Appeal 6001107

The appeal is dismissed.

During the course of the appeal, the Council advised that since the determination of the planning application, the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2038 (WNP) reached a stage of preparation such that it can be given significant weight in the decision-making process. This is by virtue of the WNP referendum taking place on the 11 December 2025. The Council have subsequently confirmed that the referendum vote was in favour of the WNP and that it is likely to be considered at the Council’s Cabinet meeting on the 27 January 2026.

Given that paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that weight can be given to relevant policies in emerging plans and that the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given, I find that the WNP now carries considerable weight. Consequently, I will consider any relevant WNP policies below under the main issues.

Furthermore, given that the WNP contains Policy W18 related to affordable housing, the Council have proposed an additional reason for refusal. This states that in the absence of a mechanism to secure contributions towards affordable housing in the Weymouth locality, the proposed development falls contrary to the provisions of WNP Policy W18. As a result, and as the appellant was given the opportunity and provided further comments in relation to this matter, I will deal with this as a main issue.

In light of the Preliminary Matters above, the main issues are whether the appeal proposal: • would be at risk of flooding; • would preserve the setting of the [name] listed buildings comprising No’s 5 and [address]/[address]; and • should provide a contribution towards affordable housing.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Weymouth (SFRA) Level 2 identifies the site as falling outside of an area at risk of flooding from surface water, falls outside areas at risk of flooding from defended fluvial flooding and outside of an area at risk of tidal flooding.

In addition, there is no dispute between the main parties that the data provided by the National Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 (NaFRA2) demonstrates that the appeal site falls outside of any flood risk associated with [name] 2 and 3 and from surface water for the present day.

However, the Council have identified that the appellants Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) does not include the ‘toggle’ related to [name] 2070 to 2125. It is these maps that the Council evidence as demonstrating that the appeal site falls within an area at high risk in the future from fluvial and tidal flooding (defended and undefended). The latest updates to the NaFRA in August 2025 post-date these maps but does not alter the data or findings. As a result, and from the maps presented by the Council, I have no reason to disagree and find that the site is at risk of flooding in the future.

In relation to this, Paragraph 170 of the Framework states that inappropriate development in areas of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future).

It follows that in light of Paragraph 173 of the Framework stating that a sequential risk-based approach should be taken to individual applications at risk from any form of flooding, the [name] applies. While the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) has been updated in relation to applying Paragraph 175 of the Framework1 to apply a proportionate approach, this relates to surface water flooding and as such is not directly relevant to the proposal that is at risk of fluvial and tidal flooding.

I have been provided with details of a number of sites and planning permissions for dwellings in the LP area that the Council state are sequentially preferable to the appeal site. The appellant has not sought to dispute the Council’s evidence in relation to this. Furthermore, I have not been provided with details from the appellant demonstrating that he has applied a sequential approach to site selection that the PPG confirms should not be constrained to land within an applicant’s ownership or control. As such, the [name] has not been satisfied. In the absence of the [name] being satisfied, there is no need to move on to the [name].

In relation to this, I note that Paragraph 027 of the PPG states that the absence of a 5-year housing land supply is not a relevant consideration in applying the [name] for individual applications. 1 Paragraph: 027 [name]: 7-[phone]

Although measures such as providing safe refuge and raising floor levels can help reduce the effects of flooding, they do not resolve the issue of ensuring safe access and evacuation for residents during a flood. In line with part (e) of paragraph 181 of the Framework, development in flood-risk areas should only proceed where it can be shown that suitable access and escape routes are available, supported by an agreed emergency plan.

Data from the SFRA shows that while flood depths and velocities on [address] are relatively low, the surrounding area would experience significantly higher and faster-moving floodwater during both 1 in 100 and 1 in 30 year events, including climate-change allowances. The FRA suggests the Esplanade would provide a safe evacuation route, but no evidence is provided, and the SFRA indicates that the Esplanade is itself at risk and as such it remains uncertain whether residents could safely evacuate. With no on-site parking, access to vehicles must also be considered; even the nearest lower-risk car park at [address] would require residents to pass through floodwater of a considerable depth. As such, I cannot be sure that safe pedestrian access can be obtained and guaranteed. The presence or otherwise of flood risk alerts, that rely upon received and quick action, do not provide complete protection.

Although the upper floors would provide safe refuge and finished floor levels sit at a level drawing no objection from the Environment Agency, the absence of a reliable, unobstructed access or escape route during a flood would expose future occupants to avoidable risk. If an emergency occurred during a flood, restricted access could endanger life.

While the previous extant permission is a material consideration, it predates the latest flood-risk evidence and more importantly the proposed increase in bedroom numbers would likely raise occupancy levels. This would result in a greater risk by potentially placing additional pressure on emergency services.

It follows from the above that the appeal site would be at risk of flooding. As such, the proposal conflicts with LP Policy ENV5 that, amongst other things, states that in assessing proposals in an area with a medium or high risk of flooding, the Council will need to be satisfied that there are no reasonably alternative sites with a lower probability of flooding and that adequate measures will be taken to mitigate the risk and ensure that potential occupants will be safe. As a result, the proposal is also contrary to the provisions of Chapter 14 of the Framework.

The site is located within the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area (CA) but there is no dispute between the main parties that the proposal would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the CA. This is due to the improvements proposed to its frontage elevation and change to the roof not being highly visible from the public domain. I have no reason to disagree.

However, and although the appeal property is not a listed building, the adjoining buildings comprising No. 5 and No.[address]/[address] are [name] listed buildings ([name] 1135182 and 1135183). Both of these buildings are of special historic and architectural significance due to their grand presence, architectural detailing and relationship with the commercial centre of Weymouth.

Although the ground floor of No.[address] adjoins the ground floor of the appeal site, its upper floors are set back with its main outlook facing to its frontage and from windows to the rear over the upper floors and roof of the appeal site. Views from these rear windows are across an arrangement of differing roof forms, achieved through variations in building heights and scale, combined with the spatial offset. This enhances the building’s sense of importance and visual dominance, while enabling appreciation of the distinctive, compact urban fabric that shapes the listed building’s setting and significance.

At present, the gable facing [address] and the smaller connecting section between the [address] and [address] buildings—shaped by its lower ridgeline and roof that slopes away from the Listed Buildings—create a brief sense of openness and breathing space within this otherwise tightly packed group of structures. This spatial break plays an important role in the setting of the building.

This modest break in the built form also offers a degree of visual relief to No. [address], which incorporates [address]. Here too, the lower, subordinate profile of the connecting roof contributes positively by maintaining a brief sense of openness.

Although the overall ridge heights of the [address] and [address] buildings would remain unchanged, the proposed roof extension would introduce additional mass and bulk at the centre of the site. This results from the substantial infill structure, which rises on its northern side to form a solid rendered wall topped by a flat roof. While this change would not be readily visible from street level, it would nonetheless alter the outlook and diminish the sense of relief currently experienced by the listed buildings. The intervention would curtail the views across the existing, intricate roofscape and erode the contribution made by the varied, traditional roof forms to the significance of the listed buildings and their setting.

Consequently, I find that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the setting of the nearby listed buildings. The introduction of a dominant, overbearing roof form would compete with, and diminish, the architectural interest and remove the brief sense of openness provided to the adjoining listed buildings. In this context, the scheme would give rise to less than substantial harm to the significance of these

By reason of the less than substantial harm being at a local level, it would be at the lower end of the spectrum. It is important to note that less than substantial harm does not equate to a less than substantial planning objection. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that less than substantial harm be weighed against public benefits of the proposal. [name] acknowledge the proposal would enable the building to be modernised, refurbished and brought back into use meeting modern requirements while providing 4 additional dwellings, by reason of the extant consent for 4 dwellings and small scale of the proposal, these benefits do not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the listed buildings.

It follows from the above that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the [name] listed buildings comprising No’s 5 and [address]/[address]. The proposal therefore conflicts with the statutory presumption under s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the setting of listed buildings. It is also contrary to LP Policy ENV4 and [name] W39 and W45. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development conserve and where appropriate enhance the significance, weigh any harm against the public benefits, protect the historic environment and demonstrate that they respect and will cause no harm to heritage assets and their setting.

WNP Policy W18 states, amongst other things, that proposals for housing that result in between 2 and 9 units on sites of less than 0.5ha will provide up to 35% [name] or the commuted sum equivalent to the Local Authority for development of [name] in the Weymouth area. This is subject to a Financial Viability Assessment to determine the precise amount.

As the appeal proposal comprises 4 dwellings on a site of less than 0.5ha, WNP Policy W18 applies. However, the proposal does not offer 35% affordable housing provision, does not propose a financial contribution equivalent to 35% provision, is not supported by a financial viability assessment seeking to justify reduced provision or a mechanism to secure affordable housing.

[name] acknowledge that the appeal site already benefits from a consent for 4 dwellings, and that the appellant is against this additional reason for refusal as the WNP and its referendum post-date the submission of the planning application and the appeal, the proposal includes additional unit sizes and bedroom numbers. In light of this, given the Preliminary Matters above, and in the absence of other substantive evidence from the appellant to justify a reduced level of affordable housing provision, I find that it has not been adequately demonstrated that a contribution towards affordable housing should not be provided. As such, the proposal conflicts with WNP Policy W18, the aims of which I have outlined above.

I have had regard to the addition of 4 dwellings which would contribute towards the supply of homes in the area, are well located close to services and facilities, could be built out quickly and would provide benefits from spend and jobs associated with the use of sustainable construction techniques that weigh in favour of the proposal. However, these benefits are limited by the small scale of the proposal and existing consent for 4 dwellings and must be considered in that context.

I note that the site can be safely accessed outside of flood events with no concerns raised regarding the provision of a flat roof design in itself, impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and location of the site. However, as these are requirements of local and national planning policy and guidance, I give them limited weight.

Conversely, I have found that the site is at risk of flooding, would harm the setting and significance of designated heritage assets and has failed to justify the lack of contribution towards affordable housing. The relevant policies in this regard are largely consistent with the Framework where it states that planning proposals should direct development to areas at the lowest risk of flooding, protect heritage assets and require affordable housing provision. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and I give significant weight to the conflict with these policies.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. However, I have found above that the proposal would cause harm to flood risk and heritage assets, and this is contrary to the provisions of Chapters 14 and 16 of the Framework. Given footnote 7 to Paragraph 11 d) i. of the Framework, and the harm I have identified to assets of particular importance in the form of flood risk and heritage assets, this provides a strong reason for refusing the development and there is no need for me to carry out the assessment in Paragraph 11. d) ii. of the Framework.

In any case, the benefits from four dwellings are limited by its scale and existing consent on the site. Conversely, there would be harm from the location at risk of flooding, harm to heritage assets and a failure to justify the lack of affordable housing provision, and I give this harm greater weight. Therefore, even if the balance outlined at Framework paragraph 11(d) ii were considered, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Overall, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.