Appeal 6002857

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part change of use of ground floor, with shop remaining, and change of use of first floor from offices to two storey dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0839/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

In the above banner heading, I have adapted the description of development from the application form. I have however deleted reference to “Revised application of 24/1817/FUL” as it is superfluous detail.

The appeal submission includes two documents titled “[name] & Evacuation Plan” 1 (FWEP) and “Household Flood Plan” (HFP). I have accepted this additional technical information for consideration, as it does not lead to a material change to the appeal scheme, and would thus not prejudice interested parties.

The main issue is whether future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be adequately safe from flooding over the lifetime of the development.

The appeal site comprises a mid-terraced two-storey building within [site address] town centre. The main parties do not dispute that the proposal site lies within [name] 2 and 3. It is therefore categorised as having a medium-high probability of fluvial flooding, which translates to up to a 1:100 annual probability of river flooding or more. The evidence before me indicates that direct risk of other forms of flooding at the site is low. 1 [name]: FWEP-R01, dated November 2025

Policy EN21 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 (EDLP) (adopted 2016) governs river flooding. It states that a sequential approach will be taken to considering whether new developments will be permitted in areas subject to river flooding. However, the sequential approach as outlined in this policy explicitly excludes changes of use such as that proposed, and this is also reflected in paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The sequential test is therefore not required in this instance. There is thus no conflict with EDLP Policy EN21 in this respect.

A change of use from commercial space to a dwelling would nonetheless increase the flood risk vulnerability classification from less vulnerable to more vulnerable, as set out in Annex 3 of the Framework. Paragraph 181 of the Framework sets out that development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of a site-specific flood risk assessment it can be demonstrated that: a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that, in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment; c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate; d) any residual risk can be safely managed; and e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan.

Following my site visit, I have no reason to dispute the finished floor levels (FFL) annotated on the existing floor plans before me. I am also satisfied that the FFLs cannot be raised due to the existing ceiling heights. The ground floor is split level, and the proposed lounge and dining room would be on the higher level, with the smaller and narrower kitchen area on the lower level. The bedroom, study room and bathroom would be on the first floor. The most vulnerable areas of the proposed dwelling are thus located in the lowest flood risk area in terms of FFLs.

The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) commissioned by the appellant identifies that the part of the proposed dwelling at lower ground floor level would remain subject to internal flooding during its design lifetime. The FRA assumes a development lifespan of 100 years, which I consider reasonable for a residential use. It also makes reference to climate change allowance in terms of anticipated peak rainfall and river flow, which appears to accord with government guidance2.

The FRA demonstrates that the design flood level over the development’s lifetime would be 0.27m higher than the lower ground floor FFL, but would 0.2m lower than the upper ground floor FFL. This means that the lower ground floor level containing the kitchen would be subject to flooding of 0.27m depth. I do not view such a flood depth within a relatively small kitchen area as amounting to a significant hazard. Safe refuge would be possible on the upper ground floor level and the first floor. 2 Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances

A comprehensive package of flood resistance and resilience measures are proposed. This includes use of water resilient materials for the kitchen fittings, waterproofing to 0.6m above the FRA predicted flood water levels, raised electrical and gas installations above these flood water levels, and the installation of self-closing air bricks and flood boards or gates on the accesses. Subject to implementation of these measures, the proposed dwelling would be appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment.

The proposed dwelling would connect to the main sewer using the existing drainage system. No sustainable drainage system is proposed. The FRA however advises that the proposal site is not within a recognised critical drainage area, which the Council has not disputed. There would also be no decrease in permeable surface area. Given the above along with the size of the proposal involving conversion of an office building, the lack of a sustainable drainage system does not amount to demonstrable harm to justify dismissing the appeal.

As set out in the FWEP, the shortest escape route from the front door of the proposed dwelling to beyond both [name] 2 and [address] and [address] junction. This route has a short distance of 27.5m and runs slightly uphill via a footway. An initial part of this route is subject to a maximum flood depth of 0.3m as set out in the FRA. However, I did not observe any significant physical hazards such as drain covers, manholes or high kerbstones. Given this along with the short distance involved, I view this as a sufficiently safe access and escape route.

The FWEP and HFP provide the relevant contact details and procedures to prepare for, to respond to and recover from a flood event. A sign within the dwelling could advise occupiers to evacuate towards [address] and [address], and not [address] which is subject to higher flood depths. Subject to compliance with all measures outlined within the FRA, FWEP and HFP, residual risk would be safely managed. I am satisfied that all abovementioned flood resistance and resilience measures and appropriate alert and warning systems can be secured by means of condition, to avoid placing future occupants at unacceptable risk from flooding.

For the above reasons, I conclude that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be adequately safe from flooding over the lifetime of the development. In this respect, I have found no conflict with the development plan or the Framework.

The site is within the [site address] Conservation Area (OSMCA), which covers a significant amount of the town and its environs. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

From what I have seen and read, the significance of the OSMCA as a designated heritage asset is derived from its historic core with its medieval origins and layout, a variety of historic town houses, many of which have a direct street frontage, and some good quality traditional shopfronts. The appeal site contributes to the significance of the OSMCA in these respects, although the windows and doors subject of the proposal are not of particular historic interest.

The proposed alterations visible from public vantage points comprise a replacement front entrance door, and four replacement front elevation timber windows. Subject to conditions to secure precise, detailed and acceptable fenestration details, I am satisfied that there would be no harm to the character, appearance and significance of the OSMCA.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions provided without prejudice in the event that I allow the appeal, and the appellant’s comments, including their suggested condition in respect of managing flood risk.

[name] 1 is necessary in the interests of planning certainty. I have deleted the suggested reference to “and shall be carried out as approved”, as the approved plans are listed for clarity under [name] 2. For further clarity, I have amended the approved plans dates to reflect those provided on the plans, and I have also added the location plan unique reference. [name] 3 is necessary in the interests of neighbouring living conditions, and I have amended its wording for further precision.

Condition 4 is necessary in the interests of flood risk management and public safety. [name] have found the measures as recommended in the FRA, FWEP and HFP already submitted to be acceptable, I have worded this condition as a compliance condition rather than pre-commencement or pre-occupation. For clarity, I have added the FRA and FWEP document references, and have also added reference to the development hereby permitted.

Conditions 5 and 6 are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the site within the OSMCA. Condition 7 is necessary in the interests of living conditions, the character and appearance of the area, and to facilitate sustainable modes of travel.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed below: Proposed floor plans ([name]. 1424.5.A, dated 18 February 2025); Proposed elevations ([name]. 1424.6.A, dated 18 February 2025); Proposed block plan ([name]. 1424.7.A, dated 18 February 2025); Location plan (Ref: PP- 13929481v1, dated 08 April 2025).

Construction works shall take place only between 8am to 6pm on Mondays to Fridays and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. There shall be no burning on site.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out, occupied and operated for its lifetime in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment prepared by [name] dated April 2025 ([name]: FRA-R02), [name] & Evacuation Plan ([name]: FWEP-R01, dated November 2025), and Household Flood Plan.

No works to install new windows shall take place until joinery details at 1:5 scale and elevations at 1:20 scale have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. New windows shall be timber framed fixed light or side hung casements with a painted finish (colour to be submitted), with mouldings and timber sections simple in design and profile. All double-glazed units shall be slim heritage units with black spacer bars, fixed using putty. Opening casements shall be set flush with the frames with butt hinges and traditional window stays (friction hinges and visible trickle vents shall not be permitted), and all new window frames shall be set back in the reveal as existing and not fitted flush with the external wall. The works shall then be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Notwithstanding the information submitted, the new external entrance door on the north-east elevation of the development hereby permitted shall be of a timber vertical boarded construction with a painted finish (colour to be submitted), and shall be set back in the reveal as existing and not fitted flush with the external wall. No works to install the new door shall take place until elevation drawings (at 1:20 scale) and section drawings (at 1:5 scale) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall then be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted the cycle and bin storage facilities indicated on the proposed ground floor plan ([name]. 1424.5.a.) shall be provided. These facilities shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained for those purposes. ***End of Schedule***