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

Three counsel from No5 Barristers’ Chambers have been shortlisted in the Chambers Bar Awards 2020 Diversity and Inclusion categories. No5 itself has also been recognised in the same category....

Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020
No5 Barristers’ Chambers has again reaffirmed its position as a leading set of barristers in the annual Legal 500....

Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020
Yasmin Yasseri, Richard Grimshaw and Richard Oakes are all to be appointed Recorders....

Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020