<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <title>flood risk sequential test - windfall sites</title>
  <link rel="self" href="https://khub.net/cy/c/message_boards/find_thread?p_l_id=53683759&amp;threadId=1206093308" />
  <subtitle>flood risk sequential test - windfall sites</subtitle>
  <id>https://khub.net/cy/c/message_boards/find_thread?p_l_id=53683759&amp;threadId=1206093308</id>
  <updated>2026-08-12T15:39:25Z</updated>
  <dc:date>2026-08-12T15:39:25Z</dc:date>
  <entry>
    <title>RE: flood risk sequential test - windfall sites</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://khub.net/cy/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=1209227613" />
    <author>
      <name>Helen Miller</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://khub.net/cy/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=1209227613</id>
    <updated>2025-06-26T05:38:23Z</updated>
    <published>2025-06-26T05:38:22Z</published>
    <summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;In my view, yes a windfall site&amp;nbsp;would fail the flood risk sequential test if there is a sequentially preferable,&amp;nbsp;allocated site available for the same use. That is correct because we have a plan led system and the purpose is to avoid inappropriate development in high flood risk areas. If there is a need for windfall within a specific part of the district you could draw the boundary for the area of search to reflect that eg around a village or other settlement, so that makes it easier for the sequential test to be passed.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</summary>
    <dc:creator>Helen Miller</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-26T05:38:22Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>flood risk sequential test - windfall sites</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://khub.net/cy/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=1206093307" />
    <author>
      <name>Catherine Hutchins</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://khub.net/cy/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=1206093307</id>
    <updated>2025-06-18T08:33:04Z</updated>
    <published>2025-06-18T08:33:04Z</published>
    <summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Should a windfall site fail the sequential test because of a sequentially preferable allocated site?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Is there an arguement for discounting allocated sites from those considered reasonably available?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The PPG seems to refer to site allocations and SHLAA when identifying alternative sites but our local plan housing targets considers windfall in addition to allocations.&amp;nbsp;I understand 5 year supply isn't a consideration for the sequential test but our Local Plan was adopted with a significant housing shortfall.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</summary>
    <dc:creator>Catherine Hutchins</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-18T08:33:04Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
</feed>
