Appeal 6005122

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development is in a suitable location, with regard to flood risk; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is largely within [name] 2 and 3, which the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states have a medium and high probability of flood risk. Paragraph 170 of 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 of highest risk. Moreover, footnote 63 of the Framework states that a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should be provided for all development in [name] 2 and 3. Part of the site, close to [site address] is within [name] 1 and the PPG indicates there is a low probability of flood risk.

The proposal is for a detached cartlodge set in from the hedge, which partly form the front boundary with [site address] . Whilst the submitted flood map indicates that part of the frontage of the site and [site address] are within [name] 1, there is no substantive evidence before me that demonstrates that the development would be wholly outside of [name] 2 and 3. Accordingly, and taking a precautionary approach, footnote 63 of the Framework states that a site-specific flood risk assessment should be provided for all development in [name] 2 and 3. Consequently, I cannot be certain that the proposal would be made safe for its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the site is a suitable location for the proposed development, with regard to flood risk. The development therefore conflicts with Policy SCLP9.5 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan 2020 (LP) and Policy BE3 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2017 (NP), which collectively require proposals to be safe, resilient and should not increase flood risk elsewhere and minimise flood risk.

The appeal site forms a corner plot bounded on two sides by [site address] . The dwelling is set back within the site to the rear of a mature hedge that partly forms the boundary with [site address] . Development in the area is varied and includes buildings close to [site address] , including detached cartlodges forward of dwellings. While the open fields opposite the site give the area a rural character, the site is within a predominantly built-up area where the prevalence of buildings limits the spaciousness of the area.

The proposal is for a detached cartlodge to the front of the site, close to the existing boundary hedge. The building would have an irregular form but would reflect the curvature of [site address] . Given the position on the corner, the cartlodge would be visible within [site address] and would reduce the open area to the front of the site. However, due to the presence of other development in the area, including on both sides of [site address] , the cartlodge would not appear incongruous within the surroundings and would not be harmfully intrusive within the area.

Moreover, the gentle pitch of the rear roof slope would limit the overall scale of the cartlodge and would restrict the visual dominance of the building from both directions in [site address] . In addition, the retention of the boundary hedge and grass verge would maintain the verdant frontage forming the corner of [site address] . The sympathetic scale, design and material finish would reflect that of other outbuildings in the area and would ensure that the development would respect the overall character and appearance of the area.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore accords with Policies SCLP10.4, SCLP 11.1 and SCLP12.34 of the LP and Policy BE1 of the NP, which collectively require that proposals are of a high quality design that respects local character and responds to the scale and form of surrounding buildings and preserve the special qualities of the area.

The Parish Council have supported the proposal. In addition, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Nonetheless, the support of the Parish Council carries only limited weight and the absence of harm is a neutral matter. Consequently, these matters would not outweigh the harm identified in respect of flood risk.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.