Appeal 6000770

The appeal is dismissed.

Although there is no formal decision from the Council, they have offered putative reasons for refusal. Based on these, the main issues are: i) Whether the proposal is acceptable with regard to flood risk and coastal change; ii) Whether the proposal makes adequate provision for affordable housing; iii) The effects of the proposal on ecology and biodiversity; iv) The implications of the proposal on parking and highway safety; v) Whether the development would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Solent Special Protection Areas (SPAs); vi) Whether the proposal makes adequate provision for health infrastructure; vii) Whether the proposal would provide a satisfactory living environment for future residents with regard to noise; and viii)Whether the proposal makes provision for communal / open space and the maintenance of this and highways works.

The appeal site lies within [name] 2 and 3. The proposal comprises two buildings containing ground‐floor commercial units with 32 residential flats above, arranged as a mix of two‐ and three‐bedroom units. The residential element is classified as ‘[name] development for the purposes of national flood‐risk policy. In addition to tidal flood risk, the site is also exposed to hazards associated with wave overtopping and coastal erosion.

The appeal site was allocated for mixed‐use seafront regeneration following consideration of flood risk through the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Although the site lay within [name] 1 at that time, the assessment acknowledged that, with climate change, parts of the site and its access would be at risk of flooding. The proposal accords with the intended use of the allocation, and while the extent of flood risk has evolved since the plan was adopted, such that most of the site is now within [name] 3 and the northern portion within [name] 2, the evidence before me indicates that these changes are incremental rather than of a scale that would have altered the allocation decision. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) confirms that where a site has been sequentially assessed at plan‐making stage, and where there has been no significant change in flood risk that would have affected that outcome, a further [name] is not required at application stage. On this basis, I have no compelling reason to conclude that the [name] must be revisited for the current proposal.

Given the appeal site’s seafront location and the associated flood risks, the site allocation is clear that such impacts must be satisfactorily mitigated as part of any planning proposal. National policy requires all ‘[name] development within [name] 2 and 3 to be supported by a site‐specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The Framework makes clear that development in such areas should only proceed where the FRA demonstrates that flood risk would not be increased elsewhere and that the scheme would be safe for its lifetime, including through appropriate siting, flood‐resistant and resilient design, and sustainable drainage where relevant. It must also show that any residual risks can be safely managed and that safe access and escape routes can be provided. The PPG reinforces these requirements, advising that an FRA should assess flood depth, velocity, hazard rating and duration to ensure that safe access and egress can be maintained during both design and extreme flood events without reliance on emergency services.

FRA: 2400840-ACE-XX-XX-RP-C-0301 – [name], was submitted with the application. Having reviewed this and the Flood Risk Assessment Addendum (June

which included a flood response plan, the Environment Agency remain of the view that these do not meet the requirements for site‐specific assessments.

The Environment Agency’s objection centres on the absence of a complete assessment of flood risk across the full range of relevant events, including the 0.1% [name] (1 in 1,000) extreme 2125 scenario. They required the FRA to demonstrate how flooding of varying severity would affect both people and property, and to show that warning, evacuation and safe access/egress could be achieved for all events up to and including the extreme future scenario. They also highlighted that the FRA did not provide flood depths for the full range of events, which prevented a proper understanding of the risks.

The Environment Agency advises that the FRA lacks essential information on flood characteristics, specifically flood depth, velocity, duration, speed of onset and frequency. While some of this can be inferred for the buildings themselves, these characteristics cannot be determined for the access and egress routes without post‐development ground level data.

The appellant’s [name] (September 2025) provides additional information that addresses some of the matters previously raised. It now includes finished floor levels, present‐day and future flood depths at the building footprint, and a clearer explanation of how climate‐change allowances have been applied to derive a 2125 design flood level. It also refers to the refuge strategy, flood response plan, and an access/egress route for the 2115 1 in 1,000 event. These additions improve the submitted FRA and respond in part to the Environment Agency’s earlier concerns, particularly in relation to the absence of flood‐depth information.

However, the assessment continues to provide flood depth only, and only at the immediate building footprint. It does not include the wider flood‐characteristic information requested by the Environment Agency, namely flood velocity, hazard rating, speed of onset and duration, which is necessary to understand the level of risk to people and the suitability of evacuation routes during more severe events. In addition, the access and egress assessment relies on the 2115 model rather than the required 2125 extreme‐event scenario, and no analysis has been provided to demonstrate that the 2115 route would remain safe under 2125 conditions. The most recent flood‐risk mapping also indicates that a greater proportion of the development area and near the access now lies within [name] 2. This introduces further uncertainty about the severity and extent of future flooding and reinforces the need for a comprehensive assessment of flood behaviour.

In the absence of this information, the FRA does not demonstrate how the full range of flood events would affect people or whether safe evacuation could be achieved during the extreme 2125 event. Accordingly, despite the additional material, the FRA does not fully address the Environment Agency’s concerns or meet the requirements of national policy for showing that the development would be safe for its lifetime.

The evidence before me, including national erosion mapping and the adopted Coastal Change Management Area (CCMA), indicates that the site is subject to medium to long‐term erosion risk. More recent modelling suggests that the extent of land at risk is greater than previously defined. National policy is clear that permanent residential development in areas vulnerable to coastal change should be avoided, and the PPG states that permanent new housing is not appropriate within a CCMA.

Although ongoing discussions are being held with [name] regarding the long‐term management of the beach, and that the appellant considers this process is likely to lead to a solution, such matters fall outside the planning process. The ability to secure insurance or finance in the event that a building is at risk of erosion is a private matter and does not alter the planning judgement required here. In light of the identified erosion risks, the uncertainty surrounding the implementation and funding of ‘Hold the Line’ management policies, and the clear direction of national guidance, I cannot be certain that permanent residential development on this site would be safe from coastal change and appropriate.

While the Lead Local Flood Authority do not object to the proposal, there assessment is largely confined to matters relating to the surface water drainage principles.

In the [name] appeal, only a very small part of the site was at risk of flooding. The Inspector found the proposal acceptable because the flood‐risk evidence demonstrated a very limited hazard, with shallow depths and a clear strategy showing that the development could be made safe for its lifetime without compromising safe access or increasing risk elsewhere. The Inspector was satisfied that any residual risks were low and manageable.

The circumstances in the [address], Faversham appeal were also materially different. In that case, the Inspector accepted the development because the evidence showed only shallow, low‐hazard flooding, and the FRA demonstrated that the scheme could be made fully safe for its lifetime, with no significant harm arising from either the predicted flood depths or the nature of the hazard.

Both decisions turned on site‐specific flood‐risk conditions that were substantially different from those before me and therefore carry limited weight in my assessment. Moreover, the planning balance in each case is a matter of planning judgement based on the particular evidence and circumstances before the decision‐maker. As such, these appeals do not alter the weight I attach to the unresolved flood‐risk concerns in this case.

Drawing on the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the proposal would be safeguarded against flood risk and coastal change. Therefore, this has not satisfied the requirements of Policy CS15 of the Havant Borough Local Plan ([name]) (‘CS’) which requires that development at risk from flooding or coastal processes must be made safe for its lifetime, must not increase risk elsewhere, and must be supported by a robust, site‐specific FRA demonstrating safe access, egress, and resilience. For the same reasons, the proposal conflicts with the Framework.

Policy CS9 of the CS says that planning permission will be granted for housing proposals that deliver, on average, 30–40% affordable housing on sites of 15 dwellings (gross) or more, or secure an equivalent contribution, unless a lower level has been transparently justified on viability grounds.

Although Policy HY2 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) 2014 (LP) identifies affordable housing as an opportunity within allocation HY45 rather than a specific requirement, this does not remove or diminish the separate and overarching requirement in CS Policy CS9.

CS Policy CS9 broadly aligns with the Framework, which requires affordable housing to be secured unless the applicant can demonstrate, through rigorous and independently scrutinised evidence, that doing so would make the scheme undeliverable. The threshold for viability‐based reductions is therefore high and places strong emphasis on transparency, realism and consistency with local policy.

Based on the scale of development proposed, the scheme generates a requirement for affordable housing.

The application is supported by a Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) which concludes that the scheme is not viable in its current form. It identifies a deficit of approximately £5.9 million for a 100% market‐led scheme, rising to around £6.7 million with a policy‐compliant 30% affordable housing provision. Even when applying standard Building Cost Information Service construction rates, the appraisal still shows a deficit of around £357,000, which the FVA attributes largely to abnormal construction costs and the limited commercial value of the ground‐floor units.

The Council commissioned the David Searle Partnership (DSP) to independently review the FVA. DSP raised concerns regarding the Gross Development Value assumed for the commercial element. They also found that the cost plan was heavily caveated, lacked sufficient detail, and did not provide a reliable basis for assessing scheme costs.

When applying their own adjustments, DSPs appraisal for the proposed scheme indicates a surplus of approximately £488,000. DSP also tested a policy‐compliant scheme with 12 affordable units, which showed only a small deficit of around £48,000.

The FVA assumes Section 106 contributions of around £160,000, whereas the actual contributions required are approximately £40,000 lower. This discrepancy affects the appraisal and suggests that the financial burden on the development has been overstated. Such inconsistencies undermine confidence in the overall robustness of the viability case.

DSP’s review concludes that the appellant has not justified a nil affordable housing contribution and advises that, if any reduced level of provision were to be accepted, a review mechanism would be required to reassess viability once actual costs and values are known. I agree, given DSP’s findings in respect of the submitted cost plan

Drawing on the above and evidence before me, the submitted FVA does not provide a sufficiently robust basis to demonstrate that the scheme cannot support policy‐compliant obligations. The independent review indicates that the development is likely to be capable of contributing towards affordable housing, either on‐site or through a financial contribution and that a review mechanism would be necessary were any reduced provision to be accepted.

Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the appellant has shown that the scheme cannot viably support affordable housing. In the absence of any provision, or any mechanism to secure or review it, the proposal conflicts with Policy CS9 of the [name].

The Framework is also clear that the delivery of affordable housing is a central objective of national policy, and that planning obligations should be used to secure such provision where it is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms.

The appeal site lies in a sensitive ecological location, adjacent to internationally, nationally and locally designated habitats, and includes areas of [name], notably coastal vegetated shingle. Although parts of this habitat have been degraded through historic amenity use, the underlying seed bank and recent vegetation indicate that it retains ecological value and should be correctly classified and considered within the assessment.

The Council’s ecologist advises that development here should not only avoid harm but actively enhance the local coastal habitat mosaic, with opportunities for innovative landscaping, habitat restoration and interpretive features that reflect the character of Hayling’s seafront. Concerns are also raised regarding potential recreational impacts on nearby sensitive habitats and roosting bird sites, which I have addressed separately and the need for [name] (BNG) calculations to reflect the correct habitat classifications and the strategic significance of the site.

Matters relating to habitat categorisation and landscaping design are central to understanding the ecological and biodiversity implications of the scheme.

The mechanism for securing any off‐site habitat compensation remains unresolved between the main parties. It is unclear whether this would be achieved through the purchase of conservation credits from a registered provider, the direct creation of habitat on land controlled by the appellant or made available by the authority, or a financial contribution towards a third‐party provider such as a local nature reserve or park. In the absence of this evidence, it has not been demonstrated that appropriate compensation could be secured, nor that any off‐site measures would comply with BNG trading rules or deliver habitats of the necessary distinctiveness.

The requirement for BNG to be secured, monitored and maintained for a minimum of 30 years is set out in national legislation, and it is therefore appropriate that the Council seeks to recover its reasonable monitoring costs through a Section 106 obligation. However, I have not been provided with a detailed breakdown of how the specific monitoring fee has been calculated, nor with sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed BNG approach, whether on‐site or off‐site, would be deliverable or enforceable over the required period.

While some matters could, in principle, be refined through conditions, the extent of the outstanding uncertainties means I cannot be confident that an acceptable scheme could be secured post‐permission.

For the above reasons, I cannot be satisfied that the development would protect or enhance biodiversity and deliver measurable net gains. I therefore find conflict with CS Policy CS11 and with the Framework, both of which require development to secure demonstrable biodiversity benefits.

The Parking SPD allows for flexibility where reduced parking levels are proposed, but it requires applicants to justify such an approach with reference to accessibility to shops, services and public transport. In this case, the proposal is not simply a reduced‐parking scheme but a wholly car‐free one, and the site is not identified within the [name] as being in one of the more accessible locations.

Limited information has been provided regarding the proximity and range of everyday services in the [name] (TS). While cycle parking would be available, the surrounding pedestrian and cycling environment is constrained, with narrow footways, fragmented cycling links and a vehicle‐dominated layout around the [address] roundabout.

Access to the nearest bus stop requires navigating a sub‐optimal pedestrian environment, which may reduce convenience for some users. Nevertheless, the presence of a nearby bus stop and an active service does improve the site’s overall accessibility and offers a genuine alternative to private car use and justifies some reduction in car parking levels.

Although nearby public car parks are available and residents could obtain permits for them, there is no certainty that such arrangements would remain available in the long term or could be secured in perpetuity. As a result, reliance on off‐site public parking cannot be guaranteed, and nothing before me demonstrates that this would avoid the displacement of parking onto surrounding streets to the detriment of highway safety.

There is significant disagreement between the main parties regarding the trip‐generation assessment in the TS. Irrespective of this, the proposal would result in an increase in trips compared with the extant use. In particular, additional service vehicles for the commercial units and delivery activity associated with the residential element are likely.

The scheme includes a new 5.5‐metre‐wide ingress‐only access, with all egress routed through an adjoining unbound council owned car park. This raises notable safety concerns: unbound surfacing is unsuitable for heavy vehicles, may deteriorate without secured maintenance, and does not provide the controlled, lit or properly laid‐out environment necessary for safe manoeuvring. Limited information has been provided on visibility splays for the new access or the closure of the existing access, leaving key safety matters unresolved. These are fundamental issues that cannot be deferred to planning conditions. Safe and suitable access must be demonstrated at the decision stage.

Moreover, vehicular egress relies on land outside the development site and appellant’s control. Without secured rights over this land, there is no certainty that the access arrangements shown on the submitted drawings could be delivered, and safe egress could not be assured.

The appellant’s collision analysis is based on secondary data rather than verified police records. Updated police information shows several incidents at the junction most directly affected by the proposed access, highlighting the need for a more robust assessment of potential safety impacts. In any event, the dataset relied upon reflects only existing traffic conditions and does not account for the additional vehicle movements that would arise from the proposal and the new access / egress arrangements.

While the Council’s Ambition for [site address] Seafront document (February 2022) identifies the appeal site as a key gateway to the beach and promotes a more pedestrian‐focused environment as part of a wider regeneration strategy, this strategic aspiration does not, in itself, demonstrate that a wholly car‐free development is appropriate or deliverable in the specific circumstances of this scheme. Although the appellant has sought to reflect that vision, the evidence before me does not show that a car‐free scheme could operate effectively on this site or avoid displacing parking demand elsewhere.

Taken together, these matters mean that neither the car‐free strategy nor the highway safety implications of the scheme have been satisfactorily addressed. I therefore find conflict with [name] DM11, DM12 and DM13, which together seek to ensure that new development provides adequate parking, maintains highway safety, and avoids adverse impacts on the surrounding transport network.

These shortcomings also place the scheme at odds with the Framework, which requires development to provide safe and suitable access for all users and to avoid unacceptable impacts on highway safety or the transport network.

The appeal site lies within the zone of influence of the SPAs, which form part of a wider network of internationally designated habitats supporting significant populations of overwintering and migratory bird species. These birds rely on the Solent’s intertidal mudflats, saltmarsh and coastal habitats for feeding and roosting, and are particularly sensitive to disturbance. As such, the [name] are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (‘the Habitats Regulations’).

Residential development within the Solent catchment gives rise to increased recreational activity along the coast, including walking, dog-walking and other leisure uses. The cumulative effect of additional visitors can disturb protected bird species, reducing feeding opportunities and affecting their conservation status. The Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy (SRMS), delivered through [name], provides a strategic and coordinated package of mitigation measures to address these pressures. These include ranger patrols, visitor engagement, education initiatives and monitoring.

The appeal site also lies within the catchment of designated sites affected by nutrient enrichment. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Solent’s water environment contribute to eutrophication, leading to algal growth that suppresses the health of protected habitats and species. New residential development increases wastewater generation and, consequently, nutrient loading unless appropriately mitigated.

As the competent authority for the purposes of this appeal, I am required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) of the scheme’s implications for the relevant European sites. The AA must apply the precautionary principle and may only conclude that the development is acceptable where there is certainty that no adverse effect on site integrity would arise, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.

The Unilateral Undertaking (‘UU’) dated 14 November 2025, includes a planning obligation securing a financial contribution of £29,340.40 towards the SRMS. The Council, advises that the correct figure should be £28,300.65. Having reviewed the submitted Habitats Regulations Assessment, Screening and Appropriate Assessment - [name] of the Council’s Statement of Case (‘HRASAA’), the calculated requirement for the development is £26,953.40, inclusive of the monitoring and administration fee.

Although the contribution offered by the appellant exceeds the amount identified in the HRASAA, it nonetheless provides sufficient funds to mitigate the recreational impacts of the development in accordance with the SRMS. On this basis, I am satisfied that the obligation secures an adequate financial contribution and that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the designated sites with regard to recreational disturbance.

Based on the HRASAA, the likely nutrient load arising from the scheme is about 25.72 kg/[name] includes a financial contribution of £90,920 to achieve nutrient neutrality. The Council says that this contribution does not include its monitoring fee, which is calculated at 5% resulting in a total of £95,466. However, the calculation in the HRASAA, identifies a financial contribution of £90,943.20.

Irrespective of whether the financial contribution is correct, under the Habitats Regulations I must be certain, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that the development would not give rise to adverse effects on the integrity of the designated sites.

The HRASAA is clear that, because the proposal is for 32 dwellings, it cannot rely on the Council’s nutrient mitigation scheme at [address], which has no remaining capacity for developments of this scale. As a result, a Deed of Allocation is required to demonstrate that nitrate credits have been secured from an alternative, third‐party mitigation provider, and to confirm precisely where and how the contribution would be used to deliver nutrient offsetting. No such Deed of Allocation is before me. In the absence of this essential evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the development would achieve nutrient neutrality or that its effects on the designated sites would be adequately mitigated.

As such, the proposal fails to accord with Policy DM24 of the LP, which requires that development provides appropriate mitigation for impacts on internationally designated sites, and this must be secured in full before permission is granted. The Framework similarly requires that development affecting protected habitats is supported by adequate, secured mitigation. For the same reasons, the proposal is contrary to the Habitats Regulations

The proposed development would generate an estimated population of around 73 residents, based on an average household size of 2.28. The nearest GP practices likely to serve the development are The Elms Practice and [name]. Both are already operating beyond their capacity and are unable to absorb the additional patient demand arising from the scheme.

The Integrated Care Board (‘ICB’) is working with both practices to plan for anticipated population growth, including medium‐term options for expansion and longer‐term possibilities for relocation to a new site. However, these projects are not yet secured, and the only means of mitigating the direct impact of this development is to increase the physical capacity of existing primary care facilities. The ICB has therefore calculated the additional space required using its “[name] for [name] – [name] for Developers”, and has identified a necessary contribution of £20,878 to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) cannot be relied upon to mitigate this impact. CIL is intended to fund strategic, area‐wide infrastructure and is not directed toward primary care provision in Havant, as confirmed in the Council’s latest [name]. Where a development gives rise to a specific and measurable need for additional health capacity, that requirement must be secured through a Section 106 obligation.

Therefore, and having regard to my earlier findings on viability, the proposal fails to secure the necessary health contribution. As a result, it conflicts with CS Policy CS1 and CS21, which collectively ensure that new development is supported by the necessary social and community infrastructure, including health facilities.

The proposal also conflicts with the Framework, which expects development to make appropriate provision for infrastructure and for planning obligations to address site‐specific impacts.

The appeal site is located next to an amusement park, which includes a number of outdoor rides and attractions. Such uses typically involve intermittent but often high‐energy noise sources, including mechanical ride operation, impact noises from ride movements, and vocal noise from users. During my visit, I also observed amplified music being played across parts of this site, which is a common feature of amusement parks intended to create atmosphere and attract visitors. These characteristics mean that the use is inherently capable of generating elevated and fluctuating noise levels, particularly during peak operating periods, and this has the potential to give rise to disturbance for nearby sensitive receptors.

Accordingly, the Council has requested that a noise assessment be submitted to demonstrate that the development is both suitable and sustainable from an acoustic perspective.

Without such an assessment, it is not possible to understand the true acoustic environment or to determine whether the proposed dwellings would be exposed to unacceptable noise levels.

The appellant’s suggestion that the necessary noise assessment can be deferred to a planning condition is not persuasive on the evidence before me. While conditions can appropriately be used to mitigate identified impacts, they cannot remedy the absence of fundamental information where the acceptability of the development depends on understanding the existing noise environment.

On the information before me, there is an undetermined planning application for the amusement park, and its outcome is therefore uncertain. The presence of a single existing flat on the appeal site does not alter the fact that the scheme before me comprises 32 new dwellings, representing a substantial intensification of residential use. In these circumstances, neither the existing situation nor speculative future changes to neighbouring land uses, or uncertainty over future commercial occupiers, provide a sound basis for deferring the necessary assessments at this stage. While the PPG recognises that conditions may be used to control or mitigate noise, it does not support using them to fill evidential gaps or postpone assessment of matters that go to the heart of whether acceptable living conditions can be achieved.

As such, it has not been demonstrated that the living conditions of the occupiers of the new dwellings, would not be compromised by the adjacent amusement park and the proposal conflicts with [name] CS16 and DM10, and Policy DM18 of the LP. Together, these policies require that development provides a high standard of amenity, is not exposed to unacceptable levels of noise, and is supported by the necessary evidence to show that such impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated.

For the same reasons, the proposal also conflicts with the Framework, which requires that planning decisions ensure development is appropriate for its location, avoids noise‐sensitive uses being placed in areas where they would be adversely affected, and is supported by sufficient information to enable a proper understanding of the likely impacts. Whether the proposal makes appropriate provision for communal areas / open space and the maintenance of this and highways works.

The submissions do not clearly identify communal areas, areas of open space, or any highway works that may be required as part of the development. In the absence of this information, I understand the Councils concern that, should such elements form part of the final scheme, appropriate arrangements for their management, maintenance and long‐term monitoring would need to be secured. While the appellant suggests that these matters could be addressed through a condition requiring a management company to be established, no details have been provided regarding the land or infrastructure that would fall within the scope of such arrangements.

National guidance requires conditions to be precise, enforceable and capable of implementation. They cannot be used to defer the identification of essential components of a scheme or the mitigation required to support it. In the absence of clarity about what is to be managed or maintained, a condition would not provide the necessary certainty that appropriate stewardship could be secured.

Monitoring fees raise similar difficulties. Such fees relate to the administration and oversight of obligations and can only be lawfully secured through a planning obligation.

Consequently, the proposal fails to provide a robust mechanism to secure appropriate provision for communal areas / open space and the maintenance of this and highways works. As such, this fails to accord with CS Policy CS16, which expects development to deliver high‐quality places supported by appropriate stewardship arrangements to ensure that shared spaces remain safe, attractive and functional over time; CS Policy CS19, which requires necessary infrastructure and mitigation to be secured and funded so that development does not place an undue burden on public resources; and [name] DM11 and DM12, which require development to provide safe and suitable access for all users and to secure any off‐site highway improvements necessary to protect the safety and efficient operation of the transport network

The Framework reinforces these principles by requiring that development is supported by adequate, secured infrastructure.

[name] acknowledge the appellant’s view that earlier engagement from the Council might have enabled some of the outstanding matters to be resolved during the application process, this does not alter my position at appeal. I also recognise that certain issues may be surmountable with the submission of further information, but I must determine the proposal on the basis of the evidence before me.

Under Policy HY2 of the LP, the appeal site forms part of the wider Beachlands allocation (HY45), identified for comprehensive mixed‐use regeneration. The policy anticipates coordinated delivery across the allocation to ensure that land uses, infrastructure and public realm improvements come forward as an integrated whole. This approach is reinforced by CS Policy CS6.

The Council’s [site address] [name] and [name] (2019) and Ambition for [site address] Seafront (2022) identify the seafront, including the appeal site, as having strong potential for enhanced leisure and tourism, with opportunities to improve the visitor offer and support longer stays. Both documents also acknowledge the longer‐term potential for well‐designed new homes to contribute to wider regeneration. For the Beachlands area, the vision includes high‐quality apartments, independent cafés and restaurants with sea views, and improved public spaces that strengthen the connection to the beach.

On the evidence before me, it is not clear that developing this parcel in isolation would achieve the coordinated and integrated outcome envisaged by the allocation. Nevertheless, this and the above documents demonstrate that seafront regeneration has been a longstanding Council objective and lend considerable weight to the site’s longer‐term redevelopment.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five‐year housing land supply, which currently stands at around 1.8 years. The latest [name] (December 2024) confirms delivery at 74% of the requirement. Ordinarily, this would engage Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. However, in this case the Framework’s policies relating to designated sites and land at risk of flooding and coastal change provide strong reasons for refusing the proposal. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Against this background, the proposal would deliver 32 new homes. This would make a meaningful contribution to local housing needs and support the wider seafront regeneration strategy.

The delivery of additional homes is a clear benefit that aligns with the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing. This is reinforced by the Framework’s strengthened emphasis on making effective use of brownfield land, which requires substantial weight to be given to the value of using suitable previously developed sites within settlements for homes and other identified needs, unless doing so would result in substantial harm.

The construction of a major development, including commercial units and associated infrastructure, would generate economic activity, including jobs during construction, and the spending of future residents would help sustain local shops, services and employment. The design of the scheme would also represent an improvement over the existing development. These social, economic and environmental benefits are consistent with the Framework’s support for economic growth, good design and thriving communities.

Taken together, and in the context of the district’s acute housing land supply shortfall and regeneration ambitions, the proposal and its combined benefits are of significant importance.

However, based on my findings on the main issues, the proposal has not demonstrated that it would provide a safe environment for future occupiers or secure acceptable living conditions. Key matters relating to affordable housing, health contributions, parking and highway safety, nutrient neutrality, open‐space provision and maintenance, and biodiversity enhancements also remain unresolved. These are significant shortcomings, which, taken together, substantially reduce the overall suitability of the scheme and the weight that can reasonably be afforded to this and its benefits. I therefore attach only moderate weight to these.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Based on my findings on the main issues, the proposal would not provide a safe environment for future occupiers in respect of flood risk and coastal erosion, nor has it been shown that it would secure an acceptable standard of amenity in relation to noise. In addition, no affordable housing or health contributions have been secured, and concerns relating to parking and highway safety remain unresolved. The scheme also fails to secure nutrient neutrality; the protection, provision and long‐term maintenance of open space; the associated highway works; and the necessary ecological and biodiversity enhancements. As already stated, these represent significant shortcomings. Collectively, the harm arising from these matters are substantial, and the resulting conflict with the development plan and the Framework, attracts substantial weight.

Having taken account of the other considerations in support of the proposal, to which I attach moderate weight, I do not consider these to be sufficiently forceful, either individually or cumulatively, to outweigh the identified harm and conflict with the development plan. In this case, material considerations do not justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan taken as a whole.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.