Flood risk — Swimming against the tide

Concerns about flooding have grown with the publication last December of central government guidance (PPS25). The guidance has given increased power to the Environment Agency as a statutory consultee of development in flood-risk areas. Although it is early days, with the agency taking the opportunity to flex its new muscles, I believe additional delay and uncertainty has been introduced into the planning process.

While PPS25 seeks to direct development away from areas most at risk from flooding, it cannot hold back the forces of nature. So the Environment Agency has to choose in which areas it seeks to build physical barriers limiting the risk of flooding from rivers or the sea. Works on one stretch often increase the risk further up or down stream. Alongside that, if high-risk areas are to remain unprotected and development such as housing resisted, that development will have to be accommodated elsewhere. Will this be achieved by further increased densities on brownfield sites (unaffected by flooding), by the release of greenfield land or by compulsory redirection from the congested South-east?

Clearly, it would be unwise to ignore the potential consequences of further development in flood-risk areas. In the past five years, there have been regular reports of the devastating effects of flash floods. The Association of British Insurers has warned that some areas might become uninsurable or premiums excessively costly in the not too distant future.

Key points in PPS25

• PPS25 does not reinvent the wheel; primarily it consolidates previous objectives within PPG25. Neither does it extend the responsibilities of the Environment Agency. What it does provide is clearer parameters and a stronger voice in which to seek to fulfil the government’s objectives of limiting exposure of people and property to flood risk and minimising damage when flooding occurs.

• To achieve this, PPS25 takes a risk-based approach to assessing the acceptability of development. It defines a three-stage hierarchy of flood zones with an increasing probability of flooding. Zone 1 has a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding with zone 3B (functional flood plain) having a 1 in 20 probability. Alongside this, the guidance rates uses in the terms of their vulnerability with residential uses being “more vulnerable” and caravan parks “highly vulnerable”.

Developers have to show that the benefits, including regeneration, outweigh the flood risk

• Using a sequential approach, development with greater vulnerability is directed towards low-risk zone 1 areas and is only allowed in higher-risk areas if it can be shown that there are no safer sites available. Even if development passes this sequential test, in many cases it will also have to fulfil an exceptions test. Broadly speaking, developers will have to demonstrate that the benefits of the development, including regeneration, outweigh the flood risk.

The sequential approach is to be applied both in terms of individual development proposals and by planning authorities at both regional and local level in producing their policy documents. They are required to undertake a strategic flood risk assessment when bringing forward land use plans for that area. Although strategic flood risk assessments were encouraged under the PPG25 regime, few were undertaken. In my experience, the Environment Agency resists development in higher risk zones until the strategic flood risk assessment and sequential review have been undertaken as part of the plan policy formulation. In many cases, this could take up to two years, blocking use of the land in the mean time.

• In addition, the new guidance has had a significant impact on the processing of individual applications. The Environment Agency must be consulted on all major developments – for example, 10 houses or more on land within flood zones 2 or 3. If the agency objects, permission cannot be granted by the planning authority without referral to the secretary of state. As a result, many planning authorities refuse to register planning applications unless they are accompanied by a flood risk assessment if there is the slightest hint of a risk. This has resulted in further delay and costs in preparing applications even for relatively modest developments.

In addition, although the guidance contains advice on what should be contained within a flood risk assessment, completion of the reports often requires clarification of parameters by the agency. With their limited staff resources and heavy workload, such clarification is often not available by return. It would seem likely this situation will be exacerbated as more development comes forward.

• Finally, the guidance sets out detailed site-specific issues to ensure safe occupation of development if permitted and minimise any potential surface water run off.

In conclusion, a plan-led approach to flood risk management is not compatible with a streamlined planning system as set out by Kate Barker, at least in the short to medium term.