- Decision
- dismissed, 23 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: H Marriott
- Authority
- Fenland (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6011235
- Application reference
- F/YR25/0968/F
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of a barn used for domestic equestrian stabling and erection of a self-build bungalow linked to the equine use
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, rural lane, flood zone 3, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- F5, S5(1)(d), S5(2), DP3(1), TR3
- Development plan policies
- Fenland Local Plan 2014 LP3, LP12, LP14, LP16
- Main issues
- suitable location; flood risk sequential and exception tests; character and appearance
Summary
A self-build bungalow replacing an equestrian barn on Cock Bank, Turves, in Flood Zone 3. Redeveloping the previously developed barn site fell within S5(1)(d). But no essential need for a worker to live on site was shown, so the sequential test could not be limited to the site and failed. The bungalow also harmed the rural character, and the site is car-dependent. With conflict with "should be refused" policies, the modest benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "It is effective from the day of publication. The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶2).
- Location. Not isolated, but "it occupies a remote position on Cock Bank, a rural road without footways and street lighting, with access to services and facilities largely reliant on private vehicles" (DL ¶5).
- Essential need: NOT SHOWN. "it is therefore unclear as to why a permanent on-site residential presence is now necessary" (DL ¶8).
- Sequential test, F5: FAIL. "Although the Environment Agency raises no objection, responsibility for applying the sequential and exceptions tests rests ultimately rests with the decision-maker" (DL ¶14). "Accordingly, the proposal fails the sequential test" (DL ¶14).
- Character, DP3: HARM. "it would introduce a suburban style bungalow in a location where such a form of development would not ordinarily be expected" (DL ¶19).
- S5(1)(d): PASS. "it falls within one of the forms of development identified by Policy S5 as being acceptable in the countryside" (DL ¶23), subject to the S5 balance.
Planning balance
S5(1) balance with S5(2). F5/F6 conflict, plus TR3 and DP3 conflict of "considerable weight"; "Overall, there is conflict with national decision-making policies which state that development proposal should be refused in specific circumstances" (DL ¶30). Benefits "modest and attract only limited weight" (DL ¶24) and were "substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶31). The letter's phrase that flood policies "can provide a strong reason for refusing the development" (DL ¶30) echoes 2024 ¶11(d)(i) footnote 7; incidental, since the S5 test is applied.
What made the difference
The sequential test. Without an essential functional need to live on site, the search area was the wider area, and the appellant offered no search. Even a pass on S5(1)(d) could not survive that.
Transferable points
- An S5(1)(d) PDL pass is only the start; F5 sequential test failure engages S5(2) (DL ¶23, ¶30-31).
- The sequential-test search area can only be confined to the site where a site-specific need is shown (DL ¶13).
- Environment Agency non-objection does not discharge the sequential test; that is for the decision-maker (DL ¶14).
- A road without footways or lighting leaves occupiers "largely reliant on private vehicles" even if the site is not isolated (DL ¶5).
- Beware: the letter lists TR3 among "should be refused" policies (DL ¶30); TR3 contains no refusal wording.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(d) | pass | undisputed redevelopment of PDL (barn with past B2/B8 and equestrian use); not S5(1)(e) infill (DL 23) | |
| HO11 | not-engaged | adjoins other dwellings so not isolated (DL 5); rural-worker need under local LP12 not shown - domestic equestrian use, two horses, unlawful mobile home, security alternatives (DL 6-11) | |
| F5 | fail | Flood Zone 3; search area not limited to the site as no essential need shown; EA no objection but test is for the decision-maker; exception test unlikely to be met (DL 12-16, 30) | |
| F6 | fail | conflict with F5 and F6 recorded (DL 30) | |
| TR3 | fail | considerable | remote position on Cock Bank, no footways or lighting, reliance on private vehicles (DL 5, 30) |
| DP3(1) | conflict | considerable | U-shaped suburban bungalow replaces simple agricultural barn; fourth dwelling erodes agricultural character (DL 17-21, 30) |
| HO7 | benefit | limited | five-year supply; no specific need or secured self-build; benefits "modest and attract only limited weight" (DL 24) |
| S5(2) | fail | conflict with "should be refused" policies found (DL 30); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31) |
Key facts
- Council can demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 24)
- Equestrian use restricted to domestic purposes by 2022 permission F/YR22/0029/F; horses kept since at least 2022 without residence (DL 7-8)
- Self-build offered but no legal agreement (DL 10)
- Local 'Elsewhere' policy (LP3/LP12) applied in full though S5(1)(d) is met; Annex A(2) not discussed (DL 4-11, 29)
- Letter says flood policies "can provide a strong reason for refusing the development", citing S1 and footnote 24 (DL 30) - 2024-style phrasing
- Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2)
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.