Twelve Acre Farm & Livery, Moor Drove (East), Hockwold cum Wilton

Decision

dismissed, 11 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: A Knight

Authority

King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England)

Appeal reference

6008895

Application reference

25/01933/F

Procedure

hearing

Development

Permanent retention of rural-worker mobile home and ancillary livery unit

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, isolated

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HO11, S5(3)

Development plan policies

King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2025 LP36

Main issues

essential rural worker need; existing dwellings; financial viability

Summary

Permanent retention of a rural-worker mobile home at an equestrian livery business in open countryside. Dismissed. The inspector accepted an essential functional need and financial viability, but the need could be met by an existing (immune) barn flat on the holding that the appellant now owned, so the HO11 / local LP36 exception was not met.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties given opportunity to comment; "both parties were content that the new Framework did not materially alter the policy context … The appeal proposal does not evidently have the support of Framework Policy S5, and Policy HO11 seeks to avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work" (DL ¶¶5, 13).
• Functional need: PASS. "a continuous on-site presence is a commercial expectation and operational prerequisite" (DL ¶26); "the nature and scale of the appellant's business … generate an inherent essential need" (DL ¶27). Crime risk unevidenced (DL ¶¶17–18); personal horses not commercial (DL ¶19).
• Existing dwellings: FAIL. "I see no reason to accept that the appellant could not occupy the barn flat" (DL ¶39); lease unsigned and dated "1st of June 500" (DL ¶33).
• Viability: PASS. Net profit £16k–£22k realistic (DL ¶51); contrasted with White Dyke Farm where a £450k dwelling made a £17k profit unviable (DL ¶¶41–42).

Planning balance

Plan-led: conflict with LP36 and with the Framework's restriction of isolated homes (DL ¶56). No S5 benefit balance run; social/economic benefits not shown to be lost (DL ¶54).

What made the difference

Ownership of an existing dwelling on the holding. Had the barn flat not been available, the evidenced need and viability would likely have justified the mobile home.

Transferable points

• HO11 essential-need test is materially unchanged from 2024 §84(a); local rural-worker policies consistent with it keep full weight (DL ¶¶13–14).
• Need must relate to the commercial enterprise; personal animals and unevidenced crime risk don't count (DL ¶¶17–19).
• An existing dwelling under the appellant's control defeats the need, absent proof it cannot be occupied (DL ¶¶32–39).
• Viability judged by whether an independent operator could live off the business, having regard to dwelling cost (DL ¶¶41–42).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Temporary permission (20/00366/FM) for the mobile home had expired
• 27 horses; 8 full and 15 DIY liveries; net profit £16k-£22k p.a. accepted as viable
• Appellant had bought the holding including an immune barn flat; sitting-tenant lease unsigned and dated "1st of June 500"
• Crime-risk and hay-baling arguments rejected for lack of evidence

Sources

• planninggeek.co.uk
• planninggeek.co.uk

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.