11 Quantock Road, Weston-super-Mare

Decision

dismissed, 22 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: S Harrington

Authority

North Somerset (South West)

Appeal reference

6007423

Application reference

26/P/0180/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Single-storey dwelling in rear garden of flats, with demolition of garage and alterations to existing flats

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement, flood zone 3, garden land

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

F5, F6, S4

Development plan policies

North Somerset Core Strategy 2017 CS3, CS12, Sites and Policies Plan Part 1 2016 DM1, DM32, DM37, DM38, Residential Design Guide SPD 2013

Main issues

flood risk sequential and exception tests; neighbour living conditions; future occupier living conditions

Summary

One bungalow in a rear garden in Weston-super-Mare, in Flood Zone 3a on the SFRA. Dismissed. The sequential test was flawed: it discounted sites for being for sale or larger than needed. The exception test also failed, because a single-storey dwelling had no refuge and no safe access or egress. HO7 was given substantial weight (no 5YHLS), but F5/F6 were treated as refusal policies and outweighed it. Living conditions were acceptable.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties had the opportunity to comment; the 2026 Framework was applied (DL ¶2).
• Flood zone. "Policy F5.3 of the Framework states that the strategic flood risk assessment ... should provide the evidential basis for applying the sequential test. As such ... I must consider that the appeal site is within flood zone 3a" (DL ¶6).
• Sequential test — F5: FAIL. "land ownership, or indeed if a site is for sale does not directly indicate that a site does not have a reasonable prospect of being developed ... I see no reason why a larger site could not accommodate the type and quantum of development proposed" (DL ¶11).
• Exception test — F6: FAIL. "given that the proposal would be single storey with no areas of refuge, and no details of safe access or egress during a flood event, I cannot be sure that the proposal would be safe for its anticipated lifetime" (DL ¶13).
• Living conditions: PASS (DL ¶¶18, 21).

Planning balance

S4 framed (DL ¶25). For: HO7 substantial weight for one dwelling given no 5YHLS, plus modest economic and social benefits (DL ¶26). Against: "Framework Policy F6 indicates that the proposal would not be appropriate and should be refused, to which I afford significant weight. Consequently, I find that the proposal would not result in sustainable development" (DL ¶27). The letter never states that benefits were substantially outweighed, and weighs the flood harm at only "significant" against a "substantial" HO7 benefit. The logic rests on F6 as a refusal trigger (implicitly S4(2)).

What made the difference

A defective sequential test and no evidence of safe refuge or escape. Contrast PINS-6004929 (Catford), where a missing sequential test was outweighed because the scheme reduced risk by removing basement bedrooms and much of the surrounding area floods. Here a new single-storey dwelling increased the number of people exposed, with no refuge. A two-storey design with refuge and a properly reasoned sequential test (not discounting sites on ownership or size) would have given the appellant a much stronger case.

Transferable points

• Under F5(3) the SFRA is the evidential basis for the sequential test; an appellant's own unverified level survey will not displace it (DL ¶6).
• Sites are not "unavailable" merely because they are in other ownership, for sale, or larger than needed (DL ¶11, following PPG).
• A single-storey home in FZ3a with no refuge and no safe access/egress detail fails the exception test (DL ¶13).
• F6 operates as a refusal policy that can defeat HO7 substantial weight in the S4 balance even without a 5YHLS (DL ¶¶26–27).
• Drafting: the S4 conclusion was not stated in "substantially outweighed" terms (DL ¶27).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Environment Agency says FZ2/3; SFRA says FZ3a; appellant's unexplained spot levels claimed FZ1 (DL 4-6)
• Sequential test search area limited to Weston settlement boundary accepted as proportionate (DL 9)
• Council cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS (figure not stated) (DL 26)
• Allowed 190-home appeal with a failed sequential test distinguished on scale of benefits (DL 22)

Related decisions

• PINS-6004929

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.