# Wagtails Farm, Okehurst Road, The Haven, Billingshurst - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: T Bennett - **Authority:** Horsham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010187 - **Application reference:** DC/25/1803 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Siting of temporary (3-year) rural worker's dwelling (mobile home) and associated works - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO11(1)(a), S5(3), S5(1)(j) - **Development plan policies:** Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 1, 3, 4, 20, 26 - **Main issues:** functional need for rural worker's dwelling, isolated homes - **Tags:** isolated-home, rural-worker-dwelling, s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, e2-substantial-weight, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A temporary mobile home for a worker at a small organic poultry and sheep start-up in the Horsham countryside. Dismissed after a hearing. It was agreed to be an isolated home, so S5(3) sent it to HO11(1)(a), and essential need for a permanent on-site presence was not shown. The 1-year supply created an unmet need, but S5(1)(j) failed because an isolated dwelling cannot be physically well-related to a settlement. E2's substantial weight to rural business did not help, because the business did not depend on the dwelling. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework was discussed at the hearing (DL ¶2). - **S5(3) → HO11.** "the parties agreed that policy HO11 … was applicable" (DL ¶8). The PPG rural-worker tests were applied (DL ¶9). - **Essential need: NOT SHOWN.** Daily tasks "could likely be carried out without a rural working residing on site 24/7" (DL ¶13). Incubator failure: "the appellant stated that they had never experienced a malfunction" (DL ¶15). Monitoring alternatives: "remotely operated CCTV, alarm and/or automation systems … none of which are currently in use" (DL ¶17). Lambing: "temporary seasonal accommodation over the lambing period could meet the welfare needs" (DL ¶20). Predators: the coop that was attacked "had not been protected by electric netting" (DL ¶21). A temporary permission "does not remove the need to demonstrate an essential functional need" (DL ¶26). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "The Council is only able to demonstrate a 1 year housing land supply … However, this alone is insufficient to garner support from policy S5 paragraph 1.j. … As it is common ground that the dwelling would be isolated, this criterion is not met … the appeal proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in policy S3" (DL ¶30). - **E2/E4.** "Notwithstanding the substantial weight to be afforded, the limited scale of the proposal means any resulting economic benefits would be limited" (DL ¶34). ## Planning balance The decision was taken under s38(6), with conflict with HDPF Policy 20 and the Framework's HO11/S5(3). Housing had very limited weight because the unit was temporary and tied (DL ¶31). E2 benefits were limited (DL ¶33-34). Absence of other harm was neutral (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference The evidence on functional need. The appellant had not tried CCTV, alarms, netting or seasonal cover, so it could not be shown that only a permanent on-site presence met the risks. A 1-year supply does not rescue an agreed isolated home, because S5(1)(j)(i) needs a physical relationship to a settlement. ## Transferable points - Isolated homes route through S5(3) to HO11. The S5(1)(j) shortfall route is closed to them, however severe the shortfall (DL ¶30). - HO11(1)(a) essential need is assessed with the PPG rural-worker considerations. Untried alternatives (CCTV, alarms, netting, seasonal presence) defeat a 24/7 case (DL ¶9, 17, 20-22). - A temporary permission for a new enterprise still requires essential functional need to be shown (DL ¶26). - E2's "substantial weight" attaches to the benefits, and these are small where the enterprise can prosper without the dwelling (DL ¶33-34). ## Policy findings - **HO11(1)(a): fail.** no essential need for a rural worker to live on site 24/7; the poultry and ewes could be managed with CCTV/alarms, electric netting and seasonal lambing cover (DL 8-25) - **S5(3): fail.** agreed isolated home, so HO11 governs (DL 7-8, 27) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** 1-year supply means unmet need, but the dwelling is agreed isolated, so not physically well-related to a settlement; no presumption under S3 (DL 30) - **E2: benefit (limited weight).** substantial weight in principle, but the dwelling is not needed for the enterprise to grow, so benefits limited (DL 32-34) - **HO7: benefit (very-limited weight).** temporary and tied to a rural worker (DL 31) ## Key facts - 25-acre organic livestock start-up; by year 3, 4,000 laying hens, 1,200 broilers, 400 quail, 25 ewes; currently about 280 birds - Council supply only 1 year - Rudgwick and Billingshurst 10-15 minutes' drive - No CCTV, alarms or netting in use; a predator attack occurred on an unnetted coop, and break-ins happened while the appellant lived on site ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010187 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/46e1bbdd-b89d-4e3b-ab47-4a24dbc11144 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010187.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.