Appeal 6003992

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • Whether it has been demonstrated that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at the appeal site, having regard to the functional need, viability of the enterprise and alternative accommodation; and • Whether the proposed development is acceptable with respect to flood risk.

The appeal site comprises a small agricultural holding with numerous animals bred and reared throughout the year, including various birds, rabbits, pigs and horses as well as producing a variety of crops. In addition to various pens, enclosures and structures used to accommodate the animals, there is a mobile home, sited following the previous temporary permission1.

The parties agree that the appeal site is located outside of the development limits of the nearest settlement, [site address] and as such lies within the countryside. Policy LP36 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021- 2040 (March 2025) (LP) allows for permanent dwellings within the countryside where they support existing rural based activities on well-established rural based enterprises subject to several criteria.

I note the extensive planning history of the site and that it was determined that there was an essential need for a rural worker to live at [address]. Further, I acknowledge that the appellants states that the removal of the mobile home would have devastating effects on the 1 Application Reference: 21/01682/F business, with potential consequences for animal welfare and the viability of the business.

Whilst it is suggested that the permanent siting of the mobile home would allow for the appellant and his daughter to continue to ensure animal welfare, site security and to effectively manage deliveries, I have not been provided with any detailed information about the numbers of animals on site, the daily needs of the animals and the associated tasks which need to be completed throughout the day and night, which would warrant a permanent dwelling on site.

The appellant also references emergencies but has not elaborated as to what the emergencies might be or the effect they would have on the animals or business if someone was not present 24 hours a day. It is suggested that the proposal would support a prosperous rural economy, allowing for the sustainable growth and expansion of the business in line with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. However, I have no substantiated evidence before me to indicate exactly how the proposal would facilitate these goals.

Further, I have not been provided with any details pertaining to the historic crimes which have occurred on the site. Whilst the appellant suggests that there have been no further crimes since the siting of the mobile home and that its removal would put the business at risk, I have no substantiated evidence before me that the mobile home would be the only means of securing the site or that alternative security measures would not be effective in preventing future crime.

Notwithstanding the above, it is clear from the submitted evidence that the business has been operational for some time with the submitted financial records indicating that it has been consistently profitable despite setbacks following bird flu outbreaks in recent years. Policy LP36 requires that the enterprise is financially sound but does not define what this means. Whilst the profits are modest, they show growth since 2022, and I have no substantiated evidence before me to suggest that the business is not financially sound or that it would not remain so in the future. In addition, the financial records show costs associated with rates and water and light and heat, indicating that the business currently sustains the mobile home and that it would be capable of doing so in the future.

Although not provided at the time of application, the parties agree that in January 2026 the reported functional need could not be met by existing dwellings within the locality, due to the distances from the site, the associated cost and the size of the accommodation. I have no reason to disagree.

Therefore, whilst I am satisfied with regards to the viability of the enterprise and the lack of alternative accommodation, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at the appeal site, having regard to the functional need. The proposal would conflict with policies LP01 and LP36 of the LP where collectively they restrict rural workers dwellings unless there is a clearly established existing functional need, requiring occupants to be adjacent to their enterprises in the day and at night. Similarly, there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which resists the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at their place of work.

Even if the appeal was for a temporary permission, I have found that a functional need has not been demonstrated and as such there would still be conflict with [name] LP01 and LP36 and the Framework as previously described.

The appeal site lies within flood zone 3 as defined on the Environment Agency’s flood map. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that in flood zone 3 there is a high probability of flooding. Moreover, the PPG and the Framework advise that proposals for development in flood zone 3 should be accompanied by a site-specific flood risk assessment (FRA).

An FRA relating to the siting of a mobile home at the appeal site has been submitted, however, it refers to the mobile home being for temporary residential usage as the previous application and as such provides an incorrect vulnerability classification in relation to the current scheme. Annex 3 of the Framework states that mobile homes intended for permanent residential use would be classified as ‘highly vulnerable’. Table 22 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) indicates that highly vulnerable developments should not be permitted within [name] 3.

The appeal site is protected by flood defences along the [name]. The finished floor level of the mobile home would be above the flood depth indicated by the provided breach analysis calculation and the home would be secured with ground anchors. Nevertheless, even if the occupants were registered with the [name], due to the site location in proximity to the [name], the onset of flooding in a breach event would likely be rapid with no prior warning, leaving the occupants with no means of escape.

As such, I must conclude that the proposed development is not acceptable with respect to flood risk. It therefore conflict with Policies LP25 and LP18 of the LP where they collectively require development to be located away from areas of high flood risk. The proposed development would conflict with the Framework as set out above.

The proposal would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. It would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents, highway safety or ecology. Nevertheless, this would be expected of any well-designed development and as such neither weighs in favour of or against the proposal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the provisions in the Framework and the benefits of the proposal, which indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.