CONSULTATION PAPER ON A NEW PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 25:
(PPS25): DEVELOPMENT AND FLOOD RISK
CABINET: 23 FEBRUARY 2006
MEMBER REPORTING: COUNCILLOR MRS HOWES
1.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
To consider the Council’s response to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (ODPM)
consultation on Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25). A
copy of this document is available for inspection in the Group Rooms and from the
Democratic Services Office.
1.2
PPS25 will supersede Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 (PPG25) in setting out the
national policy framework for planning and flood risk. Once finalised, PPS25 will be a
material consideration in the determination of planning applications and will the
production of the Local Development Framework.
2.
MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: That the comments contained in Appendix A
to this report be forwarded as this Council’s response to the ODPM Consultation on
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk.
3.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
3.1
Wards Affected
All wards.
3.2
Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based
Background
3.2.1
The Government is updating its planning advice contained within Planning Policy
Guidance Notes (PPGs) with the publication of new style Planning Policy Statements
(PPSs). In December 2005 the Government published a consultation on PPS25:
Development and Flood Risk. The consultation document reflects the general direction set
out in ‘Making Space for Water’ (DEFRA, 2004), the evolving new strategy to shape flood
and coastal erosion risk over the next 10-20 years. The consultation paper seeks comments
on four related matters, namely:




3.2.2
Proposed PPS25: Development and Flood Risk;
Draft Framework of Practical Guide;
Draft Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2006;
Extending and Amending the Environment Agency’s Statutory Consultee Role.
This report outlines the principal elements of the consultation document. The Council’s
suggested response is attached in Appendix A of this report. In formulating the response,
account has been had to comments previously submitted to the Government from the Flood
Risk Action Group.
40
1.
Draft PPS25: Development and Flood Risk
3.2.3
PPS25 confirms that flooding, in all its forms, is a material planning consideration in the
determination of planning applications and in the formulation of planning policy. Local
Development Frameworks (LDFs) should set out policies for the allocation of sites and the
control of development which avoid flood risk to people and property where possible and
manage it elsewhere.
3.2.4
PPS25 states that Flood risk should be considered alongside other spatial planning
concerns such as transport, housing, economic growth, natural resources, regeneration and
the management of other hazards.
3.2.5
PPS25 reaffirms the adoption of a risk-based approach to flooding, including the avoidance
of new sources of flooding; managing flood pathways and avoiding inappropriate
development in areas at risk from flooding. Central to the risk-based approach is the
undertaking of ‘Flood Risk Assessments’ at all levels of the planning process. A Strategic
Flood Risk Assessment concerning catchment-wide flooding issues should underpin LDFs,
while site-specific Flood Risk Assessments should inform planning applications.
3.2.6
Central to the risk-based approach to flooding is the sequential test. This requires local
authorities, when allocating land, to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites at a
lower vulnerability of flooding. While PPG25 included a sequential test, PPS25 has
redefined Flood Zone 3 (high risk), and introduced both a flood risk vulnerability
classification and a new exception test.
3.2.7
Departures from the sequential approach can only be justified in exceptional circumstances
where it is necessary to deliver sustainable development. This justification is known as the
Exceptions Test. Where the exceptions test cannot be satisfied development should not be
permitted. PPS25 advises that the exceptions test is appropriate for use where there are
large areas liable to flooding, restricting the availability of suitable sites in lower risk areas,
but where some continuing development is necessary for wider sustainable development
reasons. It is also appropriate in smaller areas where restrictive designations such as
landscape and nature conservation designations prevent the availability of unconstrained
sites in lower risk areas.
3.2.8
PPS25 introduces a flood risk vulnerability classification. This classification advises what
level of risk of flooding is acceptable for certain types of development. The below tables
provided outline the vulnerability classification and how this is interpreted within PPS25.
41
Vulnerability Classification
Example development.
Essential Infrastructure
Transport infrastructure, utility infrastructure.
Highly Vulnerable
Hospitals, residential care homes, permanent mobile
homes.
More Vulnerable
Dwellinghouses, hotels, health services.
Less Vulnerable
Shops, offices, agriculture.
Water Compatible
Development
Water treatment infrastructure, marinas, outdoor sports
and recreation.
Flood Zone
Permitted Vulnerability Classification
1 Low Probability
All vulnerability classifications deemed acceptable.
2 Medium Probability
Water compatible, less vulnerable, more vulnerable and
essential infrastructure classifications deemed acceptable.
Highly vulnerable classification only permitted on
passing the exception test.
3A High Probability
Water compatible and less vulnerable classifications
deemed appropriate.
More vulnerable and essential infrastructure
classifications only permitted on passing the exception
test.
3B Functional Flood Plain
Only water compatible classification deemed appropriate.
Only essential infrastructure classifications only
permitted on passing the exception test.
3.2.9
Flood Zone 3 (high risk) has been simplified to include only 3A ‘high probability’ and 3B
‘functional floodplain’. In this respect the high risk is no longer split between ‘developed
areas’, ‘underdeveloped and sparsely developed areas’ and ‘functional floodplain’ as
currently in PPG25.
2.
3.2.10
Draft Framework of Practical Guide
It is proposed that a Practical Guide, an outline of which is provided, will accompany the
final publication of PPS25. The Practical Guide would assist the successful application of
the PPS25 by providing further explanatory text and case study examples.
42
3.
Proposals for Flooding Direction
3.2.11
It is proposed to create a Flooding Direction under the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995. When minded to grant planning permission
for a ‘major’ development contrary to the sustained advice of the Environment Agency, the
Direction would require the Council to notify the Environment Agency and the
Government Office for the South East (GOSE) of this intention. The GOSE would decide
whether to call in the application for decision by the First Secretary of State.
3.2.12
Residential development are defined as major if the number of dwellings to be constructed
is ten or more, or the site area is equal to or greater than 0.5 ha. Non-residential
developments are defined as major if they involve a floorspace equal to or greater than
1,000 sq.m., or a site area equal to or greater than 1 ha.
4.
Extending and Amending the Environment Agency’s Statutory Consultee Role
3.2.13
The Government is proposing to extend the Environment Agency’s statutory consultee role
under the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1995. The change
will require the Council to consult the Environment Agency in relation to flood risk for
certain developments, proximity to main rivers and any proposed culverting.
3.3
Options Available and Risk Assessment
3.3.1
Option 1 - The recommendation of this report: By responding to the consultation
document the Council’s views will be taken into account by the ODPM in finalising the
PPS25.
3.3.2
Option 2 – Do nothing: By not responding to the consultation document the Council will
fail convey views on how the proposals will impact upon the Borough and therefore miss
the opportunity to influence the final version of PPS25.
3.4
Reasons for Recommendation
3.4.1
The whole of the borough is within the catchment of the River Thames, with substantial
areas at risk from flooding. Development and flood risk is therefore an important local and
strategic planning issue. By responding to the consultation, the Council will ensure that
the ODPM are aware of the implications of the draft proposals on development within the
borough and for Council resources.
Next Steps:
3.4.2
Responsibility for finalising the planning policy statement lies with the ODPM.
timeframe has been offered within the consultation papers.
3.5
Relevant National/Regional Guidance



Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2004).
Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks (2004);
Planning Policy Guidance Note 25: Development and Flood Risk (2001);
43
No
3.6
Relevant Council Policies/Strategies
The relevant Council strategies and policies are:



Community Strategy of the Royal Borough Partnership;
RBWM Local Plan (Incorporating Alterations Adopted June 2003);
Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016: Adopted July 2005;
The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy
in the following ways:


Adopting sustainable ways of living and working.
Protecting and enhancing our natural and built environment.
4.
CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT
4.1
No consultation has been carried out in the preparation of this report. The purpose of this
report is to approve the Council’s response to PPS25.
5.
IMPLICATIONS
5.1
Financial
PPS25 has been published with a Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment. This assessment
identifies that any additional costs associated by proposals within PPS25 will fall largely
with the regional planning body, local authorities and the Environment Agency. The new
requirement for a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment would bring additional cost estimated
at between £15,000 - £20,000.
5.2
Legal
There are no legal implications as a result of this report. Once published in its final form
PPS25 will forms a material consideration in the determination of planning applications
and the consideration of policy through the Local Development Framework (LDF).
5.3
Human Rights Act
No Convention Rights are relevant to this report. The recommendation does not affect any
victims as defined under the Human Rights Act 1998.
5.4
Planning
The principal planning implications are outlined within paragraphs 3.2.3 – 3.2.13 and
Appendix A to this report.
The Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Preferred Options Document
was published on the 27th January 2006 for a six-week period of consultation. The Core
Strategy includes three policies related to flood risk. The revision, and possible inclusion,
of these policies will need to be reviewed as a result of the proposals in PPS25. The
conclusion of this review may require revisions to the Council’s Local Development
Scheme.
44
5.5
Sustainable Development
In terms of sustainable development policy, the recommendation of this report will have
the following beneficial sustainable development implication:
 Promoting locations and forms of development that are sustainable.
Background Papers:
Planning Policy Guidance Note 25: Development and Flood Risk, (2001); Planning Policy Statement 25: Development
and Flood Risk (2005, Consultation Paper); The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan (Incorporating
Alterations Adopted June 2003).
45
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED CONSULTATION RESPONSE
Q1
We consider positive planning has an important role to play in
delivering policies which will avoid, reduce and manage flood risk. We
will provide a Practice Guide to help implement the planning policies set
out in PPS25. Will the new policy and the proposed Practice Guide as
outlined in the consultation package secure planning strategies that
direct new development to suitable locations taking flood risk and type
of development into account? If not, what alterations in approach do you
suggest?
Response: No comment.
Q2
The draft PPS25 sets out a ‘plan led’ approach to take flood risk into
account in helping to deliver sustainable development. We are proposing
that flood risk should be taken into account at all levels of the planning
process i.e. regional, local and at site specific levels. Do you agree with
this approach and the key planning objectives set out in para. 5? If not,
what alternative approach would be better?
Response: No. The principle of a ‘plan led’ approach is supported, as is the
need for flood risk to be taken into account at all levels of the planning
process. We object to objective 2, that local authorities should be charged
with the production of a Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA). While
the principle of SFRA is acceptable, the proposed mechanism for their
production is flawed. Floods do not respects administrative boundaries.
Further, development in one local authority may have an influence far
downstream and not just on neighbouring authorities. Given the central role
of the Environment Agency in advising on flood risk and its sub-regional
structure, there would appear to be advantages in coordination if the
responsibility for SFRA was taken away from local authorities and passed to
the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency is positioned to
coordinate SFRA for the whole river catchment and therefore ensure
consistency across a wide area.
Q3
We have set out in PPS25 the decision-making principles which regional
planning bodies and local planning authorities should adhere to in
relation to development and flood risk. Are the principles clear and
sufficient or should they be modified and if so, how?
Response: Yes, agree with principles.
46
Q4
It is proposed that flood risk assessments should be carried out at the
regional, local and site-specific levels (see paras. 9–12 and Annex E). Is
the guidance clear on how Regional Flood Risk Assessments (RFRAs)
and Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) are used to inform
Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks as a
basis for preparing policies for flood risk management? Is the
relationship of RFRA and SFRA to Sustainability Appraisal also clear?
Response: No. While the principle of SFRA is acceptable, the proposed
mechanism for their production is flawed. Floods do not respects
administrative boundaries. Further, development in one local authority may
have an influence far downstream and not just on neighbouring authorities.
Given the central role of the Environment Agency in advising on flood risk
and its sub-regional structure, there would appear to be advantages in
coordination if the responsibility for SFRA was taken away from local
authorities and passed to the Environment Agency. The Environment
Agency is positioned to coordinate SFRA for the whole river catchment and
therefore ensure consistency across a wide area. While the Practice Guide
indicates that further advice will be provided on SFRA it is unclear how this
will influence Local Development Documents and sustainability assessments
already under production, notably authorities progressing their Core
Strategies.
Q5
An appropriate site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required to
accompany planning applications for development in flood risk areas.
Are the criteria for determining the need for FRA correct? If not, what
should they be?
Response: No. The criteria for determining the need for a Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA) state that a FRA is required for all new developments
within Flood Zone 2 (medium risk) and Flood Zone 3 (high risk), while a
FRA is only however required for ‘major’ developments within Flood Zone 1
(low risk). Given the cumulative effects of smaller development and the fact
that under the principles of FRA that the assessment should be “appropriate
to the scale, nature and location of development” there seems little need for
excluding FRA for small developments within Flood Zone 1 this level. All
developments within a river catchment could potentially contribute towards
increasing flood risk either on- or off-site. Without a FRA the local authority
would not be able to properly judge whether developments would increase
the risk of flooding elsewhere.
It is accepted that some flexibility might appropriately be offered for
householder developments such as porches and other limited extensions.
Q6
The central part of the risk-based approach is the Sequential Test (see
paras 13–15) and Annex D. We have clarified this approach by
amalgamating the PPG25 3a and 3b Flood Zones and making explicit
the consideration of flood risk vulnerability. Is this clear and do you
agree with this approach? If not, what amendments do you propose that
would serve better?
47
Response: No. The sequential approach in combination with defined
vulnerability classifications would appear to allow more informed decisions
that will contribute towards the delivery of sustainable developments and is
therefore supported. The Royal Borough is highly constrained due to the
presence of Green Belt and nature conservation designations. With the area
liable to flood extending to the town centres, the new approach would allow
less vulnerable uses to be provided within the most accessible areas and
relieve potential pressures on the Green Belts etc.
The Flood Zones need further explanation. There is a need for clear
guidance on the definition of Flood Zone 3b‘ functional floodplain’. Without
such a definition there is considerable scope for inconsistency between local
authorities and the inappropriate application of PPS25. Without such
clarification it is also unclear why the tests for Flood Zone 3b ‘functional
floodplain’ include considerations of storage and flow, whilst Flood Zone 3a
‘high probability’ does not.
Notwithstanding the above, it is unclear how the insurance industry would
welcome development being built at any risk of flooding. If buildings cannot
gain insurance then the approach may be unsustainable in the longer-term.
Q7
It is proposed to add a new Exception Test to complement the Sequential
Test in Flood Zones 2 and 3 where development is necessary for wider
sustainability reasons (see paras. 16–19 and Annex D). Do you agree
with this principle and the approach described or do you have an
alternative proposal?
Response: Yes. The Exception Test, in combination with the sequential test
and vulnerability classifications, would appear to allow for more informed
decisions that contribute towards the delivery of sustainable developments.
The Royal Borough is highly constrained due to the presence of Green Belt
and nature conservation designations. With the area liable to flood extending
to the town centres, the new approach would allow less vulnerable uses to be
provided within the most accessible areas and relieve potential pressures on
the Green Belts etc.
While supporting the concept of the exception test further advice should be
provided on the role of different organisations in its consideration, e.g. the
Environment Agency.
Notwithstanding the above, it is unclear how the insurance industry would
welcome development being built at any risk of flooding. If buildings cannot
gain insurance then the approach may be unsustainable in the longer-term.
Q8
The responsibilities of key stakeholders are given in paras. 20–30 and
Annex H. Do you agree that the responsibilities are clearly stated or do
you have amendments and alternatives to propose?
48
Response: No. While the principle of SFRA is acceptable, the proposed
mechanism for their production is flawed. Floods do not respects
administrative boundaries. Further, development in one local authority may
have an influence far downstream and not just on neighbouring authorities.
Given the central role of the Environment Agency in advising on flood risk
and its sub-regional structure, there would appear to be advantages in
coordination if the responsibility for SFRA was taken away from local
authorities and passed to the Environment Agency. The Environment
Agency is positioned to coordinate SFRA for the whole river catchment and
therefore ensure consistency across a wide area. While the Practice Guide
indicates that further advice will be provided on SFRA it is unclear how this
will influence Local Development Documents, and sustainability
assessments, already under production, notably authorities progressing their
Core Strategies.
The importance of utility operators is understated throughout PPS25.
Information from utility companies on the capabilities of surface water
sewers or combined sewers is central to the mapping of flood risk and
therefore SRFA.
Clarification should also be provided on where responsibility lies if planning
permission is granted on the basis that the sites does not flood and then
subsequently does so. This matter was raised by the Flood Risk Action
Group (FRAG) in their letter to Mr David Brooks (ODPM) of 28th May
2004.
Q9
We consider effective monitoring and review is essential to secure
sustainable development of flood risk areas. Do you agree that the
expected annual monitoring should include the HLT5 indicators listed in
para. 32? If not, what alternatives would serve better while being
practicable and delivered at no extra cost?
Response: While Environments High Level Target 5 (HLT5) provides a good
basis for monitoring it only includes the monitoring of decisions with
technical advice from the Environment Agency by local authorities and not
decisions by Inspectors when applications are appealed. There is also no
mention of how any systems of ‘standing advice’ set up between local
authorities and the Environment Agency will be monitored. Standing advice
provides a pre-agreed response that does not require the local authority to
directly consult the Environment Agency thus allowing the Environment
Agency to concentrate on more complex planning matters.
Q10
Do you consider the proposed scope of the Practice Guide (see Section 3)
covers all the relevant topics? If not, which are missing and why?
49
Response: PPS25 and the Practice Guide do not provide information on dry
islands and how they should be treated in the planning process. A definition
of a sustainable dry island is required with further guidance on safe escape
routes. These are matters which are consistently raised by developers and
can be a matter of contention between them and the Council.
We would urge expediting the publication of the Practice Guide. Much of
the advice is required to support Local Development Documents already
under production, notably authorities progressing their Core Strategies.
Q11
Does the proposed scope of the Practice Guide include topics which do
not need to be covered? If so which topics and give reasons why?
Response: No.
Q12
It is proposed to make a standing Flooding Direction (see Section 4) in
respect of major development for which a planning authority proposes
to grant permission, despite there being a sustained objection from the
Environment Agency on flood risk grounds, after being re-consulted
following an initial objection. Do you agree with this proposal? If not,
have you any relevant alternative to this approach within the present
ambit of the Planning Acts?
Response: Yes.
Q13
As part of this consultation, we are proposing that the Environment
Agency be made a statutory consultee under the Town and Country
Planning Act Order (GDPO) 1995 on: i) non-householder development
proposed in Flood Zones 2 and 3;
ii) non-householder developments outside Flood Zones 2
and 3 which are identified by the Environment Agency
as having ‘critical drainage problems’; and
iii) any development exceeding 1 Ha.
There is also a proposal to amend Article 10 (1) para. (p) of the GDPO
(see Section 5). Do you agree with this approach?
Response: Yes. It is essential that resources are in place to ensure that the
Environment Agency are able to respond within the consultation timeframes.
It is also essential that clarification is provided on how ‘standing advice’
from the Environment Agency will be impacted by any change to the GDPO.
Standing advice provides a pre-agreed response that does not require the
local authority to directly consult the Environment Agency thus allowing the
Environment Agency to concentrate on more complex planning matters.
Q14
The partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) sets out the likely
benefits and costs of the draft PPS25. Do you agree with the assumptions
made? If not, or if you think it is incomplete, please tell us why and
provide any quantifiable evidence available to you on benefits and costs.
50
Response: Given the infancy of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SRFA)
and their use within the planning system, the assumptions of cost and longterm saving should be questioned. In any event the cost of producing a
SFRA would occur form the outset while any cost saving, if achieved, would
be over the longer-term. A gap in funding therefore exists which has not
been reflected in the regulatory impact assessment.
Previous comments query the appropriateness of charging local authorities
with the responsibility of producing SRFA as floods do not respects
administrative boundaries and the Environment Agency would appear better
placed to coordinate such work.
Q15
Is the policy set out in PPS25 likely to affect small businesses? If so,
please tell us how, and if appropriate, how any disproportionate impact
on small businesses could be eased while ensuring they, and
neighbouring users of land, retain the benefit of protective planning
policies on flood risk.
Response: Yes. The requirement for Flood Risk Assessments and design
solutions represents a cost to commercial businesses. While this cost does
not distinguish between the sizes of business affected it stands to reason that
smaller businesses feel greater cost impacts. Notwithstanding this, flood risk
is a fundamental issue that should be addressed as a matter of principle. It is
also noted that these costs are not additional to those encountered under
PPG25.
Q16
Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 contained a commitment to review
after 3 years. Do you think that PPS25 should contain a similar
commitment for a review? If ‘yes’, please give reasons why and include
an appropriate review period?
Response: Yes. The introduction of vulnerability classification and the
requirement of Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is a significant change from
PPG25. To ensure the success of these new matters there should be a
commitment to review the performance of PPS25.
Greater clarification and guidance is required on managing residual flood
Other
Comments risk, in particular for areas behind flood defences.
It should be made clear that flood resilience and resistance is not a quick
solution to flood risk and should not be utilised to justify inappropriate forms
of development.
Clarification should be provided on what is meant by the ‘lifetime’ of a
development when considering development behind flood defences. Existing
buildings are a strong material consideration when considering
redevelopment. The PPS25 fails to consider how existing buildings should
be considered when they come to the end of their life.
51