Appeal 6002450

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would satisfy flood risk policy; • Whether the proposed dwelling would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupants, having regard to internal space; and • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

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 the highest risk. Policy BCS16 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy ([name]) generally reflects this sequential approach to development.

The Government Flood Map shows that the majority of the appeal site is in [name] 2 with the small part of the property effected by [name] 3. Therefore, it is located in an area where there is a medium to high risk of flooding. The Framework clarifies that a sequential risk-based approach should be taken to individual applications in areas known to be at risk from any form of flooding. Development should not be permitted if there are reasonably available alternative sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas of lower risk of flooding.

A sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk of flooding, except where the specific flood risk assessment (FRA) demonstrates that no built development, within the site boundary, including access and escape routes, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source.

This proposal would be an upward extension of an existing building, but the access and route of escape from the new residential unit would be on areas at risk of flooding. Therefore, this exception in the Framework does not apply in this case. Also, the proposal is not for any of the other types of development that the Framework indicates should not be subject to the sequential test. Indeed, the proposal would result in a new dwelling on an existing commercial unit. Consequently, a more vulnerable classification of development would be introduced into this flood risk area under this scheme.

Without a sequential assessment, it is not possible to establish whether there is no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development at a lower risk of flooding than the appeal site. The sequential test has not been satisfied in this case for this

The FRA presented in this appeal appears limited to that provided in the appellant’s [name]. This deals with surface water management. And separate to this, consultees have suggested conditions for a flood emergency plan for future occupants, which could address safe access and escape routes. While no substantive evidence is advance to demonstrate the development would be appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that, in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use, the residential unit would be on an upper level such that it is unlikely to be inundated by flood water. In this regard there would likely be a safe refuge for future occupants in flood events.

Be this as it may, although Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advocates a ‘proportional approach’ in applying the sequential test, where a site specific FRA demonstrates that mitigation measures would ensure that occupiers would remain safe from flood, this is for surface water flood risk only; it does not apply to other forms of flooding such as that which effects the appeal site.

It is asserted that a sequential test was not requested during the application process and this is a matter between the main parties. But, even if I find that mitigation measures suggested in this case would be acceptable, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this proposal complies with local and national flood policy that requires development to be directed from areas at the highest risk of flooding.

For the reasons stated, I find that this proposal would not satisfy flood risk policy. The proposal fails to accord with the requirements of Policy BCS16 of the [name] which state that development will follow a sequential approach to flood risk management, giving priority to the development of sites with the lowest risk of flooding.

The Council raise concerns about the height of the proposed ceilings with reference to nationally described space standards. However, I have not been presented with local policies that require the application of these standards.

This aside, this would be a small residential unit. Nonetheless, the drawings show reasonable size habitable rooms served by windows that would provide a good source of natural light. The ceiling heights may be lower than in traditional dwellings, but the 2m height indicated by the Council would still provide sufficient space for everyday activities. Moreover, with the positive factors outlined, along with the small outside space proposed, I find that the development would provide satisfactory living accommodation for future users.

The noise assessment, supporting this proposal, demonstrates that sounds and vibration from nearby roads and railway lines would not cause unacceptable living conditions for future users. However, the Council remains concerned that activities in the ground floor workshop could be harmful to future occupants’ living conditions in respect of these matters.

Addressing this, the evidence shows that the small commercial unit has been attached to a dwelling for some time. No compelling information is advanced that this current arrangement has led to unsatisfactory living conditions for the occupants of that neighbouring residential property. In any event, as advised by consultees, the construction of the new residential unit could incorporate measures that would ensure sound and vibration from the workshop would not lead to unsatisfactory living conditions for future occupants. The development could be made acceptable in this regard by imposing conditions .

In light of this, I find that the proposed dwelling would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupants, having regard to internal space. In this regard the proposal would accord with Policies BCS18 and BCS23 of the [name] and Policy DM35 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan (Local Plan). [name] collectively, amongst other matters, state that residential developments should provide sufficient space for everyday activities by meeting appropriate space standards, and, that noise-sensitive development, in locations likely to be affected by existing sources of noise, will be expected to provide appropriate mitigation to ensure adequate levels of amenity for future occupiers.

The existing workshop fills a small corner plot at the end of a residential terrace. With a corner location, the unit also has some frontage on the [address] as well as on [address]. The character of this area is mixed, and the appeal property is in a transitional location between the predominately residential development on a secondary street ([address]) and mixed commercial development that lines the main road ([address]).

The flat roof styled commercial unit is an oddity in an area that is characterised by traditional built forms. However, it is a small building and is set back from the main road, such that even though its location may be prominent, it does not appear a dominating feature in the street scene. It is set a little forward of the common building line of dwellings on [address], but as it is at the end of that terrace it does not visually disrupt the coherency of those traditional dwellings.

The footprint of the building would not be increased under this scheme. Also, extended upwards by just one floor, the property would retain its existing modest scale. Moreover, keeping a flat roof style that would be somewhat lower than the end gable of the residential terrace, would ensure that the new built form would not visually compete with or dominate established development.

The Council asserts that incongruous features, including the fenestration, would be exacerbated under this scheme. However, the gradation of windows is a common feature in building design. In any event, the existing anomalous nature of the appeal site means that it could readily absorb the modest changes proposed in this case, such that the resultant building would not conflict with the prevailing mixed character or cause visual harm in this area.

Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. In this regard the proposal would not conflict with Policies BCS21 of the [name] and Policies DM26, DM 27, DM28 and DM30 of the Local Plan. [name] collectively, amongst other matters, seek high quality urban design.

The Council contend that the energy and water system of the development would not be consistent with the heating hierarchy set out in Policy BCS14 of the [name]. However, this matter is covered in the [name] and could easily be conditioned.

I am also content that conditions could ensure that the new dwelling, in terms of pollution matters, would not compromise the viability of the ground floor business unit. The risk of losing employment floorspace would be limited by this factor such that there would be no inconsistency with local employment policy. Furthermore, I find no conflict with Policies BCS23 of the [name] or DM33 of the Local Plan in respect of pollution control.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Therefore the provisions in paragraph 11 of the Framework are relevant in this case.

There would be a net gain of one small unit, but nonetheless this would be a small contribution to the supply of homes and would add to the mix of dwellings available in the area. Given the current housing crisis, even as a small development this benefit attracts considerable weight.

The proposal would also make efficient use of previously developed land, and the site is extremely well-related to public transport and a range of services. As a windfall site it could be built quickly, and the Framework gives great weight to the benefit of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes. In my view, matters of flood risk need to be factored into the suitability of the site in this case. Setting this aside however, the other benefits outlined would be substantial.

As already covered, in the absence of a sequential test, I am unpersuaded that there are no reasonably available sites in areas with a lower risk of flooding than the appeal site. Regardless of the considerable benefits that would occur in this development, this conflict with policies of the Framework, that protect areas at risk of flooding, provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed in this case.

Personal circumstances and concerns about security of the workshop are highlighted in the case. However, I am not convinced that this scheme would be the only way of addressing these issues. My findings are not altered by these factors for this reason.

For the reasons stated above and having regard to the development plan, and material considerations, including the Framework, the appeal should be dismissed.