Land north east of 7 Redmoor Lane, Wisbech

Decision

dismissed, 7 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: R Gee

Authority

Fenland (East of England)

Appeal reference

6010682

Application reference

F/YR26/0184/F

Procedure

written representations

Development

Retrospective change of use of land to domestic purposes, siting of a static caravan and erection of a shed

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, flood zone 3

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

F5, S5(2), S5(1)

Development plan policies

Fenland Local Plan 2014 LP1, LP3, LP12, LP14, LP16, Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD 2016

Main issues

suitable location; character and appearance; flood risk

Summary

Retrospective application for a static caravan, shed and change of use of land to domestic use on a smallholding in Flood Zone 3a outside Wisbech. Dismissed. No essential rural-worker need was evidenced, the domestication harmed rural character, and the proposal failed the F5 sequential test. The inspector used S5(2) to treat the flood-policy failure as decisive and did not go on to the S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "On 17 August 2026 a new Framework was published … the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶3).
• Evolving scheme. Shift from "ancillary" to rural-worker justification considered because "'ancillary' was not included in the description of development and … the Council has commented" (DL ¶9).
• Location / rural worker: FAIL. "in the absence of any robust evidence in respect of the holdings needs … it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that there is an essential need for a worker to live on-site" (DL ¶11). Conditions tying occupancy to the enterprise would not overcome the harm (DL ¶12). Not isolated, but "this does not overcome the conflict" with LP1, LP3, LP12 (DL ¶13).
• Character: harm. "the introduction of a residential unit and associated activity into an undeveloped field would result in the domestication of the site" (DL ¶16); domestic paraphernalia would "impart a suburbanising influence" (DL ¶17).
• Flood — F5: FAIL. Whole proposal, including the shed, assessed (DL ¶22). "as a mobile home intended for permeant residential use Annex F of the Framework classifies the development as 'highly vulnerable'" (DL ¶23). "there is evidence before me that sites with extant permissions exist within Flood Zones 1 and 2" (DL ¶25). No recorded flooding does not change Flood Zone 3 status (DL ¶26). "Reliance on advance warning and evacuation procedures does not avoid the exposure of future occupiers to flood risk" (DL ¶27).
• Exception test / F7. Not reached, but EA residual-risk concerns "would weigh against a finding that the development would be safe for its lifetime" (DL ¶29).

Planning balance

S5 route: the proposal is not in any S5(1) category (DL ¶36). "I have found that the proposal fails the Sequential Test and therefore conflicts with the Framework's flood risk policies. As those policies provide a strong reason for refusal, I conclude that the proposal does not satisfy NDMP S5. In these circumstances, there is no need for me to undertake any further assessment as to whether exceptional circumstances exist under S5(4)" (DL ¶37). Personal/health circumstances limited weight for lack of evidence (DL ¶31). Plan-led s38(6) conclusion (DL ¶38).

What made the difference

Flood Zone 3a with an EA objection and no evidenced need to be on this specific site. Once the rural-worker case failed for lack of evidence about the holding, nothing tied the caravan to the location, so the sequential test could not be passed, given FZ1/2 sites with permissions elsewhere in the district. Robust functional-need evidence (stock numbers, labour requirement) and a better FRA addressing breach risk would have been needed even to get to the exception test.

Transferable points

• S5(2) lets an inspector dismiss on a failed "should be refused" national policy (here flood risk) without running the S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance (DL ¶¶36-37).
• A caravan for permanent residential use on land changed to residential use is "highly vulnerable" under Annex F and is not householder development, so the F5 householder exemption does not apply (DL ¶23). F5(2)(c)(iii) also expressly excludes changes of use to caravan/mobile home sites from the change-of-use exemption.
• Having large parts of the district in Flood Zone 3 does not pass the sequential test where FZ1/2 sites with permission exist (DL ¶25).
• Lack of recorded flooding does not displace the flood-zone designation (DL ¶26); Floodline warnings and a movable caravan do not make occupiers safe (DL ¶27).
• Rural-worker justification needs robust evidence of the holding's needs; conditions offered by the appellant do not substitute for it (DL ¶¶11-12).
• "Not isolated" (HO11) does not rescue a proposal that conflicts with the local spatial strategy (DL ¶13).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Static caravan and shed already on site; some 106 m from the main residential area on a small livestock/orchard holding
• Flood Zone 3a; nearest modelled breach point 470 m away; 0.25-0.5 m depth in 0.1% 2115 breach scenario
• Environment Agency objected; FRA wrongly classed use as "more vulnerable"
• Case re-framed on appeal from ancillary accommodation to rural worker's dwelling (accepted for consideration under Holborn Studios)
• Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework

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.