Planning appeal decision
Blue Bell Inn, Main Road, Hop Pole, Spalding, PE11 3HL
Planning appeal 3361876 at Blue Bell Inn, Main Road, Hop Pole, Spalding, PE11 3HL (South Holland District Council) was dismissed on 28 July 2025 by Inspector Edginton A, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: The effect of the development on the Blue Bell Inn, a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).
Redevelopment of site to include demolition of a C3 residential dwelling (former Public House), erection of 4 two bedroom dwellings, 5 residential static homes, conversion and extension of village hall to provide supermarket, restaurant and associated car parking
- Authority
- South Holland District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Edginton A
- Postcode
- PE11 3HL
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the development on the Blue Bell Inn, a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA)
- Whether the development would accord with the local development plan with regard to location
- Whether the development would accord with the local development plan with regard to town centre uses
- Highway safety
- The effect of the development on the living conditions of future and existing occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance
What decided it
The cumulative harm arising from conflicts with multiple local plan policies regarding heritage, location, town centre uses, highway safety and living conditions, combined with the lack of objective evidence to support the claimed tourism and economic benefits, outweighed the modest public benefits of four dwellings in an unsustainable location.
The provision of four dwellings and improved visual appearance of the site frontage were outweighed by the loss of the non-designated heritage asset, the intensification of use in an unsustainable countryside location contrary to local policies, the inadequate parking provision creating highway safety concerns, the adverse effect on living conditions of future occupiers from noise and disturbance, and the lack of evidence to support the claimed tourism and economic benefits.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy 1Policy 2Policy 3Policy 7Policy 9Policy 22Policy 24Policy 27Policy 29Policy 30Policy 31Policy 36Appendix 6
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 207Paragraph 216Paragraph 91Paragraph 94Paragraph 109Paragraph 110Paragraph 135
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in South Holland
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Allowed27 April 20266001659Land at Fendyke Farm, Off Old Fendyke, Sutton St James, PE12 0LX
- Allowed13 March 20266003284Land East of Forest Way, Holbeach, Lincolnshire, PE12 7FE
- Dismissed12 March 20266001983Merkur Slots, 32-33 Hall Place, Spalding, Lincolnshire, PE11 1SG
- Dismissed12 March 20263372173Little London, Long Sutton, PE12 9LE
- Allowed3 February 20263372791Caudwell Farm , Holbeach St Matthews, PE12 8EW
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®