A holiday let appeal involving an existing mobile home near Hambledon in Hampshire has been dismissed because an Inspector could not be satisfied that visitors would be safe during flooding. The proposal involved moving the mobile home within the site and changing its lawful equine welfare use to holiday accommodation.
Inspector R Cahalane issued the decision on 12 November 2026, following a visit on 2 October, and upheld Winchester City Council’s refusal of application 25/02191/FUL. The site lies near Hipley Farm on Bunns Lane, where flood zones and the safety of escape routes were central to the case.
The holiday let appeal is particularly useful because the Inspector applied the August 2026 national planning policies and discussed a recent High Court decision concerning flood-risk Sequential Tests. A missing test is not an automatic veto, but the risks and evidence still matter in the overall planning balance.
Why the holiday let appeal failed
The mobile home was already lawfully used for equine welfare purposes. The appeal sought both its relocation and a change to holiday letting, so the Inspector assessed the consequences of introducing guests who would stay overnight, rather than treating the existing physical structure as the decisive consideration.
The main parties accepted that the site was within Flood Zones 2 and 3b, associated with the Southbrook and Hambledon streams. A Flood Risk Assessment had considered river flooding and climate change, but significant questions remained about whether occupants could evacuate safely if a flood occurred.
The Inspector considered policy NE6 of the Winchester District Local Plan, adopted in 2026, alongside the revised National Planning Policy Framework. The central objections were the need to consider alternative lower-risk locations and the absence of adequate evidence of a safe escape route for holidaymakers.
A change of use did not avoid the Sequential Test
The appellant argued that a Flood Risk Sequential Test was unnecessary because the proposal changed the use of a mobile home already on the land. The Inspector accepted that some changes of use are exempt from that test, but found the exemption did not apply to these circumstances.
The important distinction was the change in vulnerability. Moving from an equine welfare use to overnight holiday accommodation would introduce a more vulnerable use, with holidaymakers staying overnight for significant periods each year. The proposed relocation to a lower-risk part of the land did not remove that problem.
The holiday let appeal therefore required more than an assertion that a caravan already existed. There was no Sequential Test and insufficient evidence that comparable accommodation could not reasonably be located on land with a lower flood risk. The Inspector noted the many tourist attractions across the wider area, with land outside the higher-risk zones.
For the practical planning requirements, Planning Geek’s Flood Risk Assessment guidance explains why site selection, the relevant test and safe access should be considered together. A detailed internal design or a change to a mobile home’s position is not a substitute for an appropriate assessment of the location.
Why the proposed evacuation route was unsafe
The appellant identified a point on Fareham Road in Flood Zone 1 around 105 metres east of the appeal site. But the proposed route would take people from the relocated mobile home through Flood Zone 3, onto Bunns Lane, which was also within Flood Zone 3, before reaching land at lower risk.
The Flood Risk Assessment indicated that on-site floodwater could reach depths of about 0.24 metres during the relevant design event. It did not, however, demonstrate safe conditions along the proposed escape route or provide adequate evidence of floodwater velocity and flow there. The Inspector also noted changes in ground level and roadside drops on the lane.
Guests might include children, older visitors or people with mobility difficulties. The Inspector was concerned that a route requiring people to cross potentially flooded land, with poor evidence of water velocity, could not be assumed safe merely because the higher ground was nearby.
Signing up to the Environment Agency’s flood warning service was not enough. Forecasting and warning systems could fail or give insufficient notice, no on-site holiday-let manager was proposed and the Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan lacked necessary detail. The holiday let appeal consequently turned on practical safety, not simply on a mapped flood-zone boundary.
The Environment Agency had raised no objection to the revised proposal in May 2026, but its response did not specifically establish the safety of evacuating visitors along this route. The Inspector was entitled to assess the remaining evidence and the actual conditions observed on the ground.
What Gladman means for the flood risk appeal
The decision expressly referred to Gladman Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Lancaster City Council [2026] EWHC 51 (Admin), the High Court judgment on how failure to undertake a Sequential Test fits within the statutory planning balance.
In that case Mrs Justice Lieven quashed an Inspector’s dismissal of linked Lancaster appeals involving a proposed major housing development. The error was treating the absence of the Sequential Test as an effectively automatic reason for refusal without a genuine assessment of other material considerations. The court did not rule that the test could simply be ignored.
The Hampshire Inspector made the same legal distinction. In a concise explanation, the decision says Failure to provide a ST is not in itself a reason for automatically refusing a development.
The Inspector went on to examine whether there was actual risk to life on the available evidence, and whether the scheme’s benefits could outweigh the policy conflict.
Unlike the position criticised in Gladman, the reasoning in this holiday let appeal identified a specific physical problem: the proposed evacuation route was inadequately evidenced and might be dangerous in a flood. That made the Sequential Test issue more than a technical omission.
Late evidence and the final planning balance
The appellant’s final comments included a flood emergency access and egress statement dated 25 September 2026. The Inspector declined to admit it because it introduced new material technical evidence after the normal exchange of statements and representations. Considering it without further consultation could prejudice other interested parties.
The Inspector did accept several benefits. The holiday accommodation could support rural tourism and local services, while improvements to cladding, insulation, landscaping and biodiversity would have positive effects. Relocating the mobile home out of Flood Zone 3b and raising its floor level were also potentially useful safeguards.
Those measures did not answer the two decisive questions about appropriate location and safe evacuation. The mobile home would remain in a flood-risk setting, and the proposed route to a safer area involved land outside the appellant’s control. The likelihood of obtaining consent for improvements there was not established.
The Inspector applied national policy S5 for development outside settlements and gave moderate weight to the economic, social and environmental benefits. Those benefits were substantially outweighed by the adverse effects arising from conflict with national flood policies F5 and F7. Combined with the conflict with local policy NE6 and the development plan as a whole, the appeal was dismissed.
For operators converting an existing caravan or mobile home to visitor accommodation, the holiday let appeal demonstrates why a previous lawful use is only part of the analysis. Applicants need to assess the vulnerability of new occupants, realistic flood evacuation, control over escape routes and the evidence necessary to support conditions.
This was a section 78 appeal, reference 6014217, against Winchester City Council’s decision on application 25/02191/FUL. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments