Appeal 6000257

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether or not the development is acceptable, having particular regard to flood risk.

The proposal would result in internal alterations which would provide one bedroom on the ground floor where there are currently no bedrooms located.

The appeal site is located in [name] 3 (FZ3). The Environment Agency (EA) has confirmed that whilst the area benefits from flood defences, in the event that these defences are breached, the area would be at risk of flooding.

Paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Paragraph 181 of the Framework states that development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in light of a site-specific flood risk assessment, it can be demonstrated that, amongst other things, within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons, that any residual risk can be safely managed and that safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate.

The Lead Local Flood Authority has stated that sleeping accommodation at ground floor level should be avoided in FZ3. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) also states that the initial step in considering flood risk is avoidance, this includes measures such as locating the most vulnerable uses on upper storeys or raising finished floor levels and/or ground levels, where appropriate. The PPG makes it clear that flood resilience and further management measures should only be used to address any residual risks remaining after the use of avoidance measures. Appeal Ref: 6000257

Policy E3 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] 30th July 2014 (CS) identifies that the appeal site falls within an area at high residual risk. In such areas the policy requires that risk reduction measures with the primary aim of reducing risk to life are utilised and that indicative breach flood water levels, ground levels, ground, first and second floor levels in metres AOD, are provided and that the floor level for bedrooms and safe refuges are identified, providing justification for the options chosen.

The appellant submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) with the planning application. The EA has objected to the proposal, stating that the FRA provides insufficient information.

The FRA identifies that it is normally recommended that finished floor levels are set a nominal 300mm above the 1 in 200 year annual probability of tidal flood (0.5% AEP), including an allowance for climate change. However, in this case given the proposal is for a change of use, the FRA identifies that the finished floor level will be the current finished floor level and the residual risk will be mitigated by using flood resilience measures and the EA flood warning service.

The FRA does not identify the relevant modelled flood levels or the finished floor levels. As a result, no clear assessment can be made as to whether the finished floor level of the proposed bedroom on the ground floor would be above that of the relevant modelled breach flood level, or how significant the difference in these levels would be. Consequently, sufficient up to date information is not provided in order to fully understand the risk of flooding at the appeal site and how vulnerable the occupant of the proposed ground floor bedroom might be in a flood event.

I do not find it likely that the appeal proposal would result in an increase in flood risk elsewhere, given the limited works proposed. I acknowledge that flood resilient measures are proposed in the FRA to minimise the damage and enable a quick recovery following a flood event. I also note that the Local Flood Warning System may provide early alerts allowing time for evacuation and that the occupant of the ground floor bedroom could move upstairs in the event of a flood, albeit the communal space at the top of the stairs is limited. However, such measures do not override the policy requirement set out above and the advice in the PPG, which seeks to avoid the risk to life from flooding events through avoidance measures in the first instance.

Consequently, I find that the development would not be acceptable with regard to flood risk. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policy SI 12 of The London Plan March 2021 and Policies E2 and E3 of the CS. These policies seek, amongst other things, that flood risk is minimised and mitigated and that development is made safe through the layout, form and floor levels, reducing risk to life. For the same reasons the proposal would be contrary to the relevant paragraphs of the Framework identified above.

The appellant asserts that the proposal for a HMO would contribute to the local and strategic housing needs of the area and that the proposal would result in appropriate accommodation standards and external amenity space, sufficient vehicle and cycle parking and refuse and recycling storage. It is also stated that future occupants would have access to a range of services and facilities including public transport options and that there would be no unacceptable harm to the living Appeal Ref: 6000257 conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Even if I were to agree, a lack of harm or policy compliance in these respects would be neutral considerations that would weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including those of the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.