Appeal 6003657

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from agricultural storage to agricultural residence at The Nursery, [address], Rayleigh, Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/00828/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The development subject of the appeal relates to a building known as the ‘log cabin’. Planning permission for the log cabin was granted in 20081 subject to conditions, including a restriction in its use to agricultural purposes2. The evidence indicates that the log cabin was subsequently extended, and that the change of use to residential has already occurred. The Statement of [name] (SOCG) confirms that the appeal development includes these extensions, as shown on the proposed plans which were before the Council when it determined the planning application. I saw on my site visit that the development carried out is the same as that which has been applied for. It was also agreed by the main parties at the hearing that the development relates solely to the log cabin and its extensions, and not to the land around it. I have therefore determined the appeal on that basis.

The Council’s evidence refers to an emerging development plan. However, the most recent update from the Council confirms that that plan is at an early stage and that further consultation and examination is required. I have therefore assessed the appeal proposal against the current development plan which includes the Local Development Framework Core Strategy [name] (2011) (CS) and the Development Management Plan (2014) (DMP). 1 Council ref: 08/00829/FUL 2 as defined in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

The main issues are: • whether or not the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including the effect on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and • whether or not there is an essential need for rural workers to live permanently on the site.

Policy GB1 of the CS directs development away from the Green Belt as far as practicable and will prioritise the protection of Green Belt land based on how well the land helps achieve the purposes of the Green Belt.

At the hearing, it was agreed the development plan policies cited in the Council’s decision do not define inappropriate development. In those circumstances, it is necessary to turn to the Framework for the relevant definition and exceptions. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate development other than for the specific exceptions set out in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework.

Dwellings for rural workers in agriculture or forestry are primarily intended for residential use. Consequently, they are not buildings for agriculture or forestry (even though they are intended to support such a use) and the exception at paragraph 154 a) is not relevant in this respect.

It was confirmed by the Council at the hearing that it had not refused planning permission for reasons relating to the extensions to the log cabin, and that its concerns were confined to its use for residential purposes. The Council also confirmed that it considers the extensions to the log cabin to meet the exemption at paragraph 154 c) of the Framework, which allows for the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Having regard to the plans before me, which show modestly scaled single-storey extensions to either side of the original log cabin, I find no reason to reach a different conclusion in this respect.

The main parties also agreed at the hearing that the exception at paragraph 154 h) v., which relates to material changes of use of land, does not apply. I concur with that position, given that the development involves the change of use of the log cabin to residential use and does not comprise a material change in the use of the land as a whole.

The development has the potential to meet the exception in paragraph 154 h) iv. of the Framework, insofar as development relates to the re-use of a building which is of permanent and substantial construction. However, at the hearing, there remained disagreement between the main parties as to whether or not the development preserves openness and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it, both of which are prerequisites of that exception.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that when considering any planning application, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)3 provides advice on the factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt, with openness being capable of having both spatial and visual aspects.

The appeal site is enclosed by a combination of hedgerow planting, a timber post gated access at the frontage and close-boarded fencing along much of one side. The log cabin sits towards the rear of the plot, with a substantial polytunnel positioned in front of it. In respect of the extensions to the log cabin, there is no requirement for a subsequent assessment of their effects on Green Belt openness given that they have been found to be not inappropriate. Nevertheless, for completeness I have considered both the visual and spatial effects of the development overall.

In visual terms, views of the log cabin are limited to partial and fleeting glimpses, including from the site access. Its external walls are finished in timber panels, which assist in assimilating the building into its surroundings. It is acknowledged that visibility would likely be marginally increased during the winter months, when seasonal leaf loss reduces the screening effect of intervening vegetation. Even so, the contained siting of the building, its modest scale, the use of materials with a natural appearance, and the absence of longer range or expansive views across the site mean that the development does not give rise to a perceptible visual loss of openness.

In spatial terms, while the presence of the log cabin has altered the spatial openness of the Green Belt in this location, its low profile and limited footprint ensure that it does not result in any material erosion of the open character of the Green Belt. Furthermore, the main part of the building has been permitted and built under the permission in 2008. It exists and will continue to exist in any case regardless of whether this appeal is allowed. Accordingly, there is no harm to the spatial openness of the Green Belt arising from the re-use of the log cabin.

Although some external activity assorted with the re-use of the log cabin is inevitable, such as the provision of a modest outdoor seating area, my site visit confirmed that there is no clear or discernible distinction between the land used as a nursery and the residential use of the site. The land is treated and managed in a similar manner in either case, with no defining features, subdivision or visual cues that indicate a materially different use.

Overall, the re-use of the building for residential purposes is not perceptible in the appearance or functioning of the site, nor does it give rise to a materially different impact on the openness of the Green Belt from the lawful situation. 3 Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-[phone]

Paragraph 143 of the Framework lists five purposes of the Green Belt. The Council contends that the development conflicts with purpose a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; and purpose c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. However, the site is physically and visually separated from nearby built-up areas and does not result in sprawl beyond the existing site boundary. Moreover, given the modest scale and contained siting of the log cabin within the appeal site, the development does not result in encroachment into the countryside. I therefore find no conflict with either purpose a) or c).

At the hearing, the main parties agreed that the development does not conflict with purpose b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Having regard to the evidence before me, I find no reason to reach a different view in these respects.

In view of all the above, the development represents the re-use of a building which is of permanent and substantial construction, preserves Green Belt openness and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The development therefore meets the exception set out at paragraph 154 h) iv. of the Framework. No harm to the openness of the Green Belt or its purposes has been identified. The extensions are also not inappropriate development for the reasons explained.

I therefore conclude that the development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development plan and the Framework. In this regard, there is no conflict with Policy GB1 of the CS which seeks to protect the Green Belt or the aforementioned policies of the Framework.

Given this conclusion, it is not necessary to go onto consider the relevance of paragraph 155 of the Framework relating to the grey belt. Furthermore, given the development does not amount to inappropriate development, there is no need for me to go on to consider whether very special circumstances required to justify the development.

Although referred to in the Council’s decision, it was agreed by the main parties at the hearing that Policy GB2 of the CS is not directly relevant to the appeal, given that the development does not comprise a form of rural diversification or recreational use.

The Council explained that the majority of land outside settlements within the administrative area of Rochford lies within the Green Belt. Even so, it was agreed at the hearing that Policy DM18 of the DMP, which relates to agricultural, forestry and other occupational dwellings, applies irrespective of whether or not the site is located in the Green Belt. On this basis, Policy DM18 of the DMP is more appropriately considered under the next main issue.

The appeal site lies close to other development, including residential properties, a gypsy and traveller site and various businesses. A dedicated footpath runs along [address] adjacent to the site access off [address], providing a connection to Rayleigh and Hullbridge. The appellant confirmed at the hearing that this footpath is regularly used to walk or cycle to these settlements. Given the round-trip distances involved, such journeys are likely only made occasionally by means other than a private vehicle. Nevertheless, my attention was drawn to the availability of services and facilities which are closer and within walking distance to the appeal site at [address], golf club and a complex of buildings opposite. These include a farm shop, café, barbers and children’s nursery.

At the hearing, the Council accepted that the development does not constitute an isolated dwelling in the countryside. The main parties were therefore agreed that paragraph 84 of the Framework, which seeks to avoid the development of isolated homes unless there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of employment, is not applicable in this case. On the basis of the evidence before me and my observations on site, it is agreed that the dwelling is not isolated.

Even so, the appeal site is not located in a settlement where the CS generally directs additional housing. Policy DM18 of the DMP requires that applications for permanent agricultural workers’ dwellings to satisfy a series of criteria (i) – (iv). While there is no dispute between the main parties in respect of criteria (v) - (vi), I address below those criteria that remain contested.

The appellant explained at the hearing that the business was moved to the appeal site in 2008 and that horticulture represents a long-standing occupation within his family, with potential succession by his daughter in the future. The enterprise sustains one full time worker, with additional assistance provided by family on an ad hoc and informal basis. A letter from the appellant’s accountant confirms that it is a profitable business and represents the appellant’s main source of income. Although detailed financial records, such as sales and purchase accounts, have not been submitted, when taken together with the hearing evidence and my observations on site, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the nursery is of a scale that requires a full-time agricultural/horticultural worker in line with criterion (ii), and is a viable business in line with criterion (iii).

The horticultural business operating from the site involves the propagation of a variety of plants from seed and the nurturing of climbing shrubs, until they reach saleable size throughout the year. The plants are sold at [address] flower market in London, which operates every Sunday. They are grown in pots and are vulnerable to damage during adverse weather conditions, including frost, high winds and periods when surface water accumulates on the land, as well as from animals such as squirrels. The plants require close supervision seven days a week to maintain the quality of production. This includes regular watering, frequently moving them in and out of the polytunnel, or raising them off the ground. These activities necessitate at least one person to be present on the holding at most times of the day to enable the proper functioning of the enterprise.

However, I am not satisfied that the likelihood of adverse weather conditions in itself and which can often be forecast, gives rise to a requirement for a continuous 24-hour presence, particularly overnight. Indeed, the appellant confirmed at the hearing that he did live off-site for many years and that plants rarely require attention at night. Nevertheless, he also explained that market days necessitate a start in the early hours and that the site has experienced a range of security problems, including theft of stock and fly-tipping. Due to problems being experienced, the appellant explained that he made to the decision to start staying overnight around 2019, and that since living on site, such incidents have reduced significantly. Although only one crime reference number has been provided, the appellant explained that incidents were not always reported to the police. Even so, given the lack of natural surveillance of the site, I have no reason to doubt that security is a genuine concern.

The Council accepts that there may not be an alternative dwelling in the area suitable for the appellant to live in in the vicinity of the site, having regard to criterion (iv). This position is supported by an identified shortfall in the five-year housing supply in the area which is currently at 1.97 years and the lack of availability of lower cost accommodation in the vicinity of the site.

Nonetheless, the Council maintains that all other satisfactory alternatives have not been fully ruled out. In particular, it suggests that enhanced security measures and alternative horticultural practices could reduce the need for a permanent on-site presence. Measures such as CCTV, frost fleece, thermostatically controlled heating, automated irrigation systems and electronic alarms could reduce the risk to crops could be utilised without necessitating 24-hour presence. However, the appellant explained at the hearing, that given the small scale of the operation, the capital and running costs of such measures would be prohibitive. Based on the evidence before me, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that such measures would be financially viable for this enterprise.

I am therefore content from the information before me that there is a need for a worker to live on or close when taking into account the operation and security reasons combined. Given that suitable alternative dwellings in the area have not been identified, a functional need in line with criterion (i) has been demonstrated.

I therefore conclude that it has been demonstrated that there is an essential need for at least one rural worker to live permanently on the site. In this regard, there is no conflict with Policy DM18 of the DMP which requires demonstration of a need for agricultural workers’ dwellings in line with the aforementioned criteria. [name]

The appeal site is located within the zone of influence of the Blackwater Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, Crouch & [name] and Ramsar site and Essex Estuaries Special Area if Conservation (SAC) (the protected sites), designated for their internationally important assemblages of birds and habitats. It has been established that residential development within this zone is likely to cause harm to the protected area through increased recreational disturbance. As the proposal is for an additional dwelling, and when considered in combination with other developments, it would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the protected sites.

The Essex Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment [name] 2018 – 2038 ([name]) sets out a tariff-based approach to mitigating this effect. This includes a financial payment towards RAMS, which supports a range of initiatives to protect bird life, including the provision of information boards along coastal paths the employment of wardens to promote public awareness and the understanding of the sensitive coastal environment.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, requires that where a project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, the competent authority must before any grant of planning permission undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA).

In this case, the Council has confirmed receipt of payment prior to the determination of the planning application in line with the relevant [name] tariff which applied at the time, which is acceptable to them. Natural England has been consulted as part of this AA and is content that, provided the tariff payment is secured, this would adequately mitigate the potential adverse effects associated with the development on the protected sites. Given that payment has already been received, the necessary mitigation is in place and the resultant pressure on the protected sites would be satisfactorily alleviated.

Following an AA as the competent authority, for the reasons set out I am satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the development does not adversely effect the integrity of European habitat sites either alone or in combination with other projects and is in accordance with the requirements of the [name].

The Council confirm that it cannot demonstrate the necessary five-year housing land supply. Ordinarily this would warrant the application of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. However, in this case as I have found no harm and no conflict with the development plan policies, it is not necessary for me to apply the requirement of that paragraph because the appeal scheme is acceptable.

The Council’s delegated report indicates that biodiversity net gain would apply. However, the SOCG confirms that BNG is not applicable in this case, as the requirements applies only to planning applications for small development made after 02 April 2024. This application was made prior to this date.

Various conditions have been suggested by the Council in the event that the appeal is allowed. I have considered these against the tests set out in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In some instances, I have amended the suggested wording to provide precision or clarity, added an additional condition where necessary and omitted another for the reasons explained below.

Condition (1) restricts the log cabin to agricultural or horticultural occupation. I find this to be reasonable and necessary, as it reflects what has been applied for and justified by an essential rural worker need. An additional condition, as suggested by the Council, requiring the submission of evidence on request to demonstrate compliance with the agricultural occupancy condition is unnecessary, since Condition (1) would be enforceable in its own right.

Given that the red line boundary relates to the entire nursery site, it was agreed with the main parties, that it would be reasonable and necessary to add a condition (2) specifying that the change of use relates to the log cabin building only, for the avoidance of any doubt. For the same reason, condition (3) requires development to be in accordance with the approved plan.

Planning Practice Guidance advises that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development (PD) rights may fail the tests of reasonableness or necessity4. However, in this case the permission sought is an agricultural worker’s dwelling, the size of which is directly related to the identified functional requirement. The unrestricted use of PD rights could result in the incremental enlargement of the dwelling beyond this. Moreover, Policy DM18 of the DMP support the removal of PD rights in order to control the impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In these circumstances, a condition restricting PD rights is justified, albeit in relation to the enlargement and extension of the log cabin building only. It is not considered necessary to removed PD rights for the erection of new means of enclosure, since this permission relates to the log cabin building rather than the land around it.

The development accords with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise. Consequently, for the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, locally in agriculture or horticulture (including nursery enterprises), or in forestry, as defined in Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), or a widow or widower or surviving civil partner of such a person, and to any resident dependents.

The permission hereby approved shall relate to the building labelled as ‘existing agricultural residence’ on [name] 40022/1001/P04.

The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with drawing no 40022/1001/P4 (Location Plan, Block Plan, Elevations and Floor Plan, dated 10th November 2022).

Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargement or extension to the dwellinghouse hereby approved permitted by virtue of [name], AA, B and D of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken [other than those expressly authorised by the this permission]. END OF SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS [name]: [name] Planning Director, Whirledge & Nott [name] of the appeal site FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: [name] (Hons) MRTPI Development Management Team Leader, Rochford District Council DOCUMENTS SUBMITT [name]: Written confirmation of the Council’s receipt of RAMs payment, received 15 April 2026.