Three recent decisions have sharpened the way the Sequential Test, the Exception Test and the wider planning balance fit together. The policy objective has not changed: development should be steered towards land at the lowest risk of flooding. What the cases clarify is how a decision-maker should deal with a failed or missing Sequential Test once the application reaches the final planning balance.

For engineers and planning teams, that distinction matters. A Flood Risk Assessment can establish flood mechanisms, design levels, safe access, mitigation performance and effects elsewhere. It cannot establish that no suitable lower-risk site is reasonably available. That remains a separate planning exercise, supported by different evidence.

The first case was Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State and Lancaster City Council, decided on 15 January 2026. The High Court quashed the inspector's refusal of two linked Bailrigg appeals, one involving up to 644 homes. The inspector had treated the lack of a Sequential Test as effectively decisive instead of carrying the policy conflict into a proper planning balance. The court did not grant permission and did not say that the test was unnecessary.

Case source: Gladman Developments Ltd v SSHCLG and Lancaster City Council [2026] EWHC 51 (Admin)

The second concerned Rectory Farm North at Yatton. On 18 March 2025, an inspector allowed up to 190 homes despite finding that the Sequential Test had failed. North Somerset Council challenged the decision, but the High Court dismissed the claim on 12 June 2026. The inspector had not purported to pass the Exception Test. He had treated sustainability benefits and lifetime safety as material considerations in the overall balance.

Appeal record: APP/D0121/W/24/3343144, Rectory Farm North, Yatton

The third concerned up to 250 homes at Ham Farm, Faversham. The appeal was allowed on 27 June 2025 even though a Sequential Test had not been completed. The inspector considered land levels, mitigation, housing need and whether the policy conflict amounted to a strong reason for refusal. In July 2026, Lieven J dismissed the town council's challenge. The judgment supports a reasoned departure from policy in a particular case; it does not make mitigation a replacement for the search for lower-risk sites.

Appeal record: APP/V2255/W/24/3350524, Ham Road, Faversham

Key Technical Takeaways

  • The Sequential Test remains part of national planning policy in England. A failed or absent test is serious, but the recent judgments show that it is not automatically a legal veto.
  • The Exception Test remains a separate stage. Yatton did not authorise a formal Exception Test after the Sequential Test had failed.
  • A Flood Risk Assessment and mitigation can address safety, effects elsewhere and residual risk; they cannot prove that appropriate lower-risk sites are unavailable.
  • Housing land supply is not part of applying the Sequential Test under the current PPG, although housing need may carry weight later in the planning balance.
  • Current applications must use the September 2025 PPG and present a clear audit trail linking the site search, flood evidence, policy conflict and planning balance.

Questions and Answers

What do the three decisions mean for planning applications?

Taken together, the decisions clarify how a failed or missing Sequential Test should be handled in the planning balance. They do not alter the policy objective of steering development towards land at the lowest risk of flooding.

Gladman shows that the absence of a required test cannot simply be treated as an automatic end to the decision. Yatton and Faversham show that permission may still be granted where the conflict is expressly recognised and the inspector gives rational, adequately explained reasons. The same decisions also leave local planning authorities free to refuse development where the policy conflict, flood consequences, local plan requirements or uncertainty over mitigation outweigh the benefits.

The courts were reviewing lawfulness, rationality and reasons; they were not retaking the planning merits. These decisions concern England and the English NPPF and PPG.

Current policy: NPPF paragraphs 170 to 181  ·  Current standing advice: Environment Agency national flood risk standing advice

How do the Sequential Test, Exception Test and Flood Risk Assessment differ?

The Sequential Test is a location test. It asks whether the development need can reasonably be met on an appropriate site with a lower probability of flooding, taking account of all relevant sources of risk.

The Exception Test is reached only where national policy allows it after the sequential approach has been followed. Where it applies, the development must provide wider sustainability benefits that outweigh flood risk and must remain safe for its lifetime without increasing risk elsewhere, reducing risk overall where possible.

A site-specific Flood Risk Assessment supports the safety case by examining flood probability, climate change, depths, velocities, access, mitigation, effects elsewhere and residual risk. It cannot establish, without a separate site search and planning assessment, that lower-risk alternatives are unavailable.

Yatton did not establish that the Exception Test can formally be passed after a Sequential Test failure. It confirmed that sustainability and lifetime safety may still be material to the wider planning balance. For the same reason, land raising, SuDS, compensation and access measures may manage flood consequences but do not make the Sequential Test pass.

Current policy: NPPF paragraphs 177 to 179 and PPG paragraphs 031 to 035

What did Gladman, Yatton and Faversham establish?

Gladman and Lancaster

The Lancaster inspector had treated the missing Sequential Test as the overriding consideration despite identifying substantial development benefits. Lieven J found that approach unlawful and quashed the refusal. The court did not grant permission, decide that the test was unnecessary or find that flood-risk betterment could replace the alternatives exercise.

For a fuller single-case account, see RIDA Reports' Gladman Judgment 2026 analysis.

Rectory Farm North, Yatton

The inspector found that sequentially preferable sites were reasonably available and gave that failure substantial weight, but allowed the appeal after considering housing benefits and detailed evidence on lifetime safety and effects elsewhere. Jefford J held that the inspector had not formally applied the Exception Test; he had considered sustainability and safety because they remained material to the planning decision.

Ham Farm, Faversham

The inspector allowed the appeal despite the absence of a completed Sequential Test after considering tidal and surface-water risk, land levels, mitigation and housing benefits. Lieven J dismissed the town council's challenge. The judgment confirms that the NPPF is policy rather than legislation and that a reasoned, case-specific departure may be lawful. It does not establish that land raising or an absence of measurable harm can replace the policy sequence.

How does housing need enter the planning balance?

PPG paragraph 027 separates the two stages. A shortfall in five-year housing land supply is not part of applying the Sequential Test to an individual application, so it should not change the search area or the assessment of alternative sites.

Once the outcome of the test has been identified, housing need, affordable housing and other benefits may carry weight in the overall planning balance. They were relevant at Yatton and Faversham, but the weight given to them was case-specific and did not predetermine the result.

Current guidance: PPG paragraph 027

What changed in the Planning Practice Guidance in September 2025?

The update is particularly relevant to surface-water risk. PPG paragraph 027 explains that, when NPPF paragraph 175 is applied proportionately, a Sequential Test may not be required where a site-specific FRA clearly demonstrates lifetime safety and no increase in surface-water risk elsewhere.

The guidance also clarifies that the search area should be proportionate and focused on realistic alternatives capable of meeting the same development need. A site may be reasonably available where it is suitably located, can meet that need and has a reasonable prospect of coming forward in the same period; applicant ownership is not required.

The Lancaster, Yatton and Ham Farm appeal decisions all pre-date the 17 September 2025 update. New applications must therefore be assessed against the current PPG rather than relying on those outcomes as a substitute for a fresh policy review.

RIDA Reports summarises the current guidance on its Planning Practice Guidance on flood risk page.

What evidence should the project team prepare?

The Sequential Test should be proportionate, transparent and settled early. It should define the development need and search area, identify the sources and date used to find alternative sites, assess suitability and reasonable availability, compare current and future flood risk consistently, and reach a conclusion that the local planning authority can audit.

The supporting FRA should test the layout against the relevant design events and climate-change allowances. Depending on the site, it may need to address all relevant flood sources; depths, velocities and hazard; defended and residual-risk scenarios; levels, land raising and compensation; safe access; surface-water drainage and exceedance; effects on neighbouring land; and the consequences of mitigation failure.

The technical report should state its findings, assumptions and limitations rather than make legal conclusions. The planning statement should deal separately with policy compliance, conflict, benefits, weight and the overall balance.

See RIDA Reports' Sequential Test planning services for the report and evidence scope.

Practical Implications for the Development Team

For developers

Do not base a land or appeal strategy on the assumption that a failed test can later be outweighed. Establish the policy route before significant promotion, design and acquisition costs are committed. Where the availability of lower-risk sites is disputed, keep a clear audit trail and use the same definition of development need in the Sequential Test and planning statement.

For architects and masterplanners

Building positions, access, land raising and other vulnerable elements may determine whether the paragraph 175 exemption or the PPG surface-water clarification is available. Flood constraints should therefore inform the parameter plan and access strategy while the scheme is still capable of change. Within-site sequential design remains relevant even where the wider test has been passed or is not required.

For planning consultants

Keep the policy tests separate from the planning balance. Define the area of search and the development need, record the method used to review alternatives, identify the local policies and state plainly whether the Sequential Test is passed, failed, not required or disputed. Where permission is sought despite conflict, explain the weight and the reasons without presenting mitigation as policy compliance.

For flood-risk professionals

Keep the engineering work within its proper scope. Use current data, the relevant climate-change allowances and transparent assumptions. Explain the design event, residual-risk tests and consequences of failure. Check that levels, layout, drainage and access are described consistently across the FRA and planning documents.

Conclusion

Gladman, Yatton and Faversham do not dilute the policy objective of steering development away from flood risk. They clarify how that objective operates within the statutory planning system. A failed Sequential Test may attract substantial weight without acting as an automatic legal prohibition, and evidence on sustainability and lifetime safety may still inform the final decision.

The practical response is not to shorten the assessment, but to make each part of it clearer. The alternative-site review, the site-specific FRA, the Exception Test case and the planning balance should each answer a distinct question, while relying on the same flood data, layout and mitigation assumptions.

Applications made after 17 September 2025 must also be tested against the current PPG, including its surface-water clarification and its guidance on proportionate search areas and reasonably available sites. The earlier decisions are useful context, but they are not a substitute for current policy analysis.

Sources

Need help with a Sequential Test or Flood Risk Assessment?

We can review your policy route and supporting evidence — whether a Sequential Test or Exception Test is required, and whether your FRA, drainage, access and planning documents are working from the same assumptions.

Get in touch with RIDA