# 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 - **Tags:** flood-risk, sequential-test-failed, exception-test-failed, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, s4-substantially-outweighed, drafting-slip, garden-land, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## 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 - **F5: fail (significant weight).** SFRA FZ3a governs under F5(3) despite appellant's own levels survey; sequential test wrongly discounted sites on ownership/sale status and larger size (DL 4-12) - **F6: fail (significant weight).** exception test not met; single storey with no refuge, no safe access/egress detail, no wider sustainability benefits; F6 indicates refusal (DL 13, 27) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** no 5YHLS; one dwelling given substantial weight (DL 26) - **S4: fail.** not expressly concluded as substantially outweighed; "would not result in sustainable development" (DL 25-27) - **DP3: pass.** neighbour and future-occupier living conditions acceptable though cramped (DL 15-21) ## 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) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007423 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e7e70ae6-81f2-4698-92ba-15f3872c4598 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007423.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.