Balne Moor Coarse Fishery, Balne Moor Road, Balne (manager's dwelling)

Decision

dismissed, 30 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: H Jones

Authority

North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Appeal reference

6010112

Application reference

ZG2025/0890/COU

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use of land, including an existing caravan used as a welfare unit, to residential use to provide a management dwelling for the fishery

Homes

1

Site context

green belt, open countryside, isolated, PDL

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt not argued)

Housing land supply

2.6 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HO11(1)(a), S5(2), S5(5)

Development plan policies

Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan SP2, SP13, Selby District Local Plan H12

Main issues

isolated home; essential need for a rural worker

Summary

Residential use of a caravan as a manager's dwelling at a coarse fishery in the Green Belt was dismissed. The development was agreed to be not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e), so S5(5) applied. But the dwelling would be an isolated home with no essential need shown, and the inspector held that HO11 still applies in the Green Belt through S5(2) and S5(5). That conflict substantially outweighed the benefits, including substantial weight to one home at 2.6 years' supply.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "I have had regard to the Framework and any comments in respect to it submitted by the appeal parties" (DL ¶2).
• Isolated: YES. "the caravan is not within a group of houses or a settlement. The proposed dwelling would therefore constitute an isolated home in the countryside" (DL ¶7).
• HO11(1)(a) essential need: FAIL. "the appellant's claim that a dwelling is essential is based on aspirations to expand the fishery rather than on the requirements of its current operation" (DL ¶8). The business case does "not adequately evidence that the referenced expansion would be very likely to come into fruition" (DL ¶10).
• HO11(1)(c): FAIL. "HO11(c) refers to the reuse of buildings not other structures or land" (DL ¶17).
• How HO11 applies in the Green Belt. "Since the site is within the Green Belt, much of Framework policy S5 is not engaged in this case" (DL ¶18). "Framework policy HO11 remains applicable to the proposal and S5(2) and … S5(5) engages it in this case even though S5(3) does not" (DL ¶19; the break is a page break).
• Plan weight. "As they apply to the proposal, policies SP2 and SP13 are consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶24).
• E2, E4 and L2 benefits: not available. "The proposal is for a dwelling not business development" (DL ¶32). "as the caravan is neither vacant nor underutilised, and is not proposed as a temporary meanwhile use, it does not represent the type of development to which Framework policy L2 applies" (DL ¶33).

Planning balance

S5(5) with S5(2). For: one home at 2.6 years, "In compliance with Framework policy H07, this draws substantial weight" (DL ¶31); economic and stewardship benefits markedly reduced (DL ¶32). Against: "The instruction provided by Framework policy H011 that isolated homes in the countryside should only be provided in certain exceptional circumstances is a very strong one. That the proposal would run counter to this weighs very heavily against permitting the development - so much so that it substantially outweighs the development’s benefits" (DL ¶34).

What made the difference

The fishery had run for years without anyone living on site, and the need was tied to an expansion that the evidence did not show was likely. Evidence of actual incidents, an existing night-time operation, and a tested business plan (as in the Cheshire and Devon decisions the appellant cited) would have been needed to show essential need.

Transferable points

• HO11 applies to an isolated home in the Green Belt even where GB7 is met: S5(3) is switched off by S5(5), but HO11 remains a national decision-making policy engaged through S5(2) and S5(5) (DL ¶18–19).
• Passing GB7(1)(e) is not approval; the S5(5) balance can still be lost on HO11 (DL ¶30, ¶34).
• Essential need under HO11(1)(a) is judged on the enterprise as it operates, or on an expansion shown to be very likely, not on aspiration (DL ¶8–11).
• A caravan is not a building, so HO11(1)(c) and a local rural-building conversion policy are unavailable (DL ¶17, ¶20).
• E2 and E4 weight belongs to business development, not to a dwelling said to support a business (DL ¶32).
• L2 substantial weight needs vacant or underutilised land or buildings (DL ¶33).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Fishery opens 3 days a week with no night fishing; the essential-need case rests on a proposed move to 24-hour, 7-day operation (DL 5, 8-9)
• Business case and financial information high-level; no firm intention to expand shown (DL 10-11)
• Caravan separated from 3 houses and some mobile homes to the west by the main lake, landscaping and a railway line (DL 7)
• Risk evidence (deoxygenation, theft, fish welfare) generic; CCTV and remote monitoring not fully explored (DL 14)
• Application form refers to 2 employees while the appellant says he runs the fishery alone (DL 15)
• Supply is 2.6 years (DL 31)
• Appellant would move from Hensall to a location reliant on the private car; no benefit from fewer work trips (DL 27)
• Parties' comments on the August 2026 Framework taken into account (DL 2)

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.