Titchmarsh Marina, Coles Lane, Walton-on-the-Naze (replacement workshop, Flood Zone 3)

Decision

dismissed, 21 August 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: S F Barnes

Authority

Tendring (East of England)

Appeal reference

6006959

Application reference

25/00919/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Replacement marine engineering workshop within a boatyard

Site context

flood zone 3

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

F4(1)

Development plan policies

Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 Section 2 (2022) PPL1

Main issues

flood risk

Summary

A like-for-like replacement boatyard workshop at Walton-on-the-Naze was refused solely because there was no site-specific flood risk assessment. After revisions to the Environment Agency maps the site now lay in Flood Zone 3. The letter applies the new F4(1) directly, and it holds that a replacement building does not justify skipping the assessment.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "As the changes are not material to the issues before me and would not alter my conclusions, it has not been necessary to seek further comments from the main parties" (DL ¶2).
• F4: FAIL. "The site lies within the Environment Agency's ('EA') fluvial and tidal Flood Zone 3. The Framework at F4 sets out that a site specific flood risk assessment should accompany all development proposals in these locations" (DL ¶5). The EA maps prevail over the Local Plan maps (DL ¶6).
• Old site-raising no substitute. Raised land and proximity to Mean High Water Springs "are not, in themselves, substantive indicators of the site's present flood risk, which must be considered having regard to contemporary flood risk data and taking account of potential effects of climate change" (DL ¶7).
• Safety. "In the absence of such evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the proposal and its intended users would be safe from flooding" (DL ¶8).
• Replacement. "The fact that the proposed building would replace an existing one does not automatically justify granting planning permission" (DL ¶9).

Planning balance

Plan-led (PPL1 and the Framework's flood policies). Benefits: energy efficiency (limited weight, unquantified) and convenience (private). Neither outweighed the harm nor gave an "overriding justification" (DL ¶11-12).

What made the difference

The missing flood risk assessment. The nearby approval pre-dated the Flood Zone re-mapping, so it offered no precedent. With a proportionate FRA showing resilience measures, a replacement water-compatible marina building would very likely have been approved.

Transferable points

• F4(1): all development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 needs a site-specific FRA, including replacement buildings (DL ¶5, ¶9).
• Current EA flood maps prevail over local plan maps, and earlier approvals on superseded maps carry no weight (DL ¶6).
• Historic land-raising is not evidence of current flood risk. An assessment must use contemporary data including climate change (DL ¶7).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• EA Flood Zone maps revised after a similar workshop was approved nearby in June 2025 (DL 6)
• Land raised in the 1970s is no substitute for a current evidence-based assessment (DL 7)
• Framework changes 'not material to the issues'; no further comments sought (DL 2)

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.