Recognising the findings of other reports such as Stern and Foresight, which predict that the
In
PPS25 was published at the end of 2006 with the objective of ensuring “that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and to direct development away from areas of highest risk”.
Flood risk is a material planning consideration and the guidance set out in PPS25 must be taken into account by regional planning bodies and local planning authorities in the preparation of local plan policies and the allocation of sites for future development.
PPS25 envisages that this should be a three-step approach:
- Local planning authorities should appraise the risk by identifying land at risk of flooding in their area and the degree of risk of flooding through the preparation of regional flood risk appraisals and flood risk assessments.
- The risk should then be managed by framing policies for the location of developments that avoid flood risk to people and property where possible. Any residual risk should be managed by taking into account the impacts of climate change and only permitting development in areas of flood risk when there are no reasonably available sites in areas of lower flood risk and benefits of the development outweigh the risks from flooding.
- Local planning authorities are also required to reduce the risk from flooding by safeguarding certain areas of from development. This would include land that is required for current and future flood management, for example, flood defences and storage of flood water, reducing flood risk to and from new development through location, layout and design and incorporating sustainable drainage systems.
Local planning authorities are also encouraged to use the opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding through, for example, the implementation of surface water management plans and the creation of flood defences.
In considering sites for development, local planning authorities must adopt the ‘sequential test’ set out in Annex D to PPS25. First of all, local planning authorities must assess the flood risk of the site by reference to flood zones identified by the Environment Agency. These run from flood zone one (low risk) to flood zone three (high risk). Broadly, to satisfy the sequential test, developers must show that “there are no reasonably available sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate to the type of development or land use proposed”.
If the application of the sequential test shows that there are no reasonably available sites with a lower risk of flooding which are appropriate for the proposed type of development, then — for some forms of development — it will also be necessary to apply the exception test. This is broadly a requirement to show that the benefits of the development outweigh the risk of flooding; that the site is developable previously developed land (or that no such land is available); and that the site will be safe and will reduce or at least not increase flood risk elsewhere (e.g. by the provision of flood defences and compensatory measures). However, it is important to note that the exception test can only be applied after the sequential test. Thus, if a development site fails a sequential test (i.e. the site is not appropriate in terms of flood risk for the type of development proposed and there exists at least one reasonably available alternative site suitable for the type of development), then it would not be possible to use the exception test to justify development of the site.
In the wake of the interim recommendations of the Pitt review, it is likely that planning applications will require more detailed information on flood risk —including, where appropriate, a robust flood risk assessment. Local planning authorities will be very sensitive to the issue of flooding, applying PPS25 more rigorously and giving greater weight to the Environment Agency’s consultation responses.
It is predicted that applying PPS25 more rigorously will lead to an increase in planning conditions and obligations requiring flood defences and/or mitigation measures. It will also result in local planning authorities reappraising site allocations in emerging development plan documents. It may also lead to a risk of flood zones being extended as the Environment Agency and local planning authorities adopt a more precautionary approach. This could present a real problem to developers who ‘bank’ land for future development and for those with planning applications stuck in the system.
In its response to the interim report on the Pitt review, the Local Government Association, while supporting the recommendation for a more rigorous application of PPS25, voices concern that Government guidance is needed to clarify how the balance is to be struck between making sites available for crucial development while minimising flood risk. The Local Government Association is concerned that there simply may not be sufficient suitable land available, especially when it is taken into account that many of our towns and cities are already built in flood plains.
So, faced with yet another challenge to development, are there any steps which developers can take to increase the likelihood of planning permission being secured? First of all, landowners and developers should assess all sites in the light of PPS25, emerging planning policy and flood risk assessments. Reviewing sites that are no longer viable in commercial or planning terms due to flood risk will increasingly become a requirement in the current economic climate, as funders and insurers will be less keen to take risks through involvement in sites with a high risk of flooding. The upside of this is that sites with a low risk of flooding will increase in value as fewer suitable sites become available. Developers will also need to consider the likely cost of flood defences and this will need to be taken into account when deciding whether a site is viable. Consideration will need to be given to the ability to sell on the site, particularly in the light of the possible difficulties in obtaining insurance.
With a raft of somewhat artificial tests to be applied and policies to be complied with, the one thing that is clear is that all those involved in property development will have their work cut out in securing planning permission for sites prone to flooding. As local planning authorities and funders adopt a more cautious approach, this situation looks set to continue in the absence of clear government guidance on the application of PPS25. Developers and landowners should work closely with the local planning authority and Environment Agency where flood risk is an issue and ensure that planning applications are supported by detailed flood risk assessments where required.
Rachel Clack is a senior associate in the planning team at
PropertyPlanningConstructionMay2008
