Appeal 6002331

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues of the appeal are: • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Westwick Conservation Area (CA); and • whether the proposal would be ancillary to the host dwelling; and • whether the proposal adequately addresses flood risk on site.

[site address] (No 45) comprises a detached, two-storey dwelling positioned outside the defined development limits of Oakington, lying within the Westwick Conservation Area. The property sits within a cluster of both terraced and detached houses set amidst an otherwise predominantly rural setting. To the rear, the site includes a garden alongside a gravelled section that contains a disused barn and parking provision, with a boundary fence dividing the two areas.

The significance of the CA derives from its historical ties as an agricultural community, and this link continues into present day due to the presence of rural buildings and cottages, including traditional materials. The site sits next to a gated access, and to the west of this is the guided busway and the former Oakington railway station/ station master’s house. The Westwick Conservation Area Appraisal (2005) (WCAA), states that the host dwelling was formerly the [name] which opened in 1858. Between the old pub and the row of old railway cottages there is an accessway which allows views of a pleasant weatherboarded and slate outbuilding.

Although the proposal attempts to reference the appearance of the former barn, and the nearby weatherboarded outbuilding, exact details of the HardiePlank cladding proposed have not been provided. Given the lack of details, I cannot assess its colour, grain, texture and overall appearance. Nevertheless, this material would have limited visibility when viewed from the public realm and would be restricted to one elevation which is partially hidden by the flood defence wall. In any case, acceptability or otherwise could be assessed by a condition requiring the submission of materials for consideration by the local planning authority. However, as I am recommending the dismissal of the appeal for the reasons concerning flood risk set out below, it is not necessary for me to pursue this matter further.

I have a statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area (CA). There would only be glimpsed views of the annexe from within the public realm. Therefore, the proposal, subject to a condition to secure appropriate materials, would ensure the character and appearance of the conservation area is preserved. As such, I find no residual heritage harm.

I conclude, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the of the CA. Consequently, the proposal would accord with Policy H/13, HQ/1 NH/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018) (LP), which requires that developments sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets and that they are compatible with the surrounding location and appropriate in terms of materials in relation to the surrounding area.

The proposal also responds to paragraph 135 and 212 of the NPPF as they require that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change as well as ensuring great weight is given to a heritage asset’s conservation.

The appeal scheme involves the removal of an existing barn and replacement annexe building. It would feature an attached car port structure, one bedroom, a dining area, living room, shower room, and kitchen. The proposal would also benefit from an independent access and its own amenity space, delineated by a separate boundary from the host dwelling.

However, this does not indicate that a separate, self-contained dwelling would be formed. Instead, the arrangement is intended to give the occupants of the proposed annexe a level of privacy and independence. There is also nothing to suggest that a residential annexe cannot include its own facilities. The appellant has confirmed that the accommodation is intended for the applicant’s mother-in-law, meaning the occupiers would share a familial relationship. In any event this could be secured by condition restricting occupancy

I conclude the proposal would be ancillary to the host dwelling. Consequently, the proposal would be accord with Policy H/13, of the LP, which require that development would not create a separate dwelling or be capable of separation from the existing dwelling.

Paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) and footnote 62 class the proposal as householder development. Therefore, the sequential and exception tests are not required subject to meeting the requirements for site specific flood risk assessments (FRA). As the proposal is sited within [name] 3b, a site-specific flood risk assessment has been provided.

[name] note the appellant’s view that the property itself has not historically flooded and that a similar flood risk assessment was accepted in relation to another nearby site, these matters do not negate the site’s location within [name] 3b, nor do they overcome the clear and specific concerns raised by the Environment Agency (EA).

The FRA, based on the EA’s modelling, notes a flood level on the site of around 8.27m AOD and with climate change flood levels up to 8.8m AOD, some 1.3m above the surrounding ground level. The proposed finished floor level of the annex is shown on plan to be 7.8m AOD, and of admitted greater than acceptable risk of regular inundation necessitating a technical solution of protecting the building to withstand water ingress.

In this regard, I agree with the EA that the construction of a flood defence is likely to bring unacceptable risk to the occupants of the annex as any breach of the external barrier could lead to rapid inundation of the area it seeks to protect with little or no warning.

In terms of floodplain storage, although the proposed annex would have a marginally larger footprint than the existing barn, there is no supporting evidence to counter the suggestion that the existing barn and shed are unlikely to be watertight structures and as such would be capable of accommodating some flood storage. Whilst the overall impact on flood storage might be minimal, it is nonetheless a factor to be taken into consideration.

The FRA confirms that the occupant of the annex should have a flood plan requiring evacuation before other adults living on the site who will be required to sign up for flood alerts. Whilst this could minimise risk, I am not convinced that this would guarantee safe egress having regard to the vulnerability of any residential occupant and the level of risk involved.

On the basis of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the proposal would provide safe and suitable living conditions for future occupiers. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to LP Policy CC/9 which requires suitable flood protection / mitigation measures are incorporated as appropriate to the level and nature of flood risk, which can be satisfactorily implemented to ensure safe occupation.

I note the [name] comments regarding the absence of a Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment. However, given that this matter has not formed a reason for refusal, I do not consider it necessary to explore this issue further. Moreover, as the appeal is being recommended for dismissal on the grounds set out above, this matter would not alter the outcome in any event.

In accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, I have considered the proposal against the development plan taken as a whole. [name] have not identified harm in respect of the conservation area, nor do I have any doubt that the annexe would be ancillary to the host dwelling, the scheme would nevertheless result in unacceptable harm in relation to flood risk on site. These conflicts carry significant weight and, in the absence of material considerations to indicate otherwise, the proposal does not accord with the development plan as a whole.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.