Sequential test

[Bluebaron]

I’m looking at planning for a single dwelling in flood zone two. The government strategy states that I am exempt sequential testing under minor development status.
 

see here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessment-the-sequential-test-for-applicants

 

However, Reigate and Banstead Council say they will still apply the sequential test for all applications in floodplain 2.

also that the are they use is the entire borough some 130sqkm and so I’ve got no chance in passing it.

Do I have any right to appeal that they are going against government guidelines?

 

thanks

[nod]

Although been in building all my life and completed a self build previously I’d never heard of a Sequential test 

Till we applied for full planning for our plots 

Like you we where in flood zone 2 Which required a sq test No problem 

Ten miles from the sea 5 from the nearest river Canals don’t count apparently 

I was so wrong 

The SQ test is more of a study to find out if you can bugger off somewhere else and build your house 

We brought in an expert who thought that we had little chance of success As there is plenty of places we could build Bit late after we had bought the plots 

His approach was to look at the out of date mapping 

He effectively re mapped the zones Luckily for us the new zone arced around the back of the two houses 

Planners weren’t impressed So brought in the environment agency 

Which made little difference 

 

One build near us that is right in the middle of zone 2 went with a different approach Stating he needed a plot with a paddock within a five mile radius on a certain budget 

Risky But he won

 

Another put flood protection in to get over this 

 

Our plot sellers Gran built the house next door in The 1930s and had never been flooded 

SQ report seams like anther way to stop self builders 

As the large house builders have no problem getting over this 

 

if you look at the photo 

Both plots where in 2 

The blue line shows how the flood would magically stop at the bottom of both gardens 

Planners desperate for a small victory told me I couldnt have the garage in zone 2 

I pointed out that I could do the workshop under permitted development at the end of the build 

Or simply open both door and let the flood run through 😁

 

Experts are not cheap 

But they run rings around planners who tend not to be All that bright 

 

Good luck 

[Bluebaron]

Thanks Nod,

 

interesting that your expert said you had a little chance of success, but then magically managed to get the area remapped? How did he achieve this?

 

Unfortunately, I’m smack in the middle of zone two and doubt any remapping could get around this.

 

The council stated that they will consider the entire borough to be the catchment, and I would have to prove that a plot was not available in this area rather than the 5 mile specified by your friend.

 

 

[nod]

I contact three companies 

One wanted 15k with a 50-50 chance of success 

The other two held little hope As we could go elsewhere and stated SQ reports are usually for commercial or multiple residential Which can be argued the area is in need of 

 

I would go down the routes of mitigating the flood risk 

Raising the floor height 

Adding slide rails that allow a plate to be dropped into as the mythical flood approaches 

 

 

If you look at planning in your area there will be others that have tackled this 

 

 

[nod]

Ideally all members would have there location visible 

what is your location ?

[Bluebaron]

Thanks for advice,

 

im at RH6 just north of LGW.

 

As you can see below the flood plain is quite extensive I’m the red circle.

 

im not sure how effective an arguement it would be but I’m currently 1 mile north of the airport where I walk to work. And overlook fields. Could I argue that I need a plot walkable to LGW? 🤔 sounds like a stretch but using the paddock agreement above might hold some weight?

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Bluebaron

[ProDave]

I am trying to look this up on a different flood map, but can't find it.  Can you post or PM me the postcode of the site please?

[ProDave]

Okay I tried looking on a different flood map, and got exactly the same result.

 

Interresting all the main LGW buildings are in Flood Zone 3.  Ask yourself, when was the last time you remember flooding there?

 

I mentioned on another thread that the flood risk maps up here have been updated, and we suddenly now appear in a medium risk of surface water flooding, which means 0.5% chance of surface water flooding each year.  The previous map did show a small patch of the field behind us prone to flooding, and that was the case, but more of a bit of a puddle in the field when the ground water level gets too high for it to drain and nowhere to run off to.

 

I get the impression we are now becoming over cautions about the issue?

 

Is it possible to get any data on how high a potential flood may get so you could mitigate it by a raised ground floor level (possibly meaning only a single storey building?

[saveasteading]

12 minutes ago, ProDave said:

the main LGW buildings are in Flood Zone 3.  Ask yourself, when was the last time you remember

They have had floods of underground facilitiesthere. Not so cleverly putting electric stations in chambers that flooded. So it isn't much more to be sitting on the ground, esp when developments continue around the area.

 

14 minutes ago, ProDave said:

when the ground water level gets too high for it to drain and nowhere to run off to.

That does count as flooding. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Floods don't have to be biblical, they can be very local, and that is the way uk rainfall has been changing.

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

That does count as flooding. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Floods don't have to be biblical, they can be very local, and that is the way uk rainfall has been changing.

I am saying it is insignificant.  That little bit of the field is in a dip, when the ground water gets high, it floods.  It only floods until it gets high enough to spill over it's little dip into the burn and run away down hill.  I would call it a feature of local topography.  I am sure the farmer could easily solve it by infilling the dip or digging a channel for this dip to drain into the burn.

 

So it is really insignificant.  Even if you had this particular "flood" on land you wanted to build on, you could easily mitigate against it.  It is totally different to a flood of the sort where houses get flooded and then take days or weeks for the water to go down, yet it it highlighted the same.

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

I am saying it is insignificant.  

OK,  to me it is a mistake then. Computer generated (accurately) but needs to be manually removed from the model and the maps.

It distracts from the genuine issues elsewhere, mostly caused by development ( where not a sea issue).

 

I have tried to argue to LAs that they should not allow new developments to shed to watercourses at all. They seem to have been persuaded by the developers that 5 litres per second per acre is acceptable. That is a lot of extra water straight into the rivers.

I'm thinking that councillors and planners just think that 5 litres isn't much. 

The loser would be the landowner, as there would be ponds and lagoons. £1M an acre dropping to only 950k.  Ahhh the big landowners again.

 

But then I would also be stricter on exception sites. 

Did anyone see Grand Designs in Essex this week. Whyever was that permitted?

[Bluebaron]

I think my map was drawn up in the 1960’s, I do have a flood report from my neighbour two years ago if anyone is interested. 

 

its not about mitigating the risk to a new development. It’s purely about whether or not a difference/better site is available.

 

Flood Assessment-grasmere.pdf

 

[Bluebaron]

Spoke to the planning department today and was basically told I had no chance of passing the sequential test as there would always be somewhere in flood zone one to build a single dwelling.
 

only hope of achieving planning would be a remap of the zone which it unlikely in my lifetime. 
 

go figure 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

[saveasteading]

I had a client spend tens of thousands  on a flood map to prove a point.

He couldn't. 

 

[mr rusty]

I am not a planner, but is there any mileage in going down the PIP route? make a planning application for permission in principle, get it rejected because of the sequential test issue and then take it straight to appeal on the basis that national planning guidelines say you are exempt? https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/14-meeting-the-challenge-of-climate-change-flooding-and-coastal-change clause 168 footnote 56?

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, mr rusty said:

any mileage in going down the PIP route?

I would expect them to ask for a sequential test even for PIP.

[mr rusty]

54 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

I would expect them to ask for a sequential test even for PIP.

Yes, so would I, but under a PIP this could likely be the only reason for refusal (unless there are other issues) in which case an appeal would be a one-issue appeal and the government national guidelines would be the focus of the appeal. As I say, I'm no planner, just interested - I bow to the vastly superior knowledge of most on this forum...

[saveasteading]

I have to ssy that I see little excuse for allowing building in a flood zone.

It's a shame for anyone with land there of course.

 

I got an industrial buiding accepted on the grounds of exception....if refused then they would relocate. Nothing suitable nearby so local jobs would be lost.

I was pleased that I succeeded, but privately don't think it should have been allowed.

 

[Bluebaron]

I’m toying with the idea of using a different are of my plot. I’ve got permission to enlarge my garage and add a second storey. 
the thought was to apply for annex status then apply for separate dwelling in another application. 
Reasoning is they can’t refuse on flooding basis if I use the same footprint?