Appeal 6005037

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for the erection of one dwelling and access at [name] of [address], Pondersbridge [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/YR25/0536/O, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal with access to be considered at this stage and layout, scale, appearance and landscaping to be reserved for future consideration.

Following the submission of the application, in July 2025, the Council updated its guidance on the flood risk sequential test search area. In addition, the [name] and [name] chapter of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was updated on 17 September 2025, the day before the Council refused planning permission. Both main parties’ have had the opportunity to comment on the updated guidance, which includes changes to the sequential approach to the location of development.

The main issue is whether there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas at lower risk of flooding and whether the sequential and exception tests have been met.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Furthermore, where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) identifies risks associated to the drainage network, surface water and fluvial flooding The proposed residential use is classified as [name]. In these circumstances, the Framework requires a sequential risk-based approach to be taken, with the aim of steering new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source; and, having applied the sequential test, if it is not possible for development to be located in areas with a lower risk of flooding, the exception test should be applied.

The PPG states that, for individual planning applications subject to the sequential test, the area to which the test needs to be applied will be governed by local circumstances relating to the catchment area for the type of development proposed and the needs it is proposing to address. The catchment area should always be appropriate to the nature and scale of the proposal and the settlement it is proposed for. For a non-major housing development, it would not usually be appropriate for the area of search to extend beyond an individual village and its immediate neighbouring settlements1.

The appellant has limited the sequential test search area to Pondersbridge, stating that there are no immediate neighbouring settlements, as Pondersbridge is separated from the next nearest settlements by swathes of open countryside. I acknowledge the Council’s search area guidance, that the appellant did not seek pre-application advice and that Fenland is a low-lying district that was artificially drained and is part protected from floods by drainage banks and pumps. Nevertheless, the Council have not disputed that there are no immediately neighbouring settlements to Pondersbridge. Moreover, I have no substantiated evidence before me as to why, in this particular case, the catchment area for the proposal should be increased beyond the village itself, having regard to the PPG.

The FRA identifies that the entirety of Pondersbridge is within [name] 3 and therefore reasonably available alternative sites within the village would not be at a lower risk of flooding. As it is not possible to locate the proposal in an area with the lowest risk of flooding, the sequential test is passed.

To pass the exception test, the Framework advises that it must be demonstrated that the development would have wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk. In addition, it must be demonstrated that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

The wider sustainability benefits of the scheme include contributing to the Council’s housing requirements. The scheme would deliver one house in an accessible location, utilising low carbon technology. It would provide a bio-diversity net gain and would also contribute to the local economy via employment opportunities during the construction phase and household expenditure after construction.

The finished floor level of the dwelling would be above the reported low chance event flood depths. Sleeping accommodation is proposed on the first floor, with flood resilience and resistance measures incorporated into the build. Future occupants would be signed up to the [name] service, giving them maximum warning of future flood events.

The site is protected by nearby pumping stations. If failure, due to long term mechanical breakdown or power supply disruption were to occur, putting properties such as the proposal at risk, temporary pumping equipment would be 1 Paragraph: 027a [name]: 7-027a-20220825 used to maintain the drainage levels. Moreover, the appeal site is on higher ground than the agricultural land to the northeast.

Although details have not been provided at this stage, I am satisfied that surface water could be managed on site so as not to affect adjoining properties or increase the flood risk elsewhere.

Consequently, the proposal would be safe for its lifetime, taking into account the vulnerability of its users. The sustainability benefits to the community therefore outweigh flood risk, and the exception test is passed.

I conclude that the proposal satisfies the sequential and exception tests and would have an acceptable effect on flood risk. The proposal would accord with Policy LP14 of the Fenland Local Plan (May 2014) where it requires development to take a sequential approach to flood risk having regard to actual and residual flood risks, demonstrating appropriate flood risk management and safety measures and a positive approach to reducing flood risk overall. The proposal would also accord with the Framework where it seeks to ensure that development is made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

The appeal site lies within the setting of the [name] listed Church of [name]. In so far as is relevant to this appeal, its’ significance is derived from its architectural character and details and its’ communal value as a place of worship. The scheme would infill a plot within an existing linear pattern of development. Due to the distance and intervening greenery, the proposal would preserve the significance of the listed asset.

I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council against the Framework and where necessary I have amended the wording in the interests of effectiveness and precision.

In the interests of certainty and clarity, I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the approval of reserved matters, the commencement of development as well as the approved plans.

In order to protect biodiversity throughout the course of construction, a condition is required to secure a Construction Environmental Management Plan.

To ensure adequate drainage and the safety of the development both now and in the future from flood risk, conditions are required to ensure compliance with the flood mitigation measures as set out in the submitted FRA and for the submission of a detailed drainage scheme.

To maintain highway safety, a condition is necessary to secure appropriate visibility splays, both now and in the future.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole and the Framework, and therefore the appeal is allowed.

Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (herein called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: CHEF-01, C689-P-01 and C689-P-02 [name]

No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include the following: a) Summary of potentially damaging activities b) Identification of biodiversity protection zones c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (these may be provided as a set of method statements) include a pre-works check for non-native species undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist and any additional measures required to manage and control any invasive species present. d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works f) Responsible persons and lines of communication g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the [name] as set out in the Flood Risk Assessment, prepared by Ellingham Consulting Ltd, dated May 2025.

No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and implementation of the foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation and thereafter retained in perpetuity.

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, 2x2m visibility splays shall be provided on both sides of the proposed vehicular access and shall thereafter be maintained free from obstruction exceeding 0.6m about the level of he maintained highway. ***End of Conditions***