Alterations and extension to existing dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 May 2026 by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001034 The Anchorage, Boat Lane, Bleasby, NG14 7FT • 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 David Robinson against the decision of Newark & Sherwood District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00904/HOUSE. • The development proposed is alterations and extension to existing dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for Costs 2. An application for costs was made by David Robinson against Newark & Sherwood District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Preliminary Matters 3. During the course of the appeal, I requested that the Council provide a number of statements and reports referred to in the submitted evidence as well as a copy of the plans and decision notice for a Lawful Development Certificate granted at the site. These were provided to me and I have had regard to them as part of my consideration of this appeal. 4. The Environment Agency has published a new `Flood Map for Planning’ with new surface water datasets. Both main parties were given the opportunity to comment on this and I have had regard to the comments made. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on flood risk. Reasons 6. The appeal site consists of a large dwelling in a substantial plot. The site lies within Flood Zones (FZ) 2 and 3b, with the proposed development being located entirely within FZ 3b. Although the proposal includes flood proofing measures, the Council’s concern is that the development would take up functional floodplain storage which could result in harm to flood risk to the site and neighbouring land users. 7. The appellant has obtained a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) for development including extensions to the dwelling and an outbuilding which cumulatively would have a greater footprint than the appeal proposal. The Appeal Decision 6001034 2 appellant contends that the appeal proposal results in a neutral or better flood risk outcome for the site compared to the fallback of the LDC scheme. 8. The Council submits that the fallback is not relevant as flood risk was not a consideration in granting the LDC, whereas the consideration of the planning merits of the appeal proposal includes flood risk. In support of its stance that the fallback position is not relevant, the Council has quoted an Appeal Decision1 elsewhere relating to a site in a Conservation Area (CA). However, that Decision states “There is nothing… that places an explicit burden on a developer to demonstrate why a fallback development is not being pursued”. In the appeal before me, there is a greater than theoretical possibility that the fallback scheme could occur, and given the relative footprint compared to the appeal proposal then weight should be ascribed to the fallback. Even if flood risk was not a material consideration when granting the LDC, the fallback scheme is a material consideration to be balanced against the effects of the appeal proposal. 9. The Council accepts that the footprint of the appeal proposal is marginally smaller than the fallback position of the LDC, but it also states that the appeal proposal would have a larger scale and massing than the fallback scheme. However, the Council has not set out why the overall scale and massing would increase flood risk given the likely flood levels that would occur during a flooding event. 10. The Council submits that the Inspector in the quoted Appeal Decision stated that there would be less harm to the impact on the CA for the fallback decision and assigned less weight to it. However, given the larger footprint of the LDC scheme, the Council has not demonstrated that the fallback would have less harm regarding flood risk than the appeal proposal even allowing for the latter’s increased scale and massing. 11. Nevertheless, it would be physically possible that elements of both the fallback scheme and the appeal proposal could be implemented. The resulting development would have a greater impact on floodplain storage than either the fallback scheme or the appeal proposal considered individually. In effect, this would negate the consideration of comparative harm arising from the fallback scheme compared to the appeal proposal. 12. I have considered whether a condition withdrawing permitted development rights, such as those established by the LDC, would be appropriate. But such a condition would only come into effect once development of the appeal proposal commences, and the permitted development rights could therefore be exercised prior to the appeal scheme being implemented. 13. The proposal would include enhanced flooding mitigation measures, but based on the evidence before me it has not been demonstrated that these overcome the concerns relating to floodplain storage if elements of both the fallback scheme and the appeal proposal are implemented. 14. Drawing the above together, the fallback scheme does not weigh in favour of the appeal as elements of it could be implemented separately or in combination with the appeal proposal, thereby increasing flood risk due to the impact on floodplain storage. On that basis, the appeal proposal would be contrary to the flood risk, sustainable design and climate change requirements of Core Policies 9 and 10 of 1 Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/W/22/3302804 Appeal Decision 6001034 3 the Amended Core Strategy 2019 and Policy DM5 of the Allocations & Development Management DPD 2013. The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance with regard to flood risk. Other Matters 15. I have had regard to the benefits of the proposal, including the investment arising from the scheme and the self-build nature of the proposal to create an enhanced family dwelling. I also note that the Parish Council has supported the scheme and that no objections were received from neighbours. However, these factors would not outweigh the harm arising from the potential increase in flood risk arising from the appeal proposal. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. David Cross INSPECTOR