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

	Our ref:	LT/2025/129603/02-L01
Your ref:	V/2025/0497

Date:		11 February 2026

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
As explained in our previous response to this planning application, the site is in flood zone 3b/functional floodplain; the highest flood risk category. 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.
Table 2 of the PPG states that ‘highly vulnerable’ development is not appropriate in flood zone 3b: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change#table2

The new FRA includes the following statement (paragraph 2.3):
“Static caravans for permanent residential use are classified as ‘highly vulnerable’ development in accordance with NPPF Annex 3 and PPG Table 2. The policy position is acknowledged: highly vulnerable development is generally not compatible with Flood Zone 3b. However, national planning policy allows such development to be considered where the Exception Test is demonstrably passed and where material planning considerations apply.”

This is not a correct reading of the guidance; development should pass the Exception Test (where relevant) AND be in accordance with Table 2 of the PPG. Table 2 shows that the Exception Test route isn’t available for ‘highly vulnerable’ development in flood zone 3b; there is a cross in the table. The proposal is therefore against planning guidance and we will maintain an objection to the development in accordance with the government guidance (NPPF and PPG). Note the current draft NPPF consultation has moved Table 2 into NPPF Annex F confirming the importance of Table 2 in considering flood risk.

Your flood risk assessment includes other arguments relating to the Exception Test. Although we do not consider that the Exception Test can be applied here, the Local Planning Authority are the decision maker and they will view your comments. The Environment Agency are commenting on solely fluvial flood risk matters.
The flood risk at the site is coming from the adjacent Maghole Brook. We do not have any detailed hydraulic modelling with estimated flood risk levels in this location. In the absence of detailed modelling we have used 3 sources of data to estimate the flood risk level:
•	The Risk of Flooding from Rivers and the Sea dataset which is available on the DEFRA Data Services Platform https://environment.data.gov.uk/dataset/610d6830-0637-4f5b-b6ce-61f5fa5635d3
•	The unpublished New National Model flood heights from NAFRA2
•	A very approximate approach by looking at the LiDAR topographic ground heights at the land at the edge of flood zone 2 and 3

The different datasets give different depths and probabilities of flooding between a range of 300-800mm, however there is uncertainty about these figures.
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.

Notwithstanding our policy objection, due to the uncertainty on the flood depths at the site, we would expect at least 600mm freeboard in addition to the design flood level at the site. The proposed mitigation measures are therefore insufficient to raise the caravans out of the potential flood depths on site.

Part of the FRA suggests that the mitigation measures will include ground raising; ground raising is not permitted in flood zone 3b because of the loss of floodplain storage which may increase flood risk to third party land/property.
The FRA also states that there has been no recorded flooding at the site. We do not have any official recorded flood outlines for this site (which have been digitised) but there are at least two anecdotal evidences of floods occurring in 2007 and more recently 2023.

In summary we object to this proposal because it is against planning policy and at an unacceptable risk of flooding for a use which is highly vulnerable to flooding.

Environment Agency Position – Foul Drainage 
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. The information provided by the applicant at present does not provide adequate assessment and justification.

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