16th MARCH 2015
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL
Case No:
1402193FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal:
ERECTION OF BUNGALOW AND ASSOCIATED WORKS
(INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF GARAGE)
Location:
LAND AT 26 WANTAGE GARDENS
Applicant:
MR & MRS HENSMEN
Grid Ref:
519009 262749
Date of Registration: 30.12.2014
Parish:
LITTLE PAXTON
RECOMMENDATION
-
REFUSE
This application has been referred to Panel as the Parish Council has
recommended approval contrary to the officer recommendation of
refusal.
1.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1
The application relates to the grounds of a 2-storey semi-detached
property on a corner plot in a residential area in Little Paxton. The
property has front and rear gardens and a side concrete hardstanding
with a garage for parking adjoining Gordon Road. South-west of the
back of the site is an unmetalled track and a triangle of open space
between the track and Gordon Road. To the rear/south-east is the
rear garden of a semi-detached bungalow (24 Wantage Gardens).
1.2
The site is mostly laid to lawn. The proposal is to demolish the
garage, subdivide the garden and erect a brick and tile bungalow in
the rear garden. The existing access to Gordon Road would be
shared and parking space for the new dwelling would be provided on
the site of the garage. The proposed bungalow would front onto the
side track. The bungalow would have a hipped roof and would have
little space to the front and sides and a rear garden of approximately
5.2m deep. An existing boundary enclosure comprising a wall and
bow top trellis fronting onto the track would be removed and a new
1.8m fence would be to separate the new parking area for the
bungalow from the existing dwelling.
1.3
The applicant also proposes a new access and parking area in the
front garden of the existing dwelling which would not need planning
permission under the provisions of Class F (a) of Schedule 2, Part 1
of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 as amended providing it was of porous materials or
suitable surface water provision was made within the site.
1.4
The site is in an area at medium risk of flooding according to the
Huntingdonshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and to the
Environment Agency Indicative Flood Risk Map.
1.5
The application is accompanied by a wheeled bin unilateral
undertaking.
2.
NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1
The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out the three
dimensions to sustainable development - an economic role, a social
role and an environmental role - and outlines the presumption in
favour of sustainable development. Under the heading of Delivering
Sustainable Development, the Framework sets out the Government's
planning policies. of particular relevance are paragraph 17 which sets
out the core planning principles, including securing high quality
design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future
occupants of land and buildings; section 6 relating to the delivery of
high quality homes; section 7 requiring good design and development
that reinforces local distinctiveness; and section 10 in relation to
flooding.
2.2
Paragraphs 100-104 of the NPPF set out a sequential risk-based
approach to the location of development.
2.3
The National Planning Policy Framework
Guidance: Flood Risk (updated 06 03 2014).
Planning
Practice
For full details visit the government website
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communitiesand-local-government
3.
PLANNING POLICIES
3.1
Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)
•
•
•
•
•
3.2
Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations
(2002)
•
3.3
HL5 ‘Quality and Density of Development’.
Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core
Strategy (2009)
•
•
•
3.4
H31: "Residential privacy and amenity standards"
H32: "Sub-division of large curtilages"
En25: "General Design Criteria"
CS8: "Drainage"
CS9: "Flood Water Management."
CS1: "Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire"
CS3: "The Settlement Hierarchy" - Identifies Little Paxton as a
Key Service Centre.
CS10: "Contributions to Infrastructure Requirements".
Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013)
•
•
Policy LP 1 ‘Strategy and principles for development’
Policy LP 6 ‘Flood risk and water management’
•
•
•
•
•
Policy LP 8 ‘Development in the Spatial Planning Areas’-Little
Paxton is included in St Neots Spatial Planning Areas (SPA).
Policy LP 13 'Quality of Design'
Policy LP 15 'Ensuring a High Standard of Amenity'
Policy LP 17 ‘Sustainable Travel’
Policy LP 18 'Parking Provision’.
3.5
Huntingdonshire
Design
Guide
Supplementary
Planning
Document(2007), including
part 1 about the design process,
including 1.2.5 about flood risk and 1.2.6 about landscape and
townscape and part 2.2 about infilling.
3.6
Huntingdonshire District Councils Annual Monitoring Report 2014
(dated January 2015) with regards to housing land supply.
Local policies are viewable at https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk
4.
PLANNING HISTORY
4.1
For 26 Wantage Gardens and adjoining properties:
4.2
P22/47 2 pairs of houses. No decision recorded.
4.3
S42/52 22 dwellings Approved 1952 for 22 Wantage Gardens which
reduced the length of the rear gardens of 25 and 26 Wantage
Gardens.
5.
CONSULTATIONS
5.1
Little Paxton Parish Council - RECOMMEND APPROVE (COPY
ATTACHED). No detrimental impact on either the area or
neighbouring properties. The Council recommends a planning
condition to control parking and access of construction traffic,
avoiding school times as Gordon Road is used by children walking to
& from the local schools.
5.2
Environment Agency – No comment- for LPA to determine: seek
Flood Risk Assessment(FRA).
5.3
HDC Engineer- seek FRA to establish flood and floor levels.
6.
REPRESENTATIONS
6.1
One received from 24 Wantage Gardens- no objection to bungalow.
7.
ASSESSMENT
7.1
The main issues to be considered are:
* the principle of a dwelling
* effect on the character and appearance of the area
* design/effect on the street scene
* amenity for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling and for the
occupiers of 24, 25 and 26 Wantage Gardens
* flood-related implications
* highway safety issues.
Principle
7.2
The site is in the built up area of Little Paxton, as defined by policy
CS3 of the Adopted Core Strategy, where there is satisfactory access
to public transport and services. Therefore, there would be no
objection to the principle of a dwelling in settlement policy terms if the
proposal was acceptable in all other respects. The proposal accords
with policy CS3 of the Core Strategy which is compliant with the
NPPF (section 6) and therefore carries significant weight. The
development also complies with policies LP1 and LP8 of the Draft
Local Plan. These are also NPPF-compliant, although given the draft
status of the Local Plan, only limited weight can be attached to them
at the moment.
Character and appearance of the area
7.3
There is no objection to the demolition of the garage or the removal of
the south-western side wall with incongruous curved trellis top.
7.4
However, the proposal would result in a development contrary to
policy H32 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 as the dwelling
and its curtilage are not of a size and form sympathetic to the locality.
7.5
The rear gardens of 25 and 26 Wantage Gardens range from
approximately 13.8-20m in length and the back gardens of most of
the west side of Wantage Gardens, backing onto the track, are a
similar length and enclosed by high hedges or fences. However, the
proposal would result in a significant reduction in the length of 26’s
garden to a range of approximately 7.5 to 10m. The back garden of
the new bungalow would be a fraction of the size of neighbouring
gardens at approximately 5.25 x 9.5m. The proposal would therefore
appear cramped and incongruous, which would detract from the
character and appearance of the area. It is acknowledged that a pair
of semi-detached dwellings at the southern end of Wantage Gardens
(15a and b) are close to the western concrete track (0701522FUL
refers), but they have the benefit of side gardens and a large front
yard and do not appear unduly cramped.
7.6
The existing dwellings in the area are mixed in form, being detached
and semi-detached and 1 or 2-storey, with steep or shallow-pitched
roofs. The dwellings are predominantly rectangular in footprint and
gable ended. The proposed bungalow would have a larger footprint
than 26 Wantage Gardens and would be 7.64m deep (ie front to back
dimension), which is deeper than 26’s 5.8m. The bungalow’s bulky
footprint and hipped roof would constitute an incongruous scale and
form and would detract from the character and appearance of the
area. The bungalow would be closer to the highway than the side of
the house at 26 Gordon Road. It therefore would be prominent in
views from Gordon Road and the adjoining track and from the
junction of High Street and Gordon Road.
7.7
If the floor level and height of the building needed to be increased to
address the flood concerns below, this would increase the harmful
visual intrusion of the development.
7.8
The proposed dwelling and its curtilage would not be of a size and
form sympathetic to the locality and would detract from the character
and appearance of the area contrary to policies En25 and H32 of
Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), HL5 of Huntingdonshire Local
Plan Alterations (2002), CS1 of the Adopted Huntingdonshire Local
Development Framework Core Strategy (2009), LP1 and LP13 of the
Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) (which are
all broadly consistent with the NPPF) and the requirements of the
NPPF(including paragraph 17, bullet point 4 and paragraph 60) and
the Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning
Guidance 2007 to seek high quality design and reinforce local
distinctiveness.
Residential amenity for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling
7.9
The new property, including its private rear amenity space, would be
overlooked by the 4 first floor rear windows of 25 and 26 Wantage
Gardens due to the short distance between the properties
(approximately a 7.5m minimum and 7.1m between the rear garden
of the plot and the rear of 26 and 25 respectively). This relationship
would offer poor privacy to the occupiers of the new property, due to
the overlooking by the first floor rear windows of 25 and 26 Wantage
Gardens of the bungalow and the proposed private rear amenity
space of the bungalow. However, it is considered that the overlooking
of the new development would not be so harmful as to merit the
refusal of the application, subject to suitable screening of the
proposed rear amenity space.
Residential amenity for the occupiers of 24, 25 and 26 Wantage Gardens
7.10
The development will have some effect on the applicants’ own
amenities (at 26 Wantage Gardens) due to the shortening of the back
garden, extra activity and disturbance close to the existing dwelling,
the proximity of the new dwelling to the back of 26, which will intrude
into the outlook from the rear of 26 and result in some shading of 26’s
back garden. However, it is considered that the effects on the
amenities of the occupiers of 26 Wantage Gardens would not be
unduly harmful.
7.11
The new building would be close to the south-eastern boundary but it
is considered that the dwelling would not be unduly overbearing upon
the neighbours at 24 Wantage Gardens, due to the separation
provided by 24’s outbuildings.
7.12
The back of the proposed dwelling would be a maximum of only
5.25m from the open trellis fence to the side of the rear garden of 25
Wantage Gardens. However, it is considered that there is adequate
separation to avoid adverse effects on outlook and light of 25
Wantage Gardens. It is considered that if the application had been
approved the privacy of those neighbours could have been secured
by condition to remove permitted development rights for new windows
and extensions and to secure a replacement rear enclosure behind
the new bungalow to screen the rear garden of 25.
7.13
It is concluded that the proposal will not result in undue harm to the
amenities of 24, 25 and 26 Wantage Gardens subject to the floor
level of the new development being compatible with the floor level of
26 Wantage Gardens.
Flood implications
7.14
The site and surrounding area appears to be to be in flood zone 2
(medium risk). However, the applicant has not submitted a FRA with
information on the recorded flood levels and site levels and has not
considered if the floor level of the building needs to be increased to
above the flood level in relation to Ordnance Datum (Newlyn) at the
site. The applicant has not considered the impacts of flood water
displacement or flood contingency planning and has not provided a
refuge out of the 1:1000 flood risk area.
7.15
It is therefore considered that the applicant has provided inadequate
information to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the future
occupiers of the dwelling would not be at risk of flooding or that the
proposal would not worsen flood risk in the area.
7.16
Paragraphs 100-104 of the NPPF set out a sequential risk-based
approach to the location of development. The approach is intended to
ensure that areas of little or no risk of flooding are developed in
preference to areas at higher risk. It involves applying the sequential
test to steer development away from high and medium risk areas to
land with a low probability of flooding, there is therefore an in principle
case to steer housing away from the site to low risk land.
7.17
Paragraph 100 of the NPPF states that 'Inappropriate development in
areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development
away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary,
making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.'
7.18
The proposed development for a residential dwelling is classified as a
'more vulnerable use' in table 2 of the Planning Practice Guidance.
Paragraph 019 of the Planning Practice Guidance states that 'The
aim is to steer new development to Flood Zone 1 (areas with a low
probability of river or sea flooding). Where there are no reasonably
available sites in Flood Zone 1, local planning authorities in their
decision making should take into account the flood risk vulnerability of
land uses and consider reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 2,
applying the Exception Test if required. Only where there are no
reasonably available sites in Flood Zones 1 or 2 should the suitability
of sites in Flood Zone 3… be considered, taking into account the
flood risk vulnerability of land uses and applying the Exception Test if
required.'
7.19
The Sequential Test seeks to steer new development to areas with
the lowest probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk
Assessment provides the basis for applying this test. The application
site is not considered to represent an area of land with the lowest
probability of flooding, being in zone 2.
7.20
It is important to note that the role of the Environment Agency is
limited to providing technical advice as to how a development can
mitigate against the risk of flooding should that development be
necessary to provide wider sustainability benefits. In terms of
planning new development, it is the role of the Local Planning
Authority through the application of the sequential test to steer
development to areas of low flood risk, as detailed in The NPPF and
not simply to mitigate against the impacts of any proposed
development or to make that development safe. Paragraph 059 of
the Planning Practice Guidance makes it clear that 'Flood resistance
and resilience measures should not be used to justify development in
inappropriate locations...'Therefore, even if the building could be
elevated above flood level, this would not overcome concerns
regarding flood risk in this instance, as the proposal does not pass
the sequential test.
7.21
This proposal is therefore considered to be inappropriate
development in an area at risk of flooding and is therefore
unacceptable. It is relevant to note that an appeal at Brampton was
dismissed on this basis in November 2013(1300020FUL refers:
COPY ATTACHED).
7.22
To sum up, insufficient information has been submitted by the
applicant to allow the Local Planning Authority to carry out a
sequential and exceptions test for flood risk as the site lies with an
area which is defined as being a flood zone 2 which is at medium risk
of being flooded (between 1 in 100 and 1 -1000 year floods). The
proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies CS9 of the
Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, CS1 of the Adopted Core Strategy,
LP6 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3
(2013)and paragraphs 100 and 101 of the NPPF and paragraphs 018
– 022 of the Planning Practice Guidance.
Highways Matters
7.23
The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of parking and
highway safety. The car parking could be secured by condition to
deter on-street parking. Cycle parking could have been conditioned to
secure alternatives to motor journeys.
7.24
The Parish Council suggestions about safety associated with
construction traffic would be a matter for the applicant/contractors if
the application had been approved. The proposal complies with
policies LP17 and LP18 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to
2036: Stage 3 (2013) which, as emerging policies, can only be
afforded limited weight. However, the policies are consistent with
paragraph 32 of the NPPF that requires safe and suitable access to
the site for all people.
Conclusion
7.25
The proposed development is considered to fail to comply with the
relevant national and local policy due to the harm to the character and
appearance of the area and the failure to address the flood
implications of the location.
7.26
Taking national and local planning policies into account, and having
regard for all relevant material considerations, it is therefore
recommended that planning permission be refused.
8.
RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE for the following reasons:
1. The proposed dwelling and its curtilage would not be of a size and
form sympathetic to the locality and would detract from the character
and appearance of the area contrary to policies En25 and H32 of
Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), HL5 of Huntingdonshire Local
Plan Alterations (2002), CS1 of the Adopted Huntingdonshire Local
Development Framework Core Strategy (2009), LP1 and LP13 of the
Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) and the
requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (including
paragraph 17, bullet point 4 and paragraph 60) and the
Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance
2007 to seek high quality design and reinforce local distinctiveness.
2. Insufficient information has been submitted by the applicant to
allow the Local Planning Authority to carry out a sequential and
exceptions test for flood risk as the site lies with an area which is
defined as being a flood zone 2 which is at medium risk of being
flooded (between 1 in 100 and 1 -1000 year floods). The proposal is
therefore considered to be contrary to policies
CS9 of the
Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, CS1 of the Adopted Core Strategy,
LP6 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013)
and paragraphs 100 and 101 of the National Planning Policy
Framework and paragraphs 018 – 022 of the Planning Practice
Guidance.
If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio
version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate
your needs.
CONTACT OFFICER:
Enquiries about this report to Sheila Lindsay Development Management
Officer 01480 388247
Planning Application comments have been made. A summary of the comments is
provided below.
Comments were submitted at 8:03 AM on 06 Feb 2015 from Mrs Jenny Gellatly.
Application Summary
Address:
Land At 26 Wantage Gardens Little Paxton
Proposal:
Erection of bungalow and associated works (including
demolition of garage)
Case Officer: Sheila Lindsay
Click for further information
Customer Details
Name:
Mrs Jenny Gellatly
Email:
[email protected]
Address:
11 Hayling Avenue, Little Paxton, St Neots,
Cambridgeshire PE19 6HG
Comments Details
Commenter
Type:
Town or Parish Council
Stance:
Customer made comments in support of the Planning
Application
Reasons for
comment:
Comments:
It was agreed that the planning application will have no
detrimental impact on either the area or neighbouring
properties. The Council recommends a planning
condition that there are controls for the parking and
access of construction traffic, avoiding school times as
Gordon Road is used by children walking to & from the
local Primary & Secondary school.
Development Management Panel
Date Created: 04/03/2015
D
15
L Twrs
AVENUE
Location: Little Paxton
L Twrs
osts
© Crown copyright and database rights 2015
Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322
EF
11
IEL
o
Application Ref: 1402193FUL
Scale =1:1,250
19
LA
K
Playground
24
7
2
Surgery
40
ta
1
El Su b S
50
14.5m
30
28
25
52
Pond
19
5
!
!
42
1
PO
14.9m
or
ch
An
e nn )
Th I (PH
1
35
10
26
31
92
St James's
Church
6
N
WA
15
20
EG
AR
141
20
G
TA
13
DE
NS
82
12
135
R
BOA
D MA
15a
13
10
ESI
DE
15b
127
E
CLOS
SE
1
LO
N C
LAK
14a
22
3
8
4
5
2
70
1
2
12
24
The Site
125 123
Legend
copyright protected.
Scale bars (in metres)
1
3
4
5
1:50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5
10
15
20
25
10
35
40
45
50
100
110
10
Sha
red
con
cret
e
2
Scale
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
120
1:100
1:500
1:1250
Pat
h
Grass
+5360 Ridge
+5360 Ridge
+2690 Eaves
+2690 Eaves
+2690 Eaves
+0 D.P.C.
+0 D.P.C.
+0 D.P.C.
+5360 Ridge
+5360 Ridge
+5360 Ridge
+2690 Eaves
+2690 Eaves
+2690 Eaves
+0 D.P.C.
+0 D.P.C.
+0 D.P.C.
m
800
+5360 Ridge
mh
n
bou
cre
te P
dar
ath
26 Wantage Gardens
1.8m high panel
Grass
Parking Area
Concrete Path
Concrete Hardstanding
Garage
Vegetable
Shed
Shed
1.0m high wall with 0.6m
high bow top trellis
Sha
red
c
1.0m high wall with 0.6m high bow top trellis
onc
rete
Pat
h
Parking Area
JLG Design
.co.uk
Architectural CAD Services
Grass
Con
cre
te P
ath
5250
Grass
1 Masefield Avenue
Eaton Ford
St. Neots
Cambridgeshire
PE19 7LS
Tel / Fax: 01480 218440
9440
Grass
350
Gate
10200
Wardrobes
Parking Area
Lounge
New 1.8m high close boarded fence
Email: [email protected]
Project:
Bedroom 1
Proposed Bunglaow
DPC to match existing house
Proposed Bungalow rear of
26 Wantage Gdns, Lt. Paxton
St. Neots, Cambs. PE19 6EZ.
7640
Shared Access
1000
Drawing:
Kitchen
Plans and Elevations
Bedroom 2
N
Wardrobes
all
yw
Decking
Grass
fence
igh
Con
Drawn by:
JG
Ordnance Survey (c) Crown Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. Licence number 100022432
Scale:
1:100;1:200;1:1250
Date:
26.9.14
This drawing should not be scaled other than for planning
purposes. All dimensions to be checked on site.
Drawing no:
PE19-6EZ/26/01
Revision
GREEN PAPERS FOLLOW
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 11 November 2013
by Graham M Garnham BA BPhil MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 20 November 2013
Appeal Ref: APP/H0520/A/13/2197972
Land to the west of 23 Layton Crescent, Brampton, Cambridgeshire
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
•
•
•
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Yelcon Limited against the decision of Huntingdonshire District
Council.
The application Ref 1300020FUL, dated 10 January 2013, was refused by notice dated
18 April 2013.
The development proposed is a revised application for the erection of a bungalow and
associated works.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issue
2. An earlier scheme to erect a bungalow on the appeal site was withdrawn in the
face of concerns about flood risk, design and amenity. Matters of design and
amenity have been resolved and flood risk now forms the Council's sole reason
for refusal. Consequently I consider that the main issue is whether the
proposed development would be acceptable with respect to flood risk.
Reasons
3. The revised proposal has been accompanied by a site-specific Flood Risk
Assessment [FRA]. This includes the Environment Agency's [EA] Indicative
Flood Risk Map, which shows the site to be in Flood Zone 3 [FZ3]. The
Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) defines
FZ3 land has having a “high probability” of flooding. A more detailed map is the
Council's Strategic FRA Flood Risk Map. This shows that the part of the site
closest the Brampton Brook is in FZ3 while the rest of the site is FZ2 land. On
the basis of a levels survey, Appendix 7 of the appellant's FRA shows how the
habitable accommodation that is proposed would be on land above the existing
1 in 100 Year Flood Line (in FZ2). The back part of the attached garage would
be below this line, and thus regarded as being on FZ3 land.
4. The EA no longer objects to the proposal on the grounds of flood risk. Despite
this, it is normally the responsibility of the local planning authority to make the
ultimate decision as to whether a proposal is acceptable in terms of flood risk.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/H0520/A/13/2197972
The overall approach is given in paragraphs 100-104 of the Framework. These
set out a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development. This
approach is intended to ensure that areas at little or no risk of flooding are
developed in preference to areas at higher risk. It involves applying a
Sequential Test to steer development away from medium and high flood risk
areas (FZ2 and FZ3 land respectively), to land with a low probability of flooding
(FZ1). I have not seen anything in the Framework or the Technical Guidance to
suggest that this approach should not be applied to development involving only
a single dwelling. There is thus an in principle case to steer housing
development away from the appeal site to FZ1 land.
5. The housing land supply situation has a bearing on whether the need to steer
development away from FZ2 and FZ3 land should be weighed against the need
to ensure a 5 year supply of sites. I have no reason to doubt the Council's
assertion that it has more than a 5 year supply of housing land with planning
permission. There is thus no need for the appeal development to help secure
such a supply. I am not persuaded by the appellant's argument that, as some
of these sites may involve FZ2 or even FZ3 land, such land is a necessary part
of the housing supply process in Huntingdonshire. It could be counter-argued
that further FZ2 development would only exacerbate the situation with respect
to advice in the Framework. I am also not persuaded, on the basis of the
evidence before me, that the proposal would meet a strong identifiable local
need for a single plot development in Brampton, such that the Sequential Test
should be applied just to this settlement rather than to the whole district. As a
result, I find that the proposal would not satisfy the Sequential Test.
6. The appellant has shown how, in engineering terms, the floor level of the
proposed dwelling could be set above the 1 in 100 Year Flood Line. However, I
consider that this and other resilience measures should only be given decisive
weight if the Sequential Test indicates that housing on the appeal site could be
acceptable. This is not the case. Thus while the proposal may meet the bullet
point requirements of paragraph 103 of the Framework, these are to follow on
from the Sequential Test, rather than form an alternative approach to it.
7. The parties agree that the measures included in the appellant's FRA would not
increase flood risk elsewhere. However, I consider that neither this nor the
other detailed considerations in the FRA should outweigh the approach to flood
risk that is set out in national planning documents. I realise too that, in the
absence of objections from the EA and the Internal Drainage Board, the logic of
the Framework approach may be scant consolation for an owner of FZ2 or FZ3
land. However, the national policy and guidance referred to on this matter does
not make material differentiations on the basis of land ownership.
8. Overall and on balance, I conclude that the proposed development would be
unacceptable with respect to flood risk, as set out in the Framework and the
associated Guidance. The proposal would also fall short of general provisions
on managing flood risk in Policy CS1 of the Huntingdonshire Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (2009). I regard more recent provisions in the
emerging Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 as having little weight, as this
document has only reached Stage 3 of 8 on the way to adoption.
9. Planning permission should therefore be withheld and I dismiss the appeal.
2
Appeal Decision APP/H0520/A/13/2197972
G Garnham
INSPECTOR
3