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

No5 Barristers' Chambers will be observing a one minute silence at 11:00 for key workers who have died in the coronavirus pandemic....

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020
On 24th March 2020 we implemented stage two of our Covid-19 strategy...

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020
Like all of you we are feeling the effects and dealing with the challenges...

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020