How will the new flood risk policy affect planning?

On 14th July, the Government in England published its new flood and coastal risk policy. The policy includes some headlines about how planning policy and guidance may change.

This is my initial assessment of their implications for planners in England. While the whole document is 40 pages long, the implications for the planning system are mainly contained in section IV - Better Preparing Communities (pages 27-34).

The 'vision for the future' is that

where flood risk exists, further action is needed to ensure that homes, communities and businesses are prepared so that they can respond and recover more quickly if flooding does happen,...[requiring] a holistic approach

While this sounds like good news, it must be dependent on providing adequate funding and skills and making a holistic, co-ordinated approach real (as opposed to theoretical). There is also a danger that it will lead to a false sense of security and expectation of future defending, particularly in areas which are especially vulnerable to flooding or coastal change and cannot continue to be defended indefinitely. This expectation of future defending leads to increased development behind defences (witness the persistent ~10% of new homes being built in the high risk parts of the floodplain and see my previous article) As climate change allowances for designing new development progressively get more stringent, communities are left with a legacy of older development that will not be as resilient to flooding.

Under the heading 'Guide the design and location of development', the paper states that the government

will maintain and enhance existing robust planning policies that direct new development away from areas at risk of flooding and help ensure that new properties and infrastructure are resilient to flooding and coastal erosion

This indicates there'll be no great change to planning policy on flooding ('enhance' does not equate to 'strengthen'), but perhaps a 'tweaking' of the current approach in the sequential test and exception test. While flood and coastal change policies are one of the (often forgotten) 'exceptions' to the presumption in favour of sustainble development, they probably sit below Green Belt, European-designated habitats, nationally designated landscapes and ancient woodland in that list of exceptions and are arguably given less weight than meeting housing targets and promoting the 'brownfield-first' approach. If we are serious about rising to the climate challenge then planning policy on flood risk (and coastal erosion which is missing from the 'directing new development away from areas at risk' statement) must be given the same weight as some of the 'big ticket' planning policies.

Elsewhere in the new policy, there are references to an 'adaptive pathway' approach to long term flood and coastal infrastructure planning (explained further in the new EA flood and coastal risk strategy). This is needed to take account of changing flood and sea level projections. To date, this approach has not been included in spatial plans so planners will need to fully understand how to include this degree of flexibility, particularly in making land allocation decisions in or on the edges of risk zones. The commitment to revising coastal erosion planning policy is most welcome as there have been well-founded criticisms of the effectiveness of the approach. The 'Enabling more resilient places through a catchment based approach' section of the new policy refers to the government supporting communities wanting a 'managed transition' away from areas at risk. This will require close co-ordination with spatial planners to identify land for people to move to and to prevent new developments 'locking in' expectations that communities will be defended for ever.

The new flood risk policy refers to the upcoming Planning White Paper in positive terms as delivering beautiful places and a planning system that meets the challenges of climate change. But the government's apparent preferred way of delivering homes quickly, through increased permtted development rights, does not direct development away from areas at risk. The promised review of NPPF flood and coastal erosion policies will need to separate out the new homes provided through permitted development and those that have been through the 'normal' planning system.

My view is that new development - including new homes through 'permitted development' - should only be permitted in areas at existing and future medium or high risk of flooding or coastal erosion in 'very special circumstances' - an equivalent weight of policy test as in the Green Belt.

The policy also indicates that the role of the Environment Agency and other consultees in commenting on planning applications is to be reviewed. While this may mean looking at the effectiveness of current reporting of decisions made against EA objections (buried in the EA's annual flood risk report) it perhaps hints that the still-extant call-in powers of the EA may need to be reviewed or strnegthened. I would also argue that the review of the effectiveness of NPPF policies and the relationship between LPAs and statutory consultees should be extended to the effectiveness of their input over allocations in Local Plans.

The policy indicates that a common approach to using flood risk information in planning is to be promoted*. However, the National Infrastructure Commission's proposal to introduce common flood resilience standards has been rejected in favour of a range of improvements in indicators and reporting. The policy hints at better flood resilience standards for new buildings. Surely the simplest and fairest way of doing this is to include them in Building Regulations?

The policy indicates that SuDS will be expected to deliver multiple benefits such as improved amenity and better water quality and contribute to the Government's Building Better Building Beautiful Commission (BBBBC) objectives*. However, there is no indication that the Government is thinking about adopting the Scottish and Welsh approaches of removing a developer's right to connect to the public sewer, giving Lead Local Flood Authorities the job of approving SuDS (the original intention of the post-2006 floods Pitt Review) or revisiting the requirement that all developments (not just 'major' ones) include multifunctional and maintained SuDS**. There is a welcome clear statement that developers should be expected to fund flood resilience over the lifetime of development. This is particularly relevant to SuDS, where many developers have passed responsibility to inadequately-funded management and leaseholder companies. A longer term stewardship role is also consistent with the recommendations of the BBBBC.

It is notable that flood risk and coastal change planning guidance is one of the few parts of the PPG that hasn't been substantially updated since publication in 2014. It is clear that NPPF policy is going to have to change to meet the Government's objectives and that there will be a need for significant revisions to practice guidance.

Views expressed are personal

* I have worked / am working as part of teams researching flood risk information for planning and identifying opportunities for including multiple benefits in SuDS.

** underlined words are edits to clarify meaning.