Applying the Sequential Test Post-Mead: A Guide for Planning Professionals

Background to the Case

The case concerned an application for residential development on a site in Clevedon, North Somerset. The local planning authority had refused planning permission on the grounds that the proposal failed to pass the Sequential Test set out in the NPPF. The applicant argued that the Planning Inspector had misapplied the policy by considering alternative sites that were not directly comparable to the proposed development. The challenge centred on whether the Inspector had erred in law by relying on the PPG’s interpretation of "reasonably available sites" and by applying the test in a way that was said to be too broad or flexible.

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected the claimant’s arguments. The courts found that the Inspector’s interpretation of national policy was lawful, that the PPG was a valid and useful guide to interpreting the NPPF, and that the approach taken was consistent with the policy objectives of directing development away from areas at highest risk of flooding.

The Sequential Test: Planning Judgement and Policy Interpretation

The Sequential Test is a key tool in managing flood risk through the planning system. Paragraph 162 of the NPPF requires that planning authorities direct development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. Where development is proposed in an area at risk, the applicant must demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites appropriate for the type of development proposed.

The judgment in Mead confirms that this test involves a substantial element of planning judgement. The court emphasised that the wording of the NPPF is deliberately open-textured. The phrase "reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development" does not mean that only sites identical in scale, layout, and delivery profile must be considered. Instead, it allows for a degree of flexibility in interpreting what is “appropriate”, taking into account broader factors such as the intended land use, locational requirements, and the feasibility of delivering comparable schemes on other sites.

Importantly, the court rejected the argument that developers should be allowed to define the development so narrowly that only the application site could meet the test. This would undermine the policy purpose of the sequential approach. Instead, decision-makers are entitled to assess whether other sites could accommodate the development with some adjustment or flexibility, provided they meet the essential characteristics of the proposed land use.

The Status of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

A central issue in the case was the extent to which decision-makers can rely on the PPG when interpreting the NPPF. The claimant argued that the PPG went beyond the NPPF by expanding the scope of the sequential test—for example, by suggesting that alternative sites need not be the same size as the application site and could comprise multiple smaller sites.

The court reaffirmed that while the PPG is not itself policy, it is a legitimate and lawful source of guidance that helps elucidate the meaning of the NPPF. The PPG was found to be consistent with national policy and did not introduce new policy requirements. It can, therefore, be properly used to inform planning decisions, particularly where the relevant policy is broad or imprecise.

This finding reinforces the practical utility of the PPG in guiding the application of national policy. It confirms that local planning authorities and Inspectors are entitled to use the PPG to interpret and apply the sequential test in a way that reflects its underlying purpose.

Flood Risk Assessments and the Exception Test

Another important clarification relates to the role of FRAs and the Exception Test in the decision-making process. The claimant argued that because the site-specific FRA showed that the development could be made safe, the failure to pass the sequential test should not have been determinative.

The court rejected this argument. It confirmed that the sequential test must be applied as a threshold test. If the sequential test is not passed, planning permission should normally be refused, regardless of the findings of the FRA. The Exception Test—which assesses whether the development can be made safe and whether it provides wider sustainability benefits—only comes into play if the sequential test is passed.

This interpretation reinforces the primacy of the sequential approach. It prevents a situation where robust engineering solutions, however effective, are used to justify development in locations that could have been avoided altogether through a more appropriate site selection process. The judgment also serves to uphold the integrity of the policy’s risk-avoidance principle.

Local Plans and National Policy

The case also illustrates how local policies must be interpreted in light of national policy. In North Somerset, the local plan included a policy (CS3) that took a narrower view of what constituted a reasonably available site, focusing on allocated sites and previously developed land. The Inspector gave limited weight to this policy, finding it inconsistent with national policy.

The court agreed with this approach, noting that where local plan policies are inconsistent with national policy, particularly on important matters such as flood risk, they may be considered out of date. Decision-makers must ensure that local interpretations of the sequential test do not undermine the broader aims of national planning policy.

Practical Implications for Planning Practice

This judgment has clear practical implications for those involved in preparing, assessing, and determining planning applications in areas at risk of flooding:

1. Site Searches and Flexibility: Applicants must adopt a thorough and realistic approach to identifying alternative sites. The test is not satisfied by asserting that only the application site is suitable based on narrowly defined parameters. Sites that are smaller, in multiple ownership, or that might require a different configuration of development may still be considered "reasonably available".
2. Role of the FRA: While an FRA remains essential in demonstrating that development will be safe, it is not a substitute for the sequential test. A positive FRA does not negate the need to show that no better-located sites exist.
3. Planning Judgement: The case reaffirms the discretion available to decision-makers in applying planning policy. Inspectors and LPAs must exercise professional judgement in determining what is appropriate, but must also be able to justify their conclusions with clear reasoning and evidence.
4. Local Plan Review: Local authorities should consider reviewing local plan policies relating to flood risk to ensure they align with national policy and guidance. Inconsistencies could result in policies being given reduced weight in planning decisions.
5. Evidence and Documentation: Given the emphasis on flexibility and realism, applicants should ensure that their evidence—especially sequential test submissions—engages meaningfully with the availability and suitability of other sites. It is no longer sufficient to simply demonstrate that the preferred site meets the need; they must show that other reasonable alternatives have been robustly considered and discounted.

The Mead decision reinforces the underlying intent of national flood risk policy, which is to avoid, wherever possible, placing new development in areas that are exposed to flooding. The judgment clarifies that the Sequential Test is not a procedural formality to be satisfied by narrowly defining a development proposal, but a substantive policy tool that demands a flexible and realistic appraisal of alternative sites. This means that applicants, planning authorities, and inspectors must engage critically and rigorously with the availability of other sites, considering whether they could accommodate similar development—even if it would require some modification to the scheme.

The courts have affirmed that Flood Risk Assessments and the Exception Test have their place, but only after the Sequential Test has been properly applied and passed. Where this initial hurdle is not cleared, other considerations—such as demonstrating that a site can be made safe—cannot revive a fundamentally inappropriate location.

Taken together, these points serve to reassert the role of national policy and guidance in ensuring that flood risk is managed through prevention rather than mitigation, and that planning decisions reflect the long-term sustainability objectives of the NPPF.