Letter To Chief Planning Officers Implementation Of Planning Policy Statement 25 (pps25) - Development And Flood Risk

The Chief Planning Officer Local Planning Authorities in England*

7 May 2009

Dear Chief Planning Officer, IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 25 (PPS25): DEVELOPMENT AND FLOOD RISK Spatial planning has a vital role to play in managing flood risk to people and property as a key part of adapting to climate change. Sir Michael Pitt endorsed the PPS25 approach, finding from his inquiry into the summer 2007 floods that its policy is right but should be rigorously applied by local planning authorities. Responding to Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations, Communities and Local Government (CLG) has carried out an initial review of how PPS25 is being applied by planning authorities. Overall, the review evaluation findings (summarised in the attached Annex) are positive and encouraging and we welcome the progress being made. However, it is important to maintain momentum and there is a need for further progress in some areas. All planning authorities must build on this progress and continue to respond positively to the challenges. In particular, we need to ensure that: ƒ

Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) which provide the key evidence base for applying the PPS25 policy approach, are completed and used to inform strategic planning decisions - it is particularly important that level 2 SFRAs are carried out where development is needed in flood risk areas;

ƒ

good working partnerships on flood risk are developed and maintained between local authorities, the Environment Agency, water and sewerage companies, other operating authorities and stakeholders;

ƒ

developers submit adequate flood risk assessments with planning applications;

ƒ

local planning authorities continue consultations with the Environment Agency to resolve issues when they are minded to permit a development to which the Agency has objected on flood risk grounds.

Department for Communities and Local Government 1/J6 Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

Tel 020 7944 3890 Fax 020 7944 5824 Email [email protected]

A strategic spatial planning approach to development and flood risk is a key aspect of PPS25, which asks local planning authorities to frame policies for the location of development that avoid flood risk to people and property where possible, and manage any residual risk. Experience suggests that the inclusion of clear and appropriate flood risk policies in development plan documents is an effective approach to reducing flood risk and often a better use of resources than just relying on the ad-hoc application of policy through development control. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind planning authorities that guidance and further advice is available in the PPS25 Practice Guide, which we are aiming to update this summer, and in the Environment Agency’s Standing Advice on Flood Risk. This letter and its annex are being placed on the CLG website, as will further details of the findings of our initial review of the implementation of PPS25. Any questions or enquiries about the review can be directed to Martyn Mance by e-mail at: [email protected] (or telephone 020 7944 3867) in Planning Resources & Environmental Policy Division.

Yours faithfully

Steve Quartermain Chief Planner * County & District Councils and Unitary Authorities in England; London Borough Councils; The Town Clerk, City of London; the Olympic Delivery Authority; Urban Development Corporations; National Park Authorities in England; The Broads Authority; Council of the Isles of Scilly

‘Dear CPO’ Letter - Implementation of PPS25

Annex

Introduction 1. 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. 2. 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. Initial Review of the Implementation of PPS25 3. Two years have passed since the PPS25 package was published so it is relevant and timely to consider 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. The aim is to identify any barriers to delivery and whether any further measures are necessary. 4. CLG has therefore carried out an initial review of the implementation of PPS25. This initial review has comprised the following elements: i.

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.

ii.

Research jointly managed by 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.

iii.

Assessment by CLG and the regional Government Offices of the application of the Flooding Direction. And,

iv.

Assessment of the implementation of PPS25 policies in emerging LDFs based on information provided to CLG by the Government Offices.

Review Findings 5. The key findings from this review are: (a) For planning applications where the Environment Agency has objected; ƒ Where the Agency has initially objected to planning applications on flood risk grounds, the final planning decision was in line with Agency advice in nearly 97% of cases in 2007/08 – a further slight improvement over the two preceding years. And in 9 out of 10 cases where the Agency has sustained a flood risk objection, the final outcome was in line with Agency advice.

ƒ

In terms of numbers of residential units permitted in 2007/08, the final planning decision was in line with Agency advice in 99% of cases where the Agency had initially raised flood risk objections.

(b) For planning applications for major developments: ƒ For applications for major developments to which the Agency has sustained an objection, the final outcome was in line with Agency advice in 95% of cases. ƒ

In the two years (to 1 January 2009) since the Flooding Direction was introduced, just 33 major development cases had been notified to the Government Offices. This is a small proportion (around 5%) of those to which the Agency had objected, showing that the Direction is largely helping to get issues resolved between parties. Of the 28 notified cases that had been progressed, the majority (16) had resulted in either the resolution of the Agency’s objection or call-in by the Secretary of State.

(c) On progress (to January 2009) in applying PPS25 policies in local plans (LDFs): ƒ Of the 51 local authorities most severely affected by the 2007 & 2008 floods, only one had so far adopted a core strategy or other development plan document (DPD), while five others had reached publication or submission stage. However, all six of these authorities had applied the PPS25 approach to some extent, with five having been informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). ƒ

At least 19 other authorities with significant flood risk areas had adopted or advanced core strategies or other DPDs, of which 16 (84%) reflect the PPS25 approach to some extent.

(d) On progress in undertaking Regional Flood Risk Appraisals (RFRA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA): ƒ Four out of the eight English regions have completed a post-PPS25 Regional Flood Risk Appraisal; one further region has a RFRA based on the draft version of PPS25. The other three regions have actions in hand to produce an RFRA. ƒ

Of the 353 local authorities across England, 301 (85%) had completed, as a minimum, a Level 1 SFRA by January 2009. A further 45 (13%) local authorities are currently in the process of developing a SFRA, with many due for completion in spring 2009.*

ƒ

Only seven authorities (2%) have not produced a SFRA, largely due to awaiting the finalising of boundary changes/reorganisation to unitary authorities.*

ƒ

Of the 49 local authorities covering the Government’s key Growth Areas, 29 have either finalised or are developing a SFRA in accordance with PPS25. The remaining 20 authorities currently have an older assessment based on Planning Policy Guidance note 25 (PPG25) or, in the case of five authorities, have produced an 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.*

ƒ

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 Point 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 in April 2009.* (*These figures are based on emerging findings from the SFRA research study.)

Conclusions 6. In general, the picture emerging on forward planning is positive: ƒ 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: ƒ 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. ƒ

Relatively few local planning authorities have adopted development plan documents with PPS25-consistent policies.

8. The picture on planning applications is also positive: ƒ 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 flood risk concerns. 9. Against this, there are two aspects with potential for improvement: ƒ 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. ƒ Not enough authorities are re-consulting the Agency over planning applications they are minded to approve against Agency advice, as PPS25 advises. 10. 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 2007/8 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. 11. 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%. 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. 12. 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. Taking the Policy Forward 13. For the future CLG will: •

Make available on its web site further details of the initial review and evaluation of implementation of PPS25.

•

Continue to offer support and advice to local planning authorities and maintain close working relations and dialogue with the Environment Agency, with a view to ensuring the achievement of the key planning policy aims and objectives for managing flood risk set out in PPS25.

•

Update the PPS25 Practice Guide to reflect developing best practice, and promote a better understanding of and implementation of the policy approach. We aim to issue an updated version this summer.

14. CLG will continue to monitor PPS25 and would welcome further feedback from planning authorities on how well they think PPS25 is working and on any significant barriers to the delivery of its policies.