Appeal 6006862

The appeal is dismissed.

It was apparent at the site visit that the submitted block plan omits a nearby building located outside of the appeal site boundary, the cold store and its associated hardstanding. I observed that the cold store is positioned to the rear of the existing agricultural building on site and extends beyond it in width, such that it would form a backdrop to the proposed dwelling. As the cold store was largely complete at the time of my visit, I was able to assess its relationship to the proposed dwelling within the appeal site, and I have relied on these observations rather than the submitted plan.

A report by [name] on the cost of rural crime was submitted at the hearing. Whilst it provides useful context, it does not materially affect the proposal before me. Given that the report was only made publicly available shortly before the hearing, the timetable was adjusted to allow the Council time to consider and comment on it. I have therefore accepted the report and had regard to those comments.

It was agreed at the hearing that the submitted elevations contain an inconsistency, with the porch omitted from the side elevation. This could be rectified by a planning condition requiring amended plans, should the appeal be allowed. I have assessed the proposal on that basis.

The main issues are: • whether there is an essential need for a dwelling to accommodate a rural worker at the appeal site, and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal seeks permission for a new agricultural dwelling in the countryside, outside any defined settlement boundary. In this location, Policy SP4 of the Dover District Local Plan 2024 (DLP) allows for new dwellings only in exceptional circumstances, including where there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work. This approach closely reflects paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which sets out the circumstances in which isolated homes in the countryside may be acceptable.

In considering whether proposals meet this test, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out relevant considerations, including where agricultural processes require on-site attention 24 hours a day, and where otherwise there would be a risk to human health, from crime, or a need to deal quickly with emergencies that could cause serious loss of crops or products.

The PPG also requires consideration of the degree to which there is confidence that the enterprise will remain viable for the foreseeable future, together with whether the identified need could be met through improvements to existing accommodation on the site.

[site address] comprises an extensive area of circa 78 ha apple orchards and approximately 60.82 ha of the holding is cropped with apples. The land is predominantly Grade 1 agricultural land. The appellant company is a long-established fruit growing business, operating since 1968 and producing in excess of 25,000 tonnes of fruit annually across some 3,000 acres in Kent. The main operational base is at [address], Chartham, where fruit storage of produce from [site address] currently takes place, together with packing and distribution.

Close to the appeal site, a recently approved cold store (the cold store)1 is nearing completion with capacity for circa 8,500 bins to enable the rapid chilling and longer-term storage of fruit. The farm has also taken on management of two nearby orchards. These two factors have and will contribute to [site address] taking on a more substantial role within the business.

The Council does not seek to dispute the long term viability of the business and given the evidence before me relating to its scale, age and operations to date, I have no reason to disagree.

The only existing buildings at [address] are the cold store, and the tractor shed. These are both in, or soon will be, active use, and as such, there are no existing buildings on site capable of being used for residential accommodation.

The appellant’s case for on-site accommodation is centred on the need for effective day-to-day management of the farm, including the recruitment of a dedicated farm manager. I heard that filling such a role has been difficult without offering accommodation, and that responsibilities would include supervising seasonal workers, dealing with emergencies, and maintaining site security and overseeing key operational processes such as harvesting, irrigation, and crop management. In this respect, I heard that the timing of harvesting requires ongoing monitoring and 1 Planning application reference DOC.21.01488/A informed judgement, with variation arising from the different apple varieties grown, together with continued oversight of irrigation and nutrition. I also heard that once harvested, apples must be brought down to target storage temperatures, generally below 6 degrees and within a limited timeframe, in order to preserve quality. A number of employees from [name] & Son gave evidence at the hearing and indicated that, over the course of their agricultural careers, they had commonly benefited from the provision of on-site accommodation, although this in itself does not establish that such provision is essential in this case.

I acknowledge the evidence regarding the sensitivity of apple storage, including the potential reduction in storage life associated with relatively small increases in temperature, and the financial consequences illustrated by the loss of a Bramley apple store together with the scale of operations at the farm.

These factors indicate a clear need for active and informed oversight by a suitably experienced worker and that certain issues may only be identified through physical presence. However, notwithstanding the sensitivity of the process, I note that monitoring requirements, including twice daily physical inspections for insurance purposes, appear to require a regular structured rather than continuous on-site presence.

I recognise that the day-to-day operation of the farm, particularly in relation to the growing, harvesting and monitoring of the apples, is labour intensive and variable, depending on seasonal factors and weather conditions. The evidence demonstrates that this can require long working days, at times extending from early morning into the evening. However, notwithstanding the intensity of these periods, I am not persuaded that such requirements extend to a continuous, round the clock presence. Rather, the need is for regular and sustained attendance, and whilst close proximity to the site is clearly necessary, this does not in itself demonstrate that such presence must be provided from a dwelling located on the site.

It was submitted that in the event of a system failure, action may be required within a matter of minutes in some scenarios, and reference was made to the “1–10–60 rule” for incident response. However, I have considered in the context of the evidence that system failures may not be identified for a number of hours. In that context, whilst an immediate response would be advantageous, I am not persuaded that the additional response time associated with a nearby off-site location would be of such a magnitude as to materially change the likely outcome in most circumstances.

I also note the evidence relating to the potential failure of remote monitoring systems, including the specific cyber-attack previously experienced by the appellant which affected operational systems. Whilst such scenarios cannot be discounted, I have not been provided with evidence to demonstrate that they occur with such frequency or likelihood as to necessitate a continuous on-site presence, as opposed to a system which would be capable of prompt response. I also note that the business has put in place a number of measures to seek to protect against such occurrences in the future.

Turning to security, I accept that an on-site dwelling would provide the highest level of deterrence and enable an immediate response to incidents. However, I am satisfied that a nearby off-site dwelling, particularly given a good local road network, would allow for a timely response to incidents. The evidence before me indicates that the site has experienced a number of recent security breaches, with five break-ins occurring within the last month, including one involving the theft of a tractor and others involving forced entry. I also recognise that unauthorised access to the cold store could give rise to significant health and safety risks, particularly once it is operational. Whilst these demonstrate a vulnerability, they do not in themselves establish that a continuous on-site presence is required.

The site itself benefits from security measures including lockable gates, fencing, CCTV, and once complete, the secure design of the cold store building, as well as the site’s accessibility via a good local road network, which would facilitate a timely response from a nearby off-site location. I acknowledge the limitations of these measures, particularly given the scale of the orchard and the degree of cover provided by the trees. However, the occurrence of these incidents does not, in my view, demonstrate that a continuous on-site presence is required, as opposed to a system which allows for prompt attendance when necessary.

I have also considered the role of seasonal workers in contributing to site presence. In this regard, I note the permission for the siting of 30 no. seasonal workers’ caravans on the land2. Whilst they are not responsible for security and may have limited direct interest in the longer term operation of the business, their temporary occupation of the site and in particular the presence of caravans and associated lighting, noise and movement, would nonetheless introduce a degree of activity and passive surveillance. Although the extent to which this would act as a deterrent is uncertain, and it would be limited to particular times of the year, it remains a relevant factor in the overall assessment and further reduces the likelihood of the site being entirely unobserved for prolonged periods.

Much discussion took place at the hearing around the management needs associated with seasonal workers. I heard evidence as to the need for direct supervision of the works on site to carry out tasks, with seasonal workers typically not being skilled workers. This aspect of management appears primarily to be a daytime requirement, forming part of the day-to-day operation of the farm. I also heard evidence that seasonal workers required management support outside of their work on the farm, for example transportation to and from shops, provision of welfare assistance, and support in overcoming language and cultural barriers which, together with a lack of private transport, can make access to local services more difficult, including when required for health reasons.

A particular example was given of an individual sustaining a head injury requiring treatment, where no ambulance or other assistance was sought until undertaken by a farm manager. However, whilst routine call-outs appear to occur, there was no clear indication that incidents of this severity are common. Whilst this aspect of management adds some weight to the case for a manager to be either on or close to the site, I consider it necessary to balance this against the likely frequency and nature of such out of hours incidents for these seasonal workers.

I also have regard to the availability of public services, including emergency services, and the fact that the site is served by a good road network which allows for timely access both to and from the site. [name] accept that there may be some difficulties for individuals in directly accessing these services, I am satisfied that these can be reasonably mitigated through management measures. These include 2 Planning permission reference 22/01024 the provision of clear information to seasonal staff, use of language translation tools, and regular scheduled welfare checks, together with organised transport arrangements for routine needs.

Taking these matters together, I consider that the management needs arising outside normal working hours do not necessitate a continuous on-site presence. Rather, I am satisfied that a suitably organised off site call out arrangement, supported by appropriate welfare procedures and the ability to respond within a reasonable timeframe, would provide an adequate and proportionate means of managing the workforce.

Evidence was provided to be me as to the availability of dwellings both for sale and for rent in the local area, specifically, within a 3-mile radius of the appeal site, which is a sufficient distance to encompass properties within Ash and Wingham. There was debate between the parties as to the necessity of properties providing 3- bedrooms, and even were that accepted, whether it was relevant or necessary for the farm salaries manager to cover the full cost of either. In this regard the appellants highlighted an appeal decision at Ringwould, Kent3. I accept that based on the figures provided as to a typical farm managers salary, it would be extremely difficult for a farm manager to obtain a mortgage. However, as it was clarified at the hearing that the farm managers accommodation, whether that be on or off site, would be purchased and owned by the business rather than the individual manager, the salaries of the farm manager are of very limited relevance in considering whether alternative off site accommodation exists.

Although affordability issues were referenced for the business to purchase off site accommodation for a manager, no substantive evidence was provided to support this. Given this, whether the search is for a smaller 2-bedrom unit or for a family sized 3-bedroom unit of accommodation, there is evidence of some availability within the neighbouring villages. Good road connections are available from the farm and there are multiple locations which could provide that suitable accommodation.

I recognise that the appellant has reservations regarding potentially higher maintenance issues associated with existing older properties, and that they do not offer the same level of convenience with respect of an ability to integrate family life into the day-to-day monitoring requirements associated with the farm. I also recognise that to check in on the farm out of hours, would require an individual to get dressed and, in all likelihood, drive to the farm. However, the farm is an extensive size and as such depending on the location of a particular incident, this dress and travel requirement may in any event apply to on-site accommodation. While an off-site arrangement may be less convenient, I find that, on the evidence before me, it would still be capable of meeting the needs of the farm in this case.

The appellant disputes the need to demonstrate that off-site alternatives to the provision of a new agricultural dwelling have been exhausted, on the basis that there is no explicit reference to such a requirement within the relevant policy or guidance. [name] accept that neither the development plan nor national guidance specifically sets out this requirement in those terms, I nevertheless consider it to be a highly material consideration in assessing whether an essential need for an on-site presence has been justified. 3 Appeal decision ref APP/X2220/W/3362946

In particular, the question of whether an essential need genuinely requires a worker to live on the site cannot be properly addressed without first considering whether that need could reasonably be met through alternative arrangements, including off site accommodation with an appropriate call out response. The absence of an explicit policy test does not diminish the importance of this assessment; rather, it forms part of the overall planning judgement as to whether the claimed need is truly essential.

I therefore conclude that, when considered in the round, it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for a dwelling to accommodate a rural worker at the appeal site. Whilst a worker is clearly required along with close and responsive management, the evidence does not demonstrate that they must live on the site. The proposal will therefore conflict with Policies SP4 of the DLP and ANP1 of the Ash Neighbourhood Plan 2021 (NP), taken together these require exceptional circumstances to justify new dwellings in the countryside. In this case, that hinges on demonstrating an essential need for a rural worker to live at [address].

The appeal site lies within an established agricultural setting, forming part of a wider predominantly rural landscape characterised by orchards and agricultural uses. It includes existing farm buildings, containers and areas of hardstanding, accessed from [site address] . It is enclosed by boundary hedging along [site address] and an earth bund along the boundary with the [name] (A257), which together provide screening and limit visibility from the surrounding area. Development in the area generally follows a loose linear pattern along roads and field boundaries.

The Dover Landscape Character Assessment 2020 identifies a strongly rural agricultural landscape, simple field structure, and scattered farmstead development. It also indicates that buildings tend to reflect either traditional forms or functional farm structures, and that hedgerows play an important role in shaping the landscape. It also notes a clear linear grain to the landscape, which contributes to its character.

Similarly, the Ash Neighbourhood Plan Character Assessment 2018 identifies a landscape of orchards and horticultural uses with a clear sense of pattern and order, including linear planting within orchards and development dispersed along lanes, with many farmsteads and houses arranged in a linear form. It also highlights the prevalence of traditional Kentish buildings and the strong role of hedgerows in providing enclosure and defining local character.

The dwelling would be sited on an existing hardstanding and closely related to the cold store, which would sit behind it and provide a dominant backdrop. As a result, the proposal would not appear prominent or out of place. Although located in open countryside, it would form part of an existing group of buildings rather than appearing isolated, and its siting broadly reflects the linear pattern and dispersed nature of development typical of the surrounding area.

However, the design and style of the dwelling proposed gives rise to concern, owing to the lack of any meaningful response to either the surrounding agricultural landscape, the nearby functional agricultural buildings, or the vernacular of traditional buildings within the nearby Kentish villages. The proposed dwelling is of a simple and utilitarian form and lacks the articulation and detailing typically seen in such contexts. The palette of external materials visually contrast with each other, i.e. the combination of white upvc fenestration set against darker cladding. The effect would be a generic appearance to the building which fails to respond to its surroundings and would as a result appear incongruous.

At the hearing, the appellant indicated a willingness to provide a revised set of external materials which could be secured by condition. While a suitable planning condition could be an appropriate mechanism to secure a change to the materials, the harm in this case extends beyond the materials, to wider aspects of its design.

The appellant refers to benefits to the landscape through the facilitation of on-site management of the farm. [name] accept the wider contribution of agriculture to the character of the area, I have not identified an essential need for a dwelling at the site. In any event, these considerations do not relate to the design of the proposal and do not offset the localised harm identified in respect of its character and appearance.

[name] accept that its relatively limited scale, together with its siting, particularly in relation to the cold store and the limited visibility of the dwelling, would reduce its wider landscape impact, I find that the generic design would nonetheless lead to some localised harm. In particular, it would fail to reflect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, to respond to local distinctiveness, or to integrate successfully with either the agricultural setting or the established vernacular.

As such, the proposal would conflict with Policy NE2 and Policy PM1 of the DLP, which seek to ensure development respects landscape character and achieves high quality design, as well as Policy ANP6 of the NP, which requires development to respond positively to local character.

That said, given the limited scale of the dwelling, its close relationship with existing built form, and its restricted visibility within the wider landscape, I find that this harm would be localised and of modest weight in the overall planning balance.

[name] have not identified an essential need, the proposal fails to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to justify a new dwelling in the countryside. In addition, whilst the harm to character and appearance, including landscape character, would be localised and modest, it nonetheless adds further weight against the proposal. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations which indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

[name] report on the cost of rural crime