Appeal 6000428

The appeal is dismissed.

During the course of the appeal, the appellant submitted details of another appeal decision (Ref 6000823), decided on 8 October 2025, relating to a live/work proposal. Given apparent similarities with aspects of this appeal the Council was given the opportunity to comment and any comments have been taken account in this appeal.

The main issues are:  whether it has been demonstrated that the location of the proposal is acceptable with respect to flood risk; and  whether the appeal site is an acceptable location for the proposal having regard to the development strategy and local policy on accessibility by sustainable transport modes.

The submitted Environment Agency flood map indicates that the site is outside of the extent of flooding. However, drawing ref p2024_035 / 02 shows the appellant’s proposal overlaid on the SWDP mapping system. This indicates that vehicular access to the proposed dwelling would include areas with low and medium risk of surface water flooding. Policy SWDP28 of the Local Plan seeks to minimise the impacts of all forms of flood risk and, aside from allocated sites, requires that the sequential test is applied to all development proposals. No sequential test is before me to indicate whether there may be other reasonably available sites for the proposed live/work unit.

A water management statement/surface water drainage strategy is submitted along with swale flow calculations. However, the extent to which the swale would resolve surface water flood risks is unclear. Anecdotal evidence is provided that a drainage ditch and pond at the appeal site remained dry during a regional flood event. Nonetheless, general observations from a single event are inconclusive on the long-term suitability of the site for the proposal. Although other buildings have been permitted at the appeal site, those do not provide for residential use which would be more vulnerable to flood risk. Consequently, without substantive evidence to the contrary I cannot be sufficiently certain that the appeal scheme would be safe from surface water flooding for its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the location of the proposal is acceptable with respect to flood risk. As such it would conflict with Policies SWDP28 and 29 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (February 2016) (Local Plan). These generally seek to ensure proposals are safe from flooding, avoid increasing flood risk for others, and manage surface water drainage effectively.

The strict control on development in open countryside as set out in Local Plan Policy SWDP2 [name] refers to certain types of development that would be permitted in such locations. This includes proposals that accord with other policies of the Local Plan, with reference in the footnote to Policy SWDP8 on live/work units. It is not a matter in dispute between the main parties that the proposal is capable of according with the relevant requirements of SWDP8 G parts ii to vii.

Part i of Policy SWDP8 G requires that the residential use is ancillary with a ratio of at least 60 per cent employment floorspace and no more than 40 per cent residential. The proposed floor plans indicate that the proposal would provide 60 per cent working space, with 40 per cent living accommodation. The Council considers that the space would be more likely to function as residential accommodation only. However, the work space has a separate entrance to the living accommodation. Although it would be on the same elevation as the residential entrance it would still provide suitable work space access.

Similarly, the use of matching architectural styles between the two sides of accommodation, including sliding patio doors from the work space, does not indicate that the space would be unlikely to be used for working. Furthermore, the living accommodation contains all of the facilities necessary to function as a home, without reliance on use of the work space. The Local Plan glossary defines live-work accommodation as being ‘purpose designed’. Nonetheless, Policy SWDP8 G does not require evidence that a proposed live/work development would satisfy a particular business need. In any event, it appears to me that this proposal has been designed with the purpose of providing self-contained work space alongside living accommodation. Moreover, that is the use that would be permitted in the event of the appeal being allowed. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposal would achieve the required ratio of living to work accommodation, in accordance with SWDP8 part G.i..

The Council makes reference to a previous application that was refused for a temporary rural worker dwelling at the appeal site, in order to meet the essential needs of the equestrian business operating there. However, the determination of that application required consideration of matters such as the need for that use. Whereas, this proposal is required to be determined under Policy SWDP8 G, which does not require evidence of the need for the proposed live/work accommodation or its intended hours of use.

The Council refers to policy SWDPR14 in the emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (Local Plan Review). That sets out new criteria for assessing live/work accommodation. It includes requirements that the proposed work floorspace would provide for an established business that has been trading for at least three years, and does not relate to equestrian activities. As it appears that the appeal relates to an equestrian use, it is unlikely to accord with that emerging policy. Nevertheless, that policy has not yet been adopted. The Local Plan Review has been submitted for examination and subject to hearings. No questions or modifications are said to have been requested by the examining Inspectors on that policy. However, it is unclear whether there may be unresolved objections relating to it. Accordingly, it attracts limited weight in the determination of this appeal.

Policy SWDP4 of the Local Plan includes requirements for applications to demonstrate that proposals would minimise the demand for travel, offering sustainable travel choices. The provision of live/work accommodation in one building would avoid the need for the occupant to travel by private vehicles between home and work. Although given its countryside location, it would likely generate the need for travel to Inkberrow and further afield to access services and facilities to meet day to day needs. Nevertheless, Policy SWDP2 offers support for live/work proposals in open countryside, despite such locations being inherently less accessible by sustainable transport modes and having more limited access to services than in urban areas.

Accordingly, the appeal site is an acceptable location for the proposal having regard to the development strategy and local and national policy on accessibility by sustainable transport modes. Despite some conflict with Policy SWDP4 in respect of the ability to offer genuinely sustainable travel choices, the site’s location is acceptable for the proposal, having regard to policies SWDP2 and SWDP8 G. Policy SWDP1 was referenced by the Council in respect of this main issue, but requires consideration of the suitability of the development as a whole. Therefore, I return to consideration of SWDP1 subsequently.

The location of the proposal would comply with the development strategy under Policy SWDP2. Nevertheless, insufficient evidence is provided to confirm that the proposal would be safe from flooding for its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Consequently, the conflict with policies SWDP28 and 29 carries considerable weight.

The Council advises that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development under Framework paragraph 11.d)ii applies. The proposal would deliver one additional dwelling. Whilst an incremental increase it nonetheless attracts significant weight in the context of the Council’s housing land supply shortage. The provision of work accommodation would also support the growth of employment space in a rural area which could help to support the prosperity of the rural economy. Given the small scale of the proposal this attracts modest weight. Construction of the dwelling would provide short term benefits to the local and wider economy. The occupants would be likely to stimulate consumer spending, boost local labour supply and help to support local services, which would all constitute modest benefits in social and economic terms.

Nonetheless, the provision of new housing and business space should not be at the expense of ensuring that such developments and their access routes are safe for the lifetime of the development, and would not exacerbate surface water flooding elsewhere. I have found the contribution to housing supply to be a significant benefit alongside other modest benefits. However, in the circumstances of this appeal the potential harm from surface water flooding would be of greater significance. The Framework requires that new development is steered to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source, including their access or escape routes. Consequently, the adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal would not represent sustainable development. The proposal would thus be contrary to Policy SWDP1 of the Local Plan. This seeks to ensure decision-making reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework.

The proposal would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given, the proposal is unacceptable and the appeal should be dismissed.