile home in a residential garden for use as an independent unit of emergency accommodation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 0125/25, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

At the time of my site visit it was clear that the development had been carried out, and the application form confirms that the development has been completed. I have removed reference to the development being retrospective in the description of development in the heading above, as this is not an act of development.

The appellant submitted two additional mitigation plans with the original application. At paragraph 3.9 of its appeal statement, the Authority outlines that even with the proposed mitigation, the scheme would be unacceptable. As the Authority has had an opportunity to consider these plans, I have considered them as part of my overall assessment, and I am satisfied that no prejudice arises in my doing so.

Similarly, whilst not outlined in its decision notice, the Authority references strategic housing policies in its officer delegated report and appeal statement. The appellant has had the opportunity to respond to these policies in making their appeal. I have considered the appeal based on all of the evidence before me and have referred to these additional policies where necessary.

In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Age and disability are relevant protected characteristics to which the PSED applies.

The site is located within the boundary of the Dartmoor National Park (NP) where there is a statutory duty on decision-makers to seek to further the purposes of designation. The primary purpose in respect of Dartmoor is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the NP.

The main issues are:

whether the development conserves and enhances the natural beauty and cultural heritage of the NP, and;

whether the appeal site is in an appropriate location for housing, having regard to the development plan, and;

whether any harm arising in relation to the first two main issues is justified by the appellant’s personal circumstances.

The appeal site is located within the NP, a nationally designated area which attracts the highest level of protection regarding its landscape and scenic beauty. Section 15, Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

The Dartmoor Local Plan (2021) (LP) seeks to protect the NP’s special qualities, whilst meeting the needs of its communities. Development within the NP should seek to further its statutory purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area and promoting opportunities of the understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities by the public. The Dartmoor National Park Design Guide (2011) also encourages good design in new housing proposals and schemes that incorporate well thought out approaches to the issue of sustainability.

The appeal site is located within the rural settlement of Dousland, within a parcel of land that was previously part of a residential garden, off an access lane serving a number of residential properties. It lies between existing residential properties and an adjacent school, alongside a series of garden areas that contain outbuildings and infrastructure associated with residential garden uses.

I share the Authority’s concerns that the mobile home is not sympathetic to the local vernacular and materiality of surrounding housing, principally as a result of its temporary, movable nature. Neither is it of high-quality design or, despite being second-hand, of sustainable construction. In this respect it fails to reflect the special qualities of the NP which include a wealth of historic buildings, structures and townscapes, including a strong medieval settlement pattern of scattered farmsteads, hamlets, villages and towns.

However, the appeal site is largely screened from the adjacent road by the existing close‐boarded fencing and established planting. Mature trees, under-canopy growth, earth banks and hedgerows also form robust and visually impermeable boundaries in the spaces between the adjacent school, the appeal site and neighbouring garden areas. Combined with a lowered ground level and screening and planting within the site, the visual impact of the development is limited to brief glimpses from the adjacent road. It is not discernible from any wider public vantage points within the NP. The harm to the NP would therefore be very localised.

Two additional plans were submitted with the original application proposing either cladding the mobile home in timber, or alternatively planting living walls around the mobile home soften any visual impact. However, given the characteristic scale, materiality, and overall appearance of local development, I do not consider that either of the proposed additional mitigation measures would be effective in mitigating the harm I have found.

Taking all of the above into account, I conclude on the first main issue that the development fails to conserve and enhance the NP’s natural beauty and cultural heritage, resulting in localised harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with [name] 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5. Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that new development is sustainable and creates a strong sense of place with a clear and distinctive character by reinforcing local character and respecting Dartmoor’s vernacular, including the texture, colour, pattern and durability of materials, construction techniques and detailing elements.

Strategic Policy 1.1 of the LP provides that development should not prejudice the statutory National Park purposes, and that development which complies with the policies in the LP will be considered consistent with the NP purposes.

The appeal site is located within the rural settlement, and settlement boundary, of Dousland where policy outlines that development to meet the needs of the settlement and parish will be acceptable in principle. Strategic Policy 3.1, Part 4b outlines that the housing need of the parish and adjoining parishes constitutes the identified need for housing priorities within a rural settlement.

Strategic Policy 3.4 states, in part, that new housing in rural settlements will be approved on previously developed land within the settlement boundary. Case law1 provides that residential gardens in rural areas can constitute previously developed land. However, in the case of the development of up to three dwellings within the settlement boundary, the development must comprise local needs custom and self-build housing and make a meaningful contribution towards the provision of affordable housing.

Notwithstanding the affordable nature of a mobile home unit, the main parties agree that the development does not meet the Council’s definition for affordable housing. Whilst the appellant appears to meet the definition of a local person as set out on page 62 of the LP, Strategic Policy 3.6 defines custom build housing as a home commissioned by an individual for their own use, and to which they have had a significant influence over the design, layout and specification; and self-build housing as a home built in whole or in part by an individual for their own use and to which they have had a significant influence over the design, layout and specification. 1 Dartford Borough Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] P.T.S.R. 737

The Authority outline that the siting of a mobile home does not meet either of these definitions. I agree; in this particular scenario the appellant would have had little, if any, influence over the design, layout and specification of the mobile home.

The development does not satisfy the criteria outlined in Strategic Policy 3.12 which relates to low impact residential development insofar as the requirement to evidence the scheme’s low impact and the provision of a business plan. Whilst the appellant is retired and maintains and manages the site for her personal enjoyment and well-being, this on its own does not demonstrate compliance with Strategic Policy 3.12.

It has not been put to me that the development would meet any other criteria of the LP in relation to the location of housing. Accordingly, in relation to this main issue, I conclude that the development is not in an appropriate location for housing, with particular regard to the local development strategy. The development therefore conflicts with [name] 3.4, 3.6 and 3.12 of the LP, which amongst other things, seek to ensure that affordable, local needs custom and self-build housing is delivered in appropriate locations.

The evidence before me indicates that the appellant was born in the locality and for the last twenty years has lived in Dousland, and more specifically and latterly prior to their ‘no-fault’ eviction, at the host dwelling.

The appellant has provided a clear and comprehensive account of their personal circumstances and associated health issues, the latter being substantiated by correspondence from their General Practitioner. They have additionally explained that securing alternative accommodation has proven, and would continue to be, markedly difficult due to their limited financial means and their prolonged period on the housing waiting list. These matters collectively demonstrate the constrained nature of the appellant’s housing options and the weight that must be afforded to their personal circumstances in my decision.

The appellant seeks a temporary five year personal permission which can be limited as such, and controlled by the use of planning conditions, rather than a legal agreement. I consider a five year period sufficient for the appellant to seek and obtain alternative housing provision. However, should the appellant not secure an alternative form of housing in this time or should the caravan remain on site following the appellant leaving the appeal site, the Authority would retain the ability to seek site clearance through enforcing a relevant planning condition should it be considered expedient to do so.

The appellant has protected characteristics under the PSED and in order to meet this duty, the application of planning policy needs to take account of the impact of the appellants age and disabilities on the ability to meet the terms of policy.

Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the appellant has a clear need for the type of temporary accommodation provided at the appeal site. I also accept that the stress and disruption associated with having to leave the site could have a seriously detrimental effect on her health. Accordingly, I give very substantial weight to the benefits of the development arising from the appellant’s exceptional personal circumstances.

The development causes limited and localised harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the NP and is contrary to the local development strategy for the location of housing. This brings it into conflict with the development plan as a whole.

However, on the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the circumstances in this case are exceptional, such that the appellant’s needs attract very significant weight in the overall planning balance. In light of this, I find that the material considerations advanced in support of the development clearly outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan, thereby justifying a departure from it in this instance.

I have had regard to the tests set out in the Framework in relation to the use of planning conditions, as well as to the conditions proposed by the Authority. As the development has already commenced, a standard commencement condition is unnecessary. However, it is necessary to impose a condition specifying the approved plans, in the interests of clarity and certainty.

In light of the justification of the appeal being based on the exceptional circumstances contrary to the development plan, a personal and time limited permission is necessary to restrict occupation of the mobile home to the appellant. A condition is therefore required to ensure that when the premises cease to be occupied by the appellant or expiration of the temporary time limit, whichever occurs first, the use shall cease and the mobile home and all associated materials and equipment to shall be removed.

The Authority suggested a condition to ensure that only one caravan is stationed at the site. However, given the limited visual impact of the appeal site and the personal circumstances of the appellant, I do not consider such a condition to be reasonable or necessary.

With regard to the suggested condition requiring the cladding of the caravan, I have found the visual impact and residential character of the site to be limited to the extent that it doesn’t warrant further mitigation or control to soften its visual impact. The suggested condition is therefore not necessary.

The Authority also suggested a condition removing certain permitted development rights as described in Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO). However, based on the evidence before me and my observations during my site visit, the mobile home is not a building that constitutes a dwellinghouse. Accordingly, the development does not benefit from the permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO for development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse, and the suggested condition is not necessary.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, including the Framework, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be strictly maintained in accordance with the following drawing Nos: Site Location Plan - [name] 13/03/2025, Block Plan - Proposed– 664/03, Proposed Floor Plan – 664/04, Elevations - Proposed – 664/05, Site Plan - Proposed – 664/06, Site Section - Proposed – 664/07.

When the premises ceases to be occupied by [name] or at the end of a period of five years from the date of this decision, whichever shall first occur, the use hereby permitted shall cease and the mobile home and all materials and equipment brought on to the premises in connection with the use shall be removed. END OF SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS