We have an edge-of-centre retail proposal which is largely in flood
zone 2. The applicant has submitted a flood risk sequential test to
demonstrate that the scheme could not be reasonably accommodated on
any site with a lower flood risk.
A rival developer, promoting a different, out-of-centre retail scheme
has submitted their assessment of developer 1's flood risk sequential
test. They conclude (not surprisingly) that there is an alternative,
lower flood risk site that could accommodate the scheme. But the
lower risk, sequentially preferable in flood risk terms site
is sequentially less preferable in retail terms.
How do we balance between the two seemingly conflicting sequential
approaches? Does anyone have any examples of where this circle has
been squared previously?
