Land opposite the Full Quart, Bristol Road (A370), Hewish, Puxton

Decision

dismissed, 22 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Laura Cuthbert

Authority

North Somerset (South West)

Appeal reference

6006629

Application reference

23/P/2593/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use to Gypsy and Traveller site (9 permanent pitches) with associated development

Homes

9

Site context

open countryside, flood zone 3, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

F6, S5(2), S5(1)(g), AnnexF

Development plan policies

North Somerset Core Strategy 2017 CS3, emerging North Somerset Local Plan 2026-2041 (limited weight)

Main issues

flood risk

Summary

Nine permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches on a 0.3 ha field in Flood Zone 3a near Hewish. Dismissed. The appeal was consistent with S5(1)(g): there is a large unmet need, no five-year pitch supply, and the emerging allocations are themselves in Flood Zone 3a. But permanent caravans are "Highly Vulnerable", which the new Annex F makes incompatible with Flood Zone 3a. F6 therefore says the proposal "should be refused". Under S5(2), that made the benefits "substantially outweighed" whether or not the sequential and exception tests were passed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The 2026 Framework "now contains the Government's national policies relating to Traveller site provision, replacing the previous Planning Policy for Traveller Sites" and "incorporates the flood risk vulnerability classifications and flood zone compatibility tables previously contained within the Planning Practice Guidance". Comments were sought from the parties (DL ¶4).
• F6 / Annex F: FAIL. "As the appeal site lies wholly within Flood Zone 3a and the proposal comprises Highly Vulnerable development, the proposal gives rise to a clear conflict with national planning policy" (DL ¶8).
• Sequential and exception tests. "The Framework does not indicate that satisfaction of the Sequential Test would, in itself, render such development compatible with that flood zone" (DL ¶14). "even if the Sequential Test and Exception Test were satisfied, the proposal would nevertheless involve Highly Vulnerable development within Flood Zone 3a" (DL ¶16).
• F7 mitigation. The measures "represent the management of flood risk rather than its avoidance" (DL ¶13).
• Local policy. CS3 "does not displace the Framework's requirement that the vulnerability classification of a development must be compatible with the flood zone" (DL ¶17).
• S5(2). The Inspector accepted F6 conflict "does not automatically preclude the grant of planning permission". But "Policy S5.2 indicates that adverse effects are likely to substantially outweigh the benefits where a proposal fails to comply with a national decision-making policy that states development should be refused" (DL ¶28).
• Precedents. The SoS's Staples Vegetables decision "does not establish a general principle that flood risk is merely one ordinary material consideration ... any departure from national flood risk policy requires compelling justification grounded in the particular facts" (DL ¶32).

Planning balance

The balance ran under S5(1)(g) and S5(2). For: unmet need, no five-year pitch supply, lack of alternative sites, and the mitigation offered, together significant weight (DL ¶36). Against: F6 / Annex F incompatibility (substantial weight) and moderate landscape harm (DL ¶¶22, 28). "the benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. Furthermore, the Framework specifically states the proposed development should be refused" (DL ¶36). The public sector equality duty and human rights were considered; interference was proportionate (DL ¶35).

What made the difference

Annex F now brings the flood-zone compatibility matrix into the Framework itself. Together with F6's "should be refused" wording, that turned the old sequential/exception-test debate into a binary incompatibility test. That test cannot be passed by mitigation, lack of alternatives or a temporary permission. Only a site in Flood Zone 1 or 2, or a less vulnerable use, would have avoided it.

Transferable points

• Under the 2026 Framework, Highly Vulnerable development (including permanent residential caravans) in Flood Zone 3a fails F6 on the Annex F matrix whatever the sequential and exception test outcome (DL ¶¶8, 14-16).
• Failing F6 engages S5(2): benefits are "likely" to be substantially outweighed. That can override significant weight for unmet traveller need and lack of alternative sites (DL ¶¶28, 36).
• Flood warning and evacuation plans and resilient construction are "management of flood risk rather than its avoidance" (DL ¶13).
• Pre-2026 permissions for traveller sites in flood zones, and the Staples Vegetables SoS decision, are distinguishable as made in a different policy context and often temporary (DL ¶¶30-33).
• A temporary permission does not answer a flood-risk objection that will not reduce over time (DL ¶34).
• The 2026 Framework no longer stresses a traveller site's effect on the settled community, though it can still be considered (DL ¶26).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Site 0.3 ha wholly in Flood Zone 3a behind tidal defences whose standard will reduce over the development's lifetime (DL 7, 12)
• 2026 Framework absorbs PPTS and the PPG flood compatibility tables (Annex F) (DL 4)
• Temporary 5-year permission rejected because flood risk would not diminish (DL 34)
• Staples Vegetables SoS decision (APP/Z2505/V/09/2119176) distinguished (DL 31-32)
• Parties invited to comment on the revised Framework (DL 4)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.