Appeal 6002206

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal includes a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which did not form part of the planning application. The Council has been given the opportunity to comment on this. On this basis, I do not consider that any party would be unfairly prejudiced. I have had consideration to this document in determining this appeal.

The main issues are: - whether the development would be acceptable in relation to flood risk; -whether the site is in a suitable location for housing having regard to the Council’s housing strategy and access to services; and -the effect of the proposal on the setting and significance of the listed building known as [name].

The site comprises an agricultural barn located in [name] 3. The proposal seeks to convert and extend the barn to form a dwelling house. 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. It sets out a sequential test to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Where it is not possible for development to be located in areas with the lowest risk of flooding, the Framework sets out an exception test. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that avoiding flood risk through the sequential test is the most effective way of addressing flood risk because it places the least reliance on measures like flood defences, flood warnings and property level resilience features and will help to ensure that development is steered to the lowest risk areas1.

The FRA does not consider alternative sites and thus it has not been demonstrated that there are no other sites in areas of lower risk of flooding that could accommodate the proposal. The requirements of the sequential test are thus not satisfied. The PPG is clear that the exception test should only be applied where the sequential test has been passed and there are no reasonably available, lower risk sites, suitable for the development. As the proposal does not satisfy the sequential test, the need to undertake the exception test does not arise.

The FRA does not include calculations of estimated flood levels or an assessment of residual flood risks. It thus does not represent a site-specific flood risk assessment that has been prepared in accordance with the guidance in the PPG. Whilst the FRA sets out a number of flood resistance and resilience measures, in the absence of a site-specific FRA which calculates estimated flood levels, I cannot be assured that these measures would successfully prevent water ingress and allow for adequate escape routes in a flood event. Thus, I cannot be assured that the proposal would achieve an acceptable level of flood protection for its occupiers, or that the development’s impacts could be rendered acceptable by the imposition of conditions requiring the implementation of flood mitigation measures.

In light of the above, the site is not a suitable location for the development, having regard to the potential for flooding. It therefore conflicts with those aims of policies CS5 and CS9 of the [site address] [name] (2013) (CS) and policy PSP20 of the Policies, Sites and Places Local Plan (2017) (LP) which seek to ensure that development be located away from areas of flood risk and require that the sequential and exception tests will be applied to direct development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. I also find conflict with Section 14 of the Framework which has similar aims.

The site is located in the open countryside outside of the boundaries of any settlement. LP Policy PSP40 states that residential development in the open countryside will only be acceptable in a limited number of specified circumstances, one of which allows for the conversion and re-use of existing buildings for residential purposes where specific criteria are met. The appellant suggests that one such criterion, that any extension as part of the conversion is not disproportionate to the original building, would be satisfied.

The proposal involves the erection of an additional storey on the existing modest barn. Whilst this would not increase the building’s footprint it would double the floor area of the building and would result in a building of more than double the existing height and volume. This would represent a significant, disproportionate increase in the building’s scale, contrary to the requirements of criterion 4 iii of LP policy PSP40.

LP policy PSP11 seeks to ensure that appropriate, safe, accessible, convenient, and attractive access is provided for all mode trips arising to and from the proposal. 1 Paragraph: 023 [name]: 7-[phone] It requires that residential development proposals are located on safe, useable walking and, or cycling routes, that are an appropriate distance to key services and facilities and where some key services and facilities are not accessible by walking and cycling, are located on safe, useable walking routes, that are an appropriate distance to a suitable bus stop facility, served by an appropriate public transport service, which connects to destinations containing the remaining key services and facilities.

The site is accessed from [site address] , a narrow unlit rural lane accessed from the A403 which connects to Pilning and [site address] . At my site visit I observed that the A403 is an unlit road with a high volume of traffic and a speed limit of 50mph. I observed that parts of the road included a footpath, however this is not continuous along its length. There are no services or facilities within the vicinity of the site, and I have not been directed to any apparent opportunities to use public transport nearby. Whilst there is no indication that the site is isolated, given the level of local service provision and the local highway conditions, journeys on foot or by bike may be undesirable to occupiers of the dwelling resulting in a likelihood that residents would be highly dependent on private vehicles, the least sustainable form of transport.

With regard to the Council’s housing strategy and access to services, the site is not a suitable location for housing, conflicting with those aims of LP policies PSP11 and PSP40 set out above. Conflict also arises with the Framework, which seeks to guide development towards sustainable solutions.

[name], a grade II listed building, is located to the north of the site. Statute requires that I pay special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting2.

[name] is a 17th century farmhouse, the significance of which appears to be derived from the antiquity of parts of its fabric, its architectural interest and its rural setting. It is located within a cluster of buildings which have been converted to residential use. Whilst these buildings have retained a largely traditional agricultural appearance, their conversion has nonetheless subdivided the curtilage and altered the setting of the listed building. Notwithstanding this, whilst altered, the farmhouse’s surroundings continue to contribute positively to its rural setting and allow for an appreciation of its agricultural origins. Though modern in appearance and separated by intervening built form, the agricultural nature of the appeal site and host building positively contribute to this rural setting.

The proposal would result in the replacement of the existing agricultural barn with a large dwelling. By virtue of its scale, the dwelling would dominate the modest, traditional listed farmhouse and the converted buildings which surround it and the dwelling’s excessive scale and uncharacteristic form would be clearly perceptible from the surrounding area. This would detract from and erode the rural character of the site and its contribution to the rural setting of the listed building, resulting in harm to its significance. I find that the harm would be less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 2 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

The development would result in one dwelling which would contribute to the area’s housing requirement. Factoring in the acknowledged shortfall in housing supply I attach significant weight to this benefit. Nevertheless, heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource. Overall, I do not consider that the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the great weight that I must attach to the harm to the designated heritage asset. Conflict therefore arises with the historic environment protection policies in the Framework.

The development would result in harm to the setting and significance of the listed building [name]. Conflict therefore arises with those aims of LP policy PSP17 and CS policy CS9 which seek to ensure that proposals protect the significance of heritage assets.

It is stated that the proposal comprises a self-build dwelling. The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 sets out that the primary purpose of the build must be for personal occupancy and that ownership must initially be retained by the self-builder. So as not to undermine the aims of the legislation, this is a matter that reasonably needs to be controlled. To be considered a self-build dwelling there must be an effective mechanism through which the dwelling could be secured as a self-build property. Such matters would normally be contained within a legal agreement to limit ownership/first occupancy or bind the requirement to successors in title should the land/property be sold in the future. No planning obligation is before me, and a condition would not be sufficient to ensure that the dwelling is constructed as a self-build dwelling. Consequently, I afford limited weight to the benefits of the provision of self-build housing.

In support of the proposal the appellant references the converted buildings which surround [name]. The full details of these proposals, and the circumstances in which they were converted, are not before me. Nonetheless there is no indication that the conversion of these buildings resulted in a comparable form or scale of development. These developments do not therefore appear to be comparable to the appeal proposal.

The Council confirms that it is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. In such an event, paragraph 11d of the Framework indicates that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 of the Framework lists areas at risk of flooding and heritage assets as such an area/ asset of importance.

I have found harm in relation to the development’s impact on the setting and significance of a designated heritage asset and in relation to the risk to the dwelling’s occupiers to flooding, which, in accordance with Footnote 7 of the Framework, provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. Thus, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined at paragraph 11, and, as a material consideration, the Framework would not indicate that permission should be granted.

The proposal would not be an appropriate location for residential development in relation to the site’s risk of flooding, the Council’s settlement strategy and the harm to the setting of a listed building. The conflict in these areas is determinative and cannot be addressed through the imposition of conditions.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Thus, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.