The Chief Planning Officer 7 May 2009

Local Planning Authorities in England*

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 Tel 020 7944 3890
1/J6 Eland House Fax 020 7944 5824
Bressenden Place Email steve.quartermain@communities.gsi.gov.uk
London
SW1E 5DU
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: martyn.mance@communities.gov.uk (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.