# Pigeon Farm Cottage, Cold Harbour Lane, Bobbing

- **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Knight
- **Authority:** Swale (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010408
- **Application reference:** 25/502501/FULL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Temporary (three-year, retrospective) change of use of garden land to store plant, machinery and equipment
- **Site context:** open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), S5(4)
- **Development plan policies:** Swale Borough Local Plan 2017 ST3, DM3, DM14, CP1, CP4
- **Main issues:** suitable location, character and appearance
- **Tags:** tier-2, s5-1-b-necessity, s5-4-exceptional, alternative-sites, retrospective, temporary-permission, local-policy-consistency, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A three-year temporary plant and equipment yard in a countryside garden near Sittingbourne. Dismissed: the business was not shown to need a countryside location under S5(1)(b), available town premises were not properly discounted, and S5(4) exceptional circumstances were absent. The yard also harmed the rural character.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties have been given the opportunity to comment" (DL ¶3).
- **Plan consistency.** "I do not consider there to be any material inconsistency between the Local Plan and the Framework; In both cases, policy support depends on whether it is necessary for the business to operate from the appeal site" (DL ¶8).
- **S5(1)(b): FAIL.** "That he has such an intention confirms me in the view that there is no evident necessity for the business to operate from the appeal site" (DL ¶10).
- **S5(4): FAIL.** "The considerations listed above do not comprise such exceptional circumstances" (DL ¶24).
- **Accessibility.** "I cannot be certain, therefore, that locating the business at the appeal site would not result in a greater likelihood of car dependency than the alternatives" (DL ¶23).
- **Character: HARM** (DL ¶29, ¶33).

## Planning balance
S5(4): the jobs and temporary nature carry minimal weight; no exceptional circumstances (DL ¶19–20, ¶24). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶34).

## What made the difference
The necessity test. The appellant's own plan to move within three years showed the location was not necessary, and the alternative-sites evidence did not explain why listed premises were unsuitable.

## Transferable points
- S5(1)(b) "shown to be necessary" fails where the applicant intends to relocate anyway (DL ¶7, ¶10).
- Alternatives must be discounted with evidence of the business's size, cost and location needs (DL ¶11–14).
- Services near a site that make it sustainable for housing do not show a business needs to be there (DL ¶21).
- Temporary permission carries little weight without evidence of what will change (DL ¶20).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(b): fail.** nothing inherent in the business needing this site; appellant intends to relocate within 3 years; alternative Sittingbourne premises not properly discounted (DL 7, 9-17, 25)
- **S5(1)(j): fail.** no evidenced unmet need shown (DL 7, 25)
- **S5(4): fail.** no exceptional circumstances; benefits (12 jobs, temporary nature) given minimal weight (DL 18-20, 24)
- **Transitional(2): neutral.** no material inconsistency between DM3(1)(b) and S5(1)(b); both turn on necessity and alternatives (DL 8)
- **TR3: neutral.** 13-minute walk to bus stops; no evidence on connectivity of alternatives, so no locational advantage shown (DL 21, 23)
- **LP ST3/DM3/DM14/CP4 (local): conflict.** incongruous commercial storage eroding openness and rural character; surrounding commercial uses mostly unauthorised (DL 27-33)

## Key facts
- Business employs 12; office adjoins the site (DL 18, 22)
- Estate agent list of available premises; reasons for rejection unevidenced (DL 11-14)
- Nearby commercial uses largely unauthorised, enforcement commenced; assessed against authorised uses only (DL 27-28)
- Parties given opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010408
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9ffa5052-13f8-47d2-b71d-b5a17990c881

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010408.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.