- Decision
- dismissed, 15 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Richard Gilbert
- Authority
- North Lincolnshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6009098
- Application reference
- PA/2025/1145
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for conversion of a redundant stone storage barn to 1 dwelling
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement, flood zone 3
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- F4, F7, S4
- Development plan policies
- North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003 DS14, DS16
- Main issues
- suitability of site - location; land use; amount (flood risk)
Summary
Permission in principle for converting a barn in Flood Zone 3, within the development limit of Ealand, to one dwelling. Dismissed because no flood risk assessment was submitted. The inspector held that F4's requirement for a site-specific FRA applies to PiP applications, because an FRA's "scale, nature and location" correspond to PiP's location, land use and amount. Without one, a change from less to more vulnerable use in Flood Zone 3 had to be treated as a substantial adverse effect. That substantially outweighed the limited benefit of one home under S4.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The amendments to the Framework have incurred a change in national planning policy … I have sought additional comments from the parties" (DL ¶6).
- F4: FAIL. "The scale, nature and location of development align with the in principle matters of location, land use and amount of development. Consequently, as an FRA has not been provided, I am unable to assess the flood risk of the proposal in relation to the in principle matters, contrary to national planning policy" (DL ¶12). "an FRA would not require the creation of detail that would go beyond the in principle matters" (DL ¶14).
- Consultees not binding. The EA and LLFA advice deferring the FRA to TDC "is not binding, particularly when it is contrary to national policy" (DL ¶15).
- Conversion capability. Structural matters are for the TDC stage, not PiP (DL ¶17). This is why L2(1)(b) gets only limited weight (DL ¶18).
Planning balance
S4. One dwelling and reuse of a building: limited weight (DL ¶28). "A precautionary approach is therefore necessary which, in the absence of sufficient flood risk information required by Policy F4, leads me to conclude that a residential use in Flood Zone 3 would have a substantial adverse effect on future occupiers" (DL ¶29).
What made the difference
The missing FRA, plus the more vulnerable use in Flood Zone 3. The sequential and exception tests did not apply because this was a change of use. A proportionate FRA covering location, use and amount would have removed the only reason for refusal.
Transferable points
- F4's "all development proposals" FRA requirement applies at PiP stage in Flood Zones 2 and 3. An FRA addresses location, land use and amount, which are the PiP matters (DL ¶¶12–14).
- The EA or LLFA saying an FRA can wait is not binding where it conflicts with the Framework (DL ¶15).
- With no FRA, a precautionary approach can treat the flood risk to a more vulnerable use as a "substantial adverse effect" under S4 (DL ¶29).
- In PiP, a building's structural capacity for conversion is a TDC matter, so L2(1)(b) reuse benefit gets limited rather than substantial weight (DL ¶¶17–18).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| F4 | fail | site-specific FRA required for "all development proposals" in FZ2/3, including PiP — scale, nature and location map onto location, land use and amount (DL 9, 12-14) | |
| F5 | not-engaged | change of use so sequential and exception tests not required (DL 12) | |
| F7 | fail | precautionary approach; less vulnerable to more vulnerable use; substantial adverse effect on future occupiers (DL 10, 21, 29) | |
| L2(1)(b) | benefit | limited | reuse of vacant building, but conversion capability unproven until TDC (DL 18) |
| S4 | fail | limited benefits of one dwelling substantially outweighed (DL 27-30) |
Key facts
- Barn within settlement development limit, in Flood Zone 3, beside dykes (DL 8, 19)
- EA and LLFA said FRA could wait until technical details consent; inspector held this contrary to national policy (DL 15)
- Structural capability for conversion held a TDC matter, not a PiP matter (DL 17)
- Parties consulted on 17 Aug 2026 Framework; costs application decided separately (DL 2, 6)
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.