Appeal 6002919

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the date of the Council’s decision, there have been changes to the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) relating to flood risk and coastal change. The key changes relevant to this appeal were to paragraphs 23, 27 and 28, with paragraph 27a being introduced as its own paragraph. The changes have been acknowledged by both the appellant and the Council in the preparation of their statements of case. I am therefore satisfied that the main parties would not be disadvantaged by my reference to the updated PPG in my determination of the appeal.

My attention has been drawn to the Warborough and Shillingford Neighbourhood Plan Review having been put to referendum on 5 February 2026, at which it was passed. It was subsequently presented to South Oxfordshire District Council on 12 February 2026, where the decision was taken that the plan review should be made and continue to be part of the development plan. The main parties have had the opportunity to make comment on the implications of the revised Neighbourhood Plan. I have therefore taken the Warborough and Shillingford Revised Neighbourhood Plan 2025-2041 (WSRNP) into account in my determination of the appeal.

The appeal site is located in proximity to No.26 and No.[address], Shillingford, which are both Grade II Listed Buildings. I am therefore mindful of the statutory duties placed on decision-makers by sections 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for residential development having regard to flood risk.

The appeal site (the site) consists of a plot of land described as being 0.15 hectares in area, and which is formed from parcels of the rear gardens of residential properties at No.26 and No.[address]. These properties have significantly large rear gardens, such that the portions of garden given over to form the site, would still leave substantial garden plots for the host dwellings.

The appeal site would take its vehicular and pedestrian access from [address], a private road which joins [address] around 60 metres south-east of the site. [address] consists of a small development of predominantly detached residential properties, constructed in the recent past, and which form a cul-de-sac which adjoins the south-eastern boundary of the site.

The appellant identifies the area of the site within the red line boundary as being located entirely within [name] 1. However, evidence before me identifies that whilst the majority of the site lies within [name] 1, a small portion of the south-east corner of the site lies within [name] 2 (see Fig.10 of submitted FRA), as does the majority of [address] and all of [address] within this section of the village, where [address] connects with it. This latter area would become [name] 3 when future climate change effects are considered.

A site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) ([name]) was submitted with the application. This identified that the ground floor levels of the proposed dwellings would remain around 310mm above the 1%AEP +35% [name] flood levels and around 160mm above the 0.1% AEP flood levels. However, the access point between [address] and [address] would be subject to water depths of 0.47m in the 1%AEP +35% [name] case, and 0.62m water depths in the 1% AEP case.

Accordingly, The FRA concluded a safe escape route within the ‘very low hazard’ category could not be provided for future occupants of the proposed dwellings, in the event of a 1%AEP +35% [name] flood. The situation would be worse in the event of a 0.1% AEP flood. The FRA concluded the site was still suitable with the provision of a Flood Evacuation Plan (FEP) ([name]), which was also included with the application, and which would alert future occupiers to future flood events to evacuate before their means of escape was blocked by flood waters. It did not recommend the implementation of the [name].

Paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states; ‘The sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).’

Whilst the proposed dwellings and most of their parking provision would be within [name] 1 and therefore at low flood risk, the site’s sole means of vehicular and pedestrian access would be within [name] 2, which would become [name] 3 when climate change effects are taken into account. Accordingly, in line with paragraph 175 of the Framework, notwithstanding the submitted FEP, the application should have been subject to the [name] (ST).

Whilst a ST was submitted during consideration of the application, following objection from the South and [name] as Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA). However, the Council did not consider it, owing to previous amended and additional information having already been submitted, and the Council operating a limit on the amount of additional information submitted during an application.

The ST has now been submitted at the appeal stage. However, there is disagreement between the main parties as to the suitability of the submitted ST. The appellant cites the recent changes to the PPG, in particular paragraph 027a which has revised the extent of area required to be covered in the ST, and which states: ‘for a non-major housing development, it would not usually be appropriate for the area of search to extend beyond the specific area of a town or city in which the proposal is located, or beyond an individual village and its immediate neighbouring settlements.’

Examining the submitted ST, it restricts the area under consideration to that within the boundary of the Warborough Parish. This encompasses the villages of Shillingford and Warborough immediately to its north. The Council consider this area to be too restricted to represent a thorough examination within a ST process. They consider the neighbouring villages of Brightwell-cum-sotwell to the south, Benson to the east, Dorchester-on-Thames to the west and Berinsfield to the north-west should have been included within the ST to provide a robust exercise.

Having viewed the evidence, the village of Warborough is in developmental continuity with Shillingford along [address]. I find it would practically, therefore, represent a single village for the purposes of the ST. There are no other villages or settlements within the Parish of Warborough. Paragraph 027a of the PPG is clear that the area for an ST should encompass ‘an individual village and its immediate neighbouring settlements’. This is a plural, not singular definition. I therefore find the submitted ST would not represent a thorough and comprehensive examination of other sites which may be available within [name] 1 within the immediately surrounding area, and which may have safe means of access and egress for future occupiers.

Accordingly, I consider that a comprehensive ST for the appeal site, should encompass the villages of Brightwell-cum-sotwell to the south, [name] to the north-west, [name] to the north, [name] and [name] to the north-east and Benson to the east. I have excluded Berinsfield as it lies to the other side of Dorchester-on-Thames from Shillingford. I find it would, therefore, not meet the immediate neighbouring settlements description in paragraph 027a of the PPG.

A Further FRA and FEP have been carried out by [name] and submitted with the appeal. Having examined these documents, the original FRA and FEP by [name] and the comments of the LLFA, there is disagreement on the interpretation of the figures and level of resultant flood risk. However, there is agreement on the figures themselves, which are consistent with the Environment Agency (EA) figures.

The flood level figures would represent a 0.47m flood water depth at the junction of [address] and [address] in the 1% AEP +35% [name] condition, and a 0.62m flood water depth at this location in the 0.1% AEP condition.

These depths of water would not provide a safe method of access and egress for future residents of the proposed appeal properties in flood events. They would represent a known risk of flooding, whether from Fluvial sources or otherwise. Whilst the appellant has sought to propose a FEP to mitigate the risks to future occupiers of the proposed development, the Framework is clear that in such circumstances a ST should be carried out. The submitted ST does not meet the requirements of paragraph 027a of the PPG in relation to its area of coverage. It therefore fails to demonstrate that there are no other available sites within the area with a lower risk of flooding.

The appeal development proposes the use of soakaways for the disposal of surface water from the proposed dwellings. However, the site is located within an area identified in the [name] Assessment (2019) (the SFRA), where groundwater is within 0.025m and 0.5m of ground level. Whilst the appellant has submitted information for ground infiltration rates on the site, together with bore hole records to demonstrate the levels of groundwater, the LLFA consider the submitted borehole information is limited in its timescales. It therefore is considered not to demonstrate that the local water table level would remain at a level, where a vertical separation of 1m between the maximum groundwater level and the underside of the soakaway units would be maintained, to make soakaways effective.

Having examined the evidence, whilst the extent of submitted borehole analysis may be limited, with a weekly interval between recording being a more suitable evidence base, I find this would not, of itself, be a reason for refusal, as this could be dealt with by the imposition of a suitably worded condition, requiring more detailed analysis to be presented along with any revised soakaway and surface water disposal design, for the approval of the LPA in consultation with the LLFA.

Paragraph 170 of the Framework states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future).

For the above reasons, I find that it has not been demonstrated that safe access and egress can be provided for future occupiers in flood events, or that there are no other sites available within the immediately surrounding area with lower flood risk potential. I cannot therefore conclude with reasonable certainty that the site will not be at flood risk, or that flood risk will not increase elsewhere.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with Policy EP4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (SOLP) and with Paragraph 175 of the Framework, which among other things, require development to be directed to areas with the lowest probability of flooding, and for suitability of proposed development within flood zones to be strictly assessed using the [name].

My attention has been drawn to the presence of ‘Greenacre’, a further Grade II Listed Building situated around 40m west of the western boundary of the appeal site. The proposal would be separated from Greenacre by the remaining portion of the rear garden of No.28. Between would be significant mature tree and hedge features and the proposal would be read from Greenacre within the context of significant amounts of surrounding 20th century and later development. Mindful of my duties under section 66(1) of the Act, I find that owing to the combination of the separation distance, intervening landscape features and the context within which the appeal proposal would be sited, it would not detrimentally harm the significance of Greenacre as a designated heritage asset or its setting.

The appeal site is also within the setting of No.26 and No.[address], two Grade II Listed Buildings. The appeal development would be at some distance to No.26 and No.28. There would be existing mature trees and hedge features between the appeal site and the Listed Buildings. The appeal development would be read in the context of other surrounding 20th century and later development. Therefore, mindful of my duties under section 66(1) of the Act, I find that owing to the combination of the separation distances, intervening landscape features and the context within which the appeal proposal would be sited, it would not detrimentally harm the significance of No.26 and No.[address] as designated heritage assets or their setting.

The WSRNP was made on 12 February 2026. Accordingly, it represents the most recent document to become part of the development plan. My attention has been drawn to potential conflicts between the definition of infill development within Policy H2 of the WSRNP and Policy H16 of the SOLP. Policy H2 of the WSRNP, would appear to place more restriction on infill development than Policy H16 of the SOLP, which would appear to be contrary to the aims of Paragraph 30 of the Framework. However, I find the appeal proposal would relate more to backland infill development, which is not defined in Policy H2 of the WSRNP, but is covered by Policy H16 of the SOLP, which is a strategic policy, which I consider would take precedence.

It would be a matter for the Council as to the weight they give to this potential conflict between Policy H2 of the WSRNP and Policy H16 of the SOLP in the determination of any future applications within the WSRNP area.

My attention has also been drawn to several appeal and planning application decisions which the appellant considered supported the appeal development. However, I do not have all the information before me which would have been required to fully assess the relevance of these examples to the appeal proposal. In addition, each case must be assessed on the basis of its own merits, as I have done in this case.

The Council have identified that they cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land as required by the Framework. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged for decision making purposes. However, the site is within an area at risk of flooding, therefore the policies within paragraph 11(d)(i) and Footnote 7 of the Framework are of relevance. [name] have found the site would be at risk of flooding and to be contrary to the development plan and Framework in this regard, it would provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

In considering the broader planning balance, I have found that the proposal would not provide a safe means of access and egress for future occupiers in flood events, and has not demonstrated, through a satisfactory ST, that no other sites with lower flood risk are available within the surrounding area. Consequently, I have found it would conflict with the development plan polices in these regards, and with the development plan when considered as a whole. These conflicts attract full weight in the planning balance. They are also consistent with the Framework.

In terms of the benefits of the scheme, the proposal would provide a small boost to housing supply, having regard to the Council’s current shortfall against the 5-year housing land supply, on a windfall site, within the built-up area of the village. The principle of backland infill development is acceptable in this area. Occupants of the new dwellings would be in a location with access to some limited local services and facilities and the additional housing units would be energy efficient. These matters attract moderate weight in favour of the development.

Whilst the development plan policies are of some age, the policies which are most important for determining the application accord with those of the Framework. Further, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply because the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

As set out above, collectively, the benefits attract moderate weight in the planning balance. However, I have found that there would be harm caused to the safety of future occupiers through flood risk to their means of access and escape. This attracts full weight in the planning balance. Overall, the benefits do not outweigh the harm.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal development would be contrary to the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations, including policies in the Framework, that would justify determining other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.