Case 3281413

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG

North Lincolnshire Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
1 March 2022
Authority
North Lincolnshire Council
Inspector
Martinson P
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Outline
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mr Terrance Milner
Agent
Dlp Planning
LPA reference
PA/2020/613
ONS LPA code
E06000013
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
11 October 2021

Summary AI

The appeal was dismissed due to the proposal's failure to meet the sequential test and its unacceptable effect on existing drainage and increased risk of flooding. The inspector was not satisfied that the Flood Risk Assessment had correctly assessed flood risk, and noted that the site is within the Environment Agency Flood Zone 3a. The proposal was also found to fail the sequential test, with the inspector noting that the onus was on the applicant to provide appropriate information in support of their proposal.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG — North Lincolnshire Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 December 2021 by Paul Martinson BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 March 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/Y2003/W/21/3281413 White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand DN17 4JG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Terry Milner against North Lincolnshire Council. • The application Ref PA/2020/613, dated 8 April 2020, was refused by notice dated 26 February 2021. • The development proposed is 6 residential building plots Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the application form. In doing so I have removed words that are not acts of development. 3. The application was submitted in outline with appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for subsequent consideration. I have considered the appeal on this basis. 4. A similar application1 for 6 dwellings at the appeal site was refused by the Council in 2019 and dismissed at Appeal2 on the grounds of an unacceptable effect on existing drainage and increased risk of flooding. Main Issue 5.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG — North Lincolnshire Council — Appeal Decision The main issue is the acceptability of the proposal in respect of flooding and drainage. Reasons 6. It is proposed to construct 6 dwellings on the appeal site which lies within the settlement boundary for Ealand. Ealand is termed a rural settlement for the purposes of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy (2011) (the CS). 7. The Environment Agency Flood Maps identify the vast majority of the site as being within Flood Zone 3a. As defined in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) that zone is defined as having a ‘high probability’ of flooding, second only in terms of potential vulnerability to the functional floodplain. In the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, the site lies within a combined Flood Zone 2/3a. 1 PA/2017/1006 2 Appeal Ref: APP/Y2003/W/18/3212859 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG — North Lincolnshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Y2003/W/21/3281413 8. The application was accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). I cannot be satisfied that this has correctly assessed flood risk as it consistently refers to the NPPF Technical Guide which was superseded by the PPG in 2014. The FRA also does not identify that the site is within the Environment Agency Flood Zone 3a. Similar concerns were expressed by the Inspector at the earlier appeal. 9. Although I have had regard to the North Lincolnshire Development and Flood Risk Guidance Note, this has equally been superseded by revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the PPG. Therefore, I give the approach in Government Guidance, as the latest iteration of the Government’s position on this matter, significant weight in the determination of the case. 10. Framework paragraph 159 states that inappropriate development should be avoided by directing development away from areas at higher risk of flooding.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG — North Lincolnshire Council — Appeal Decision Framework paragraph 162 seeks to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding, and states that development should not be permitted if there are ‘reasonably available sites’, appropriate for the proposed development, in areas with a lower risk of flooding. Similarly, Policy CS19 of the CS supports development proposals that avoid areas of current or future flood risk, and which do not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere 11. The PPG3 guides that the area to apply the sequential test across will be defined by local circumstances relating to the catchment area for the type of development proposed. For some developments this may be clear, for example, the catchment area for a school. In other cases, it may be identified from other Local Plan policies, such as the need for affordable housing within a town centre, or a specific area identified for regeneration. Whilst the sequential test provided by the appellant includes a search area with a radius of 3 miles, which takes the search area into the nearby market town of Crowle, no local circumstances or any justification has been provided to endorse this particular search area. 12.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG — North Lincolnshire Council — Appeal Decision No specific local need for housing within Ealand or a 3 mile radius of the site has been identified that would warrant limiting the search area to these locations. Whilst Policies CS1 and CS2 of the CS allow for development in the settlement boundaries of rural settlements they do not identify any specific local need for housing. Furthermore, being a rural settlement which does not have a specific growth target, the appeal proposal would contribute towards the overall housing growth of North Lincolnshire. As such, on the evidence before me, there would appear to be a logical basis for considering a greater area for the sequential test. 13. Indeed, as highlighted by the previous Inspector, I note that no factors have been presented to me that the sequential test should not be applied across the whole of North Lincolnshire. I would note in this regard that the onus is principally on an applicant to provide appropriate information in support of their proposal (section 62(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended). 14. The Environment Agency has recommended a condition related to minimising vulnerability to flooding if the development were to be approved.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Appeal Decision

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG — North Lincolnshire Council — Appeal Decision However, as 3 Paragraph: 033 Reference ID: 7-033-20140306 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 2 · Chunk 6 Appeal Decision

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG — North Lincolnshire Council — Appeal Decision However, as 3 Paragraph: 033 Reference ID: 7-033-20140306 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/Y2003/W/21/3281413 they note in their consultation response and based on the PPG, it is the decision-taker’s responsibility to consider if the sequential test has been satisfied, informed by evidence provided by the developer. 15. I therefore find that the proposal has failed to meet the requirements of the sequential test. As such I cannot be certain that there are no other reasonably available alternative sites for the proposed development at locations where the risk is less. Given these findings, it is not necessary to consider the exception test. 16. With regard to drainage, the Council has highlighted local knowledge of drainage issues where drains have backed up and properties have experienced flooding from foul sewerage. They state improvements to drainage may be required to accommodate additional dwellings. I have also been provided with similar concerns from the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 17.

Page 3 · Chunk 7 Appeal Decision

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG — North Lincolnshire Council — Appeal Decision The appellant has provided a drainage strategy with a reasonable level of detail that includes sustainable urban drainage systems in the form of filter drains and water tanks, a culvert, ditch improvements to the drainage ditches to the west of the site and a new connecting drain to these improved ditches. I note that reinforces the vulnerability of the site to flooding by stating that: ‘shallow ground water was encountered at less than 1m below ground level. Subsequently infiltration drainage is not considered a practical solution’. With regard to foul drainage, by raising the ground levels at the site it states that the whole development can drain to the existing foul sewer within Main Street via gravity. A plan is provided which shows a storage tank within the garden of Plot 1. 18. I have had regard to the suggested conditions referred to by the Lead Local Flood Authority. Were the scheme otherwise acceptable a detailed drainage scheme, which makes appropriate provision on site for surface and foul water drainage associated with the impacts of scheme, could be secured.

Page 3 · Chunk 8 Appeal Decision

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG — North Lincolnshire Council — Appeal Decision However, that would not, in itself, reduce flooding vulnerability (I note the drainage strategy states that it is designed to address flows ‘generated by the development of the site’). 19. Nevertheless, I have found that the proposal is not acceptable having regard to the provisions relating to risk of flooding. It does not accord with Policy CS19 of the CS which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure new development avoids areas of current or future flood risk and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, nor the advice in the Framework. Other Matters 20. Both parties agree that the Council cannot demonstrate a deliverable 5 year housing land supply and as such the presumption in favour of sustainable development should apply. However, I have had regard to footnote 7 to paragraph 11 d) i. which sets out policies in the Framework which provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed and includes areas at risk of flooding. As such, the presumption if favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Page 4 · Chunk 9 Appeal Decision

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG — North Lincolnshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Y2003/W/21/3281413 Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Page 4 · Chunk 10 Paul Martinson

White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, DN17 4JG — North Lincolnshire Council — Paul Martinson INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Flood risk
Against appellant
¶8

The inspector was not satisfied that the Flood Risk Assessment had correctly assessed flood risk, and noted that the site is within the Environment Agency Flood Zone 3a.

Flood risk
Against appellant
¶10

The proposal was found to fail the sequential test, with the inspector noting that the area to apply the sequential test across will be defined by local circumstances relating to the catchment area for the type of development proposed.

Other
Against appellant
¶16

The inspector noted that the appellant's drainage strategy reinforces the vulnerability of the site to flooding and that the proposal is not acceptable having regard to the provisions relating to risk of flooding.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
NPPF 159
Determinative
NPPF 162
Determinative
CS19
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 4 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 1 March 2022 under the Open Government Licence.