Initial Review Of The Implementation Of Planning Policy Statement 25

Initial review of the implementation of Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk

www.communities.gov.uk community, opportunity, prosperity

Initial review of the implementation of Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk

June 2009 Department for Communities and Local Government

Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk © Crown Copyright, 2009 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown Copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU. Email: [email protected]. If you require this publication in an alternative format please email [email protected] Communities and Local Government Publications Tel: 0300 123 1124 Fax: 0300 123 1125 Email: [email protected] or online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk

June 2009 Product Code 09COMM05932 ISBN: 978 14098 1450 4

Contents

Contents Page Introduction

3

ANNEX

6

1.

Environment Agency Development and Flood Risk Report for 2007/08: Summary of Main Findings and Trends

6

2.

PPS 25 and strategic flood risk assessment

12

3.

Impact of the Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007

17

4.

Reflection of PPS 25 policy in local development frameworks

19

1

2

Initial review of the implementation of PPS25

Introduction

Introduction Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) was published in December 2006 to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process. Managing flood risk through the planning system is a key part of the Government's Making Space for Water strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England, announced in March 2005, and the new Future Water strategy published in February 2008. 1.

Sir Michael Pitt’s findings from his inquiry into the summer 2007 floods, published in June last year, recommended that there should be a presumption against building in high flood risk areas in accordance with PPS25, and that its operation and effectiveness should be kept under review and strengthened if and when necessary. The Government agreed to both recommendations in its response to the Pitt Review published in December 2008.

2.

Initial review of the implementation of PPS25 Two years have passed since the PPS25 policy ‘package’ was published, so it is relevant and timely to consider the progress made in implementing the policy. In addition, the Government made a commitment to consider how PPS25 is being implemented by local authorities as part of its response to Sir Michael Pitt’s report. An aim was to identify any barriers to delivery and whether any further measures are necessary.

3.

Communities and Local Government (CLG) has therefore carried out an initial review of the implementation of PPS25. This initial review has comprised the following elements:

4.

• the annual High Level Target 5 (HLT5) Development and Flood Risk report produced by the Environment Agency on the impact of the Agency’s technical advice to planning authorities on flood risk for the period April 2007 – March 2008; • research jointly managed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and CLG on the preparation of strategic flood risk assessments (SFRAs) by local planning authorities and results from a survey of local flood risk management conducted late last year by the Local Government Association and Defra; • assessment by CLG and the regional government offices of the application of the Flooding Direction; and • assessment of the implementation of PPS25 policies in emerging local development frameworks (LDFs) based on information provided to CLG by the government offices. Further details of the findings from each of these elements of the review are included in the Annex below.

3

4

Initial review of the implementation of PPS25

Conclusions 6.

In general, the picture emerging on forward planning is positive: • nearly all local planning authorities have undertaken a SFRA as an evidence base to help inform future local plans and decision making. Working relationships between local planning authorities and the Environment Agency on the majority of SFRAs has been good (in keeping with the increased emphasis on partnership working in PPS25). And those authorities that have adopted or advanced core strategies and/or other development plan documents, particularly in areas badly affected by recent floods, are generally applying the PPS25 approach.

7.

However, there are aspects where further progress is required: • most of the SFRAs that have been completed are the ‘basic’ level-1 SFRAs, and there are differences in approach in covering matters such as surface water, groundwater and/or climate change. Although we do not have firm figures so far, indications from the SFRA research project are that comparatively few local authorities have produced more detailed level 2 SFRAs for forward planning purposes; • relatively few local planning authorities have adopted development plan documents with PPS25 consistent policies (largely a reflection of the slow progress in adopting development plan documents in general).

8.

The picture on planning applications is also positive: • only a very small percentage of all applications made in a year raise flood risk issues requiring detailed consideration by the Environment Agency; in the vast majority of cases where the Agency objects on flood risk grounds, the final decision or outcome is in line with the Agency’s views; and CLG and the Environment Agency consider the Flooding Direction to be working well in encouraging continued discussion between the relevant parties to resolve the Agency’s concerns.

9.

Against this, there are two aspects with potential for improvement: • the overall number of development proposals coming forward which raise significant flood risk issues, which local planning authorities are minded to approve against Agency advice, is still higher than it should be if PPS25 is being fully applied; • not enough authorities are re-consulting the Agency over planning applications they are minded to approve against Agency advice, as PPS25 advises.

Introduction

There also needs to be greater awareness of the requirement in PPS25 that developers must submit an adequate, though proportionate, flood risk assessment (FRA) with any planning application for development in flood risk areas, and for development of 1 hectare or more in Flood Zone 1. Two thirds of sustained objections by the Agency in 2007-08 were made because applications did not contain a FRA, or because the FRA was unsatisfactory. Compliance with PPS25 would likely have made the majority of those objections avoidable.

10.

Monitoring by the Environment Agency of the impact of its expert advice on flood risk in relation to planning applications is largely based on the receipt of planning authority decision notices. In 2007-08 the proportion of planning decisions notices received by the Agency in cases where it had raised a flood risk objection was 59 per cent. Planning authorities are reminded that paragraph 29 of PPS25 asks them to notify the Environment Agency of the outcome of all planning applications for development in flood risk areas, including those for major development.

11.

Overall, the evaluation supports the general findings of the Pitt Review that local authorities need to give more priority to assessing and understanding flooding and drainage issues. The Pitt Review also pointed out that local authorities need more and better technical capacity to be able to do this.

12.

5

6

Initial review of the implementation of PPS25

ANNEX 1. Environment Agency Development and Flood Risk Report for 2007/08: Summary of Main Findings and Trends The Environment Agency’s Report (known as its High Level Target 5, or HLT5, Report) provides annual monitoring information on the impact of the Agency’s technical advice on flood risk in relation to planning decisions made by local planning authorities (LPAs). Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25), Development and Flood Risk, (paragraphs 35-37) recognises the important role of the Environment Agency’s report in the effective monitoring of the impact of policies to reduce and manage flood risk, and sets out four key indicators from the report (see below).

1.1.

The 2007-08 HLT5 Report covers the period April 2007 to March 2008 and therefore the first twelve-month period following publication of PPS25 in December 2006, and following the coming into effect on 1 January 2007 of the Government’s Flooding Direction. The report was published on 9 February 2009.

1.2.

1.3.

The key headline findings and trends include: • where the Environment Agency (EA) objects to planning applications on flood risk grounds, the final outcome (including withdrawn applications) was in line with EA views/advice in nearly 97 per cent of cases, compared with 96 per cent in 2006-07 and 95.4 per cent in 2005-06 • in terms of numbers of residential units permitted in 2007-08, the final outcome was in line with EA advice in 99 per cent of cases where the EA had initially raised objections • in 9 out of 10 cases where the EA has sustained a flood risk objection, the final outcome was in line with EA advice – a marginal improvement on 2006-07 and 2 percentage points better than 2005-06 • for applications for major developments (in all Flood Zones) to which the EA has sustained an objection, the final outcome was in line with EA advice in 95 per cent of cases, the same as in 2006-07 • the number of applications for major developments permitted against a sustained EA objection rose slightly from 13 in 2006-07 to 15a in 2007-08; however, the number of these permissions in flood risk areas fell proportionately from 62 per cent to 53 per cent.

a

The Environment Agency originally reported 16 major developments permitted contrary to their advice. This figure was subsequently revised downwards to 15 in an Addendum to the HLT5 Report issued on 18 March 2009.

Environment Agency Development and Flood Risk Report for 2007/08: Summary of Main Findings and Trends

These and other findings of the report summarised below in relation to numbers of planning applications and decisions should be considered in the context of a total of around 650,000 planning applications received overall by planning authorities during the reporting period. It should also be noted that around 10 per cent of England in terms of land area and population falls within flood risk areas.

1.4.

Planning applications and EA objections on flood risk grounds (Table A) The EA raised objections on flood risk grounds to 6,232 planning applications in 2007-08 – representing just under 1 per cent of all planning applications received by English planning authorities. This number was an increase of 24 per cent compared with the 4,750 EA objections in 2006-07, probably reflecting at least in part the tighter Government policy in PPS25 (compared with the previous policy under PPG25). However, the number of planning applications on which the EA is consulted which required detailed consideration on flood risk grounds has fallen continuously since 2004 (following EA Standing Advice on dealing with lower risk cases).

1.5.

Table A 2007/08 2006/07 2005/06 Change over 3 year period Number of applications on which EA was consulted on flood risk grounds

9,123

10,854

11,403

- 20%

Number of objections made by EA on flood risk grounds

6,232

4,750

4,201

+ 48%

68%

44%

37%

+ 31%

Proportion of application consultations to which EA raised objections

Planning decisions and LPA decision notices (all developments) Data about planning decisions in the HLT5 report is based on decisions notified to the EA within the monitoring period by LPAs in relation to applications against which the EA objected. The EA receives LPA decision notices in a little over half the cases to which it objects, though LPAs should send notifications of decisions in all such cases (PPS25, paragraph 29), and their performance in this respect is given as one of the key PPS25 monitoring indicators. However, the number of decision notices received in any HLT5 monitoring period does not directly correlate with the number of objections

1.6.

7

8

Initial review of the implementation of PPS25

made by the EA in that period. This is because some decisions relate to objections made in an earlier monitoring period, while some applications objected to will not be decided until a later monitoring period. Table B below includes the following two key indicators (PPS25, paragraph 36): 1.7.

The number/percentage of LPA decision notices received by the EA in comparison with the number of objections by the EA on flood risk grounds. The number/percentage of planning applications permitted (where outcome is known) against a sustained EA objection on flood risk grounds. Table B 2007/08 2006/07 2005/06

Change over 3 year period

Number of planning decision notices received by EA

3,689

2,719

2,922

(+ 26%)

Percentage of decision notices received compared with number of EA objections*

(59%)

(57%)

(70%)

- 11%

Number of decisions where there was a sustained EA flood risk objection †

1,264

1,067

1,160

(+ 9%)

Number of applications permitted against a sustained EA objection

124

110

136

- 9%

Percentage of permissions against a sustained EA objection

9.8%

10.3%

11.7%

- 1.9%

Percentage of permissions against number of notified decisions (all EA objections)

3.4%

4%

4.6%

- 1.2%

Notes: *

The number of decision notices received in the 2007/8 monitoring period does not directly correlate with the number of EA objections to applications made in that period.

† Excludes applications withdrawn (1,061), or where EA objection was resolved (1,332 cases), before a formal decision was taken, and applications referred to the Secretary of State (SoS) due to non-determination by LPA.

Environment Agency Development and Flood Risk Report for 2007/08: Summary of Main Findings and Trends

‘Major developments’ The Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007 defines ‘major development’ as:

1.8.

• residential development, where the number of dwellings to be provided is 10 or more, or the site area is 0.5 hectare or more; or • non-residential development, where the new floorspace to be provided is 1,000 square metres or more, or the site area is 1 hectare or more. 1.9.

Table C below includes the following key indicator (PPS25, paragraph 36): The number of planning applications for major development permitted (where outcome is known) against a sustained EA objection on flood risk grounds, as a percentage of the total number of permissions against sustained EA advice.

Table C 2007/08 2006/07 2005/06 Change over 3 year period Number of planning decisions for major development notified by LPAs where EA had sustained an objection

340

277

(?)

Number of major developments permitted against a sustained EA objection

15*

13

10

Percentage of major developments permitted against a sustained EA objection

4.4%

4.7%

(?)

Percentage of major developments permitted against total number of notified permissions against sustained EA advice

12%

12%

7.4%

8 (53)%

8 (62%)

(?)

Number & percentage of permitted major developments in Flood Zones 2 & 3 (and within scope of the Flooding Direction)

+ 50%

+4.6%

Notes: *

The EA originally reported 16 major developments permitted contrary to their advice. This figure was subsequently revised downwards to 15 in an Addendum to the HLT5 Report issued on 18 March 2009

9

10

Initial review of the implementation of PPS25

Reasons for EA objections on flood risk grounds 1.10. Table D below includes the following key indicator (PPS25, paragraph 36):

The lack of a flood risk assessment (FRA), or an inadequate FRA as the reason for an EA objection to a planning application, as a percentage of the total number of its objections on flood risk grounds. Table D Grounds for EA Objection

2007/08

2006/07

2005/06

Number of % of Number of % of % of objections objections objections objections objections

Lack of a FRA

505

31%

567

43%

48%

Unsatisfactory FRA

596

36%

266

20%

13%

1101

67%

833

62%

61%

Area at risk of flooding/risk to the development

197

12%

284

21%

22%

All other grounds

341

21%

218

17%

17%

(Total, FRA grounds)

1.11. Key PPS25 indicators and other findings from the HLT5 Report include: • out of all planning permissions granted against sustained EA advice on flood risk grounds, 12 per cent were for major developments in 2007-08, the same as in the previous year, though 4.6 per cent above 2005-06 when there was an ‘all-time’ low number of such permissions • the lack of, or the provision of an inadequate flood risk assessment with a planning application remains the main reason for EA objections on flood risk grounds, increasing from 833 to 1101 cases between 2006-07 and 2007-08; and proportionally from 62 per cent to 67 per cent of all objections • however, the number of objections resulting from a lack of an FRA fell from 567 to 505, and from 43 per cent to 31 per cent of all EA objections between 2006-07 and 2007-08, while objections over the adequacy of an FRA increased significantly from 266 to 596 and from 20 per cent to 36 per cent of all objections, over the same period

Environment Agency Development and Flood Risk Report for 2007/08: Summary of Main Findings and Trends

• the number of final decision notices provided by LPAs to the EA in 2007-08 increased by 970 (35 per cent) over the previous year, and by 767 (26 per cent) over 2005-06 • the proportion of LPA decision notices received in 2007-08 compared with the number of EA objections made in the same monitoring period was 59 per cent, a 2 per cent improvement over 2006-07, but 11 per cent lower than 2005-06. The proportion over the three year period (noting there is not a direct correlation between numbers of decision notices received and objections made in the same annual monitoring period) was 61 per cent • the number of planning applications requiring detailed EA consideration on flood risk grounds fell by 20 per cent between 2005-06 and 2007-08 (and by 58 per cent since 2003-4); though the number of flood risk objections increased by 48 per cent over the same three-year period • LPAs re-consulted the EA in 26 cases where they were minded to grant permission against EA advice in 2007-08, which represented just 21 per cent of all planning permissions contrary to EA advice – a fall of 6 per cent from 2006-07, and the first such fall since the re-consultation requirement was introduced (by PPG25) in 2001 • of 30 planning appeal decisions in 2007-08 where the EA had sustained an objection, 28 decisions (93 per cent) were in line with EA advice or overcame (through conditions) EA concerns – representing an increase of 12 per cent over the previous year. The full HLT5 Report is available on the EA’s web site: www.environment-agency.gov.uk

11

12

Initial review of the implementation of PPS25

2. PPS 25 and strategic flood risk assessment The appraisal and assessment of flood risk at a strategic level is a key element of the PPS25 planning policy approach to development and flood risk. PPS25 advises that a regional flood risk appraisal (RFRA) should inform the regional spatial strategy (RSS), while a local planning authority’s local development framework should be informed by a strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA).

2.1.

Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) Regional planning bodies should prepare RFRAs in consultation with the Environment Agency to inform the consideration of regionally significant land uses, including the identification of broad locations and establishing locational criteria that take account of flood risk. A RFRA should be used to inform the sustainability appraisal of the RSS. 2.2.

The overall picture is that seven out of the eight English regions have either completed, or have work underway to produce a post-PPS25 RFRA. More specifically, since PPS25 was published in December 2006, half of the regions have published a RFRA. Two of the other regions have commissioned RFRAs and another has undertaken a scoping study. One region is planning to refresh its RFRA which was prepared on the basis of the earlier consultation version of PPS25. In addition, a draft RFRA has been published for London. 2.3.

PPS 25 and strategic flood risk assessment

The progress made with regional flood risk appraisals, as in January 2009, can be summarised as follows:

2.4.

Region

Completed Date post-PPS25 RFRA

North West Yes

Earlier RFRA

Oct. 2008

North East

(Nov. 2006) Phase 1 scoping study for RFRA undertaken; phase 2 full RFRA to follow

Yorks & Humber

RFRA commissioned - due end 2009

West Midlands

Yes

East Midlands

{a}

Oct. 2007 July 2006{a} EMRA intending to refresh the RFRA

East England South East

RFRA commissioned Yes

Nov. 2008

South West Yes

Feb. 2007

London

{a}

Current Position

Draft RFRA pub. June 07 – looking to finalise in Spring 09

RFRA produced on the basis of draft PPS25

Strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA) Background – what are SFRAs? 2.5. PPS25 requires local planning authorities to carry out a strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA) to determine the variation in flood risk across their area. The SFRA must cover all forms of flooding, and take account of the impacts of climate change. The SFRA is at the core of the PPS25 policy approach. It provides the key essential information on flood risk, that allows the local planning authority to understand the risk across its area, so that the sequential test and, where necessary, the exception test under PPS25 can be properly applied.

13

14

Initial review of the implementation of PPS25

The requirement is for a staged, proportional approach to allow flexibility in the level of assessment from one local authority area to another, minimising demand on resources. An initial assessment of risk (Level 1 SFRA) which draws on existing information (Environment Agency flood maps, local information on historic flooding etc.) is done first. Only where the Level 1 SFRA shows that land outside areas at risk of flooding cannot accommodate development needs should the scope be widened into a more detailed Level 2 SFRA, assessing probability of flooding and its depth, velocity and rate of onset.

2.6.

2.7. The aim of PPS25 is that inappropriate development should not take place in areas at risk of flooding and the key message is to locate development away from flood risk whenever possible. The approach is to assess risk so it can be avoided and managed. SFRAs should be a key part of the evidence base to help inform the allocation of development in a local plan area through the preparation of local development frameworks (LDF). It is unlikely that a LDF that was not supported by an adequate evidence base on flood risk where this is an issue would be found to be ‘sound’. Unsound plans must be withdrawn under regulation.

Getting good SFRAs in place across England is critical in meeting Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendation for the implementation of planning policy for managing flood risk. Whilst it is important that a local planning authority takes ownership of the SFRA, it is also important that it is developed in partnership with other key stakeholders, particularly the Environment Agency. The Agency needs to be satisfied that all flood risk issues are adequately covered and should be satisfied with the completed SFRA. 2.8.

Joint DEFRA/Environment Agency SFRA research Given the importance of SFRAs as the evidence based tool to help apply the PPS25 Sequential and Exception Tests in the land allocation and development control process, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) commissioned (in spring 2008) Entec UK and JBA Consulting to carry out a research study to evaluate the current position regarding the preparation of SFRAs. In particular, the project’s objectives were to:

2.9.

• establish a broad evidence base on the quality and effectiveness of SFRAs, including numbers completed, specification, quality control, partnership working, who are completing them, quality and coverage, barriers to producing an effective SFRA, costs, impact on land allocations and links to/influence on other plans, policies and strategies; • using a sample of 35 studies, assess in detail the quality and influence of SFRAs; and • assess the implications for the PPS25 Practice Guide, and make recommendations on ‘good practice’ about how to inform the preparation of future generations of SFRAs.

PPS 25 and strategic flood risk assessment

2.10. It is expected that the consultants will be submitting the final report of

their study in May/June 2009. SFRA completions 2.11. From the study, the emerging findings of SFRA completions indicate:

• of the 353 district and unitary local authorities in England, 301 (85 per cent) had completed, as a minimum, a Level 1 SFRA by January 2009 • a further 45 local authorities (13 per cent) are currently in the process of developing a SFRA, with many due for completion in spring 2009 • only seven authorities (2 per cent) have not produced a SFRA, (largely due to awaiting finalising of boundary changes/reorganisation to unitary authorities). SFRAs in local authorities within the Government growth areas and growth points 2.12. The SFRA study also provides a summary of SFRA completions of those

local authorities which cover the Government key growth areas (Ashford, M11 corridor, South Midlands and Thames Gateway) and current Government growth points. • in respect of the 49 local authorities which cover the Government key growth areas, 29 have either finalised or are developing a SFRA in accordance with PPS25 • of the remaining 20 local authorities, 15 have an older Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG25) assessment or, in the case of five authorities (Basildon, Castle Point, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock), have produced a SFRA in line with the consultation draft of PPS25. (Evidence suggests that many of these SFRAs will be updated to meet the current requirements of PPS25) • of the 106 local authorities covering the Government’s round 1 and 2 growth points, 88 have produced a SFRA in accordance with PPS25; a further 13 are currently in the process of developing a PPS25 SFRA; three of the remaining growth points authorities are covered by older, PPG25 SFRAs, whilst the status of SFRAs for the other two growth points will be reassessed after the creation of the unitary authority for that area.

15

16

Initial review of the implementation of PPS25

DEFRA/Local Government Association Survey of Local Flood Risk Management 2008 This Survey was conducted by the LGA and DEFRA in order to establish the current and future capacity and expertise of local authorities to undertake the lead role on the management of local flood risk, as proposed by the Pitt Review. The results draw from the 257 local authorities who had responded to the survey as at end November 2008. 2.13.

The survey found a high level of engagement in metropolitan and unitary planning authorities, and London boroughs, with developing flood risk management related planning policy; developing a SFRA; and taking account of flooding considerations in development control/planning applications. However, levels of engagement in shire districts were approximately 10-20 per cent lower than their counterparts in the metropolitan districts and those others mentioned above. Engagement at the county level was also lower than in metropolitan districts etc. This is probably a reflection on their leaving it to individual local authorities to carry forward the preparation and completion of their SFRAs.

2.14.

Impact of the Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007

3. Impact of the Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007 The ‘Flooding’ Direction [incorporated, with effect from 20 April 2009, into the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009] is an important part of the package of measures to manage flood risk to and from new development. It requires local planning authorities to notify the Secretary of State (at the appropriate regional government office) if they intend to grant planning permission for any major developmentb in a flood risk areac, to which the Environment Agency (EA) has sustained an objection on flood risk grounds. 3.1.

3.2.

The purposes of the Flooding Direction are to: • ensure that all reasonable steps have been taken by the local planning authority, the EA and the applicant to resolve through discussion the Agency’s concerns and enable it to withdraw its objection; and • where it has not been possible to resolve the EA’s objection to provide ministers, through the regional government offices in consultation with CLG, the opportunity to decide whether to call-in the application for further examination, usually through public enquiry.

The nature of the Flooding Direction means that CLG will not be aware of all major development cases which (potentially at least) come within its scope, because where the Direction is meeting its first objective of focusing stakeholder attention on resolving outstanding flooding issues through discussion, the EA’s objection should have been overcome before the case had to be notified to the government office. 3.3.

The EA’s Development and Flood Risk (HLT5) report for 2007-08 records that the EA sustained a flood risk objection to 340 ‘major development’ proposals in the year April 2007 to March 2008, though not all these cases would have come within the scope of the Flooding Direction. Against this, the EA reports just 16 cases (subsequently amended to 15 cases) being referred to the government offices under the Flooding Direction within its 2007-08 monitoring period. 3.4.

Overall, the EA consider the Direction has been successful in requiring continued discussion between the relevant parties to resolve concerns, or at least to agree improvements to the proposed development.

3.5.

b ‘Major development’ means the provision of 10 or more dwellings, or residential development of 0.5 hectare or more in area; or non-residential development of 1,000 square meters of floorspace, or of an area of 1 hectare or more. c ‘Flood risk area’ means land within Flood Zones 2 or 3 (land with a medium to high probability of river or sea flooding), or land in Flood Zone 1 (low probability of river or sea flooding) which has been notified as having critical drainage problems.

17

18

Initial review of the implementation of PPS25

The following table summarises the outcomes for the 28 applications which are know to have been notified to government offices under the Flooding Direction since 1 January 2007 for which a decision under the Direction had been taken, as at 1 January 2009. Number of notified applications that were not called-in Of these:

Number where EA objection was overcome

8

Number where EA objection was sustained

12

Number of notified applications called-in Of these:

20

8

Number granted planning permission by SoS

2

Number that were subsequently withdrawn

5

Number awaiting inquiry/determination

1

[NB: As at 31.12.08, two notified cases were still subject to discussions between the LPA, EA & applicant; two were awaiting clarification; and one was awaiting decision on whether or not to call-in.]

In the two cases where planning permission was granted by the Secretary of State (SoS) following call-in, the flooding issues and concerns raised by the EA were thoroughly examined by the planning inspector in each case. Having considered all the evidence presented, in each case the inspector concluded that the flood risks were manageable and/or were not so significant as to outweigh the other benefits of the developments. The Secretary of State agreed with the inspectors’ conclusions. Conditions addressing flood risk (e.g. the provision of an acceptable flood risk management plan) were attached to each planning permission.

3.6.

In those cases which were not called-in despite a sustained EA objection, a view was taken that the flood risk issues raised did not warrant further detailed examination, most likely through public inquiry. The Secretary of State’s policy is to use her call-in powers selectively, and to intervene only where it is necessary to do so. 3.7.

Reflection of PPS 25 policy in local development frameworks

4. Reflection of PPS 25 policy in local development frameworks Initial survey of core strategies and other development plan documents PPS25 makes clear that flood risk should be taken into account at all stages of the planning process. Local planning authorities should prepare local development documents (LDDs), which include core strategies and other development plan documents (DPDs), that set out policies for the allocation of sites and development control which avoids flood risk to people and property where possible and manage it elsewhere. PPS25 promotes positive planning to deliver strategic opportunities to reduce flood risk to communities and apply the Government’s policy on flood risk management.

4.1.

The practice guide which accompanies PPS25 provides further advice on how flood risk should be taken into account in a local development framework (LDF). It advises that the core strategy should reflect the local authority’s strategic planning policies and approach to flood risk. Site allocations in LDDs/DPDs should reflect the application of the PPS25 sequential test. The approach should be underpinned and informed by a strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA) prepared by the local authority.

4.2.

In assessing progress to date in the application of the PPS25 policy approach in LDFs, Communities and Local Government has sought information from the regional government offices on the position in December 2008, two years after the publication of PPS25, with a particular focus on the local authorities most severely affected by the floods of 2007. The findings are summarised below.

4.3.

It should be noted that these findings are to a large extent, indicative, based on a broad check of local planning authority core strategies or other key DPDs that have been adopted, or that have reached publication or submission stage in the LDF process. Government Offices were not asked to carry out a detailed analysis or evaluation of the ‘quality’ of the flood risk policies in these DPDs. 4.4.

Key findings: • of the 51 local authorities most severely affected by the floods of 2007, only one (2 per cent) has so far adopted a core strategy or other DPD; and just 10 per cent have to date reached publication or submission stage • all six of the ‘most affected’ authorities with adopted or advanced core strategies or other DPDs have applied the PPS25 approach to some extent at least (though not necessarily in full), with five (83 per cent) reflecting an SFRA in their DPDs. Only two (33 per cent) of these authorities appear to have applied the PPS25 sequential test

19

20

Initial review of the implementation of PPS25

• at least 19 other authorities with significant flood risk areas have adopted or advanced core strategy/other DPDs, of which 16 (84 per cent) reflect the PPS25 approach to some extent at least; 14 (74 per cent) have been informed by SFRAs; and 12 (63 per cent) have applied the PPS25 sequential test.

Reflection of PPS25 policy approach in core strategies (CS) and other development plan documents (DPD) Number Number where Number Number which an SFRA with with an reflect appears advanced adopted, PPS25 to have CS or CS or (to some informed Number other DPD other DPD extent) the LDF ‘Most flood affected’ authorities Other ‘at risk’ authorities Other authorities with advanced DPDs

Number where the Sequential Test appears to have been applied

51

5

1

6

5

2

41+

11+

8

16

14

12

24

7

17

21

11

14

Notes: 'Most affected authorities' = top 50 in CLG list of those affected by flooding in summer 2007 in terms of flooded residential properties + Castle Morpeth. 'Other at risk' includes other authorities affected by 2007 floods below top 50, plus others considered to be at risk from flooding, eg. some coastal authorities. (This exercise does not cover all such ‘at risk’ authorities). ‘Advanced DPDs’ includes core strategies or other relevant DPDs that have reached publication or submission stage.

Reflection of PPS 25 policy in local development frameworks

Comment: The implementation of PPS25 through the local level of development plans is dependent on the overall LDF process. This has been much slower than originally anticipated and is reflected in the number of authorities that have adopted DPDs, or DPDs that have reached submission or publication stage, shown in the table above. This is an ongoing process and more of the ‘most affected’ and ‘at risk’ authorities are expected to publish DPDs, or submit them for examination, over the coming months. The information presented in this initial review should therefore be seen as a ‘snapshot’ of progress. However, it is encouraging that all of the six ‘at risk’ authorities with advanced or adopted core strategy/DPDs have taken account of PPS25, and five have used an SFRA to inform their policy.

4.5.

Some caution is needed in reaching any firm conclusions from the figures in the above table. As noted above, this review has not involved a detailed, in-depth assessment of DPDs, and the figures showing ‘reflection of PPS25’ are not intended to give an accurate indication of how well or appropriately the PPS25 approach has been applied by the authorities concerned. In some cases, an adopted DPD may have been largely completed prior to the publication of PPS25, which has impacted on the degree to which it reflects the PPS25 approach, including the use of an SFRA to inform the DPD. 4.6.

Some authorities that have produced a core strategy are likely to apply the PPS25 sequential test (informed by an SFRA) through ‘allocations’ and/or ‘policies’ DPDs which have yet to be brought forward. This should increase the number and proportion of authorities recoreded as applying the sequential test.

4.7.

21

ISBN 978-1-4098-1450-4

ISBN: 978 1 4098 1450 4

9 781409 814504