Sink or Swim

Is it possible to build a sustainable development within a flood plain, typical of much of the Thames Gateway area? This question is exercising the minds of planners and developers at the prospect of constructing millions of new homes.

Most planning decisions in this country involve a compromise. Nowhere is the conflict seen more acutely than in decisions where flood risk is a major issue. And no other factor has the potential to blight thousands of hectares of run-down brownfield sites that might otherwise be redeveloped. In December 2006, the government published Planning Policy Statement 25: “Development and Flood Risk” (PPS25), which superseded the similarly titled PPG25. PPS25 and relevant guidance will have particular impacts on Thames Gateway developments.

It has been almost a year since the government published PPS25. In this time environmental consultant URS has undertaken a diverse range of flood risk studies and projects in well over a dozen local authority areas and I have experienced a range of interpretations by local authorities and regulators, and seen what effect this has had on our clients, particularly those involved in brownfield development.

PPS25 aims to make planners and developers consider flood risk at the earliest stage of planning. This is sensible and URS is keen to promote the assessment of flood risks at a stage when it can assist sustainable development rather than be seen merely as a constraint. As part of this approach strategic flood risk assessments (SFRAs) are required, against which allocations and windfall developments should be sequentially tested by local authorities to ensure that the flood risk zone in which they are located is as low as possible and that the type of development is “appropriate”.

While the proportion of the country covered by SFRAs has increased over the last year, many local authorities are only just beginning to understand that it is their responsibility to apply the sequential test. I have found that many are unable to apply the test effectively, either because there is no SFRA or no local development framework documents and that some are more than happy to take a lead from the Environment Agency (EA).

Many are constrained by the lack of technical resources available to carry out the work.

It is unfortunate that this requirement for SFRAs has coincided with a major change to the planning system, which has meant that local planning authorities have had to spend much of their time revising their local development documents in line with the new regional spatial strategies (RSS). In the Thames Gateway region, the RSS for the East of England has yet to be published, following several delays, hampering local authorities’ efforts to complete their SFRAs which must be in accordance with the RSS.

Achieving a balance between flood risk and socio-economic factors that satisfies local authorities and the Environment Agency is often very difficult to achieve

I have also found that some EA officers are reluctant to consider sites until the local authority has done the SFRA which could be years away and applied the sequential test. (The sequential test is passed if it shows that land that is in a flood zone is the only “reasonably available” land for development and that there is no other land in a lower risk zone.)

URS has already had clients walk away from large brownfield sites in the higher risk flood zones in London because of the uncertainty over timing and outcome. I believe many of these sites would have proved workable, as they would also have passed the “exception test” which PPS25 introduced. This test, only carried out if a site first passes the sequential test, considers the overall sustainability of a site, whether it is on brownfield land and whether the development will be “safe”.

So, for example, a development with potential economic or social benefits in a deprived urban area may well be justifiable if the flood risks can be suitably managed, even though it would mean building in a higher risk flood zone. Is this really a sustainable solution? We could end up with large derelict areas that prove undevelopable and a blight on the city.

Of course, not all EA officers are so cautious, so to some extent there appears to be a “postcode lottery”, whereby developments in some parts of the country are more likely to gain approval than in others, even though technically they may be identical. Perhaps the hardest hit are coastal water-side developments, even those in brownfield areas, where it will be more difficult for local authorities to show that there are no other sites that can be developed, so blighting residential waterfront developments, even before the sustainability of a site can be assessed.

In regions where large areas of land are at risk from fluvial or tidal flooding, such as the Thames Gateway, achieving a balance between flood risk and socio-economic factors that satisfies local authorities and the EA is often very difficult to achieve. As the Thames Gateway already benefits from high standards of flood defence, it should be possible to achieve this balance, although there will be a much greater emphasis on the developer to justify the balance, particularly as the current SFRA for the Thames Gateway does not fully satisfy the new requirements of PPS25.

I do not dispute the central tenets of PPS25: that developments should be directed to the lower flood risk areas, that the nature of the developments should be appropriate to the flood risk and that they should not increase flood risk elsewhere. The floods this summer were another reminder of the need for careful planning.

PPS25 is modern guidance that will set the tone for planning decisions for years to come and clearly, given sufficient time, all local authorities will have up-to-date SFRAs and local development framework documents, and be au fait with sequential testing for windfall developments. Consequently, the process will become smoother for all parties involved. I do wonder though how long this transition will take and whether it will remove the risk that inappropriate interpretation of this policy could lead to a reduction in the number of sustainable sites being developed – contrary to declared government intent.