Appeal 6000856

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for the development having regard to flood risk.

The site comprises a vacant 2-storey commercial building to the south of the river Stour. The site is located in flood zone 3 and is at high risk of surface water and fluvial flooding. The proposal is for the change of use of the property to a dwelling.

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 (whether existing or future). This is echoed by policy SP.31 of the Wyre Forest District Local Plan (2022) (LP) which also seeks to guide development away from areas of high flood risk.

Paragraph 181 of the Framework sets out that development should only be allowed at areas at risk of flooding if certain matters can be demonstrated. These include that development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient, that flood risk is not increased elsewhere, that any residual risk can be safely managed and that safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate as part of an agreed emergency plan.

The proposal would result in a change of use of the building from commercial to residential use, replacing a ‘less vulnerable’ land use with a ‘more vulnerable’ one, including habitable rooms to the ground floor. In its current use the building would not be occupied as a place of residence and thus the vulnerability of the development to the risks of flooding would increase as a result of the proposal.

The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) states that the site is at risk of fluvial and surface water flooding and that, factoring in an allowance for climate change, a 1 in 100 year flooding event could result in flood depths of over 1 metre above ground level. Based on the information before me this would result in flooding of the kitchen, dining room and a bedroom. This would present a significant safety concern for future occupiers.

The FRA states that mitigation is likely to be required to protect the property from flooding during the lifetime of the development. It confirms that there would be no dry access during a flood event and provides some commentary on measures that could be deployed to improve the flood resistance and resilience of the building.

The FRA states that a combination of raised floor and flood resistance measures will be needed to safeguard against the flood depths of over 1 metre in a design flood event (1 in 100 chance each year). It is not proposed to raise the floor level of the building, and the proposal is reliant on flood resistance measures. The PPG1 states that flood resistant construction can prevent entry of water or minimise the amount that may enter a building with water depths up to approximately 0.6 metres. It goes on to state that where measures to exclude water in this way are proposed above this level, advice should be sought from a suitably qualified building surveyor, architect or structural engineer. There is no clarification before me that the flood resistance measures would be successful in preventing water ingress at this greater depth, or that they would not compromise the structural integrity of the building.

The PPG is clear that flood resistance and resilience measures cannot be used to justify development in inappropriate locations2. Whilst the resilience measures might help in minimising flood damage, I cannot be assured that the resistance measures would be successful in an extreme flood event. Thus, I cannot be assured that the proposal would achieve an acceptable level of flood protection for its occupiers. Whilst future occupiers may well sign up to the Environment Agency’s flood warning system, that would only be an appropriate course of action if it were clear that the development could be made safe. Given this, I cannot be assured that the development’s impacts could be rendered acceptable by the imposition of conditions requiring the implementation of flood mitigation measures/ a flood emergency plan.

The FRA states that, in making the development flood resistant, flood water would be displaced, increasing flood risk elsewhere and that compensatory storage for this displaced flood water cannot be achieved. The PPG3 states that where it is not possible to fully mitigate the impacts of development on flood risk elsewhere, the FRA will need to fully detail the extent and nature of the increase in risk and to assess its significance. The FRA does not provide a level of detail on this risk to enable this assessment. Thus, I cannot be assured that the proposal would not result in harm arising from an increase in the risk of flooding elsewhere.

It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would be safe for its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Consequently, I conclude that the location of the development is not suitable in regard to flood risk. It therefore conflicts with those aims of LP Policy SP.31 which seek to manage flood risk. It would also be contrary to the guidance contained within the Framework relating to flooding. 1 Paragraph: 068 [name]: 7-068-20220825 2 Paragraph: 068 [name]: 7-068-20220825 3 Paragraph: 049 [name]: 7-049-20220825

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes, and the proposal would make a small contribution to housing supply in an area with good access to services and facilities. Furthermore, the proposal would bring a derelict, long-term vacant building back into use, making use of a brownfield site, which the Framework encourages. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield sites within settlements for homes.

However, I must weigh these benefits against the development’s risk to future occupiers in relation to flooding and the potential increase in flood risk elsewhere. The Framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas at high risk of flooding should be avoided. For the reasons given, I find that the development would not be an acceptable location in relation to flooding. Given this, the above benefits do not outweigh the harm identified in relation to flood risk.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.