Flood risk, restrictive policies and discretion (Watermead PC v Aylesbury Vale DC – Court of Appeal, 17 March 2017)

Mon, 20 Mar 2017

How important is the sequential test?  Do you have to bother if you can lower flood risk at the site?  Whose job is it to consider whether there should or should not be a sequential test?

Is the flood risk policy in the Framework a restrictive policy, even if risk can be lowered?  What happens to the presumption in favour of sustainable development?  Is it clear, or is the position wholly unclear?

If a developer decides to implement his permission during judicial proceedings, how will that affect the court’s approach to discretion (ie. Whether to quash the consent or not) if the permission is found to be unlawful?

Some answers to these questions are to be found in Watermead PC v Aylesbury Vale DC in which Richard Kimblin QC appeared for the Appellant here.
 

Richard Kimblin QC is a member of the Planning & Environment and Regulatory and Licensing groups at No5.

Related articles

Pilots may be the subject of a prosecution when flying single engine aircraft in the vicinity of major conurbations, as distinct from flying over a city centre....

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010
David Lock of No5 chambers is representing Cambridgeshire Primary Care Trust in the Inquest into the death of David Grey and Iris Edwards, who both died following treatment by a German locum doctor, Dr Ubani....

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010
Ralph Lewis QC leads Gordon Wignall, Henry Pitchers and Matthew Brunning in a Group Litigation case....

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010