Appeal 6002078

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development specified in the banner above is taken from the Decision Notice. It is different to the description specified on the Application Form. However, the description above was agreed in writing between the appellant and the Council during the determination of the planning application.

The appellant acknowledges that the application is part retrospective. Nevertheless, I will refer to the proposal as the proposed development, as it has not been fully completed.

The main issues are whether the proposal would (a) be suitably located having regard to the spatial strategy and the accessibility of services and facilities; and (b) accord with national planning policy, with regard to flood risk.

Policy LP3 of the Fenland Local Plan, May 2014 (LP) outlines the spatial strategy for the area. It seeks to direct the majority of development to [name] and [name]. The appeal site is outside of the existing urban area of the identified settlements. Therefore, it is within an ‘Elsewhere’ location.

LP Policy LP3 seeks to restrict residential development in ‘Elsewhere’ locations to where it has been demonstrated to be essential to the effective operation of specific land uses, such as agriculture or forestry. [name] of LP Policy LP12 supports LP Policy LP3. It explains that an applicant should provide evidence explaining the existing functional need for the dwelling, amongst other matters.

The appellant has indicated that the mobile homes would be occupied by family members who work for the business that operates from the site. Nonetheless, there is no cogent evidence that there is an existing functional need for people to permanently reside on site. Moreover, the information submitted does not address the requirements set out within LP Policy LP12, [name].

[name] of LP Policy LP12 outlines criteria which proposals in rural areas need to satisfy. The proposal does conform with aspects of [name], including not having an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. However, it also requires development to be in or adjacent to the existing developed footprint of a village.

There is a cluster of development close to the appeal site, but it is limited in scale. There are no facilities, such as a village hall or public house, within the cluster of development which would help identify it as a standalone village. The cluster of development is more akin to ribbon development in the countryside. Consequently, the proposal would not be within or adjacent to the existing developed footprint of a village. Taking the above into account, the proposal would be contrary to the spatial strategy set out within the development plan.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) seeks to avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one of the identified circumstances applies. Although the appeal site is close to existing development, the word isolated in the Framework connotes a dwelling that is separate or remote from a settlement. Accordingly, the proposed development would be isolated, and it does not comprise one of the circumstances specified in the Framework.

The Framework also states to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It also advises that opportunities to promote walking, cycling, and public transport should be identified and that it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised.

The appeal site is far removed from the nearest settlement, Wimblington. As such, it is not in proximity to the services and facilities necessary to support the everyday needs of future occupiers. To access Wimblington future occupiers would have to travel along [address]. This section of the road is narrow and subject to the national speed limit. There is not a continuous footpath between the appeal site and Wimblington and there is also no street lighting close to the appeal site. The walk to Wimblington would not be pleasant, and at night or during inclement weather it would be unsafe. Furthermore, the appeal site is not in proximity to any public transport. As such, future occupiers would be reliant on the use of private motor vehicles. Consequently, the development would not help maintain the vitality of the rural community of Wimblington.

As above, I acknowledge that the mobile homes are proposed to be occupied by people who work for the business operating from the site. This would reduce the need for travel. However, the appellant has not applied for a personal permission or for occupancy restricted mobile homes. Therefore, the occupancy of the mobile homes by workers from the site cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity. Regardless, future occupiers would still need to travel to Wimblington to access services such as the doctors or school.

The appellant has highlighted two planning permissions1 for the siting of mobile homes in proximity to the appeal site. Those permissions were for accommodation for people with Gypsy and Traveller status. As such, those proposals were assessed against LP Policy LP5 and Planning Policy for [name]. The appellant does not seek to claim Gypsy and Traveller status. Whilst national policy does not seek to restrict the occupancy of mobile homes to specific groups of people, it does seek to control the location of residential development. On balance, I consider that the Council’s approach to decision making has been consistent and it has not acted in a discriminatory manner.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not be suitably located having regard to the spatial strategy and the accessibility of services and facilities. It would be contrary to LP policies LP3 and LP12, for the reasons set out above.

The proposed development in part comprises of the change of use of land to site two mobile homes and the erection of a utility/day room. The appeal site is vacant land, but forms part of a wider site used for commercial purposes. Despite the presence of existing development on the wider site, the proposed residential use would increase the vulnerability of the site to flood risk.

The Framework sets out a pragmatic approach whereby a sequential test would not be required where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that built development would not be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding, now and in the future. The entire site is within [name] 3 but is protected by flood defences.

The appeal site is positioned higher than the road and neighbouring land which accommodates mobile homes. I note that the Environment Agency concluded that if flood defences were to fail, the neighbouring land should not be flooded. Crucially the Environment Agency did not definitively conclude on the neighbouring land, and it has not concluded that the appeal site would not flood if defences failed. Without substantive evidence to the contrary, I cannot conclude that the site would not be at risk of flooding if flood defences were to fail. Therefore, the proposed development would be in an area of high flood risk. Consequently, a sequential test would be required to steer new development to areas within the lowest risk of flooding from any source.

I note that a sequential test should be proportionate to the development proposed. However, the onus is on the appellant to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available alternative sites at a lower risk of flooding. In this instance, the appellant has not provided any details of searches undertaken. Moreover, results of other sequential tests which were undertaken many years ago cannot be relied upon as different land may now be available and/or flood risk could have changed. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that an acceptable sequential test has been undertaken. I cannot conclude that there are no reasonably available sites within an area at a lower risk of flooding. 1 Planning permission refs. F/YR21/0356/F and F/YR21/0713/F

The Framework specifies that the exception test may have to be applied when it is not possible for development to be located in areas with a lower risk of flooding. After applying the sequential test, I cannot conclude this. Therefore, the exception test is not required in this instance.

I acknowledge that the site did not flood during heavy rainfall in historic storm events, and that the Environment Agency did not object to the proposal. Also, the proposed development could be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Notwithstanding this, it does not alter my assessment that a sequential test is required, and it has not been demonstrated that an acceptable test has been undertaken.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not accord with national planning policy, with regard to flood risk. It would be contrary to LP Policy LP14 where it indicates that all development proposals should adopt a sequential approach to flood risk from all forms of flooding.

The proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. This would be expected from development and is a neutral factor that neither weighs in favour nor against the proposal. The proposal would make an efficient use of land and support multigenerational living. It would also boost the supply of housing and there would be economic benefits associated with an increase in the local population and the construction period. Nonetheless, these benefits would not outweigh the identified harm.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.