Appeal 6002577

The appeal is dismissed.

Although the description of development given on the application forms, and used in the header above, refers to the conversion and extension of the garage, the appellant has confirmed that the existing garage would be demolished. Also, although not included in the formal description of development, elsewhere on the application form it confirms that the unit would be a self-build dwelling.

The main issues are whether the development would be suitably located having regard to the Council’s spatial strategy and whether the development would be at risk of flooding.

It is agreed by the parties that the appeal site falls outside of the settlement boundary of Cockfield. Policy SP03 of the Part 1 Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan (2023) (the ‘JLP’) states that development outside development boundaries will normally only be permitted where it fulfils any of four criteria. The most relevant of these is that it would accord with one of the other policies in the JLP listed in Table 5; the most pertinent of these is policy LP01 which relates to infill housing development.

Policy LP01 allows for infill development where there is a cluster of at least 10 well related dwellings. It defines infill as the filling of a small undeveloped plot in an otherwise built-up highway frontage.

Although the site is outside of the settlement boundary, it is bordered on three sides by residential development contiguous with the rest of the settlement. These neighbouring houses at [address], the host dwelling at [site address] , and those on Green Lane to the east are all clearly visible from the site. The proposed dwelling could therefore be perceived as being within a large cluster of dwellings. It is apparent that policy LP01 is mainly targeted towards small groups of dwellings isolated from all other settlements, which is not the case here. Nonetheless, I see no reason why, in this case, the development neighbouring the site could not constitute a cluster as referred to in the policy.

However, the development would not infill a gap in otherwise built-up highway frontage as the dwelling would be at the end of a private driveway which serves three other properties. The Council advise the driveway to the site is around 95m long which is not disputed. The absence of a highway frontage means the proposal would not constitute infill development as defined in the JLP.

As a result, the proposal would represent unsuitable development beyond a settlement boundary. It would therefore conflict with policy LP01 and consequently also policy SP03.

However, the explanatory text to policy LP01 sets out that small scale windfall development may be appropriate to enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It is not suggested by the Council that the proposal would not assist in maintaining or enhancing the vitality of Cockfield. As such, though there is some conflict with policy LP01, I give limited weight to that due to the site’s proximity to Cockfield and the support it could provide to the vitality of the village. In addition the proposal would not conflict with any other part of the policy, such as in terms of its scale, its effect on the character of the settlement or by constituting coalescence.

It is agreed by the parties that part of the access drive is within flood zone 1 and is at risk of surface water flooding. At my site visit I saw a dip in the access road which corresponds to the area shown on the flood map provided by the appellant. This flood map illustrates that flooding is limited to a small area, largely within the rear garden of No 1 [site address] but extending into the access road. It is unlikely therefore that flood water would be flowing. Also, from my site visit and given the topography, I consider that floodwater in this area would be shallow.

Nonetheless, paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) advises that a flood risk assessment should be provided where proposals introduce a more vulnerable use, such as housing, on land that may be subject to flooding, and that this should include details of safe access and escape plans. No such assessment has been provided.

Moreover, paragraph 175 of the Framework sets out that where a development is in an area known to be at risk of flooding, including access or escape routes, a sequential test should be used to demonstrate if the proposal could be located in any areas less vulnerable to flooding. No such test has been carried out.

The appellant’s photos show the present of an arco drain at the entrance gates to the site, but this is not the same area shown to be at risk of flooding on the flood map. I also acknowledge the submitted drainage diagram which I understand illustrates how the adjoining properties are drained. But it is not clear if the flooding as shown on the map has been addressed by such a drain, or persists with it.

Overall, although the flood risk at the site may not be severe, in a flood event floodwater would prevent a dry escape from, and access to, the site. In the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary I therefore cannot be satisfied that the development would be safe from flooding. It would hence fail to accord with JLP policy LP27 which requires development to provide mitigation against flood risk.

Though the development purports to be self-build it would be necessary to ensure that through the submission of a legal agreement. No such undertaking has been provided. Therefore even if I were to accept the appellant’s suggestion that there is a shortage of self-build homes in the District, which the Council do not dispute, the lack of a mechanism to ensure that the development would be self-build, means the proposal could not count towards the supply of that form of housing so is of no weight.

There would be an economic benefit from the proposal, insofar as the future occupants could help to sustain local services and facilities. But this would be modest given the small scale of the proposal.

There would be conflict with policies LP01, SP03 and LP27. There would therefore be conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. Although the harm resulting from this conflict would be limited, there are no other considerations that outweigh this which would indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. As such, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.