A South Downs enforcement appeal has failed after an Inspector upheld an order requiring an agricultural mobile home and associated works to be removed from land near Lurgashall, West Sussex. Inspector V Goldberg dismissed the appeal on 2 November 2026, while correcting and varying parts of the original notice.
The case concerned Percival Farm, on land south of Jobsons Cottage in the South Downs National Park. Benjamin Percival sought permission to retain a mobile home used in connection with livestock farming, arguing that living on the holding was essential for animal welfare. The enforcement notice also concerned a septic tank and concrete hardstanding.
The South Downs enforcement decision is significant because the Inspector accepted that the farming operation had real demands and that losing the home would cause serious personal hardship. The failure lay in the evidence for a residential worker’s presence, the landscape and woodland impacts, and unresolved risks to protected bats from light escaping the home.
Why the South Downs enforcement appeal failed
The South Downs National Park Authority issued its notice on 28 August 2025 against a mixed residential and agricultural use without planning permission. The appeal proceeded under section 174(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, known as ground (a). This invited the Inspector to consider whether permission should be granted for the use alleged, as corrected, under a deemed application.
The Inspector examined three principal matters: whether a worker really needed to live at the holding, the effect of the residential use on the National Park’s landscape and tranquillity, and potential harm to two Special Areas of Conservation and ancient woodland. These were separate obstacles, not interchangeable reasons for refusal.
The South Downs enforcement appeal also demonstrates why an enforcement notice must accurately identify both the alleged breach and the steps needed to remedy it. The parties agreed that the allegation should include the septic tank and hardstanding, that the required cessation should address the mixed use, and that restoration should mean returning the land to its pre-breach condition. Those corrections did not save the appeal.
Animal care did not prove a need to live on site
The holding was described as about 50 acres with approximately 55 pigs, including 31 breeding sows, 40 ewes and six calves. The appellant described year-round farrowing, lambing across different periods and risks of sudden illness, injury or predation. In practical farming terms, the Inspector accepted that livestock care and close monitoring were necessary.
However, a working farm does not automatically establish a planning need for a home within it. The Inspector noted that the appellant could not necessarily hear sows far from the mobile home, and that living nearby might allow a sufficiently quick response. The decision identified “little detail about checking arrangements, particularly overnight”. That exact observation matters more than a general assertion that emergencies can happen at any hour.
Under Policy SD32 of the South Downs Local Plan, temporary agricultural dwellings must meet tests addressing the applicant’s ability to develop the enterprise, functional need, sound financial planning, suitability and removability. Investment in fencing and a Countryside Stewardship grant helped demonstrate intention, but the appellant had not submitted the financial records needed to substantiate the business plan. The mobile home’s ability to be removed was accepted, but this satisfied only one part of the test.
The South Downs enforcement findings are useful alongside Planning Geek’s rural workers’ dwellings guidance. Applicants need records of staffing, livestock incidents, response times, income, expenditure and alternatives to living on the land. A demanding farming schedule is important evidence, but it does not answer every question about residential necessity.
Landscape harm included domestic activity and lighting
The mobile home had timber cladding and a low roof, but its glazed doors, curtained windows, entrance steps, ornamental planters and nearby seating gave the area a domestic appearance. It was visible from Jobsons Lane and a public footpath. Screening from hedges and trees softened the views but did not change the character of the use.
Inspector Goldberg also found limited harm to tranquillity from residential visitors and deliveries, and insufficient information about light escaping through windows into the dark landscape. This was not a finding that an external floodlight had already been installed. It was a conclusion that the potential impact of ordinary residential lighting had not been properly assessed.
In the South Downs enforcement appeal, the development’s proximity to an existing dilapidated agricultural building was not enough to make it part of an established farmstead. Nor did the suggestion that another caravan could be parked on the land establish a genuinely equivalent fallback. That alternative could not remain permanently stationed in the way proposed and might have different physical and ecological effects.
For owners considering a mobile home on agricultural land, Planning Geek’s caravan planning guidance explains why the structure’s ability to be moved and the planning use of the land are distinct questions. The residential character of the activity can itself be central to a permission or enforcement dispute.
Protected bats and ancient woodland raised further barriers
The mobile home stood around two to three metres from ancient woodland. The site was within the consultation buffers for Ebernoe Common Special Area of Conservation and The Mens Special Area of Conservation, which support protected bat populations. The Inspector considered the woodland potentially important for their foraging and commuting routes.
The National Park Authority considered light exceeding 0.2 lux at the woodland edge potentially harmful, but no lighting survey had been submitted. Without reliable information about light spill from the occupied mobile home, the Inspector could not rule out adverse effects on either designated site. The habitats assessment requirement under regulation 63(5) was therefore not satisfied.
The hardstanding and septic tank were also within 15 metres of ancient woodland, a distance relevant to national standing advice and South Downs Policy SD11. The Inspector could not be satisfied that excavation or concrete works had avoided deterioration of the habitat. The South Downs enforcement case consequently turned on evidence about protected ecological functions as well as the visual appearance of a small dwelling.
The point for rural operators is that habitat constraints can apply even to modest structures and existing works. A bat survey, quantified light-spill assessment and an explanation of excavation effects may be needed before a decision-maker can conclude that legal protection requirements are met. They cannot be replaced by an assumption that a timber-clad building is inherently low impact.
Notice varied, but permission still refused
The appellant estimated that as many as 70 to 80 per cent of the animals could be lost if he could not live on the holding. The Inspector gave the genuine disruption and loss of a home considerable weight, but found those predicted livestock losses unsubstantiated and considered the interference with his home rights proportionate. A temporary permission with a worker-only restriction would not cure the missing functional, financial or environmental evidence.
The notice was upheld with agreed amendments. It now refers explicitly to the mixed agricultural and residential use, septic tank and hardstanding, and requires restoration to the land’s condition before the breach rather than simply levelling and seeding. The compliance period was not varied and remains three months after the notice takes effect.
The South Downs enforcement result is a reminder to prepare both a defensible agricultural worker case and a site-specific ecological assessment before relying on a mobile home as the operational base. Anyone affected by such a notice should also check exactly what the final wording requires. Planning Geek’s human rights and planning enforcement guide covers how personal circumstances enter the assessment without automatically overriding planning harm.
The decision followed a hearing on 20 October and a site visit on 21 October 2026. The official Planning Inspectorate record for APP/Y9507/C/25/3374380 provides the decision, which was issued on 2 November. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments