Upper Sent Cottages, The Barn, Okewood Hill

Decision

dismissed, 20 August 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: C Housden

Authority

Mole Valley (South East)

Appeal reference

6007601

Application reference

MO/2025/02511

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use of land for temporary siting of a static caravan as a rural worker's dwelling for an equestrian enterprise (retrospective)

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, isolated, rural lane, valued landscape, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HO11(1)(a), S5(3)

Development plan policies

Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 S1, INF1, EN4, EN8

Main issues

essential need for a rural worker; accessibility; character and appearance

Summary

A temporary static caravan for a worker at a growing equestrian enterprise near Okewood Hill, already on site. Dismissed. The appellant gave no evidence of how often emergencies happen, how many mares are bred, whether alternative security would work, or how the business is doing. So essential need under HO11(1)(a) was not shown and S5(3) barred the isolated home. The site was also car-dependent, with an unlit, footway-less road, and the caravan caused considerable harm to the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).

Issues and findings

• Transition. "Having reviewed the changes, I am satisfied that it does not affect the substantive matters of the appeal and that proceeding without further consultation ... would not be prejudicial" (DL ¶3).
• Essential need — HO11(1)(a): FAIL. "I have no substantive evidence before me detailing how frequently these events have occurred or would likely occur in the future, instead it is merely stated that it could happen" (DL ¶10). "the full-time labour requirement is not the same as an essential need for a worker to live at the enterprise" (DL ¶13). The appellant's own formula was accepted as a helpful test: "the need must be essential, not merely convenient, and absence must seriously undermine the enterprise" (DL ¶8).
• Accessibility: FAIL. "the road outside of the site is unlit with no public footpaths meaning occupiers are required to walk on the carriage which given the rural nature of the road is not comfortable, convenient and perceived as a safe alternative" (DL ¶17).
• Character: FAIL. "whilst the proposal is temporary, it still results in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶22).
• S5(3). "Policy S5 paragraph 3 of the Framework sets out isolated homes should not be approved other than in accordance with Policy HO11 ... Therefore, the appeal does not benefit from the presumption" (DL ¶27).

Planning balance

This was not a weighted S5 balance: S5(3) and HO11 act as a gateway. The enterprise's socio-economic benefits carried "only ... very limited positive" weight once essential need was not shown. They did not outweigh the character harm and "introduction of a car-dependent rural dwelling" (DL ¶28).

What made the difference

Lack of evidence. The appellant listed possible equine emergencies without a record of how often they happen, gave no mare or foaling numbers and no business plan or accounts, and did not address CCTV or fencing as an alternative for security. A functional-need appraisal with incident logs, stock numbers and a costed growth plan could have supported a temporary trial dwelling under the PPG.

Transferable points

• HO11(1)(a) essential need needs evidence of how often and how likely out-of-hours events are, not a list of what could happen (DL ¶10).
• Labour requirement (full-time equivalents) is not the same as a need to live on site (DL ¶13).
• Security needs are answered by CCTV or fencing unless shown to be ineffective (DL ¶12).
• A temporary trial dwelling still needs business evidence and essential need (DL ¶14).
• S5(3) makes HO11 the only route for isolated homes. Failing it removes the S3 presumption (DL ¶27).
• A rural road with no footway or lighting makes walking "not comfortable, convenient and perceived as a safe alternative", so occupiers are car-dependent (DL ¶17).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Caravan already in situ; the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) suffers "considerable harm" even though temporary (DL 2, 22)
• Embleton PC v Northumberland CC [2013] EWHC 3631 applied to the essential need test (no viability test) (DL 7)
• PPG temporary-dwelling trial route rejected for lack of business evidence (DL 14)
• Decided without consulting the parties on the new Framework (DL 3)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.