# 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
- **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, s5-2-refusal-policy, substantially-outweighed, flood-risk, retrospective, plan-policy-inconsistent-with-framework, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme

## 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
- **S5(1)(c): pass.** building of permanent and substantial construction; LP Policy 23 requirement for architectural/historic merit inconsistent with Framework, limited weight to conflict; no need to prove countryside necessity once (c) met (DL 12-14)
- **F5: not-engaged.** sequential test not required for this change of use (DL 5)
- **F6: fail (substantial weight).** Flood Zone 3a, "danger for some", breach depth up to 0.25 m; 400 mm floor raise undrawn and not shown achievable in existing low building - not left to condition (DL 5-10, 29)
- **F7: fail.** safety for lifetime not demonstrated - "should be refused" policy (DL 10, 32)
- **S5(2): fail.** F-policy failure engages S5(2) - benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31-33)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009598
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/02e99a2c-1660-4284-b882-8b1db4430e49

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009598.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.