Appeal 6004040

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs was submitted by [name] against the decision of Dorset Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

As the proposal relates to listed buildings and is within a conservation area, I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act). The Council did not identify any harm in respect of the effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area. Moreover, it is common ground that the proposal would provide some enhancement to the Conservation Area. On the evidence before me, including my own observations, I see no reason to conclude otherwise and find that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved and enhanced. I have incorporated this into the planning balance below.

The appeal scheme relates to adjoining [name] listed buildings. The Council found that elements of the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed buildings. However, the public benefits of the proposal were found to outweigh that harm. Consequently, the effect of the proposal on the listed buildings did not form a reason for refusal. Moreover, listed building consent has been granted for the proposed works. Nonetheless, as the proposed development relates to listed buildings, the statutory duty under section 66(1) applies in respect of this decision. Moreover, I am required to consider the scheme before me as a whole. I have therefore addressed this as a main issue. As both main parties have assessed it fully as part of the determination of the application, no party is prejudiced by this approach.

Since the Council made its decision, Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan has become part of the development plan (as of 29 January 2026). Both parties have made reference to the policies in the made version of the Neighbourhood Plan and its anticipated adoption, and therefore it has not been necessary to seek further comments on this matter.

The Council’s second reason for refusal was that the proposal should have been accompanied by a mechanism to secure the provision of affordable homes or a financial contribution to their provision. The Council’s appeal statement subsequently confirms that as vacant building credit applies, no affordable housing or associated financial payment is necessary. I concur. Therefore, this is no longer a main issue in the appeal.

The Council confirms that it is currently only able to demonstrate a housing land supply of 2.53 years. The appeal is determined in that context.

The main issues are: • whether it has been demonstrated that the conversion of the upper floors to residential accommodation would be acceptable with respect to flood risk, with particular regard to the need to provide safe access and escape routes; and • whether the proposal would preserve the [name] listed buildings known as “81 and 82, [address]” (Ref: 1147942) (Nos 81 and 82) and “24, [address]” (Ref: 1147955) (No 24), or any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that they possess.

The appeal building is shown to be outside of the present day flood events for tidal dominated, fluvial dominated and joint probability flood events in both defended and undefended scenarios. However, the appellant’s flood risk assessment (Flood Risk Assessment for Planning by Unda, June 2025) (the FRA) shows that in a tidal dominated flood scenario during the 1 in 200 year flood, allowing for climate change, modelled flood levels at the site would be 4.10m AOD, without taking into account flood defences. This is said to equate to a maximum flood depth of 1.65m on the appeal site, taking into account topographical levels. This would comprise a considerable flood depth at the appeal site and is taken to represent the worst case scenario with respect to flood levels.

The appellant submits that tidal flooding from storm surges is well understood and sufficiently predictable that adequate warning is likely to enable evacuation prior to flooding of the appeal site. In addition, that in tidal flood events there is generally 6 hours between the peak and trough of the tidal cycle. As such, that the maximum duration of a flood event would generally be 6 hours. Accordingly, that even if future occupants of the appeal scheme were unable to evacuate the appeal site prior to such a flood event, the length of time in which access/egress would be impeded by flood waters would likely be short-lived.

However, the Council’s officer report notes that flooding from the [name] can exacerbate flooding during high tides. This is consistent with the FRA’s maximum modelled flood levels of 3.96m AOD for a joint probability (fluvial dominated) 1 in 100 year event, allowing for climate change, in a defended scenario. The FRA also notes that the land around the appeal site is at high chance of flooding from surface water.

Therefore, the submitted evidence shows that there are a mix of flood risk factors that are predicted to result in flood levels that would impede safe access/egress from the appeal site. Accordingly, I cannot be sufficiently certain that the duration of flood events at the appeal site, allowing for climate change, would be as short lived or predictable as the appellant’s evidence suggests.

I have had regard to the submitted [name] and Evacuation Plan (June 2025). This confirms that the site is located within an Environment Agency flood warning area. As such, future occupants would be able to register to receive flood warnings. They would also be able to sign up for the [name] national severe weather warning service. Tidal flood warning is said to generally allow sufficient time for occupants to act on emergency plans, with significantly greater warning available than for most fluvial flood events. However, given that tidal flooding is not the only contributor to flood risk at the appeal site, it is unclear whether such advance warning would be sufficiently reliable here. Moreover, to be effective in mitigating the risk to future occupants of the proposal, this would be reliant in part on the diligence of future occupants in signing up for such services and acting in accordance with them at the right time.

Furthermore, future occupants could become stranded in the event of flooding occurring more suddenly than anticipated, or in the event that they were unable to act with sufficient speed due to age or infirmity. The appellant’s flood evacuation plan advises that in circumstances where flooding of the site or adjacent roads has already commenced, occupants should seek refuge within the property and call 999, awaiting further instruction. In the event of rapid onset flooding, it is consequently likely that the approach in the flood evacuation plan would increase the burden on emergency services to a certain extent.

In addition, in the event of flood waters preventing safe evacuation of the appeal site for longer periods, the risk to occupants seeking safe refuge in the appeal building and the associated burden on emergency services would likely increase as a result of the proposal. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that developers should cover the full cost of any additional emergency services provision needed. However, no such funding is before me in respect of this appeal. In light of these concerns, a condition requiring a finalised flood warning plan would not make the development acceptable with respect to flood risk.

With regard to the relevant Shoreline Management Plan, it appears reasonably likely that the approach to ‘hold the line’ for the defences that protect the appeal site and Weymouth town centre more generally, until at least 2105, will ensure that these existing defences will be maintained. However, it does not provide sufficient certainty that any upgrading of those defences would materially reduce the flood risk at the appeal site.

The appellant has drawn attention to a number of other local decisions where the Council has granted planning permission and accepted that safe refuge could be sought in accommodation above flood levels1. In seeking to explain having taken a different approach in this case, the Council refers to the Environment Agency’s publication of the National Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 (NAFRA2) in March 2025 which provides new data on flood risk. However, there is no substantive evidence that the presence of that data would have altered the Council’s approach to those decisions. In addition, those decisions were determined subsequent to the publication of the Weymouth Town Centre Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2023) and guidance in the Environment Agency’s ‘[name] for New Development’ (2019). Consequently, the strategic flood risk data and guidance available at the time that those decisions were made does not appear sufficiently different to justify the Council having taken a different approach in respect of this appeal.

Furthermore, I accept that there are parallels between the nature and location of those proposals and that of the appeal before me. Also, that consistency in decision making is important. However, for the reasons given, the evidence here has led me to reach a different conclusion on the suitability of providing safe refuge above flood levels on site, in the absence of safe access and egress during extreme events.

In addition, I note the appeal decision for [address] that is also local to the appeal site and was dismissed, in part due to concerns about flood risk. That scheme included an increase in built form whereas this appeal scheme does not. Nevertheless, both appeal schemes would increase the number of people living within an area of flood risk. Consequently, I find that they are comparable in that respect. The reasons for dismissing that appeal included the absence of a sequential test, which is not relevant here. However, the Inspector also considered that the lack of a reliable, unobstructed access and egress route during a flood event would unacceptably endanger the safety of future occupants.

The appellant submits that the flood risk assessment in that case did not consider the influence of climate change in its modelling. However, the appeal decision refers to mapping in the Council’s evidence in that regard, which is said to have demonstrated that the appeal site is located within an area at high risk of future fluvial and tidal flooding (in defended and undefended scenarios). That is akin to the evidence submitted here.

It is not clear whether or not evidence in that case made reference to the more predictable and short-lived nature of tidal flooding, and to the presence of coastal defences or the ‘hold the line’ approach to the shoreline management plan. Nonetheless, for the reasons given above, such matters in the evidence here do not indicate that the nature of flooding at the appeal site would be sufficiently predictable as to reliably ensure occupants could vacate prior to flood waters impeding their route, nor that it would be sufficiently short-lived to ensure remaining at the appeal site would be a safe option.

In addition, the appellant refers to the fact that the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) was made subsequent to the [address] decision. The WNP refers to an assumption that improvements to Weymouth sea defences, described as 1 Sites at: [address]; [name]; [address]; [address] necessary, are funded and put in place to manage existing flood risk within the town centre. The WNP also confirms that the Council are working on a flood and coastal erosion risk management scheme. However, details of how and when such investments will be implemented and the extent to which it might affect flood risk at the appeal site remains uncertain. Therefore, those future improvements attract limited weight in this appeal.

The Council also refer to other appeal decisions that it considers support their approach in respect of this appeal. However, as those relate to sites in different areas with different flood risk influences, I have not found them sufficiently comparable to the appeal before me. Therefore, they have not influenced my reasoning. Although the Environment Agency’s consultation raised no objection to the appeal proposal, it also highlighted the importance of the Council being satisfied with the adequacy of any emergency planning and/or evacuation proposals in the event of a flood warning and emergency response. As such, the absence of an objection from the Environment Agency does not alter my reasoning in respect of this main issue.

Accordingly, for the reasons given, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the conversion of the upper floors to residential accommodation would be acceptable with respect to flood risk, with particular regard to the need to provide safe access and escape routes. The proposal would thus conflict with Policy ENV5 (ii) of the [name], Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (October 2015), which requires that proposals in areas of medium or high flood risk are provided with safe access and escape routes where required.

The Council found that the proposal would conflict with criterion 4 of Policy W44 of the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan due to its view that the proposal would increase the risk of flooding for future occupants with particular regard to safe access and egress. However, criterion 4 states that development should not increase the risk of flooding or exacerbate existing drainage problems and should maximise retention of surface water. Moreover, it does not address the suitability of safe access and egress. As the proposal is for a change of use there is no indication that it would increase the risk of flooding. As such I find that Policy W44 criterion 4 is not determinative in respect of this appeal.

The LBs are located back-to-back and comprise early/mid 19th century buildings with shop fronts at ground level. The buildings have been subject to internal alterations that have resulted in the erosion of the historic floor plans of much of the internal spaces, as well as the loss of some historic fabric. Nonetheless, No 24 is a three storey, rendered building with an attic, distinctive due to its two storey bowed oriel window. It has adjacent sashes in plain reveals, and a moulded cornice between modelled consoles. Accordingly, insofar as it relates to this appeal, I find the special interest of No 24 to be primarily associated with the architectural features of its front façade, including its window design and placement, in a manner that is characteristic of a Georgian terraced building. Surviving historic fabric also contributes to its special interest.

No 82 is part of a four storey, double fronted, rendered building with plain sash windows with cornices on brackets at first floor, and sashes in plain reveals at second and third floor. At roof level it has a slightly raised pediment to the centre of each side of the frontage. The special interest of Nos 81 and 82, insofar as relevant to this appeal, is primarily associated with the architectural composition of its front façade, and its prominence in the street scene as a substantial Georgian terraced building. Any surviving internal historic fabric also contributes to its special interest.

Although considerable alterations have already been undertaken within the LBs, some historic features remain. With respect to No 24, the proposals would involve the loss of historic fabric through the replacement of the two storey oriel window. This was found to be beyond repair, and I have no reason to find otherwise, which provides some justification for its loss. The proposal includes the removal of the existing lifts, albeit these are unlikely to comprise historic features. The proposal also includes internal partitioning. However, given the extent of internal alterations already undertaken at ground floor level, these elements of the proposal would not materially harm the ability to appreciate the significance of No 24.

Accordingly, I find that the loss of historic fabric arising from the replacement of the oriel window would not preserve the LB and any features of its special historic interest and would harm the asset’s significance.

In respect of the proposals at No 82, this includes the replacement of the second floor staircase. This was found to have lost key architectural features, with remaining treads being warped and unfit for purpose. Nonetheless, this would involve some loss of historic fabric and as such would not preserve the LB and any features of its special historic interest and would harm the asset’s significance.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification.

Given the scope of the proposals and the extent of alterations that have already taken place within the buildings, I find the harm to the significance of the listed buildings to be individually and cumulatively at the lower end of less than substantial in this instance, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The proposed replacement of roller shutter doors with timber double doors would remove a feature that currently detracts from the ability to appreciate the significance of No 24 as a listed building. In respect of No 82, the proposal would result in the removal of unsympathetic alterations such as ventilation ducting. These elements of the proposal would have a beneficial effect on the assets. The proposals would bring the currently vacant buildings that are in a poor state of repair back into use. It would improve the external appearance of the buildings amounting to enhancements to the Conservation Area. It would provide new residential accommodation in an area with an identified shortage of housing, and would involve commercial use at ground floor level, bringing social and economic benefits. Consequently, I find that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the less than substantial harm in this instance.

It would thus preserve the special historic interest of the [name] listed buildings. This would satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 210(a) of the Framework and comply with Policy ENV4 of the Local Plan. This generally seeks to protect the historic environment and ensure that harm to designated heritage assets is balanced against the public benefits.

The proposal is expected to increase recreational pressure at the Chesil and the Fleet Special Area of Conservation, [name] and the Fleet Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. A financial contribution via Dorset Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy is thus proposed to mitigate for these impacts. Natural England has raised no objection on that basis. Therefore, if the appeal were to be allowed I would need to undertake an Appropriate Assessment in accordance with the Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended). However, I have found the proposal would be contrary to the development plan in respect of the evidence on flood risk. Accordingly, unless other material considerations indicate that planning permission should be granted, there is no need for me to consider this matter further.

The benefits of the proposal are set out in the public benefits balance above. In summary these are that the proposal would deliver five new flats in a settlement with access to a range of goods and services, thus contributing to the supply of housing in Dorset where there is currently a considerable shortfall against housing need. It would result in economic benefits associated with the conversion work as well as the occupation of the ground floor with a commercial use, albeit as the ground floor conversion already has permission this lessens the weight that can be applied from that benefit here. The occupants would be likely to stimulate consumer spending, boost local labour supply and help to support local services. The proposal would make use of an existing building. Together these would constitute considerable benefits in social and economic terms and would contribute to the vitality of the town centre. Furthermore, the proposal would bring vacant listed buildings back into use, helping to secure the future conservation of those assets and an enhancement to the Conservation Area. Therefore, the proposal would result in considerable benefits. I also recognise the local support for the proposal.

However, the proposal would conflict with the Local Plan with respect to flood risk. Given the fundamental importance of ensuring that future accommodation is safe for its future occupants, this attracts significant weight that is not outweighed by the combination of its benefits. Accordingly, it would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes. However, in the absence of evidence of sufficiently safe access and escape routes in flood events as reasoned above, I cannot find that the brownfield land would be suitable for the housing as proposed. As such, it markedly lessons the weight that can be attached to the proposal in this respect. In addition, whilst the Framework seeks to make effective use of land, paragraph 124 requires that decisions should also ensure safe and healthy living conditions. Consequently, the benefits of the proposal should not be at the expense of ensuring that the proposed accommodation would be sufficiently safe for its future occupants over the lifetime of the development.

The Council considers that it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing. Therefore, paragraph 11 d) i. of the Framework requires that permission is granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development. Footnote 7 to that provision confirms that this includes policies relating to areas at risk of flooding or coastal change. With respect to flood risk, paragraph 181 e) of the Framework requires safe access and escape routes to be included where appropriate, as a part of an agreed emergency plan. As reasoned above, is it has not been demonstrated that safe access and escape routes could be provided for the lifetime of the development. Given the importance of ensuring the safety of future occupants of the appeal scheme, this provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal in the terms of footnote 7. Consequently, the provisions of paragraph 11 d) ii. do not apply. Accordingly, material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.