Stephen Holloway
Wychavon District Council
Development Control
Civic Centre
Queen Elizabeth Drive
Pershore
Worcestershire
WR10 1PT
Our ref:
Your ref:
SV/2014/107873/01-L01
W/14/01101/PN
Date:
25 July 2014
Dear Stephen
ERECTION OF HOUSE
LAND OFF, BROOK LANE, CROPTHORNE
Thank you for consulting us on this application which was received on 7 July 2014.
The application site is shown to be partially located within Flood Zone 2 (medium
probability) and Flood Zone 3 (high probability) of the River Avon.
In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) a Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA) is required to demonstrate that the development is appropriately
located, is safe from flooding and will not have the effect of increasing flood risk impacts
on third parties. The applicant has submitted a brief FRA but this is very limited in detail
and does not demonstrate accordance with the requirements of national policy noted
above. We therefore OBJECT to the application at this time. We make the following
comments in this respect.
Sequential Test
Paragraph 101 of the NPPF advises that “Development should not be allocated or
permitted where there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed
development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.” The Council should therefore
be satisfied that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that there are no reasonably
available sites for the proposed development in Flood Zones 1 or 2.
The FRA infers that the proposal falls within the PPS25 definition of ‘minor
development’ and is thus not subject to the Sequential or Exception Tests. You will
note however that PPS25 is superseded by the NPPF and its Planning Practice
Guidance (PPG) and in any event the definition of ‘minor development’ is limited to
minor non-residential extensions, alterations and householder development (see section
Environment Agency
Newtown Industrial Estate (Riversmeet House) Northway Lane, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, GL20 8JG.
Customer services line: 03708 506 506
www.gov.uk/environment-agency
Cont/d..
17 within the Flood Risk and Coastal Change advice within the PPG). The development
of a new dwelling should not therefore be regarded as ‘minor development’ in flood risk
terms and thus the requirements of the Sequential Test and, if necessary, the Exception
Test should still apply.
The Exception Test
As noted earlier, part of the area on which the proposed dwelling is to be located is
located in Flood Zone 3. Furthermore, based on modelled flood levels (19.11m AOD for
the 1 in 20yr flood event) and the site survey provided with the application it would also
appear that part of the building will encroach within the functional floodplain (Flood Zone
3b).
We would refer the Council to the advice at Table 3 of the Flood Risk PPG and the
requirements of the Exception Test set out at paragraph 102 of the NPPF. Table 3
advises that ‘more vulnerable’ development (which includes dwelling houses) should not
be permitted within Flood Zone 3b. Within Flood Zone 3a ‘more vulnerable’
development must be subject to the requirements of the Exception Test.
Thus, if the Council is satisfied that the application passes the Sequential Test, then the
policy requirements set out above must be considered and the Exception Test applied.
Paragraph 102 of the NPPF states that “For the Exception Test to be passed:

it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability
benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood
Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and

a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will
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.
Both elements of the test will have to be passed for development to be allocated or
permitted.”
The first requirement of the Exception Test relates to a wider planning consideration for
the Council’s consideration.
In relation to the second requirement of the test we note the FRA and plans submitted
with the application and make the following comments.
The Flood Risk Assessment
The applicant has indicated that they believe the 20m contour on the site to be the
boundary of the extent of Flood Zone 3. However, there is an EA fluvial flood model for
the River Avon, which should be referred to in the FRA. The River Avon has also
experienced significant flooding in recent years which should be commented upon in the
FRA, in particular the floods during summer 2007.
The 1 in 100 yr plus climate change level at this location is 19.71m AOD. All proposed
development should be located above and outside this extent.
Although the proposed floor level of the dwelling of 22.3m AOD is sufficiently above the
flood level and any recent historic flood, a section of the development is very close to
the river’s edge and within land prone to flooding. Introducing built form to this area will
result in a loss of flood plain storage which will have the effect of displacing flood water
elsewhere and thus may increase the risk of flooding to third parties. The plans indicate
that the property will be built on stilts, however we do not consider stilts as adequate
Cont/d..
2
mitigation for building in the floodplain as these areas often become used for domestic
storage and may become prone to blockage by flood debris.
The proposed access to the dwelling would be from the existing track which provides a
connection with Cropthorne village via Brook Lane. Although the access track is not
likely to be subject to flooding, Brook Lane is located in Flood Zone 3 and experienced
significant flooding during 2007. The existing track would not therefore provide a safe
flood free route for people.
No alternative access routes are demonstrated in the application but it is noted that
there is potential to access the site from the B4084 via the adjacent farm track. It is not
known however if the applicant will have the ability to access the site via this route and
thus we are unable to comment if this will provide a suitable solution.
Conclusion
Taking the above points into consideration, we agree that the dwelling itself will be safe
from flooding based on the proposed floor level of 22.30 being sufficiently above the 1 in
100 yr plus climate change flood level at this location of 19.71m AOD. It is unclear
however if a safe flood free access can be provided and thus we are unable to conclude
that the users of the development will be safe for its lifetime. The proposal would
involve a new building in the floodplain and locating the structure on stilts would not
provide reliable mitigation for the loss of flood plain storage. The proposal may
therefore act to increase flood risk elsewhere. On the above basis we are not satisfied
that the application will pass the second requirement of the Exception Test and we do
not consider that it would accord with the advice on flood risk set out at paragraph 103
of the NPPF. We therefore object to the application at this time.
To address our concerns we would suggest that the proposed dwelling is relocated
away from the river and outside of the area of the site shown to be at high flood risk.
The applicant should also provide evidence to show that a safe flood free access is
available during times of flood.
I trust the above is clear however please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like
to discuss this letter in more detail.
Yours sincerely
Mr Matthew Tyas MSc MRTPI
Senior Planning Advisor
Direct dial 01684 864381
Direct e-mail matt.tyas@environment-agency.gov.uk
End
3