Appeal 3360347

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the development would be at risk from damage by wave action.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow located within a row of similar bungalows and chalet bungalows with rear elevations facing onto the beach which is immediately beyond [address].

The main parties agree that the site is located within an [name] (OHZ). This area along [address] is classified as hazardous, as buildings and property can be damaged by wave action. Policy CC7 of the Canterbury Local Plan (2017) (Local Plan) states that within the OHZ no development will be permitted. Within the Local Plan paragraph 7.46 confirms that the properties are in front of the main sea defence bund and are at risk from direct flooding by the sea.

The provision of an upper storey could provide safe refuge at first floor level in the event of wave overtopping. I acknowledge that this could also prevent or minimise damage to furniture, electrical systems and appliances. The appellant indicates numerous other benefits that the first floor accommodation would have in the event of flooding, including easier access for rescue operations, protection for critical infrastructure, compliance with flood management regulations, psychological and social benefits and long-term resilience and future proofing of the property. A range of flood resilience measures are also proposed and include the location of high-level plug sockets, ground floor finishes and non-return valves provided to all foul water drains.

However, Local Plan policy CC7 does not indicate that exceptional circumstances could provide justification for development. Indeed, the policy is unequivocal that no development is to be permitted within the OTZ. This restriction of development within the OTZ includes extensions to existing properties, regardless of whether they involve the inclusion of upper floor accommodation. The description of the overtopping zone as ‘hazardous’ indicates that there is significant concern about the prospect of wave damage to buildings. As a result, I attach considerable weight to the policy approach.

My attention has been drawn to examples of other extensions and replacement dwellings at Numbers 297, 287, 282 and [address]. I have not been provided with further details in relation to these, however, I note that the appeal at 297 Faversham Road1 was determined prior to the adoption of the Local Plan which includes Policy CC7 which precludes all development within the OHZ. For this reason, I do not consider that it creates a precedent for additional residential extensions within the OHZ.

For the above reasons the proposal would be at risk from damage by wave action. It would therefore conflict with Policy CC7 of the Local Plan which states that no development will be permitted within the OHZ.

The appellant indicates that the proposal will enhance the appearance of the property and improve its marketability. I note that the Council has not raised the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area as a concern. Be that as it may, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.