5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 December 2024 by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 December 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/L2250/W/24/3347422 5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, TN29 9BH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Lucy Histed against the decision of Folkstone & Hythe District Council • The application Ref is 22/1664/FH. • The development proposed is described as demolition of existing garage for the erection of one two storey two bedroom house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. Since the appeal application was refused the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 has been replaced. Within the current National Planning Policy Framework December 2024 (the Framework) paragraphs 165, 168, 169 & 170 of the former Framework 2023 have been renumbered 170, 173, 174, 177 & 178. Also, whilst the wording of paragraph 168 has been changed, providing greater clarification, it has not had a material impact on the consideration of the appeal scheme. I confirm that in this decision I refer to the newly published Framework. Main Issue 3.

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision The main issue is whether the site is in a suitable location with regard to Flood Risk. Reasons 4. The appeal site is shown as falling within flood zone 3 of the Environment Agency’s (EA) Flood Map and the Council has stated that in accordance with their Strategic Flood Risk Assessment mapping the proposed house would straddle areas identified as being at low/moderate risk of flooding to 2115. 5. The modelling data referred to by the EA is based on the requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework 2016. It indicates that the appeal site remains at risk from flooding when existing flood defences are ignored and should the sea defences at Jury’s Gap be breached and taking account climate change projections. As pointed o0ut by the EA although flood defences reduce the risk of flooding, they cannot completely remove that risk as they may be overtopped or breached during a flood event. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L2250/W/24/3347422 6. Similarly, paragraph 024 of the National Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), states that initially existing flood risk defences should be ignored, as the long-term funding, maintenance and renewal of this infrastructure is uncertain. Having considered the spatial variation of risk within medium and high-risk areas to identify the lowest risk sites, it may then be appropriate to consider the role of flood risk management infrastructure. 7. Whilst the historic flood map shows no evidence of flooding within Lydd, this does not mean that the site has not flooded in the past and will not do so in the future. As such this does not obviate the need for sequential testing in accordance with section 14 of the Framework. 8. Collectively and amongst other things paragraphs 170, 173, 174, 177 & 178 of the Framework state that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by steering development away from areas at highest risk to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Also, 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.

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision A sequential test should be applied when any part of the site is at risk of flooding. If it is not possible for development to be located within an area at lower risk of flooding an exception test may be required. Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime, without increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere. 9. Together paragraphs 023, 024, 027 & 028 of the current National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advise that the 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. Even where flood risk assessments show the development can be made safe throughout its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere, the sequential test still needs to be satisfied. The sequential test should look to identify whether there are other sites of lower flood risk exist within a reasonable search area, which could accommodate a comparable development. In doing this there is no requirement for other sites to be within the ownership or control of the applicant.

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Decision makers need to consider whether the sequential test is passed, with reference to the information it holds on land availability. 10. Policy SS3 of the Folkstone & Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review 2022 (CSR), is consistent with this. Amongst other things it states that where necessary site specific flood risk assessments should demonstrate that the proposal is safe. That the proposal meets the sequential approach within the applicable character area, and where applicable the exception test as set out in national policy.

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Decision makers need to consider whether the sequential test is passed, with reference to the information it holds on land availability. 10. Policy SS3 of the Folkstone & Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review 2022 (CSR), is consistent with this. Amongst other things it states that where necessary site specific flood risk assessments should demonstrate that the proposal is safe. That the proposal meets the sequential approach within the applicable character area, and where applicable the exception test as set out in national policy.

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision | 11. With regard to sequential testing, both the appellant and the council have | | --- | | identified a number of reasonably available sites, which as pointed out by the | | council, accord with the definition set out in NPG paragraph 028. The sites | | referred to by the council are all at lower risk of flooding than the appeal site | | and could accommodate a scale of development comparable to the proposal. | | Also, the council has stated that currently it is able to demonstrate a | | deliverable five-year supply of housing land. As such there is no need to | | consider less than ideal sites in order to meet housing targets. Irrespective of | | this, as stated in PPG paragraph 028 the absence of a 5-year land supply is not | | a relevant consideration for the sequential test for individual applications. |

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision a relevant consideration for the sequential test for individual applications. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision a relevant consideration for the sequential test for individual applications. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L2250/W/24/3347422 12. Accordingly, the need for the proposed development has not been demonstrated and the submitted sequential test does not satisfy the requirements set out in the Framework and the PPG. Whilst it is noted that the Environment agency raised no objection to the proposal, their assessment does not address the need for the development. It addresses safety matters associated with the exception test, which is only applied where the sequential test has been satisfied. This two tier testing is set out in PPG paragraph 032. 13. The failure to pass the sequential test is not a matter that could be satisfactorily dealt with by the imposition of conditions. In view of this there is no need to consider the exception test in relation to the appeal proposal. 14. Finally, I acknowledge that the council dealt with the application pro-actively and found the proposal to be acceptable in all respects other than flood risk. I agree with the council that visually the proposed dwelling would blend in appropriately with its surroundings. It would also provide a local home and its occupiers would contribute to the local community and economy.

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Whilst these factors weigh in favour of the proposal, both individually and collectively they would be materially outweighed by the weight that needs to be given to flood risk and the associated safety of people and property. | 15. For these reasons, on the basis of the evidence submitted, I conclude on the | | --- | | main issue that the proposal would result in inappropriate development in an | | area at risk of flooding, resulting in unjustified flood risk to people and | | property. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with CSR Policy SS3 and the | | requirements set out in paragraphs 170, 173, 174, 177 & 178 of the | | Framework. | Framework.

5 Vinelands, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent , TN29 9BH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3