Erection of a ground floor side/rear extension and alterations to existing fenestration

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 September 2018 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/D/18/3207923 1 White Rock, Ray Mill Road East, Maidenhead SL6 8UD  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Neal Shipman against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.  The application Ref 18/01223, dated 17 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 June 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a ground floor side/rear extension and alterations to existing fenestration. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Since the appeal was lodged the revised National Planning Policy Framework has been published but does not raise any additional matters. Main Issue 3. It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the risk of flooding. Reasons 4. The Council’s objection to the proposed erection of a single storey extension is solely related to the host property being located within Flood Zone 3 and the absence of any flood risk assessment to determine whether there would be the potential to exacerbate flooding. Policy F1 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan (incorporating Alterations) (LP) and the accompanying Supplementary Planning Guidance: Interpretation of Policy F1 (Development within Areas Liable to Flood) (SPG) identify the circumstances when for minor development, such as extensions, there is a need for a flood risk assessment and any mitigation measures to be submitted. The threshold for a flood risk assessment is an extension which individually, or cumulatively with other alterations, would result in an increase at ground floor level of 30sq m. 5. The drafting of this policy and the SPG precedes the Planning Practice Guidance which includes reference to the application of the Environment Agency’s standing advice for minor development within floodplains. For schemes within Flood Zone 3 a flood risk assessment is required. Although drafted before the Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/18/3207923 2 publication of the Planning Practice Guidance, LP Policy F1 and the SPG are generally consistent with the national guidance. 6. The pre-application advice provided to the appellants by the Council for a previous application for a similar form of development (Ref 18/00240) did not identify that the site of the proposed extension was within a floodplain. However, evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the property is within Flood Zone 3. In the absence of any flood risk assessment there is limited information available to determine whether the appeal scheme would have an adverse effect on the floodplain or impede the flow of flood water. Further, no flood resilience measures are included on the submitted drawings. 7. Reference has been made by the appellants to the consideration by the Council of a residential scheme at Boulters Meadow and the potential for the adjacent water body to mitigate potential flooding. The submission of a flood risk assessment for Boulters Meadow reflects the requirements of LP Policy F1 and the SPG. Whether the water body would provide suitable flood mitigation for the property has not been demonstrated by any specific evidence. For these reasons, only limited weight has been given to these matters in the determination of this appeal. 8. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed because, in the absence of a flood risk assessment, the proposed development has the potential to result in an unacceptable risk of flooding and, as such, it would conflict with LP Policy F1, the SPG and the Planning Practice Guidance. D J Barnes INSPECTOR