The latest version of the NPPF was published in December 2024 and sets out a sequential approach to development by steering new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source.
Paragraph 11 (d) (i) of the NPPF sets out that for decision-taking, planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies within the framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance, within footnote 7 (this includes areas at risk of flooding or coastal change) provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The previous version of the NPPF required a clear reason for refusing. It is considered that the change of wording from clear to strong provides a lower hurdle for development proposals to overcome.
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
The PPG is periodically updated and expands on policy in the NPPF.
A far-reaching update to the PPG was made in 2022, which required that the sequential test was applied to flood risk from any source (and which the NPPF incorporated in December 2024). Previously, the sequential test only applied to proposals located at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in Flood Zones 2 and 3. As a result of this update, for sites at risk of surface water flooding, a sequential test was required to be undertaken.
This change to the PPG was backed up in a planning appeal decision at Tadmarton Road, Bloxham, within Cherwell District in Oxfordshire in October 2024, where part of the site was at medium risk from surface water flooding. The Inspector concluded that the failure to carry out a sequential test for the proposal provided a clear reason for refusal under paragraph 11 of the NPPF and outweighed the benefits of the provision of housing, including affordable housing.
A change in approach from Planning Inspectors at appeal?
Since then, the position of Inspector’s has appeared to have changed with the following appeal decisions. This has also coincided with the changes to the NPPF in December 2024 referred to above with the introduction of strong reasons to refuse permission instead of clear reasons.
Ham Road, Faversham, within Swale Borough in Kent in June 2025, a proposal on a site at high risk from tidal sea flooding and surface water flooding. Here, the Inspector acknowledged that a sequential test had not been carried out but considered that this did not constitute any “real world” harm as it had been demonstrated that mitigation could make the development safe for its lifetime. Therefore, the failure to carry out a sequential test did not provide a strong reason for refusal under paragraph 11(d)(i) of the NPPF.
Colestocks Road, Sherwood Cross, Feniton with East Devon District in July 2025 (ref. APP/U1105/W/24/3357849) for a proposal within a Critical Drainage Area. A sequential test had been undertaken but had not considered potential housing sites within the wider local authority area, as identified by the Council as the appellant considered that the proposal would provide a locational benefit of flood alleviation measures that would reduce flood risk on not only the site but also the surrounding area through the regulation of water discharge and there were no other sites that would deliver this benefit. The Inspector still concluded that the sequential test was failed, but considered that as there would be likely betterment to off-site flood risk and therefore the failure of the sequential test did not provide a strong reason for refusing the development under paragraph 11(d) (i) of the NPPF.
DIVE RIGHT IN
Sign up to our newsletter
Most recent policy changes
In September 2025, the PPG was updated again to set out that the sequential test would not be required for sites at high risk of surface water flooding where a site specific flood risk (FRA) assessment demonstrates clearly that the proposed layout, design, and mitigation measures would ensure that occupiers and users would remain safe from current and future surface water flood risk for the lifetime of the development. This means that the need for a sequential test in regard to surface water flood risk has been removed, subject to the findings of the FRA.
However, the sequential test will still be required to be applied to proposals at risk of other flooding, such as river and sea (flood zones 2 and 3) and potentially other sources such as groundwater. This is perhaps a row back from the appeal decisions at Yatton and Faversham, which both involved tidal flood risk.
The updated PPG has also provided additional guidance on the area of search for the sequential test for the purposes of identifying “reasonably available” alternative sites at less risk of flooding. The PPG makes it clear that the catchment should always be appropriate to the nature and scale of the proposal and the settlement it is proposed for. For a non-major housing development, it would not usually be appropriate for the area of search to extend beyond the specific area of a town or city in which the proposal is located, or beyond an individual village and its immediate neighbouring settlements. The sequential test should be applied proportionately, focusing on realistic alternatives in areas of lower flood risk that could meet the same development need.
In considering what is a “reasonably available” site, the PPG sets out that the location of these should be suitable for the type of development proposed, they are able to meet the same development needs and they have a reasonable prospect of being developed at the same time as the proposal.
In the main, these changes are considered to be a pragmatic approach which should provide much-needed clarity for local authorities and developers. There is still likely to be an element of judgment required regarding the precise area of search in some cases, and again with identifying reasonably available alternative sites, as there may be disagreements as to whether a particular location can meet the same development needs and timescales for development may not exactly align.
This article featured in Issue 009 of Flood Industry magazine, Nov/Dec 2025. You can view it here.
[Main image credit: pla2na / shutterstock.com]