Appeal 6001952

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) for the change of use of an agricultural building to 1 dwellinghouse, at [site address] , in accordance with the details submitted pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 3, [name].2 (1) of the GPDO through application ref 25/00279/PRIOR. The approval is subject to the conditions set out in the GPDO.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, grants planning permission for development consisting of: (a) a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order; or (b) development referred to in paragraph (a) together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building referred to in paragraph (a) to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of that Schedule. Such development is permitted subject to the limitations and restrictions set out within paragraph Q.1.(a) to (m) inclusive.

Although this permitted development right was amended on 21 May 2024, the submitted application form confirms that the appellant chose to use the permitted development right as it stood prior to 21 May 2024, under the transitional arrangements. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis.

As the principle of development is established through the grant of planning permission by the GPDO, it is not required to accord with the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework, or any other supplementary planning documents, although these may assist in assessing the relevant matters requiring prior approval.

The main issue is whether future occupiers of the development would be safe from flooding.

The application was submitted and determined on the basis that the site was located within flood zone 2. Since that time, the Environment Agency (EA) [name] for Planning has been updated to include local detailed models and a new improved national model. The updated map indicates that the whole of the appeal site is now in flood zone 1 and is not at risk of flooding, including from surface water. Accordingly, given the size of the site, a flood risk assessment (FRA) is not required and a refusal based upon the adequacy of a document that is not required would be unreasonable.

The Council state that although the site is now in flood zone 1, it still falls within the Isle of Axholme residual flood risk area as identified within their Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). Development in this area should have a minimum finished floor level (FFL) of 4.4m AOD, or where this cannot be achieved, there should be flood resilience measures that will be implemented as part of the development.

I have not been provided with a copy of the Council’s SFRA, advised what level it is, or advised when it was produced or last updated. These documents are generally produced by the Council, with the advice of the EA, and using the most up to date evidence available at that time. As such, the SFRA is likely to have been produced based upon evidence that put the site in flood zone 2, and which is now out of date.

The submitted plans indicate that the ground level within the site is 4.15m AOD and that the internal FFL would be 0.20m above this at 4.35m AOD. This is marginally below the 4.40m AOD level, which I am advised is recommended by the Council’s SFRA for development within the Isle of Axholme residual flood risk area.

Given that the updated and improved modelling work used to produce the EA flood map now puts the site at low probability of flooding, the 0.05m shortfall is negligible. In reaching this view, I have had regard to the critical flood levels for the area that I have been referred to, which are 3.8m AOD in the site-specific FRA and 4.1m AOD in the SFRA. The FFL of the development would exceed both of these levels, which are based on the old modelling data.

As the whole site and its access are in flood zone 1, there is no requirement for an evacuation plan to demonstrate how future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be able to reach dry land, in flood zone 1, in the event of a flood.

I therefore conclude that future occupiers of the development would be safe from flooding.

The appellant should note that the GPDO requires that the development shall be completed within a period of 3 years from the date that the prior approval is granted. A number of other conditions apply to such development, including that the conversion is carried out in accordance with the details provided in the application.

As the building and hardstanding surrounding it is existing, surface water will not be increased by its change of use. Moreover, drainage details will be subject to building regulations. The FRA is no longer a requirement for the reasons explained above and therefore it is not necessary to condition compliance with it. The site is not adjacent to the highway, and parking and turning is available on site, and is shown on the submitted plans, which the development must be carried out in accordance with. No excavations are required and no new garden area is proposed. The conditions suggested by the Council relating to drainage, turning space, contamination and soil importation are therefore unnecessary.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted.