- Decision
- dismissed, 18 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: R Gee
- Authority
- Fenland (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6008500
- Application reference
- F/YR25/0750/F
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Appeal against 3-year temporary condition on permission for change of use of field to residential and siting of mobile home annexe; permission refused outright on redetermination
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, flood zone 3
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- F5, F5(2)(c), S5(1), S5(2), S5(4), DM6
- Development plan policies
- Fenland Local Plan LP1, LP3, LP12, LP14, LP16, Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD 2016
- Main issues
- flood risk; location; character and appearance
Summary
The appellant sought removal of a 3-year time limit on a members' permission (granted against officer advice) for a mobile home "annexe" on a field in Flood Zone 3a outside Chatteris. The inspector redetermined the whole application under s78 and dismissed it, so the permission itself is lost. No sequential test had been done. The change of use to a permanent mobile home is not exempt under F5(2)(c), and the F5 failure triggered S5(2). The annexe was self-contained and so treated as a dwelling outside any S5(1) category.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The parties were invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3).
- Scope. "I am not confined to considering only the disputed condition and may reach a different conclusion from the Council ... including whether planning permission should be granted at all. I raised this, and my concerns, during the course of the appeal" (DL ¶6).
- Flood — F5: FAIL. "The revised Framework adopts a strengthened sequential approach to flood risk as set out in Policy F5" (DL ¶11). "as a mobile home intended for permanent residential use Annex F of the Framework classifies the development as highly vulnerable ... I am not persuaded that the proposal falls within the scope of Policy F5(2)(c)" (DL ¶12). A flood warning service "would not adequality resolve the risk in the event of a flood which could occur at night" (DL ¶14).
- Location: FAIL. The annexe "would not function in an ancillary manner to the main dwelling" (DL ¶20). The site was not isolated, but that did not overcome the conflict with the spatial strategy (DL ¶21).
- Character: FAIL. "inherent domestication of an undeveloped field" (DL ¶27).
Planning balance
S5. Not an S5(1) category (DL ¶37). Under S5(4) and S5(2): "the circumstances in which benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed ... include ... situations where a proposal would fail to comply with a national decision-making policy which states that development proposals should be refused" (DL ¶38). Flood conflict substantial weight, benefits limited (DL ¶¶39–40). "the failure to meet the Framework criteria in respect of flood risk means that the development should be refused" (DL ¶41).
What made the difference
Flood Zone 3a with no sequential test, together with the fact that a permanent mobile home is "highly vulnerable" and cannot use the change-of-use exemption in F5(2)(c)(iii). Appealing the condition put the whole permission back in issue. The appellant would have kept a 3-year permission by not appealing.
Transferable points
- The F5(2)(c)(iii) change-of-use exemption from the sequential test does not cover changes of use to site a mobile home. Permanent residential mobile homes are "highly vulnerable" (DL ¶12).
- An Environment Agency non-objection "predicated upon the development meeting the Sequential Test" does not help without the test (DL ¶13).
- Failing F5 engages S5(2), making it likely that benefits are substantially outweighed. S5(4) exceptional circumstances were not met on personal benefits alone (DL ¶¶38–41).
- A self-contained mobile home "annexe" on separate land is judged as a dwelling (DL ¶20).
- Appeals against conditions reopen the whole permission. Inspectors will refuse outright after warning the parties (DL ¶¶6, 43).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| F5(2)(c) | not-engaged | exemption for householder/changes of use does not apply; change of use of land to site a permanent mobile home is highly vulnerable (Annex F) (DL 11-12) | |
| F5 | fail | substantial | no sequential test in FZ3a; EA non-objection was conditional on ST; brick skirt under raised unit hinders flow; flood warning insufficient for night flooding (DL 11-16, 39) |
| S5(1) | fail | not a listed category; annexe functions as an independent dwelling (DL 20-22, 37) | |
| S5(2) | fail | F5 failure is a refuse-trigger that makes it likely benefits are substantially outweighed (DL 38, 41) | |
| S5(4) | fail | no exceptional circumstances; personal benefits limited (DL 38, 40-41) | |
| S5(3) | not-engaged | proximate to existing built form, not isolated (DL 21) | |
| DM6 | neutral | tests for conditions frame the appeal; s78 appeal against condition reopens whole permission (DL 6-7) | |
| DM5 | neutral | claimed financial burden of condition unsupported by any viability evidence (DL 32) |
Key facts
- Members granted permission against officer advice with a 3-year limit; the appellant appealed the condition and lost the permission (DL 4-6, 43)
- Inspector warned during the appeal that the whole permission was at risk (DL 6)
- Mobile home raised 0.6 m but with a brick skirt (DL 14)
- Lapsed 2021 permission for similar annexe given very limited weight (DL 2, 34)
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.