Appeal 6005314

The appeal is dismissed.

The existing ground floor flat has direct access into the area shown as unoccupied storage area. The proposed drawings show that the unoccupied storage area would be demolished or substantially removed. In its place a clearly separate 3 storey dwelling would be constructed, with no connection to the existing flat or the adjacent terrace property. Taking all the evidence before me into account I will consider this appeal on the basis that the proposal is for a single dwelling following demolition of the unoccupied storage area.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to the provision of private amenity space. • Whether there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas at lower risk of flooding. • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No.44), with particular reference to loss of sunlight/daylight. • Whether the proposed development would have access to suitable car parking and the effect of the use of the proposed development on the safety of pedestrians using [address]. • The effect of the proposal on the integrity of the features of European nature conservation sites situated along the Suffolk coast.

Policy WLP8.33 of the Waveney Local Plan 2019 (Local Plan) promotes development on urban infill sites, though does require proportionately sized amenity space to be provided.

The proposed development is seeking the creation of a three bedroom dwelling, with the only outdoor amenity space being a shared passageway to the existing flat and the garden space of a dwelling on [address] South. This space could accommodate refuse/recycle and cycle storage, though given the width of the passageway it is likely to cause some obstruction to occupiers of the flat and those who live in the [address] South property. Therefore, the siting of this storage is not appropriate and is unlikely it could be overcome by a condition.

[name] note the proximity of a large amount of public open space and the pier within easy walking distance of the site, though it should still be expected that residential occupants have some access to private outdoor space. It is also noted that nearby dwellings have small to medium sized usable gardens. The lack of any private useable outdoor amenity space does not constitute a proportionately sized amenity space for a three bedroom dwelling and is not in keeping with the nearby properties. Therefore, the proposal does not promote a high standard of amenity for future occupiers.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal does not provide suitable sized amenity space for future occupants. On this basis the proposal does not comply with Policies WLP8.33 and WLP8.29 of the Local Plan, which seeks to provide a good standard of amenity for future occupiers and ensure appropriate provision for the storage of waste and recycling bins. The proposal on this basis would also not comply with the requirements of paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework).

The site is located within [name] 3, though it is noted the Council have identified it within both [name] 3a and 3b while the Environment Agency only refer to the site being within 3a.

The appellant states that the proposal should be considered as minor development or alteration to an existing building. However, it is clear from the proposed floor plans that the development is seeking to create a separate residential unit. Therefore, while they would share a wall this would be no different to any other semi-detached dwellings. As detailed above, I will consider the appeal based on the proposal being for the creation of a single dwelling on previously developed land.

The site is located within a residential street, located within the settlement boundary of Lowestoft. However, the Local Plan details under Policy WLP8.24 that only allocated sites can be developed in areas at risk of flooding. Policy WLP1.2 of the Local Plan does not specifically state that development in settlement boundaries are the same as an allocated site, it instead considers development sited within the settlement boundary to provide flexibility for additional development. In addition, for the reasons detailed above the site does not meet the requirements of Policy WLP8.33 of the Local Plan. Therefore, on the evidence before me the site is not allocated specifically for residential development.

Based on the Council’s assertion that the use of the unoccupied storage area is a workshop and the appellant in their application form states the proposal does involve the loss, gain or change of use of non-residential floorspace; the evidence before me suggests while being directly connected to the flat the site is not residential.

Paragraph 170 of the Framework states ‘Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere’.

Further to this paragraph 174 of the Framework states ‘the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. 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. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test’.

It is noted that the Environment Agency (EA) has objected to the proposal on the lack of sequential testing to see if the development could be sited in either [name] 1 or 2, as well as other reasons including that it does not consider the appellant’s Flood Risk Assessment to meet the required standard and lack of emergency planning.

It has been stated that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and I have no evidence to suggest this is incorrect. On this basis, I accept that there is the need for additional housing within the wider local area. However, the appellant has not provided clear evidence to suggest that a single dwelling or the lack of five year housing supply could not be appropriately accommodated in flood zone 1 first or failing this flood zone 2. Therefore, the sequential test has not been met.

[name] accept that there are a lot of existing residential properties already at risk of flooding that should already be covered by emergency planning; an Emergency Flood Plan should still be submitted. This is to ensure that future occupants know what to do to get to safety and should cover how emergency services could reach future occupants in a timely manner if required. With the lack of an Emergency Flood Plan, it cannot be demonstrated that the proposal would meet the exception test, as the development might not be safe for future occupants for the lifetime of the development.

I have noted the Flood Risk Assessment provided by the appellant and whilst I note the concerns raised by the EA, the submitted information shows there is no material difference in risk to the site with and without flood defences.

I have also noted the appeal decision APP/X3540/W/21/3275958 referenced by the appellant. However, in this appeal flood risk was not a main issue and the site was in flood zone 2. Therefore, there are significant material differences between this previous appeal and the current proposal. On this basis only limited positive weight is given to this previous appeal decision.

It is noted that the site is previously developed land. However, while this is supported under paragraph 124 of the Framework, this is on the basis of ensuring safe and healthy places to live. Given the risk of flooding and the lack of private amenity space, the proposal would not comply with this paragraph of the Framework. On the same basis, the proposal would not comply with paragraphs 125 and 129 of the Framework.

[name] note that the proposal is unlikely to give rise to additional flood risk elsewhere, as it would not lead to a greater amount of impermeable ground. However, this does not overcome the strong reason for refusing the development as identified above.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal has not demonstrated that there are reasonably available sites for the proposed development in areas at lower risk of flooding and that the proposal provides an unacceptable risk to future occupants. On this basis, the proposal does not comply with Policy WLP8.24 that requires that it can be demonstrated that the site could not be sited on an area at lower risk of flooding, that new development must be on allocated sites and provision of an emergency plan. The proposal also does not comply with the requirements of the Framework. Living conditions on the occupiers off No.44

The proposed dwelling is located approximately to the north of No.44. The two storey flat roofed element of the proposal, which is slightly set in, would extend beyond the line of the existing rear elevation of No.44.

[name] have noted the location of the rear window and ground floor lean-to of No.44, the proposal is likely to only cause a limited loss of sunlight during the summer months and is unlikely to cause a detrimental loss of daylight to the occupants of No.44.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the occupants of No.44 by loss of sunlight or daylight. On this basis, the proposal complies with Policies WLP8.29 and WLP8.33 of the Local Plan, which seek to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and that living conditions of neighbouring occupiers are not unacceptably harmed. On this issue, there is no conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework.

It was noted during my site visit that parking on [address] was limited and parking controls were in place, with few properties having access to off street parking. In addition, the closeness of the site to a variety of shops and services was noted. The proposal seeks to replace the existing storage area, which the Council states was last used as a workshop.

The Council has not provided any specific car parking standards, though has referred to County Council guidance. On this basis, there is no evidence of the different standards between required spaces for a workshop and that for three parking spaces for the proposed dwelling.

Given the closeness of a range of shops and services within easy walking distance and that the proposed development is replacing an existing workshop, the proposal is considered to have a neutral impact on parking requirements within the street.

As detailed above, I have concluded that the storage of waste/recycling and bicycle storage could be kept in the shared passageway though this could cause an ongoing obstruction to the other residents. [name] accept future occupants might decide to keep waste/recycling bins on the pavement, this would remove the obstruction from the passageway.

I have determined that the appellant is seeking to provide waste/recycling and bicycle storage on site and on that basis, there would be no risk to pedestrian safety, due to the loss or reduction in the width of the pavement.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal would not cause harm to highway safety and the parking provision is acceptable in this case. On this basis, the proposal complies with Policies WLP8.21 and WLP8.29 of the Local Plan on this issue, which seek to encourage people to travel by sustainable means, be close to services/facilities, not place pedestrians at risk and promote public safety.

From the evidence provided the site is located within the Zone of Influence of European sites comprising the Stour and Orwell Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar and the [name] and Ramsar. The Council applies the [name] and [name] (RAMS). The appellant states they are willing to provide a planning obligation if required. If the appeal was to be allowed, it would be necessary to consider this matter within an appropriate assessment. However, as detailed above, there are strong reasons to dismiss this appeal.

The proposed development would provide a visual improvement to the character and appearance of the local area, as the proposed dwelling would be an architectural improvement over the current workshop. However, while I give moderate positive weight to this, it does not overcome the strong reasons to dismiss this appeal as already highlighted.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

From the evidence before me there is not a deliverable five year supply of housing land as required by Paragraph 78 of the Framework. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, which is a material consideration of significant weight, is engaged. It states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

However, with the identified harm, as detailed above, to the risk of flooding there is a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with paragraph 11 d) i and on this basis the requirements under 11 d) ii are not applicable to this appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.