Flood Representation Nppf 2024 12

Flood-risk representation on a planning application

Help a member of the public produce a rigorous, credible representation on the flood-risk and drainage merits of a planning application. The skill does three things:

1. Evaluate the applicant's flood-risk and drainage evidence against current national policy and guidance, and identify the material deficiencies.
2. Map each deficiency to the specific policy, test and guidance it engages.
3. Draft the representation in clear, precise, concise language — or advise that the evidence is sound and no sustainable objection exists.

When to use

The user has a planning application and wants to object, or find out whether they can, on flood-risk or drainage grounds — the Sequential/Exception Tests, an inadequate or missing Flood Risk Assessment, increased flood risk elsewhere, surface-water/foul drainage, or sustainable drainage (SuDS). Trigger phrases: "object on flood grounds", "is this Flood Risk Assessment adequate", "this will flood my property / make flooding worse", "they haven't done a sequential test", "the drainage isn't sustainable."

Not this skill: ecology, transport, heritage, general amenity — separate matters.

What you need first

• The application reference and council, or the documents themselves — uploaded, pasted, or already-downloaded files work directly; the companion planning-document-search skill is only needed when you don't have them (it retrieves them from the reference + council).
• The flood/drainage documents — the Flood Risk Assessment, the Drainage Strategy / SuDS report, and any Sequential/Exception Test statement. Also the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority consultation responses (often decisive — read them first).
• The flood context — which Flood Zone the site is in (Environment Agency "Flood map for planning"), its size, and any other flood sources (surface water, groundwater, sewers) or critical drainage area; whether the site is greenfield.
• The local plan's flood-risk and drainage policies, and any Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

The integrity principle and two anchors (read before drafting)

Only object where the evidence is genuinely inadequate or the risk genuinely unacceptable. If the site is in Flood Zone 1 with no other source, an FRA may not even be required; if the FRA is adequate, the tests are satisfied, and the EA and LLFA are content, there is no sustainable objection — say so. Treat "don't object" as a valid output.

Two anchors:

• The statutory consultees are your allies. The Environment Agency (river/sea risk) and the Lead Local Flood Authority (surface-water drainage on major development) are statutory consultees. Read their responses first; align with any objection/holding position and press for it to be resolved before determination.
• The two hard requirements. Whatever the benefits: the development must be safe for its lifetime and must not increase flood risk elsewhere (ideally reduce it). Test both.

Classify every point's ask — (A) refuse, (B) don't determine yet, or (C) condition it. An evidential deficiency is not itself a reason for refusal. For each confirmed point, be explicit about which outcome it supports: (A) the evidence demonstrates an unacceptable impact (a failed Sequential/Exception Test; demonstrated risk elsewhere) → a refusal reason; (B) the evidence is insufficient for the Council to reach the necessary conclusion (no FRA where one is required; no climate-change allowances; an unresolved EA/LLFA holding objection) → the application should not be determined until the information is provided; (C) the issue can be adequately controlled → ask for the specific condition or obligation (a detailed drainage scheme, runoff limits, a SuDS maintenance plan). Most deficiency findings are (B), not (A) — claiming (A) on (B) evidence is the classic credibility mistake. And test every point against (C): if a condition would lawfully and satisfactorily resolve it, ask for that rather than refusal — over-asking weakens the whole representation.

Workflow

Step 1 — Intake and read

Identify the flood zone(s) and sources of risk, the site size, whether it is greenfield, and the application type. Read the EA and LLFA responses first. Get the FRA, Drainage Strategy and any Sequential/Exception Test statement.

Step 2 — Evaluate against the deficiency catalogue (function 1)

Work through references/deficiency-catalogue.md. Confirm each candidate deficiency is present and material, and capture the specific evidence — the document, author, date, and the paragraph/figure/plan. Quote the FRA's own words, or the consultee response. Grade findings and lead with the decision-critical.

Key tests: Is the Sequential Test passed (reasonably available lower-risk sites)? Is the Exception Test (both limbs) met where required? Is a site-specific FRA provided where required, assessing all sources with current data and climate-change allowances? Are safe access/egress and floor levels shown, and residual risk assessed? Does the scheme increase flood risk elsewhere (floodplain storage, runoff)? Does the drainage follow the hierarchy, restrict runoff, and secure maintenance? Are the EA/LLFA satisfied?

Step 3 — Map to policy and guidance (function 2)

Attach the precise instrument from references/national-guidance.md — the NPPF flood paragraphs and the Sequential/Exception Tests, the PPG (flood zones, when an FRA is required, vulnerability classes), the EA/LLFA roles and standing advice, the climate-change allowances, and the SuDS standards — plus the local plan flood policies and the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Cite specifically.

Step 4 — Draft (function 3)

Draft to references/house-style.md and references/objection-template.md: header → RE line (note the flood zone) → opening → bulleted framework list → numbered conclusion-headed points (lead with the Sequential Test; quoted evidence; the ask) → numbered Summary of requests → objection sentence → sign-off. Keep it concise; use bullets for lists and (a)/(b) for multi-limb points (e.g. the Exception Test).

Step 5 — Check before sending

• Every point is evidenced from the documents/consultees or cited policy; nothing asserted.
• Figures and flood-zone references are accurate.
• It aligns with, and builds on, the EA/LLFA positions.
• Consultant-/campaign-specific framing excluded unless the user asked and it is defensible.
• Requests are concrete and correctly timed.
• Every point is classified (A) demonstrated harm / (B) insufficient evidence / (C) conditionable — and no point asks for refusal where a condition would lawfully and satisfactorily do.
• Hand back to a human, with the two warnings: the draft must be read and checked, and submitting it puts a public document in the user's name on the council's portal.

Reference files

• references/deficiency-catalogue.md — the evaluation checklist.
• references/national-guidance.md — the policy/guidance catalogue with citations.
• references/house-style.md — how a strong representation reads.
• references/objection-template.md — skeleton + annotated worked example.

Scope and limitations

• Not legal advice, and no warranty. Not a substitute for a solicitor or a flood-risk engineer; guarantees no outcome; provided "as is".
• Human review is necessary before submitting. A person must check every figure and citation against the actual documents.
• A UK planning representation is a public document in the submitter's name — normally published on the council's portal; include only personal details the user is content to make public.
• England-focused. The NPPF/PPG and EA/LLFA framework are England; devolved policy differs — flag when outside England.
• Evidence-bound. Don't invent flood levels, flows or modelling; where information is missing, that absence is itself the point ("no FRA / no sequential test"), argued as such.
• The honest answer is sometimes "don't object."