32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 July 2025 by R Bartlett PGDip URP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th August 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/W2845/W/25/3361266 Brook Lodge, 32 West End, Bugbrooke, West Northamptonshire, NN7 3PF • 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 Ms Julianne Field against the decision of West Northamptonshire Council. • The application Ref is 2023/7814/full. • The development proposed is erection of a new dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The information submitted by the main parties refers to various amended plans and documents having been submitted to address concerns raised during the course of the application. I have determined the appeal based upon the plans and documents submitted with it, which comprise the plans dated 29 August 2023 and labelled V1, an undated Design and Access Statement, a Flood Risk Assessment V2 dated March 2024, a Topographic Site Survey dated 5 June 2024, and an Ecological Report dated 29 April 2024. Main Issue 3. The main issue in respect of this appeal is flood risk. Reasons 4.

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision The proposal relates to the construction of a two-bedroom detached bungalow and a detached garage, on part of the garden to the rear of the existing dwelling at 32 West End. It is apparent that the new dwelling would be accessed from West End by extending the existing driveway past the side of the existing dwelling, although this means of access from the public highway has not been included within the application red line plan. 5. The site is situated partially within flood zone 2 (medium probability), partially within flood zone 3 (high probability), and is within an area at high risk of surface and groundwater flooding. The River Nene, a designated main river with fluvial influence, runs alongside the eastern boundary of the site and has no flood defences. The site has a history of flooding, and the appellant’s own statement confirms that the existing dwelling at 32 West End has flooded twice in the last 40 years. It most recently flooded in November 2024, when the adjacent river breached its banks, and prior to that in 1998. 6.

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision Policy BN7 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1) (2014) (JCS), requires development to comply with flood risk assessment and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision Policy BN7 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1) (2014) (JCS), requires development to comply with flood risk assessment and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W2845/W/25/3361266 management requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). These policies and guidance seek to direct all new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding unless it has passed the sequential and exception tests. 7. To pass the sequential test, it must be demonstrated that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. If alternative sites at lower risk of flooding are reasonably available, the sequential test would fail, and planning permission should be refused. If the sequential test is passed, then for more vulnerable development on sites in flood zone 3, such as dwellings, the exception test would also apply. To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that: a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and b) the development would be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision Both elements of the exception test should be satisfied for development to be permitted. 8. Whilst not mentioned in the Council’s reason for refusal, the requirement to pass the sequential and exception tests are referred to in the Environment Agency (EA) response and are clearly set out in the relevant local and national planning policies, all of which I must have regard to in reaching my decision. 9. The sequential test contained within the appellant’s Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is limited to the appeal site. The PPG defines reasonably available sites as those in a suitable location for the type of development with a reasonable prospect that the site is available to be developed at the point in time envisaged for the development. These could include a series of smaller sites and/or part of a larger site if these would be capable of accommodating the proposed development. Such lower-risk sites do not need to be owned by the applicant to be considered ‘reasonably available’. 10. It is evident from the flood maps provided that much of the surrounding area is in flood zone 1 (low probability).

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision It is therefore likely that there are sites available at lower risk of flooding that could accommodate this small-scale development. The PPG states that even where 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. Sequential test search areas should be agreed by local planning authorities having regard to local circumstances and advice set out in the PPG. 11. As a robust sequential test has not been undertaken and passed, the development should not be permitted, and it is not necessary for me to consider the exception test. However, even if the sequential test has been passed, there is no evidence before me to indicate that the development would provide any wider sustainability benefits to the community that would outweigh flood risk. As such the first element of the exception test is also not met. 12. The appellant’s FRA suggests that the exception test is not required due to the site being in flood zone 2. However, whilst the dwelling would be located in flood zone 2, part of the site and part of the new development, would fall within zone 3.

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision The notes to Table 2: Flood risk vulnerability and flood zone incompatibility, in the PPG acknowledge that some developments may contain different elements of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision The notes to Table 2: Flood risk vulnerability and flood zone incompatibility, in the PPG acknowledge that some developments may contain different elements of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W2845/W/25/3361266 vulnerability, in which case the highest vulnerability category should be used. As the proposal would include new development in flood zone 3, it is my view that the exception test would need to be passed. 13. With regard to the second element of the exception test, a site-specific FRA was submitted with the application. Whilst I have not been provided with a copy of the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, which sets out the local requirements for FRAs, more recent and up to date national requirements for these are set out in the PPG. I have also had regard to policy BN7 of the JCS, which I am advised requires higher design protection standards for development in the Upper Nene Catchment, in which the site lies, than the PPG, as a result of the significant flooding that occurred in this area in 1998. Both the EA and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have advised that the FRA has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed development could be made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. 14.

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision Whilst two extraction areas are proposed to compensate for the loss of flood water storage space taken up by the new buildings, I am advised that it has not been demonstrated that these are either required or appropriate. Furthermore, whilst I am not in receipt of the document referred to in the EA’s response or the plans showing the proposed compensation excavation areas, I am advised that at least one of these falls outside of land shown to be in the application site or ownership of the appellant. As such, the provision of these could not be secured by planning conditions. Whilst I do have a topographical survey of the site indicating existing grounds levels ranging between 78.40 and 78.64 AOD (excluding the means of access which drops lower), I have not been sent the version 3 plans, dated 19 March 2024, which the EA state indicates finished floor levels being set at the same level as the surrounding ground. 15. The flood maps provided indicate the gap between the existing dwelling and the river, which the access drive would run through, is entirely in flood zone 3, which raises concerns regarding the safe evacuation of the property or access by emergency services in the event of a flood.

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision The evacuation route shown to reach flood zone 1 land, is through land in flood zones 2 and 3 and may not be safe in the event of a flood, which could occur at any time of day or year, and could result in the loss of power and heating etc. As the proposal relates to a bungalow, there would be no first-floor place of refuge. 16. The appellant has stated that if planning permission was granted, she would build walls around the existing dwelling at 32 West End, raise the level of the riverbanks and garden, and install flood gates. Other suggestions include digging a pond that could accommodate water displaced by the construction of the new dwelling on the site or raising the floor levels to allow flood water to run under the building. However, no engineering details of such works, which would require planning permission and would alter the submitted plans, to demonstrate how they would work without increasing flood risk to others, have been submitted as part of the application or flood risk assessment. 17. I also acknowledge the appellant’s concerns relating to poor management of rivers and drains contributing to the risks of flooding. However, this is not a planning matter.

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision Planning is about managing land use and seeks in the first instance to steer new development for vulnerable uses away from areas that are known to be at risk of flooding. It seeks to prevent further people and properties from being put at risk, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision Planning is about managing land use and seeks in the first instance to steer new development for vulnerable uses away from areas that are known to be at risk of flooding. It seeks to prevent further people and properties from being put at risk, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W2845/W/25/3361266 and only where there is no other land at lower risk for development should mitigation measures be considered. 18. I therefore conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the development could not be located in an area at lower risk of flooding or that if this was not possible, that it would deliver wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk and could be made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. As such, the proposal would not accord with policy BN7 of the JCS, or the Framework. I do not consider policies LH1 and GS4 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2 (2020) to be relevant to the main issue of flood risk. Other Matters 19. The appellant has raised concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter for my consideration and should be taken up with the Council via its complaint procedure. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

32 West End, Bugbrooke, Northants, NN7 3PF — West Northamptonshire — R Bartlett INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4