8.22

This section does not sufficiently recognise the increased risk of flooding that would be created by new housing "north of London Road".

Support the application of the sequential test, which seeks to direct development to areas at least risk of flooding. The application of PPS25 exceptions test will only be applied when the sequential test has shown that there are no available locations for necessary development other than within areas of at risk of flooding.

However, do not support the statement that the majority of development necessary within the District can be accommodated within Flood Zone 1 (areas least at risk of flooding), although there may be exceptions involving previously developed land.

PPS25 does not caveat that the exceptions test can be overridden by previously developed land; flood risk needs to be considered along with other planning issues. Taking into consideration the aim to manage risk, the use of a previous developed site in an area subject to flood risk would put property and people at greater risk; particularly, when it would replace a less vulnerable use (employment), with a more vulnerable use (residential).

Amend text of third sentence of fourth paragraph of 'Appraising Risk':

'... As such, it is envisaged that the majority of new development necessary within the District can be accommodated within Flood Zone 1 (areas of least risk of flooding).'

This paragraph makes mention of the Thames Gateway South Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) under the subheading "(1) Appraising risk". Please note that this SFRA was completed in 2006 prior to the publication of Planning Policy Statement 25. This SFRA therefore does not include up-to-date climate change scenarios that were introduced in PPS25. The newer climate change allowances can significantly increase the risk of flooding in areas and can present very different results from those published in the TGSE SFRA (2006). In addition, this SFRA did not cover the entire Rochford District.

In light of the above, this document cannot be relied upon for applying the Sequential test in accordance with PPS25 because the information contained within it is incomplete. The Environment Agency have made clear that an updated SFRA is required if development is being proposed within areas at risk of flooding. We have been involved in working with the council and some of the other South Essex Local Authorities in producing an updated SFRA however this has only reached scoping stage and we have had no guarantees that the project will be completed.

The Core Strategy cannot therefore be considered to be justified because it is not supported by a complete, accurate and up-to-date evidence base in the absence of a PPS25 compliant SFRA. In not being compliant with PPS25, this Core Strategy cannot be considered to be consistent with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25.

In addition to the above, we do not believe that the Core Strategy is supported by sufficient evidence to justify the statement that there may be some exceptions to the provision of new development in Flood Zone 1 where previously developed land is available in higher risk flood zones. The general approach of giving priority to brownfield land is in line with PPS3, however the policy also recognises the need to take into account environmental constraints and risks, including flood risk, in setting out strategies for the planned location of new housing in order to achieve sustainable development objectives set out in Planning Policy Statement 1 and that some sites might not therefore be suitable for housing (see paragraphs 38 and 41). This ties in with the process of applying the PPS25 Sequential Test and Exception Test which places flood risk classification and the vulnerability of proposed developments as the primary concern, with the designation of land as brownfield as a secondary consideration when applying part b of the Exception Test. Given that the national target of 60% redevelopment of previously developed land (as required by PPS3) is deemed unrealistic in Rochford District (paragraph 4.15 of this Core Strategy) and that Policy H2 indicates that there will therefore be a need to release greenbelt land in order to accommodate required growth in nonconformity with Planning Policy Guidance note 2, there is no justification to support the assumption that developing the brownfield land in the high risk flood zone is the most appropriate course of action given the reasonable alternative of accommodating those housing figures in areas at lesser flood risk - either by releasing a minimal additional amount of greenbelt, or by slightly increasing density of development elsewhere.


The Core Strategy should acknowledge the inadequacy of the current Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and state their intention to update this vital study in order to comply with national policy and ensure that this DPD can be adequately justified.

The Council should also seek to provide clear and transparent justification of the LPAs decisions by carrying out a Sequential Test to support this Core Strategy document. At this stage in the development of the LDF, in the absence of an up-to-date SFRA, this would have to be based upon the Environment Agency's flood maps (future iterations for more detailed DPDS would require an up-to-date SFRA). Applying the PPS25 Sequential test will allow for all of the available alternatives to be properly assessed, including justification for the Council's decision to prioritise brownfield development in areas of flood risk when some greenbelt land in areas of lesser flood risk is already being released, or development densities could be increased in other areas.

Please note that should the Inspector deem it necessary for us to attend the Examination in Public, we would be happy to do so but our preferred method at this time would be written representations.