Appeal 6001386

The appeal is dismissed.

Although the council had also refused the planning application on grounds related to harm to bats, they have (since the submission of additional information) decided to no longer defend this reason. Therefore, the main issue in this case is whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable increase to flood risk.

The appeal site is located amongst a cluster of former farm buildings on predominantly low land adjacent to the [name]. The site is separated from the river by a large paddock or garden with a pond, and beyond this a flood defence runs along the riverbank. A small watercourse also flows through the site towards the river. Although defended, the site is set within an area of flood zone 3a and both parties accept that this does not completely remove the risk of flooding.

The host building itself is a linear barn, due to the change in land levels the ground to one side and the rear rises up to create the appearance of a single-storey building from those sides. The proposal is for the conversion of the building to a dwellinghouse with only the upper floor being used for accommodation. The ground floor would provide non-habitable spaces, such as storage. It is agreed by both parties that the proposed finished floor levels of the accommodation would be above the potential flood levels. Nevertheless, residential development is considered as more vulnerable for the purposes of flood risk, and I must consider the risk across the lifetime of the development.

It is agreed by the parties that a sequential test would not be required in this case as the proposal is for a change of use. I have therefore considered the proposal against the exception test only.

In the case of this site, by the end of the lifetime of the development it is demonstrated that there would be a 1 in 200 year chance of a tidal flood breaching the defences, while by 2115 there would be a 1 in 1000 year chance of a fluvial flood breaching the flood defences. I understand that locally spring tides typically occur in the morning and late evening, and as such there is a potential for this to be during the hours of darkness, when occupiers are more likely asleep.

As the accommodation is above predicted flood levels future occupiers would be able to shelter in place if they could not evacuate. Although they could sign up to flood warning services, given the likely timing of any floods and the resultant potential for occupiers to be asleep, their response times may still be slow. Future occupiers may therefore be limited to sheltering in place. Once the flood has occurred it would not be possible to evacuate through the site access. Instead, any evacuation would be limited to the door proposed to the rear of the property on the first floor. This door would exit into the garden of the neighbouring property where flood waters would be significantly lower. Occupiers would then make their way across the neighbour’s garden to higher ground and a public road.

However, I am concerned that the flood depth within this neighbouring garden would still be dangerous for occupiers, particularly for children or those with mobility issues. This would especially be so should the flood waters be flowing. Moreover, this door would open onto an area currently planted with thick bushes and where I observed domestic storage. These features would create potentially hidden obstacles for occupiers, especially if any unaffixed items are moved by the flood waters. This would be further exacerbated given the potential for floods to occur during the hours of darkness when visibility would be hampered.

Further, although I note the neighbouring owner is willing to allow evacuation across their land, no formal agreement has been provided. Consequently, I cannot be certain that the evacuation route would be suitably provided and thereafter retained for use by future occupiers at the appeal site.

Future occupiers would be above the water level of predicted floods should they need to shelter in place. However, there is some disagreement as to how long the flood levels would peak for. I am particularly mindful that the flood defences and tidal flows would slow down water draining away. Consequently, I find there is a potential for flood levels to peak for up to seven hours. Occupiers would therefore need to shelter while waters rise, peak and fall. Being confined to the property would expose future occupiers to the risks of potentially sheltering without electricity, lighting or heating, and with medical emergencies. As such, sheltering for this period of time would not be appropriately safe.

This would be especially so for more vulnerable occupiers, and as the dwelling would be large enough to accommodate a family, this could include children. Should occupiers need rescuing during the flood event any emergency crews would need to travel through the flood waters to reach the site and so their safety would also be put at risk.

I am mindful that the emergency exit is likely to clear of floodwater much quicker than the main access. I also recognise that the flood waters may, depending on the circumstances of the surrounding area, drop sooner than outlined above. However, I have not been provided with sufficient details as to the timescales over which this may happen.

I am mindful that a flood of this extent would be a less frequent occurrence as it would rely upon a number of factors coinciding. I do not however, find it to be so rare a potential as to lessen my concerns as to the potential risk. The proposed dwelling would not be safe for its lifetime and would increase flood risk onsite.

[name] recognise that the proposal would result in some economic benefits during the conversion works and from future occupiers, it would only provide one new dwelling, and this would be in the context of Barnstaple. Therefore, while the proposal would provide some social and economic benefits, these would be so modest that in relation to the town as a whole, it would not benefit the sustainability of the community.

It has been suggested that the proposal would secure an alternative use for the curtilage listed host building as well as its long-term conservation. However, it appeared from my site visit that the barn was being actively used for this purpose, and it has not been suitably demonstrated that its conservation is not currently secured. Therefore, in this regard the proposal does not provide a benefit to sustainability.

The proposal would not be safe for future occupiers over the lifetime of the development, and the benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the identified flood risk. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy ST03 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (the LP). Amongst other matters, this policy requires proposals to take account of climate change in minimising flood risk and the vulnerability of people, as well as avoiding development on land at risk of flooding for vulnerable uses. The proposal also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including with Paragraph 178 which requires proposals be safe for their lifetime, consider the vulnerability of its users and provide sustainability benefits that outweigh the flood risk.

I note that both parties agree the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. However, the Framework provides a clear reason for refusing the development, that is flood risk, and therefore the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing, and the proposal would provide a new dwelling contributing towards this. It would also lead to some small social and economic benefits. Given the small scale of the proposal these matters would at most attract modest weight. Conversely, the proposal would result in harm by way of flood risk, in conflict with the development plan as a whole. This attracts significant weight and outweighs the benefits associated with the proposed development.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.