# 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
- **Tags:** rural-worker-dwelling, agricultural-need-not-shown, temporary-permission, retrospective, caravans, plan-led, ho11, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **HO11: fail.** no essential need for a worker to live on site, even temporarily - modest stock (15 sheep, 2 goats, 20 hens, 3 hives), security and predator risks answerable by other means, viability of the enterprise unevidenced (DL 9-17, 19)
- **DP3(1): pass.** modest caravan cut into the bank, not unduly conspicuous; reflects DP3(1) aims (DL 21-22, 24)
- **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Outmarsh Farmhouse not affected (s66) (DL 25)

## 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

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008970
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7bf8a052-f6c6-4cdf-837b-07333f718076

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008970.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.