Appeal 3291337

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council had highlighted within their reasons for refusal and Officer report that the appeal site fell within [name] 3b, whereas the appellants claimed that the site was in [name] 2. I requested that the Council re-check their claim to which they submitted 2no flood maps, one from the Environment Agency and one from Gloucestershire County Council which confirmed that the site does fall within the former zone. I therefore gave the appellants the opportunity to comment on this additional information and which they did not dispute. [name] consider that the appeal site falls within [name] 3b and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon flood risk.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) in paragraph 159 states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). The Framework is backed up the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and specifically within its section entitled ‘[name] and [name] it sets out flood zone and flood risk tables which categorise buildings used for dwellinghouses as ‘more vulnerable’, development that should not be permitted within [name] 3b.

Indeed, this stance is reiterated within the Government’s guidance entitled ‘Preparing a Flood Risk Assessment: [name] and specifically within its advice for minor extensions highlights that development should not be permitted in such zones if its vulnerability classification is, amongst other things, ‘more vulnerable’.

I note that the appellants have provided calculations to determine possible flood water levels on the site and I have been given no reason to doubt their accuracy. I accept that the proposed single storey side/rear extension has been designed so that there would be no net loss of flood plain following the demolition of the existing garage. However whilst the finished floor area of the proposed garden room beyond would be elevated 350mm above ground level, this would only be through its construction on a number of pads, which themselves could effectively impede flood flows.

I acknowledge that no contact was made by the Local Authority Planning Officers or [name]. However it is quite clear that as a matter of principle the development is inappropriate in [name] 3b; and which could potentially result in the loss of functional flood storage contrary to the Framework, the PPG and Policy INF2 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] 2017. These development plan policies state that development proposals must avoid areas at risk of flooding and not increase the level of risk to the safety of occupiers of a site, the local community or the wider environment, either on the site or elsewhere; and require new development to, where possible, contribute to a reduction of existing flood risk.

Therefore, having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.