Planning for the environment

Natural Flood Management

2026-05-12T09:14:53Z

NPPF para 11 allows for land to be safeguarded for natural flood risk management approaches. Has anyone got any case studies/ examples of where this policy has been used and the process involved?

Thanks

RE: BNG De Minimis Exemptions: Defining Area of Impact

2026-03-30T11:56:16Z

Thanks Tim, that is very helpful. All the measurements have been provided in the floor plan and elevations, based on the precise specification of a specific mounting system and specific PV modules, and the calculation of footprint area. It leaves me pretty puzzled about the thinking behind my LPA’s approach.

RE: BNG De Minimis Exemptions: Defining Area of Impact

2026-03-30T09:20:16Z

Interesting. Personally my first thought would be to go by the footprint of the array. (which you have calculated.)

I would always say that for a de minimis exemption the applicant should provide justification why they think they de minimis applies - eg measurements, photos. If an LPA were not offered those I can see why they might use the total panel area as a proxy on a precautionary principle, but if the applicant had calculated the footprint of impact - the amount of ground over-sailed by the array and thus impacted by shading and rain shadow - then I'd accept that.

I would point out though that temporary impacts are not exempt, merely regarded as retained if they are reinstated within 24mths. So I'd be asking whether the final array footprint is genuinely the only impact or if construction impacts will cover adjacent habitat - groundworks, storage of materials such that the habitat score would be reduced. If that takes it above the de minimis then BNG is required for the whole area including the temp impacted area (it needs it 10% too), though won't be further penalised by regarding it as 'lost' and then 'created' again, with a further temporal multiplier.

BNG De Minimis Exemptions: Defining Area of Impact

2026-03-22T13:31:12Z

I am a homeowner and hope I might be able to find some guidance on how the 25 sq m threshold should be calculated.

I have an application for a small groundmounted PV installation in a field adjacent to my house but outside the curtilage. It is for a single line of panels. I have calculated the area of impact of the installation using the plan view of the panels e.g 153cm length for a 176 cm long panel at 30 degrees inclination. This gives an area less than 25 sq m. However my LPA insists that the true length (176cm) of the panels should be used, bringing the total installation to 28 sq m.
I should add that the cable for the PV’s was laid 14 years ago when the house was built, so there is no additional area impacted.
I struggle to see how this is consistent with the approach that that would be used with, for example, an open building with a sloping roof, and there is nothing in the BNG regulations making a distinction between PV’s and other structures. I cannnot find any evidence elsewhere of this approach being used. I have so far been unable to get an explanation for this approach.

I appreciate that the issue of BNG exemptions is very recent, and open to individual interpretation. Any views and opinions, including “just accept what your LPA says” would be gratefully received.

RE: flood risk sequential test - windfall sites

2025-06-26T05:38:23Z

In my view, yes a windfall site would fail the flood risk sequential test if there is a sequentially preferable, 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.

flood risk sequential test - windfall sites

2025-06-18T08:33:04Z

Should a windfall site fail the sequential test because of a sequentially preferable allocated site?

Is there an arguement for discounting allocated sites from those considered reasonably available?

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. I understand 5 year supply isn't a consideration for the sequential test but our Local Plan was adopted with a significant housing shortfall.

RE: SFRA level 1 query

2025-05-19T07:25:23Z

That prompts a follow up question: has anyone, ever, had anything passed first time by the EA?

RE: SFRA level 1 query

2025-05-19T06:05:24Z

I think its probably best if you speak to your Environment Agency regional office to see how they would feel about this. We had a consultant do our SFRA Level 1 (jointly with other Councils across a wider catchment) and sought to do the Level 2 ourselves using the detailed site specific flood modelling data available from the EA and other relevant information from other sources. Although we considered it did the job, ultimately the EA objected when we submitted our plan and we had to commission consultants to redo it.

SFRA level 1 query

2025-05-16T13:35:39Z

Hello - we are considering updating our SFRA level 1 and contemplating whether we have the skills & resources to do it in-house instead of going out to procurement.

I would be interested to know whether any authorities have done this themselves in the past few years or you know of a place that has.

Please mention the district in your responses so I can go and take a look at the work that has been published.

Many thanks, Melanie (from a Greater Manchester authority)

RE: Climate Change Study - good examples

2025-03-31T16:52:34Z

You may wish to include the effects of climate change on health (which planning can influence significantly, and by highlighting the health-related benefits of climate change policies, this can only help the cause...) - please see this comprehensive report from the UK Health Security Agency (formerly Public Health Engalnd): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/climate-change-health-effects-in-the-uk

RE: Climate Change Study - good examples

2025-02-25T10:05:24Z

Our Spelthorne Climate Change SPD was adopted in April 2024. We plan to update and readopt it if/when our Local Plan is adopted later this year. https://www.spelthorne.gov.uk/media/27475/Climate-Change-SPD/pdf/Spelthorne_Climate_Change_SPD.pdf?m=1739447346403

RE: Climate Change Study - good examples

2025-02-24T14:00:44Z

We produced a Climate Change Topic Paper to help inform the Reg 19 South Tyneside Local Plan: Climate Change Topic Paper (2024) - South Tyneside Council

RE: Climate Change Study - good examples

2025-02-17T11:32:11Z

Hi Tracey,

Cornwall Council has carried out a Climate Risk Assessment.

See: The impact of climate change - Cornwall Council.

We also have a Climate Emergency DPD.

Contact climatechange@cornwall.gov.uk for more details.

Hope that helps.

RE: Climate Change Study - good examples

2025-02-17T09:39:55Z

We don't have a climate change study as such, but did commission work on our proposed climate change policies in the draft Sandwell Local Plan, which has now been submitted for examination. https://www.sandwell.gov.uk/planning-planning-policy/sandwell-local-plan-examination/4 about a third of the way down the page.

RE: Climate Change Study - good examples

2025-02-09T10:28:59Z

BNote the EA new flood maps were released just last month, which take into consideration climate change. So whichever study you follow, do make sure the latest maps are the source.

Climate Change Study - good examples

2025-02-05T11:17:38Z

I am looking to procure a Climate Change Study to provide up to date evidence for our Local Plan and was wondering if anyone has any good examples of similar studies, and any briefs that they would be willing to share?

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-02-03T09:44:27Z

Andrew Chalmers:

On the UU issue. We had an appeal decision in Bolton Appeal Decision APP/N4205/W/24/3343705 albeit straight Green Belt rejection in reality for a single dwelling. The inspector was not convinced that much weight in the balance should be given to the UU's effectiveness because the decision would be made at appeal and therefore it was not the council making the decision and also because the UU referred to regulations not the main Act. So wording of UUs probably needs to be closely examined closely too.

Very useful, exactly the situation I was referring to in my last question. Has to be said, the reference to the 2016 Regulations in the UU, rather than the Self-build Housebuilding act, was a bit of an obvious faux pas.

I wonder, though, whether anybody can point to an example of a UU that has been correctly worded, in order that it is enforceable if it happens to be the SoS, rather than the LPA, that is granting planning permission?

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-02-03T09:35:42Z

In reply to James - I think its laregly that before that nobody actually ticked the CSB box on the form, even if they were genuine and now that BNG applies, its made agents more aware of this (esp where CIL hanst been adopted). I am certain many are not intending to build themseves (I had one with a couple in their late 70s/80s submitting an outline, for example) but, maybe they would input into the design and therefore still qualify as CB, whilst not actually getting their hands dirty.

An applicant applying for CSB and selling it on to somebody who then designs their RM and builds it and lives in it...yes, exempt (unless legislation says it needs to be secured at OPA stage, and cant be done at RM?) Informatives are used and conditions such as "The BNG Plan must comply with XXXX"

A plot with FUL can be sold as CSB...the purchaser would need a S73 to include their input into a new design. Or they build as approved and arent BNG or CIL exempt.

BNG at RM stage...every decision has the deemed condition anyway, unless exempt, so if it turns out its not CSB, then yes, they need to discharge the BNG condition before they can lawfully start...but they will have an outline saying its exempt...hmmm? (or they dont and start and then it doesnt apply to retrospective apps anyway) Minefield.

In reply to Mary, interesting PINs say S106/UU. We are always encouraged to condition wherever possible...

Anyhow, Im still left with "How are LPAs requiring folk to evidence they are genuine CBSers...as per the question on the application form?

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-02-03T09:18:28Z

On the UU issue. We had an appeal decision in Bolton Appeal Decision APP/N4205/W/24/3343705 albeit straight Green Belt rejection in reality for a single dwelling. The inspector was not convinced that much weight in the balance should be given to the UU's effectiveness because the decision would be made at appeal and therefore it was not the council making the decision and also because the UU referred to regulations not the main Act. So wording of UUs probably needs to be closely examined closely too.

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-02-01T10:22:21Z

I have another question to add to the mix.

I note Cheryl's comment that "every indvdual dwelling is now coming in as CBS purely to avoid BNG". Whilst this may be the motive for some applicants, I'd suggest there is also something else going on.

There are thousands of people wanting to build their own home and only a handful of single plots available. Historically, most single plots are built by small developers on a speculative basis and it is important these opportunities continue so that new developers can enter the market and have a supply of available sites to enable them to grow. Those wishing to build their own homes will pay more for a plot than a developer, as they don't need to factor in a profit margin. There are lots of single unit permissions being marketed as self-build opportunities to try and capitalise on this. However, many of these permissions cannot count as SBCH plots as they are full permissions. This might not dissuade the buyer, but the level of primary input into design and layout is debateable. Decision makers might want to consider if a full application is capable of achieving the BNG self-build exemption (unless the applicant is building their own home, at which point the consideration may be what if they don't end up building and sell the permission on?).

I would suggest that if a plot is being advertised for sale as a SBCH opportunity, then it should be in outline form, allowing the incoming purchaser to have primary input into design and layout.

So, my question is this: If an applicant applies for outline permission for a single dwelling with the intention of selling this on as a self-build opportunity, then there is an expected exemption to the BNG requirement and there should be no need to submit BNG information with the application. If the buyer is a self-builder then the exemption continues, but if the buyer turns out to be a speculative developer, then BNG shall apply. It seems to me that given BNG is deemed to apply to every planning permission, that BNG information shall be required by the developer at RM stage. I think there is a general idea to avoid setting a condition for this, but how would this be managed - is it simply a consideration in the RM application?