Outmarsh Farm, Semington (temporary rural worker caravan)

Decision

dismissed, 23 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: E Worley

Authority

Wiltshire (South West)

Appeal reference

6008970

Application reference

PL/2025/08409

Procedure

written representations

Development

Retrospective siting of a static caravan for a rural worker for three years on a smallholding

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HO11

Development plan policies

Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 CP1, CP2, CP34, CP48, CP51, CP57

Main issues

essential need for rural worker dwelling; character and appearance

Summary

A static caravan for a rural worker on a small, early-stage smallholding at Outmarsh Farm. No harm to character was found, but there was no essential need for a worker to live on site and the enterprise's viability was not evidenced. Dismissed on the development plan (CP1, CP2, CP48), with HO11 treated as giving the same test.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties invited to comment; the Council's reply only updated policy references (DL ¶3).
• HO11. "Policy HO11 of the recently published Framework, like the previous versions, lends similar support to isolated homes in the countryside where there is an essential need for a rural worker" (DL ¶9).
• Functional need: not shown. "there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that these activities are so frequent or time sensitive so as to necessitate a continuous on-site presence" (DL ¶10).
• Financial test: not shown. The evidence "does not demonstrate with any reasonable degree of certainty that the enterprise is currently financially viable or that it is likely to become so within the forthcoming 3 years" (DL ¶15).
• Conclusion on need. "it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for a dwelling to accommodate a rural worker at the site" (DL ¶19).
• Character: no harm. "it reflects the aims of the Framework that seek well-designed places" (DL ¶22).

Planning balance

Plan-led: "the development conflicts with Policies CP1, CP2 and CP48 of the WCS and therefore the development plan taken as a whole" (DL ¶27). No S5 route or Annex A ¶2 weighting of CP1/CP2 is set out.

What made the difference

The scale of the holding. Lambing, predator and security needs could be met by visits, seasonal accommodation, shelters or CCTV, and the three-year business plan lacked costs and profit figures.

Transferable points

• HO11 essential-need tests (functional and financial) apply to temporary accommodation too, including for a start-up enterprise (DL ¶9-16).
• Security and animal-welfare arguments need evidence that alternatives (CCTV, alarms, shelters, seasonal cover) would not work (DL ¶11-13).
• Caution: the letter relies on CP1/CP2 conflict without the Annex A ¶2 inconsistency step that the same inspector applied in Melksham PINS-6007352 (DL ¶7, ¶27).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Caravan unoccupied and used for storage at the site visit (DL 6)
• Income forecast of 6,700, 10,000 and 20,000 pounds over three years without a breakdown of costs or profit (DL 15)
• Occupier would manage the holding for the appellant, who lives in the farmhouse but works away (DL 6, 17)
• Decided plan-led on CP1, CP2 and CP48 with no Transitional(2) assessment; the same inspector found CP1/CP2 materially inconsistent with S5 in Melksham PINS-6007352

Related decisions

• PINS-6007352

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.