Merienda, Greenhill Road, Elton (replacement dwelling)

Decision

dismissed, 25 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: R Gee

Authority

Huntingdonshire (East of England)

Appeal reference

6011882

Application reference

26/00660/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Demolition of a single-storey dwelling and erection of a larger Georgian-style self-build replacement dwelling with garaging

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement, settlement edge

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

F4(2)(c), F7, DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4(1)

Development plan policies

Huntingdonshire Local Plan LP5, LP11, LP12, LP15, Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2017

Main issues

flood risk; character and appearance

Summary

A larger Georgian-style replacement house on the edge of Elton. The site is in Flood Zone 1 but at 1-in-30 surface water risk and susceptible to groundwater, so F4(2)(c) required a site-specific flood risk assessment; none was provided. The formal design was also discordant with the informal street. Both F7 and DP3 were treated as "should be refused" policies under S4(2)(c), and the limited benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶2).
• Flood, F4(2)(c): FAIL. "Conflict also arises with the Framework F4 2c) which requires the submission of a site Specific flood risk assessment for sites in Flood Zone 1 where land has been identified in a SFRA or the Flood Map for Planning as being at risk of flooding from any source" (DL ¶7). "regardless of whether a FRA was required for validation purposes, it remains necessary to provide adequate evidence addressing these matters" (DL ¶6).
• Design, DP3(1): CONFLICT. "the proposal would appear discordant within its immediate context and would fail to respond positively to the prevailing character and appearance of this part of the settlement" (DL ¶10).
• Triggers. F7 (DL ¶27) and DP3, "which states that development should be refused where, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of the policy" (DL ¶28).

Planning balance

S4(1) with S4(2)(c) (DL ¶22, ¶26). Limited benefits (no net housing gain, unevidenced energy and biodiversity claims) were "substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶30).

What made the difference

No FRA on a site mapped at surface water and groundwater risk, and a design style foreign to the street.

Transferable points

• F4(2)(c) requires an FRA in Flood Zone 1 where the SFRA or flood map shows risk from any source, whatever the validation list says (DL ¶6-7).
• A replacement dwelling adds no net supply, so the five-year shortfall adds little weight (DL ¶24).
• Personal needs under the PSED do not outweigh harm where a less harmful scheme could meet them (DL ¶17).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated), but replacement gives no net gain (DL 24)
• Appellant argued an FRA was not a validation requirement; inspector says F4(2) requires assessment before permission (DL 6)
• Letter calls Framework policies NDMPs and says S4(2)(c) itself provides that proposals should be refused (DL 21, 26)
• Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (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.