Ms Hannah Turner
Ashfield District Council
Development Advice & Control
Urban Road
Kirkby-in-Ashfield
Nottingham
NG17 8DA

	Our ref:	LT/2025/129603/01-L01
Your ref:	V/2025/0497

Date:		01 December 2025

Dear Ms Turner

EXTENSION OF GYPSY AND TRAVELLER SITE TO PROVIDE 5NO. ADDITIONAL PITCHES   
OAK TREE PADDOCK, KIRKBY LANE, PINXTON, NOTTS, NG16 6HW      

Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above application.

Environment Agency position – Flood Risk
We object to the proposed development as it falls within a flood risk vulnerability category that is inappropriate to the Flood Zone in which the application site is located. The application is therefore contrary to the NPPF and planning practice guidance (PPG). We recommend that planning permission is refused on this basis.

Reasons
NPPF Annex 3 classifies development types according to their vulnerability to flood risk. PPG Table 2 provides guidance on which developments are incompatible with certain Flood Zones. This site lies within Flood Zone 3b functional floodplain, which is land defined by the PPG as having a high probability of flooding.
The proposed development is classed as highly vulnerable in accordance with Annex 3 of the NPPF. Table 2 of PPG makes it clear that this type of development is not compatible with this Flood Zone and therefore should not be permitted.

Overcoming our objection
The Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning shows this site to be in flood zone 3 https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/ . The flood data at the site is taken from the New National Model which is part of the new NAFRA2 flood risk modelling which has been released by the Environment Agency this year. Flood zone 3b is defined by the 1 in 30 year flood extent. This data is not published on the Flood Map for Planning but it is available to download at https://environment.data.gov.uk/dataset/56fb30ae-f20d-490a-9149-a94f3e640261

This data shows that the majority of the site is within the 1 in 30 year extent and is therefore in flood zone 3b/functional floodplain; the highest flood risk category. The flood risk is coming from the adjacent Maghole Brook. We do not have any available flood height data from our EA modelling in this location.

Caravans for permanent residential use are vulnerable to flooding, classified ‘highly vulnerable’ in the PPG and are therefore not permitted within flood zones 3a or 3b. The proposed use is therefore not appropriate in this location because of the high flood risk.

The FRA states that hydraulic modelling has been undertaken for the site by the applicant’s agent, with the results showing that the site is elevated above the flood levels from the Maghole Brook.

The applicant has supplied a topographic survey showing that site levels are around 92.25mAOD. The flood level given from the applicant’s hydraulic modelling is 86.3mAOD for a 1 in 100 year event (equivalent to flood zone 3). The applicant’s modelled flood level from the Maghole Brook is therefore around 6 metres lower than the site level.

As is our usual practice, if an applicant has their own flood modelling they wish to use to challenge the Environment Agency flood maps, they should submit their hydraulic model to us in full (data, reports, calculations etc) so we can technically check the model to ensure it is fit for purpose. Guidance on our modelling standards is available online here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-modelling-for-flood-risk-assessments

Unless we receive and approve the modelling done by the applicant, we will consider the site as flood zone 3b and maintain a policy objection to the proposed ‘highly vulnerable’ development in this location, in accordance with Table 2 of the PPG: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change#table2
The FRA proposes various mitigation measures to protect the caravans from flooding including elevating the caravans 600mm above the average ground level, securing the caravans with ground anchors and providing a detailed flood evacuation plan. As the flood heights at the site are currently unknown, we are unable to say whether these measures are sufficient to protect the proposed development from flooding.
 
Environment Agency position – Pollution Prevention
We object to the proposed development as submitted because it involves the use of a non-mains foul drainage system which poses an unacceptable risk of pollution to the water environment. We therefore recommend that planning permission be refused on this basis for the following reasons:

Reason(s)
The development involves the use of a cesspit and fails to adequately justify the use of a cesspit over preferred alternative means of foul disposal, for example, septic tank or package treatment plant in accordance with the hierarchy set out in Paragraph H1 of Schedule 1, Building Regulations 2010.

Overcoming our objection
The applicant should provide further assessment as to why a cesspit has been selected above other foul disposal options. This information must satisfactorily demonstrate to the LPA that the risk to controlled waters has been fully understood and can be addressed through appropriate measures. This information should include:
•	A foul drainage assessment that satisfactorily justifies the use of a cesspit over preferred alternative means of foul disposal.

Yours sincerely

Mr Niall Freeman
Planning Advisor

Direct e-mail Planning.Trentside@environment-agency.gov.uk