4A Gimmels Gate, Spalding

Decision

dismissed, 18 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: R Gee

Authority

South Holland (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6009598

Application reference

H11-1294-25

Procedure

written representations

Development

Retrospective change of use of storage shed to residential

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, flood zone 3

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(c), S5(2), F6, F7

Development plan policies

South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 23

Main issues

flood risk; location; living conditions

Summary

A retrospective conversion of a storage shed to a dwelling near Spalding. The location was acceptable under S5(1)(c), and the Local Plan's requirement that a converted building have architectural merit was held inconsistent with the new Framework. The appeal failed on flood risk: Flood Zone 3a with no workable design for the 400 mm floor raise. The F6/F7 failure engaged S5(2), so the benefits were "substantially outweighed".

Issues and findings

• S5(1)(c): PASS, and local policy displaced. Policy 23's requirement "that the building is of architectural or historic merit … [is] not consistent with the revised Framework, which contains no equivalent requirement … The building is of permanent and substantial construction … the proposal accords with criterion c) of S5. I therefore afford only limited weight to the conflict with Policy 23" (DL ¶12).
• No need to prove necessity once a limb is met. "As the proposal would accord with criterion 1 c) of Policy S5, it is not necessary for it to satisfy each of the alternative criteria" (DL ¶13).
• Flood (F6/F7): FAIL. "no plans or drawings have been submitted that adequately demonstrate how/if the raising could be achieved" (DL ¶8). This could not be left to condition because it "is fundamental to ensuring the safe occupation" (DL ¶9).
• Transition. "The revised Framework introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development for certain proposals outside of settlement boundaries through NDMPs S3 and S5" (DL ¶27).

Planning balance

S5(1)(c) applied. Flood harm had substantial weight and the benefits limited weight (DL ¶29-30). The inspector quotes "Paragraph 2(c) of NDMP S5", in fact S5(2): where a "should be refused" policy is failed, the benefits are likely substantially outweighed (DL ¶31-32).

What made the difference

The flood evidence. The principle was won under S5(1)(c), and local policy was trimmed back to the Framework's test, but a conversion in FZ3a with an undesigned floor raise cannot show lifetime safety.

Transferable points

• Local conversion policies that add an architectural-merit test are inconsistent with S5(1)(c) and carry limited weight (DL ¶12).
• Meeting one S5(1) limb is enough. Countryside necessity (S5(1)(b)) need not also be shown (DL ¶13).
• Flood-mitigation fundamentals (floor raising in an existing building) cannot be left to condition (DL ¶9).
• F6/F7 failure engages S5(2) and defeats an S5(1)(c) scheme (DL ¶31-33).
• The letter's "Paragraph 2(c) of NDMP S5" is a slip: S5(2) has no sub-paragraph (c); the words mirror S4(2)(c) (DL ¶31).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Shed next to a cluster of houses and businesses at Gimmels Gate / Roman Bank - not isolated
• Flood Zone 3a; SFRA future hazard "danger for some"; breach depths up to 0.25 m to 2115
• 48 sq m studio (NDSS 50 sq m) found acceptable; headroom after floor raise unknown

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.