Appeal 6004520

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted new drainage and flood risk reports with the appeal. Given that the Council has actively considered these new reports within its appeal statement, I will accept and consider these reports.

The main issues are:  Relevant policies for the location of housing in line with the Council’s spatial strategy.  Whether the site is a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to policies concerned with development in areas at risk of flooding.

Policy SP03 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan – Part 1 2023 (Local Plan) provides the criteria of when dwellings are acceptable in principle outside of the settlement boundaries, which includes Policy LP01 of the Local Plan that allows for infill development.

The site is on an elevated position and sits on the corner of crossroads where Jack’s Green Road becomes [address]. To the south of the site are existing dwellings, whilst to the north of the site is an unnamed road and a garden centre. The proposed dwelling’s face towards the unnamed road.

It is noted that there is new housing development on this side of the village along both Jack’s Green Road and [address]. It was also noticed that the new housing development on [address], as well as the houses directly to the south of the site was also set on higher ground and that there were examples of houses being set back from the road. Specifically, the houses directly to the south are set back approximately the same distance from the public highway as the proposed plot 2. In addition, what appeared to be a relatively new vertical timber clad building sitting in space was noticed on the opposite side of [address]. The amount of new development that has recently been constructed, specifically on the same side of the road as the proposal, weighs moderately in favour of the proposal.

The setback, the elevation changes and existing planting from [address] does not prevent the proposal in principle from fronting a highway. However, the likely limited visibility of the proposal would not be in keeping with the adjacent dwellings that clearly front the public highway. Therefore, the likely limited visibility of the proposal from [address] has limited weight against the proposal.

The most noticeable visible gap in residential development along this side of Jack’s Green Road and [address] is the site and the garden centre. In addition, the garden centre has very limited buildings being viewable from Jack’s Green Road. This in total creates a clear visual gap in built form along the street scene. The proposal is therefore not seeking to place two dwellings in between a built-up frontage. This weighs significantly against the proposal.

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal does not comply with the Council’s spatial strategy. On this basis the proposal does not comply with Policies SP03 and LP01 of the Local Plan, that seek to place development in the most sustainable locations whilst allowing for some infill development in built up frontages.

The site is located within [name] 1 and Plot 2 is in an area of low risk from surface water flooding. From the submitted information I concur with the Council that it appears that the garage of Plot 2 would be in the area at risk of surface water flooding.

[name] accept the proposal would be at low risk from surface water flooding, this would very likely only be to a non-habitable space and would have no meaningful impact on future residents being able to leave or access their homes or access by emergency services. There is no foreseeable reason to why conditions could not be used to ensure appropriate sustainable drainage systems are put in place to safely manage this low risk.

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal would not be at risk of flooding during its lifetime and would not increase risk elsewhere. On this basis, the proposal complies with Policies SP10 and LP27 of the Local Plan that seek to ensure flood risk is appropriately considered, specifically in medium and high risk areas. The proposal is also considered to comply with the requirements of chapter 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.