Appeal 3305674

The appeal is dismissed.

I note that the Planning Officer Report assesses the proposed development as acceptable in terms of its design and effect on surrounding properties which is consistent with the policies of the development plan. I have no reason to disagree with this assessment, with my focus of this appeal limited to the outstanding issue which is flood risk.

Taking the above into account, the main issue is whether the site would be suitable for the proposed residential extension, having regard to its risk from flooding.

When assessing development within areas of flood risk, Policy NR1 of the Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Local Plan (LP) seeks that a proposal for development will be expected to be constructed with adequate flood resilience and resistance measures suitable for the lifetime of the development, in line with the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) and advice contained in the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The policy requires that an appropriate FRA is carried out and it has been demonstrated that the development is designed to ensure that flood risk from all sources is acceptable in planning terms.

Additionally, Paragraph 168 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) provides that small developments including householder developments, should not be subject to sequential or exception tests, but should still meet the requirements for site-specific flood risk assessments (FRA) set out in footnote 55. I agree that the submission of a FRA that is Appeal Decision: APP/T0355/D/22/3305674 proportionate to the nature of the scheme in line with the previously specified policies is the most appropriate approach to understanding the flood risk to the appeal site as a result of the proposal.

The appeal property is located within a [name] 3 where this classification as defined by the NPPG as being a ‘high probability’ area for flooding.1 The reason for refusal and the officer report states that a FRA was not submitted with the application and there was therefore no ability to make a judgement as to the compliance with the Local Plan and Framework policies. In their Statement of Case (SoC), the appellant states that at no point in the application process was a FRA required or requested. According to the appellant, a FRA is readily available and could have been provided to the Council if they had requested it. As part of this appeal, the appellant was contacted2 by email to request the FRA, however no response was received. The Council have also confirmed via reply email3 that no FRA was received as part of this application.

As detailed above, the FRA is a necessary document to gain an in principle understanding of whether the development would be compliant with the Framework and the Local Plan Policy NR1. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments in their SoC that all other elements are acceptable, however the policies of the Local Plan require to be considered as a whole, with consideration for any other material considerations. Given that there are no material considerations to consider, when considered against the policies of the development plan as a whole, the appeal fails on procedural grounds due to the lack of submission of an FRA.

In conclusion of this matter, and based on the information before me, it has not been demonstrated by the appellant that the principle of the proposed residential extension is suitable, having regard to its risk from flooding. The scheme would therefore without prejudice, fail on procedural grounds and not be in accordance with Policy NR1 of the Local Plan or the Framework as described previously.

For these reasons, and having considered all matters raised in evidence and from what I saw during my site visit, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.