Flood risk on the access route

Appeal 6010951 · Uttlesford · Appeal · 1 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• F5 fail no sequential test; F5(2)(b)(i) exemption not met because the access and escape route is in Flood Zones 2 and 3, although the dwelling is in Flood Zone 1; (2)(a), (2)(b)(ii) and (2)(c) not applicable (DL 7-8, 13, 15, 28)
• F7 fail flood depth of about 682 mm across the access in the 1 in 100 plus 35% event; safe access and escape not demonstrated; letter cites "Policies F4 to F7" together (DL 11-12, 15)

One self-build house at Clavering was dismissed although the inspector found the site to be within the village and in a sustainable location, so that S4 applied. The access crossed Flood Zones 2 and 3 with no sequential test and no demonstrated safe escape route, and the self-build unilateral undertaking (UU) was too defective to secure the biodiversity net gain (BNG) exemption. Those harms substantially outweighed the benefit of one home.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6004952 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• F4(3) neutral proportionate site-specific FRA; F4(3) concerns scope of the FRA and does not displace the sequential test (DL 5-6, 9)
• F5 fail part of access in Flood Zone 2 and newer modelling shows wider risk, so the F5 exception (no built development incl. access/escape in risk area) not met; no sequential test (DL 7-10); adverse effect significant weight (DL 23)
• F7 neutral FRADS mitigation goes to whether development could be made safe, not to the sequential test (DL 10)

Nine homes on a former employment site inside Tarleton. Dismissed because no sequential test was done: part of the access lies in Flood Zone 2, so the F5 exception for sites with no built development in a risk area was not met. The loss of employment land was also unjustified, the buildings having been in storage use until 2023. Substantial weight to housing did not avoid the S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011079 · Mid Sussex · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• F4 fail FRA did not consider historic fluvial and surface water flooding of Cuckfield Road (DL 15, 19, 25)
• F7 fail no assessment of flood depth/velocity on the only access road or of safe access and escape; highly vulnerable mobile homes; F7 says refuse (DL 16, 20, 34)

A five-pitch Gypsy site on a paddock in open countryside between Ansty and Hurstpierpoint. It was a resubmission after a 2025 appeal dismissal. The council accepted it could not show a five-year supply of pitches. The appeal was dismissed anyway. The site failed HO12 on access to services because the only route was an unlit, national-speed-limit road with no footway, so it fell outside S5(1)(g) and into S5(4). A new flood-risk failure (F4/F7: no assessment of safe access along a road with a history of flooding) was also decisive, and it ruled out a temporary permission.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010729 · Cornwall · Appeal · 8 Sept 2026

• F7 fail units in FZ1 but access track in FZ2/3 floods to 0.68-0.69 m ("Danger for Most"); no robust formal emergency plan; public safety given substantial weight (DL 15-21, 23)

A part-retrospective scheme for holiday accommodation (railway wagons, a shepherd's hut, caravans and a shower block) at a rural fishery near St Austell was dismissed. There were two reasons: heavy car reliance, and flood risk to the access route. The units were in Flood Zone 1 but the only access crossed Flood Zone 2/3 and there was no formal emergency plan, so F7's safe-access requirement was not met.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009718 · West Berkshire · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• F5 fail access in flood zone, so the "no built development at risk" exemption fails - sequential test needed and not done; FRA used wrong design flood event (DL 29-33)

Outline for three houses on a commercial storage yard in the North Wessex Downs near Tidmarsh, dismissed on many grounds. The key Framework point is that the inspector treated the houses as "isolated homes" under S5(3), being "close to, rather than within" a group of houses. That excluded them from S5 support "irrespective of whether the proposal would involve the redevelopment of previously developed land" (DL ¶60-61). Heritage setting harm, the need for a flood sequential test (the access floods), missing drainage evidence and poor accessibility also counted against it.

Full summary and sources