Appeal 6004465

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has asked that a Flood Risk Assessment, prepared by East Riding Consultants Limited, revised 14 October 2025 (FRA), along with associated levels information, be considered as part of this appeal. Additional clarification was sought regarding the levels information following the appellant’s final comments, which the Council was able to comment on. No objections from interested parties have been raised, and there has been an opportunity to comment on the revised flood risk information during the appeal process. I am content that there would be no unfairness to any party by me accepting this information, and the appeal has been determined on this basis.

The Council has made me aware through its statement, that since its decision was made, there have been updates to relevant flood maps, which now show more of the appeal site to be within [name] 2, than previously. The Council also stated that it had already assessed the proposed development as being within flood zone 2 (using future flood risk), so its reason for refusal no.2 (flood risk) is not materially affected. The appellant has had the opportunity to comment on this new information through the appeal process and the appeal has been determined on this basis.

Taking into account the Council’s reasons for refusal, the main issues are: • flood risk; and, • whether the proposed development amounts to an appropriate form of development in respect to its effect on the character and appearance of the area and the host building’s immediate setting, including whether it involves significant alteration/extension.

The appeal site relates to a single storey building setback from [address] (A1174), it is constructed of brick under a tiled roof. As set out above, the appeal site is within [name] 2, with part of its access also said to be within [name] 3a, and understood to include flood risk from the [name]. In addition, the FRA states that the appeal site is within future [name] 31. The submitted documentation also indicates that the appeal site is in an area susceptible to ground water flood risk. Paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) says inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at the highest risk.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises2 that changes of use can increase the vulnerability of the development or result in occupation or use by people who are more vulnerable than the previous users to risks from flooding. It also says the information provided in flood risk assessments needs to be credible and fit for purpose. Site-specific flood risk assessments need to be proportionate to the anticipated degree of flood risk and be appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the development.3

The proposed development principally relates to the re-use of an existing building to a more vulnerable use (residential). Therefore, consistent with the advice set out within paragraph 176 of the Framework, the sequential test and exception test would not apply in this case. This approach would also be consistent with the guidance within the Council’s Flood Risk Sequential and Exception Test Supplementary Planning Document, adopted November 2021 (SPD), and it is not a matter in dispute between the main parties.

Nevertheless, both the Framework4 and the SPD require a site-specific flood risk assessment for this proposed development. Paragraph 181 of the Framework says a site specific flood risk should demonstrate the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient so that, in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment; that any residual risk can be safely managed; safe access and escape routes are included as part of an emergency plan; and that it incorporates sustainable drainage. In addition, the SPD also says within its Annex 3 that change of use proposals with an increase in vulnerability, should not be permitted in single storey buildings, and that sleeping areas should be set above the greatest flood depths plus an additional 300mm, and that habitable spaces should have their levels no lower than 300mm below the greatest flood depths.

The SPD also refers to the Environment Agency’s, Preparing a flood risk assessment: standing advice (the standing advice), which is also referred to by both main parties. The standing advice says a site-specific flood risk assessment should contain the estimated flood level for the development, which is the depth of flooding anticipated at the development site in the design flood. It says flood levels for risks from rivers can be requested from the Environment Agency. In respect of vulnerable uses, such as residential, it says finished floor levels should be a 1 According to the GOV.[name] maps 2 Ref. Paragraph: 052 [name]: 7-052-20220825 3 Ref. Paragraph: 021 [name]: 7-021-20220825 4 Paragraph 181 of the Framework minimum of 600mm above the higher of the average ground level of the site; adjacent road level to the building; or the estimated river or sea flood level. It also says that where there is a high level of certainty about the estimated flood level, it may be appropriate to reduce this to 300mm, although it adds that if there is a particularly high level of uncertainty it may need to be increased.

The FRA proposes raising the floor level of the building in question by 150mm, with flood resilience measures to be added to the building up to 600mm above that level. However, the FRA does not provide a design flood level as required by the standing advice, so it is not known whether raising the levels by 150mm would be above, in line, or below the estimated flood level. Furthermore, whilst it is said that it is not possible to raise the floor levels 600mm above the average ground levels of the site (which the FRA indicates would be some 400mm or so above the proposed floor level), there is insufficient information to show why it is not possible, or why a design solution could not accommodate such changes in floor level. Although it is acknowledged that with the FRA saying the adjacent road level is already some 600mm above the existing floor level of the building, practically it would be unlikely to achieve a floor level rise of 600mm above the road level within the building.

In addition, the proposed flood resilience measures to 600mm above the proposed floor level are also not seemingly designed around a design flood level, so they too could still be above, below or in line with the estimated flood level, which would include sleeping accommodation. The flood resilience measures are also not supported by confirmation that the structural integrity of the building could take the stress of flood waters to its outer sides up to the levels it is designed for (150mm plus the 600mm resilience measures), so in any event the effectiveness of this mitigation is not certain. It is also not clear within the FRA that the design flood level has been requested from the Environment Agency. In view of this and there being no flood design level, together with the proposed use and its single storey level, it is not certain that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be safe in terms of flood risks at the appeal site.

Whilst the standing advice says in certain circumstances when it is not possible to meet the requirements for raising floor levels, alternative measures to reduce flood risks for the building can be considered. However, as the information provided in respect of levels is incomplete, it has not been shown that the criteria for raising the floor levels as set out above could not be achieved. Therefore, consideration of alternatives should not be considered until that information has been provided, or at least reasonable endeavours have been shown to have been made to obtain it.

Notwithstanding that there have been no historical flood events at the appeal site recorded, along with the additional information provided in the FRA pursuant to reason for refusal no.2, and its conclusions about specific risks of flooding for the appeal site, these matters would not justify there being inadequate information from which to base and assess the particular floor levels and related flood risks for this proposed change of use. As a result, based on the submitted information, the proposed raised level and flood resilience measures have not on their own been shown to adequately mitigate flood risks for the proposed development.

Even though the access to [address] is at an increased risk of flooding, land to the opposite side, shown to be within the appellant’s ownership is at a lower risk of flooding. [name] been minded to allow the appeal, a condition could have been imposed to agree safe means of evacuation and refuge along with early warning communication. In addition, there are no objections raised regarding the discharge of surface water into a local watercourse, the precise details of which could also be a condition in the event the appeal were to have been allowed.

I therefore conclude, that although conditions could be imposed in respect of safe evacuation, refuge and surface water drainage, there is insufficient information to properly assess the flood risks for the proposed development, and in the absence of this information the proposed development would conflict with policies A1, and ENV6 of the East Riding Local Plan Update 2020 – 2039, dated April 2025 (ERLPU), that amongst other things require flood risks from new development to be proactively managed to ensure no unacceptable consequences, and that flood resilience and mitigation measures are incorporated into the design of development. In addition, the proposed development would also conflict with the SPD, in respect of the requirements set out above, relating to the change of use of single storey accommodation and the flood depth level not being known in relation to proposed floor levels.

The building in question is of brick construction under a tiled roof, with a gabled roof to one side and a hipped roof to the opposite side. It is understood to have been granted planning permission in 1998 to be used as part of an adjoining equestrian enterprise, but it is no longer required. I saw that the building has a generous setback from the road, even taking into account the road’s alignment. I also observed that the area between it and the highway verge had piles of loose chippings in what was a seemingly unused area of land with limited landscaping.

Woodmansey is a settlement with the A1174 running through it, the appeal site is situated towards the side nearest Beverley and although there are groups of properties nearby, including to one of its sides, it is said to be outside of the settlement’s limits, and to be within the countryside. There is a somewhat sporadic collection of buildings to its other side and opposite it, with another larger part of the settlement located closer to Dunswell.

ERLPU Policy S4, Section D, restricts residential development in the countryside to certain exceptions that must respect the intrinsic character of their surroundings. The only relevant exception in this case relates to the conversion of an existing building, which it says will be supported where the preservation of the building would enhance the immediate setting and where it would re-use a redundant or disused building without significant alteration or significant extension. The supporting text to ERLPU Policy S4 says at paragraph 4.47 that to be considered suitable for conversion to residential use, an existing building should be capable of re-use without significant rebuilding, alteration or substantial extensions, and any extensions should be small scale and not affect the rural character of the building or its setting.

The building in question is said to be no longer needed for equestrian use, it has its main openings on its sides and rear, which apart from the side facing the trackway, are not very visible from the road, and even that side is not particularly noticeable. It has a blank elevation facing towards the road, and its equestrian use is not obvious from its appearance.

The proposed development would remove the piles of loose chippings and landscape the area between the building and the road, including a new mixed species hedge. The insertion of 2no. new domestic openings into the elevation facing the road would also ensure it made an improved and legible contribution to the character and appearance of the immediate area, and the setting of the building, also ensuring its residential use would be more obvious than its existing use. This would also ensure the proposed development respected the intrinsic character of the area, by reflecting the ad hoc and sporadic arrangement of buildings alongside the A1174, between the larger parts of Woodmansey.

The proposed composite panels to partly infill a large opening on one of its sides, would as set out above not be particularly conspicuous from public vantage points, and their dark grey colour would harmonise well with the red brick on the exterior of the building. The design of the proposed openings, some of which are smaller than at present, and with the exception of those 2 no. windows on the front side, would re-use the existing openings, and the proposed alterations would not be significant. Furthermore, they would respect the age of the building, and alongside the modest cycle store that would be positioned discretely to one side of the building, would ensure a high-quality appearance, and collectively the proposals would enhance the immediate setting of the building, without significant alteration or extension.

There is no policy requirement for the building to be converted to have a traditional design and appearance, or for it to make a positive contribution to the area’s intrinsic character at the outset, instead ERLPU Policy S4 (D) requires the preservation of the building to enhance the setting and to respect the intrinsic character of its surroundings. Nor does Policy S4 (D) require the consideration of other alternatives to improve the setting of the building, only that of the development that is proposed. Whether domestic paraphernalia would be introduced or not, the domestic use of the land between the front side of the building and the pavement, particularly the proposed landscaping (which could be a condition in the event the appeal was allowed), would ensure that it enhanced the current appearance and setting of the building, including views from the eastern side.

Given my findings above, it has not been necessary for me to compare the conversion works of the proposed development to the other appeal decisions elsewhere in the [site address] , that I was initially referred to by the appellant.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be an appropriate form of development that would relate well to the character and appearance of the immediate area and represent an enhancement to the setting of the building, without having significant alterations and extensions. In doing so, I find the proposed development to comply with the requirements of ERLPU policies S4, section D; ENV1, sections A1,B1, and B3, insofar as they require the conversion of a building to a residential use to be of high quality design, that protects and respects the intrinsic character of the area and the building’s context, and for its preservation to enhance its setting, without significant extensions and alterations, along with appropriate external materials. In addition, the proposed development would comply with paragraphs 135 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as they require development to add to the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive, sympathetic to local character, and to complement and enhance the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The Council referred in its reason for refusal to conflict with paragraph 84 c) of the Framework. Paragraph 84 relates to isolated homes in the countryside, based on the evidence before me, the site’s close proximity to the built form of Woodmansey, along with my own site observations, I did not find the building in question to be isolated in this case, consequently paragraph 84 was not directly applicable or determinative on this main issue.

It is noted that a payment of £320 has been made to the Council (said to be refundable in the event the appeal were to be dismissed) in accordance with The [site address] Council Strategic Access Mitigation and [name] (undated) to address in-combination effects on the Humber Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and RAMSAR site. However, in view of my findings above in respect of flood risk, it has not been necessary for me to undertake an Appropriate Assessment and address this matter further.

The appellant’s comments about the Council’s handling of the planning application are noted, but these are matters between the respective parties, in my decision I have focussed on the relevant planning considerations that are in dispute.

It is acknowledged that the proposed development would re-use an existing redundant building and make an effective use of the site; that the appeal site contains previously developed land; that it would help to boost housing supply and contribute to [name] overall housing supply; that it would have economic benefits including from construction works, and through occupation, including into the wider Beverley area; that it represents an enhancement to its current setting; and, other than flood risk, no other harmful effects have been identified. Even taking these factors together, given the limited scale of the proposed development, they attract modest weight at most, and do not outweigh the above identified conflict with the development plan in respect of flood risk.

I therefore conclude that the conversion of the building to a residential use would be an appropriate form of development that would enhance the buildings setting and not harm the character and appearance of the immediate area. However, in view of the lack of adequate information regarding flood risk, for a site that has an increased risk of flooding, the proposed development would conflict with relevant policies of the development plan. In this case, this would constitute conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, and the proposed development would not therefore be sustainable development, and there are no other considerations, including those raised by the appellant and the Framework, which outweigh that conflict. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal should be dismissed.