Appeal 6005124

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site lies between a petrol filling station with a car wash and a detached bungalow. It is currently overgrown, with patchy grass and I observed some informal ad hoc storage, including some materials and a piece of plant equipment. The site is enclosed by close-boarded fencing and appears not to be in active use. While both parties refer to a former commercial use, this appears to have ceased some time ago. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, I have treated any previous use as abandoned for the purposes of this appeal.

The Council’s decision notice sets out three reasons for refusal. The second and third reasons both relate to whether noise from the neighbouring car wash would provide an acceptable living environment, with the latter also considering the effect on the car wash itself, including the agent of change principle. Given their close relationship, I have assessed them together as a single main issue.

With the above in mind, I consider the main issues to be whether the proposal would: • adequately address flood risk, and • provide a suitable standard of accommodation for future occupiers.

The appeal site lies within [name] 3a, where there is a high probability of fluvial flooding associated with the [name] floodplain. It is located within an area identified as being at high risk of flooding from rivers and does not benefit from flood defences. Given this level of risk, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires the application of the sequential test to steer development to areas at lower risk of flooding where reasonably available. The proposed development falls within the ‘more vulnerable’ classification, meaning that the exception test is also required.

The site is also affected by a moderate risk of groundwater flooding, meaning water levels below the ground may rise during long periods of rainfall or when river levels are high. The risk from surface water flooding is very low. Overall, flood risk at the site is mainly from rivers, with other sources being less significant.

The appeal scheme is accompanied by a [name] prepared by ET Planning in 2022, sometime before the appeal was submitted and now clearly dated. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the search in this document has been tightly limited to sites that closely replicate an earlier proposal in terms of scale and form, specifically those capable of accommodating two dwellings. In this case, the appeal proposal is for a single dwelling, yet sites capable of accommodating one unit have not been considered. In my view, that represents a fundamentally different type of scheme and a significant flaw in the approach. By excluding single plot sites, the exercise has not properly tested whether lower risk opportunities exist for a development of this nature. Even setting that aside, I find no support within the Framework or the PPG for limiting alternative sites so tightly, to the same number of units or bedroom mix. The relevant question is whether a site could reasonably accommodate an appropriate form of development.

I also note that a number of sites have been discounted through the application of a blanket criterion on the basis that they are too large or could accommodate more intensive development. In my view, this is not justified. The PPG does not prevent smaller schemes coming forward within larger sites, and I find that excluding such sites simply because they could deliver more units imposes an unnecessary restriction. This approach is inconsistent with the requirement to consider “reasonably available” land in a proportionate way.

This is illustrated by the treatment of specific sites within the assessment. For example, the Old Library Site and the [address] site are discounted on the basis that they could accommodate a greater number of dwellings. However, both are identified as suitable and deliverable for residential development. In my view, the fact that they may support higher density development does not mean they could not also accommodate a smaller scheme in principle. I therefore do not consider their exclusion on this basis to be justified.

I further find that undue weight has been given to the form of development. The search is restricted to two-storey schemes, despite the current proposal being for a single-storey bungalow. In my view, this introduces an additional and unjustified constraint. There is nothing in national policy that requires alternative sites to replicate a particular building form. The key consideration is whether a site is suitable for residential development, not whether it matches a specific typology.

I also note that a number of sites have been discounted based on more detailed planning judgements, including matters such as amenity, character, or assumptions about layout. In my view, this goes beyond the purpose of the sequential test. Where a site is identified for residential use, or benefits from planning permission, that indicates that development is acceptable in principle. The sequential test, as set out in the Framework (paragraph 162) and explained in the PPG, is directed towards identifying reasonably available sites at lower flood risk that could accommodate development, rather than undertaking a detailed comparison of planning merits. Applying such considerations to exclude sites risks narrowing the pool of alternatives in a way that is not proportionate.

Finally, I note that entire categories of development, particularly flatted schemes, have been excluded on the basis that they represent a different form of development. Again, there is no policy basis for such a blanket exclusion.

Taking these matters together, I find that the sequential test has not been undertaken in a proportionate or policy-compliant way. In my judgment, the application of these various restrictions means that it cannot be relied upon to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites at lower risk of flooding capable of accommodating the proposed development.

I note that the Council have also raised a number of concerns in relation to the second part of the exception test, namely, whether or not the development would be “safe for its lifetime” having regard to matters including the absence of a safe access and escape routes, reliance upon refuge at a first floor level which does not exist in the case of the proposal for a single storey dwelling. However, given my findings in relation to the sequential test, it is not necessary for me to explore whether the exception test would be passed, as the Framework indicates that the sequential test must be passed before the exception test can be applied.

Overall, I find that the proposal would not adequately address flood risk. The sequential test is flawed and fails to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites at lower risk. As such, it has not been shown that the development would be safe for its lifetime or would avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy EE13 of the Runnymede Local Plan 2030 (LP), the Runnymede Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2018 (SFRA), and the Framework and PPG.

The submitted [name] by Sound Planning, although dated (2021), provides useful information. It includes background sound monitoring over multiple days, applies recognised standards and methodology, and provides a number of predictions. It identifies the primary noise source as the adjacent car wash associated with the petrol station. I concur with that finding based on my own site visit, during which there was an intermittent but intrusive level of noise, occurring repeatedly throughout the duration of my visit.

That said, I have limited confidence as to whether the report fully reflects current conditions, as I have no information before me as to whether the operation of the car wash, or other background noise sources, have altered in the intervening period. In addition, given the single-storey nature of the proposed bungalow, with all habitable rooms at ground level, I consider that the building would have a particularly close relationship with the adjacent use and would therefore be especially vulnerable to noise impacts arising from it.

The report proposes a range of mitigation measures. In terms of the building itself, this would involve enhanced glazing together with mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation would enable occupiers to keep windows closed, and on that basis the report concludes that internal noise levels could meet BS 8233 standards. [name] attach weight to that standard as a recognised benchmark, I note that the report does not clearly quantify the level of noise reduction that would be achieved in practice. This introduces a degree of uncertainty as to whether the suggested mitigation would perform as anticipated.

In any event, I consider that reliance on mechanical ventilation and closed windows would represent an unreasonable constraint on the living conditions of future occupiers. During warmer periods, or at times when occupiers would reasonably wish to open windows for comfort or ventilation, such an arrangement would fall short of what one would ordinarily expect of a satisfactory living environment. In my judgement, this would not provide the same level of comfort or amenity as is reasonably expected, particularly having regard to the Framework’s objective of securing a high standard of amenity for future occupants.

Even if I were to accept this internal mitigation as adequate, I have more significant concerns in relation to the external living environment. Due to the lack of enclosure and the way in which sound travels externally, I find that the most pronounced impacts in this case would be experienced within the garden area.

The report in this case proposes an inner acoustic fence which would effectively subdivide the garden and cut off a rectangular strip of it. [name] note that the overall size of the garden has not been raised as a concern, I find that this arrangement would nevertheless result in a noticeable and unduly restrictive constraint to how the space could be used. More generally, different parts of a garden often serve different functions, influenced by factors such as orientation, enclosure and shading. In my view, it would not be reasonable to expect future occupiers to rely on and maintain such a subdivided arrangement in order to achieve acceptable living conditions. As such, whilst the fence may offer some acoustic benefit, it would harm the quality and usability of the outdoor space.

In any event, even taking a best-case scenario and assuming that such mitigation were both implemented and retained, the report indicates that noise levels in the garden would remain at between approximately 50–55 dB LAeq during operation of the adjacent car wash. I find that this sits at the upper end of the relevant guidance and would represent, at best, a marginal level of acceptability. Furthermore, the report acknowledges that intermittent higher noise events would continue to occur. In my judgement, that residual noise environment, when considered alongside the constraints imposed by the proposed mitigation, would result in an unduly compromised external living environment.

The report also identifies that, in order to fully address the noise impacts, changes to the operation of the adjacent car wash would be required. There is no evidence before me that there is any willingness from the adjacent business, and I am not aware of any mechanism to secure such changes. As such, there is no merit in my considering such measures further.

Drawing these matters together, I find that the proposal would fail to provide a suitable standard of accommodation for future occupiers. It would result in a constrained internal environment reliant on closed windows, and an external amenity space that would remain subject to unacceptable or, at best, intermittent adverse noise conditions. As such, the proposal would conflict with Policies EE1 and EE2 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan (2020), which, insofar as relevant, seek to ensure that development provides a high standard of living conditions and is not exposed to unacceptable levels of noise.

There is a reference within the evidence to the proposed dwelling as a self-build residential dwelling. However, the submitted planning application form refers to the proposed as a market dwelling, and this is also reflected in the description of development. There is also no mechanism before me to secure the proposal as a self-build. Therefore, my assessment is on the basis of the proposal as market housing.

This finding could also have implications for assessing biodiversity net gain. The statutory [name] (BNG) requirement, introduced under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021), is now mandatory.

The Council assessed the proposal on the basis that the proposal qualifies as a self-build development and is therefore exempt from the BNG requirement. However, given my findings above, the exemption does not appear to apply. Nonetheless, as the appeal is being dismissed on other grounds, I have not considered this matter further.

I have also had regard to the appeal decision at Land at Ham Road1, and to the judgment in Mead Realisations Ltd v Secretary of State [2025] [name] 32, to which the appellant refers. However, I do not have the full details of the [address] case before me, and it relates to a different site in another part of the country. [name] note the broad approach taken, I find that decision can be distinguished on its facts.

In particular, in the [address] case the Inspector was satisfied that there would be no real-world flood risk harm arising from the proposal, notwithstanding the position on the sequential test. In this case, I am not in a position to reach such a conclusion. The appeal site lies within [name] 3, where the probability of flooding is high, and the evidence indicates that flood risk from fluvial sources is a key constraint. In the absence of a robust sequential test, and without the need to go on to consider the [name], I am not persuaded that the development would avoid real-world flood risk concerns in the same way.

[name] confirms that a failure to satisfy the sequential test does not automatically amount to a strong reason for refusal and that paragraph 11 of the Framework may still be engaged, it also makes clear that the weight to be given to such a failure is a matter of planning judgment. In this case, for the reasons set out above, I afford that failure significant weight.

Accordingly, whilst I have taken those decisions into account as material considerations, I have determined this appeal on its own merits.

Reference has been made to the need to apply substantial weight to the use of suitable brownfield land, in line with paragraph 125 of the Framework. However, as set out above, if there has been previous use on the site, it appears to have been abandoned. As such, the presumption would not appear to apply.

There would be some benefits arising from the proposal, including social and economic gains, and the delivery of an additional dwelling in an area where the Council’s identified housing land supply is less than 3 years. However, when 1 APP/V2255/W/24/3350524 considered in the context of the limited scale of development, these benefits would be modest overall. I therefore attach limited weight to them.

In this case, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply because the appeal site lies within an area at high risk of flooding. Having regard to Footnote 7 of the Framework, this provides a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. In addition, further harm would arise from the failure to provide a suitable standard of accommodation for future occupiers.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be taken otherwise. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.