Appeal 6007181

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon:  the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Eastbury Conservation Area (ECA); and  whether the proposed development would increase the risk of flooding.

The ECA extends through the central part of Eastbury village either side of the [name]. On the evidence before me and my observations at my site visit, the significance of the conservation area as a whole is derived, amongst other aspects, from the representation of traditional building styles including thatched roof cottages, their irregular positioning, and the relationships between buildings and the river corridor within the wider rural village setting. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The appeal site is positioned within the ECA and comprises a detached two storey dwelling constructed of painted brick and roof tiles in a pitched roof form commensurate with the traditional architecture of the conservation area and sited towards the front of a large plot. A cattery is also operated from the site with associated structures to the rear of the dwelling. The site frontage provides spacious off-road parking on a gravelled surface with boundary treatment comprising substantial hedging and open access. The adjoining highway is single lane with no footway and surrounding development is clustered within close proximity. The dwelling is highly visible when approaching from the east and contributes positively to the street scene and ECA at this location.

The siting, scale and flat roofed form of the proposed porch would detract from the traditional architectural integrity of the principal elevation of the dwelling and from the spaciousness of the frontage. It would introduce a prominent and discordant building form, physically and visually at odds with the host and surrounding dwellings. The use of painted brickwork with stone banding to match the existing dwelling would not be sufficient in this instance to address the harm identified.

As such, it would be out of keeping with the dwelling and the street scene and would erode the character and appearance of the ECA. In line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) terminology, the harm would be ‘less than substantial’, and moderate on the spectrum of such harm. The NPPF requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Public benefits arising from this development would be minimal, relating principally to the short-term economic activity of the construction. No clear and convincing justification has been provided in favour of the proposed development that would outweigh the harm identified.

Given the above, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and fail to preserve the character or appearance of the ECA. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, and conflict with Policies SP7, SP8, DM9 and DM28 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (the Local Plan). These policies seek, amongst other things, to secure high quality and appropriately scaled development reflecting character and local distinctiveness, specifically conserving or enhancing designated conservation areas.

Further to this, the proposed development would be contrary to the West Berkshire Council Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document (2006) (SPD) which seeks outstanding design in managing the built environment and chapters 12 and 16 of the NPPF which seek to ensure that development is visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, specifically in relation to protecting heritage assets.

The appeal site is located within Environment Agency (EA) flood zone 3 and the council further defines the location as functional flood plain (flood zone 3b). The residential use of the site qualifies the proposed development as ‘more vulnerable’ to flood risk. The NPPF states that all development should be safe for its lifetime and should not increase flood risk elsewhere. Together with the NPPF, Policy SP6 of the Local Plan seeks to manage and reduce flood risk from all sources of flooding via locational strategies, the implementation of sustainable drainage systems in new developments and implementation of flood risk measures to ensure that any residual risk can be safely managed.

Paragraphs 176 and 181 of the NPPF, in conjunction with footnotes 62 and 63 make clear that whilst householder development is not subject to either the sequential test (for location of development) nor the exception test (to justify exceptional circumstances), all development in flood zones 2 and 3 is required to be supported by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) states that FRA needs to be appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the development. In this case, the proposed porch extension is unlikely to increase the number of people present in the area at risk of flooding, so that a less detailed assessment can enable an informed decision.

The EA provides standing advice on flood risk for development comprising minor extensions in order to comply with NPPF requirements. Amongst other things, it requires FRA’s to include plans showing the [name] (FFL) and estimated flood levels from relevant flooding sources; assurance that the floor levels will be set at least 600 millimetres (mm) above the estimated flood level (this can be reduced to 300mm if there is a high level of certainty regarding flood levels, although where there is uncertainty, it should be increased); details of appropriate flood resistance and resilience measures up to at least 600mm above the estimated flood level; and confirmation that the development will not be flooded by surface water runoff or groundwater. If the minor extension is considered to be at increased flood risk as a result of multiple minor extensions in the area, the FRA will also need to include an assessment of off-site flood risk.

The appellant’s FRA acknowledges that the site is within flood zone 3, states that means of emergency access would be maintained and that appropriate finishes would be used that would not be affected by flooding although details are not provided. No plan showing the finished floor levels relative to estimated flood levels from any source has been provided. The FRA states compliance with the EA standing advice based upon flood risk information provided by the EA, although this is missing from the FRA itself.

As such, there is insufficient evidence to ensure that floor levels are appropriate, whether additional flood resistance and resilience measures are required, the surface water drainage arrangements, nor whether there are multiple small-scale extensions within the locality that may have a cumulative impact on flood risk. As such, the proposed development’s flood risk and impact on potential surface water flooding both on and around the appeal site is not known and it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development could be made safe for its lifetime.

For these reasons, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the risk of flooding within the functional floodplain at this locality. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policy SP6 of the Local Plan, chapter 14 of the NPPF and the national standards for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) (2025) which amongst other things, require confirmation that development can be constructed with adequate flood resilience and resistance measures suitable for the lifetime of the development.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.