Appeal 6005160

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant provided during the appeal process a [name]. I have accepted the submission of the [name] because a completed and correctly executed obligation would have a legal effect. The Council was invited to make comments and I have had regard to any comments made.

The appellant has provided a sequential test during the appeal process including the geographical scope they contend to be appropriate considering the pragmatic approach outlined in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

The procedural guide for planning appeals advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme as it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the local planning authority and by interested parties at application stage. Therefore, to consider the sequential test could procedurally prejudice interested parties. Given, it is not for the appeal procedure to advance proposals, this is best achieved through the submission of revised planning applications. For this reason, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the evidence that was before the Council when it made its’ decision.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be at risk of flooding; and • whether the proposal makes an adequate contribution to affordable housing provision.

The appeal site is a parcel of undeveloped land and is located between residential dwellings. Part of the appeal site is located in flood zone 2 and thus is an area subject to flood risk. Paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) outlines, amongst other things, that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk.

Paragraph 174 of the Framework highlights that the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source and that development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding.

Accordingly the Framework in paragraph 175 provides that the sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access amongst other things would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).

Furthermore, PPG outlines that a sequential approach is designed to ensure that areas at little or no risk of flooding from any source are developed in preference to areas at higher risk.1 Consequently, even if a flood risk assessment shows the development can be made safe throughout its lifetime without increasing risk elsewhere, the sequential test still needs to be satisfied.

Notably, PPG2 also highlights that initially the presence of existing flood risk management infrastructure should be ignored, as the long-term funding, maintenance and renewal of this infrastructure is uncertain. It may be appropriate to consider the role of flood risk management infrastructure in the variation of risk within high and medium flood risk areas after the sequential test has considered the spatial variation of risk within medium and then high flood risk areas to identify the lowest risk sites in these areas.

The Flood Risk Assessment dated 13 June 2025 (the FRA) outlines that part of the appeal site is in flood zone 2 according to the Environment Agency’s flood map for planning and that the Swanage flood alleviation scheme includes flood defences. It acknowledges that when the future impacts of climate change are considered, part of the appeal site will remain at risk of flooding. Notably, the modelling data and relevant conclusions within the FRA are based upon a scenario including the flood defences.

I recognise that a significant amount of the proposed built development and access arrangements would not be within the flood zone 2 area of the appeal site and I am mindful that the appeal scheme would not have any sleeping accommodation on the ground floor as well as the history of the site and the raised landforms. Nevertheless, having regard to the approach outlined in the Framework 1 Paragraph: 023 [name]: 7-023-20220825 2 Paragraph: 024 [name]: 7-[phone] and PPG, it remains to my mind that part of the appeal site and built development would still be within flood zone 2 and therefore an adequate sequential test is required.

Accordingly, it remains, in my judgement, that the appellant has not adequately demonstrated that there are any other reasonably available sites appropriate for the appeal scheme in areas that are at a lower risk of flooding, given the lack of a sequential test. Consequently, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development would be safe from flooding for its lifetime

Regarding applications at [address] (No 48), I do not have the full circumstances before me and therefore cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge that the Council and Environment Agency may have previously accepted the flood defence works in the surrounding area and viewed the site of No 48 as flood zone 1 when assessing these applications, each application must be determined on its own merits and legislative context.

In conclusion, due to the lack of an adequate sequential test it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that there are no other reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas at lower risk. Accordingly, it has also not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not be at risk of flooding. The appeal scheme would therefore fail to accord with paragraphs 170, 173 – 175 and 181 of the Framework and paragraphs 003, 020, 023 and 024 of [name] risk and coastal change insofar as they relate to flood risk both now and in the future.

Paragraph 65 of the Framework outlines that the provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments. It does however provide an exception for designated rural areas in which policies can set a lower threshold for affordable housing.

Swanage Town is a designated rural area and Policy H11 of the Purbeck Local Plan 2018-2034 (the PLP) requires the provision of 20% affordable housing in the form of a commuted sum for proposals of two to nine homes. Accordingly, the contribution outlined in the [name] would comply with the Policy.

Accordingly, the appeal scheme would make an adequate contribution to affordable housing provision and would therefore comply with Policy H11 of the PLP insofar as it seeks to ensure that developments provide an adequate contribution to affordable housing provision.

The Council has stated that they are able to demonstrate a housing land supply of 2.53 years. This is below the housing land supply the Council is expected to deliver in line with the Framework. Whilst the proposal would deliver one pair of semi-detached houses this would nonetheless boost the housing stock in circumstances where there is a shortfall.

As set out above, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the appeal site would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding. I am mindful of the judgement in Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Lancaster City Council [2026] EWHC 51 (Admin) in so far as the failure of a sequential test does not automatically equate to a refusal of planning permission or in this case a dismissal of the appeal if material considerations suggest otherwise.

Footnote 7 of paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework outlines that applications should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. This includes areas at risk of flooding. [name] have identified that I am not satisfied that the proposed development would not be at risk of flooding, in my judgement, this equates to a strong reason for refusing the development. Therefore, whilst the scheme would positively contribute to housing provision, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

There are a number of benefits associated with the provision of the pair of semi-detached dwellings. These include the use of currently derelict land in the context of paragraphs 124,129 and 130 of the Framework and two additional units towards the housing supply of the area which can make an important contribution as outlined in paragraph 73 of the Framework.

Additionally, there would be economic benefits through the construction period as well as those associated with additional individuals living in the area using local businesses as well as the payment contribution contained within the UU towards the provision of affordable housing. Furthermore, there would also be social benefits in relation to its sustainable location and environmental benefits in terms of increased planting and biodiversity.

In my judgement, these benefits would be limited due to the scale of the appeal scheme. Accordingly, the adverse impacts I have identified as a consequence of the appeal scheme would outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the Framework policies as a whole.

The Council has not raised character and appearance as a putative reason for refusal. I find no reason to disagree and accordingly, compliance in this respect does not alter my overall conclusion.

The appeal site is in the zone of influence of [name] to Durlston Head Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Studland to [name], Isle of Portland to [name], [name] (Purbeck & Wareham) & [name], Dorset Heathlands Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI), [name] as well as the [name]. I have a duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to assess any impact the proposed development would have upon these sites. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons given above, I do not need to conduct any further assessment in relation to these sites.

[name] have found that the scheme complies with some development plan policies in respect of the second main issue, I have found that it would not comply with the NPPF and PPG in respect of flood risk, and the material considerations do not outweigh this harm. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.