- Decision
- dismissed, 18 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: C Butcher
- Authority
- Somerset (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6010090
- Application reference
- 3/32/25/001
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Retention of one caravan as temporary Hinkley Point C worker accommodation
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, isolated, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(j), S5(3), HO11, S5(4), TR6(4)
- Development plan policies
- West Somerset Local Plan 2016 OC1, SC1, SD1, EN1, NH13, TR2
- Main issues
- location; highway safety
Summary
Retention of a static caravan in open countryside near Stogursey as temporary accommodation for a Hinkley Point C worker. Dismissed. The site is outside any defined settlement and is an isolated home, so it is outside S5(1)(j) (not well-related to a settlement) and fails S5(3)/HO11. The small benefits came nowhere near the S5(4) "exceptional circumstances" test. The inspector also found a TR6(4) highway safety conflict that was not in the council's reasons.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties were given an opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
- Location: FAIL. Nothing showed "why the accommodation could not be provided within a defined settlement" (DL ¶6). Evidence of HPC housing pressure was "rather anecdotal" (DL ¶7), and park and ride buses serve the accommodation sites (DL ¶9). The occupier may walk or cycle to Hinkley but "this cannot be guaranteed or secured by condition. Moreover, they are still heavily reliant on the private car to access other services and facilities needed for everyday life such as supermarkets" (DL ¶10).
- Highway safety, TR6(4): FAIL. "when I drove off the site, I did not gain sufficient visibility in either direction until my vehicle was quite far onto the narrow carriageway" (DL ¶13). Getting enough visibility would mean removing hedgerow, which would harm character (DL ¶14). "While not referenced on the Council's decision notice, the development would also conflict with Policy TR6(4)" (DL ¶15).
- S5(1)(j): FAIL. "I note that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply … However, the requirements of Policy S5(j) are not met on the basis that the development is not physically well related to an existing settlement" (DL ¶18).
- S5(3)/HO11: FAIL. "None of the clauses in Policy HO11 would be met" (DL ¶18).
Planning balance
The decision was taken under s38(6). The benefits (one home, "an area that enables sustainable travel to Hinkley", some local spend) were "very limited", and the plan conflict "substantially outweighs the benefits" (DL ¶17). On S5(4): "HO7 … could be considered to be relevant here in light of the shortfall … [but] development proposals which do not fall within one of the categories … should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits … would substantially outweigh the adverse effects. This would clearly not be the case here, even when taking account of Policy HO7" (DL ¶19).
What made the difference
The site was not physically well-related to any settlement, so the lack of a five-year supply could not bring it into S5(1)(j). With no category available, S5(4) needed exceptional circumstances, and one caravan for a worker who could live elsewhere was nowhere near that. Evidence that HPC workers could not be housed in settlements might have supported an exceptional-circumstances or OC1 case, but the access problem would have remained.
Transferable points
- Having no 5YHLS does not help a site that is not physically well-related to a settlement. The (j) locational limb is a separate gate (DL ¶18).
- HO7's "substantial weight" to housing does not override S5(4)'s requirement that benefits substantially outweigh the harm for development outside the categories (DL ¶19).
- A walk or cycle commute to a single workplace does not answer car reliance for everyday services, and cannot be secured by condition (DL ¶10).
- An inspector may find a TR6(4) conflict that is not in the reasons for refusal (DL ¶15).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(j) | fail | council lacks a 5YHLS (figure not stated) but site not physically well-related to an existing settlement (DL 18) | |
| S5(3) | fail | isolated home; none of the HO11 clauses met (DL 18) | |
| S5(4) | fail | outside all categories; benefits very limited, even with HO7 substantial weight, nowhere near substantially outweighing harm (DL 19) | |
| HO7 | benefit | very-limited | HO7 substantial weight acknowledged as relevant given shortfall, but one unit gives very limited benefit (DL 17, 19) |
| TR6(4) | fail | not in reasons for refusal; substandard visibility at the existing access; unacceptable highway safety impact (DL 13-15) | |
| TR3 | fail | occupier may walk/cycle to Hinkley but still reliant on car for supermarkets and other services (DL 10) |
Key facts
- Caravan in open countryside housing a Hinkley Point C worker; retrospective
- No evidence the worker could not be housed in a settlement; HPC park and ride buses widely available (DL 6-9)
- Access visibility inadequate; the inspector had to pull well onto the carriageway to see (DL 13)
Sources
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.