- Decision
- dismissed, 30 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Laura Bartle
- Authority
- East Lindsey (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6009106
- Application reference
- 00434/26/PIP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for nine market houses on agricultural land in Flood Zone 3 in the Coastal Area
- Homes
- 9
- Site context
- open countryside, flood zone 3, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- F5, F4
- Development plan policies
- East Lindsey Local Plan Core Strategy SP1, SP2, SP17, SP18
- Main issues
- suitability of location including Coastal Area and Flood Zone 3
Summary
Permission in principle for nine houses on farmland outside North Cotes, in Flood Zone 3 within East Lindsey's Coastal Area. The sequential test statement was thin, with an unjustified narrow search area, and there was no site-specific flood evidence, so the site was unsuitable in principle despite the Environment Agency not objecting. The letter decided the case on the plan's coastal strategy and F4/F5 and did not run the S5 route, even though the site is outside the settlement. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties were given the opportunity to comment; references are to the August 2026 version (DL ¶5).
- Location. "There is no footway connecting the site to the village along Lock Road and for the most part it is unlit. Accordingly, the site is physically detached from the settlement and occupies a countryside location for planning purposes" (DL ¶7).
- EA non-objection not enough. It "does not in itself demonstrate that the proposal would accord with either the LPCS or the Framework's flood risk policies F4 and F5" (DL ¶10).
- Flood risk at PIP stage. "Whilst detailed mitigation measures would ordinarily fall to be considered at the Technical Details Consent stage, the absence of any site-specific flood risk evidence limits my ability to conclude that the site would be suitable for residential development in principle" (DL ¶11).
- F5 sequential test: FAIL. "it contains only broad assertions regarding the absence of alternative sites and provides little substantive evidence demonstrating why the search area was appropriately restricted to North Cotes and nearby settlements" (DL ¶12). "The purpose of the sequential approach in the Framework is to steer development towards areas at the lowest probability of flooding before reliance is placed on site-specific mitigation measures" (DL ¶14).
Planning balance
Plan-led. Moderate weight to nine homes and economic benefits; "These conflicts with the development plan and national flood risk policy attract substantial weight" (DL ¶17). "I find that the adverse consequences of the proposal would outweigh its benefits" (DL ¶18). No S3, S5(1) or S5(4) step.
What made the difference
The flood evidence. A PIP applicant still has to show the site is suitable in principle in Flood Zone 3, which needs a real sequential test with a justified search area and some site-specific flood evidence.
Transferable points
- Flood risk is a "fundamental constraint" that goes to the PIP in-principle stage, not only to technical details consent (DL ¶11).
- A sequential test with a narrowed search area needs evidence for the narrowing (DL ¶12).
- Environment Agency non-objection does not itself show compliance with F4 and F5 (DL ¶10).
- Caution: the letter skips the S5 category and S5(4) steps for a countryside site, so it is not authority on the S5 route.
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 | fail | substantial | sequential test statement only "broad assertions"; search area confined to North Cotes and nearby settlements without justification (DL 12-14, 17) |
| F4 | fail | no site-specific flood risk evidence; Environment Agency non-objection not enough; mitigation does not overcome putting more people in a coastal flood risk area (DL 10-11, 14-15) | |
| S5 | not-engaged | site outside the built-up part of North Cotes, detached, no footway and mostly unlit; S3/S5 not named and no S5(1) category or S5(4) test run; balance framed as adverse consequences "outweigh" benefits (DL 7, 18) | |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | up to nine homes with no five-year supply, plus economic benefits, moderate weight (DL 16) |
Key facts
- Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply; figure not stated (DL 16)
- Coastal Area policies SP17/SP18 restrict market housing; conflict weighed with the flood policy conflict at substantial weight (DL 9, 17)
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.