TCPA Raises Alarm on the Sequential Test: How Valid Are Their Concerns?

The case studies: Yatton and Faversham

The TCPA points to two recent cases: Yatton in North Somerset and Faversham in Kent. In Yatton, the Inspector acknowledged that the sequential test had been failed but concluded that mitigation measures, combined with pressing housing need, tipped the balance in favour of approval. In Faversham, the applicant did not even undertake the test, yet permission was granted on the basis that there would be “no real world harm” once mitigation was in place. For the TCPA, these examples show that the sequential test is being treated as a technical nicety rather than the safeguard it was designed to be.

The NPPF and the presumption in favour

The context for these decisions lies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 11 contains the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, which applies where local plans are out of date unless specific policies provide a strong reason for refusal. Flood risk is explicitly listed as one such policy area. The Government’s December 2024 revision, which changed the wording from “clear reason” to “strong reason”, may seem subtle, but the TCPA argues that this shift has emboldened Inspectors to discount flood risk when set against unmet housing targets.

The influence of Mead

This pattern has been reinforced by the High Court’s judgment in Mead Realisations / Redrow v Secretary of State. As we explored in our guide to applying the sequential test post-Mead, the court was careful to confirm that the sequential test must still be applied. What Mead clarified was that the consequences of failing the test are a matter of weight in the planning balance. That nuance has proved influential: in both Yatton and Faversham, Inspectors cited Mead in justifying decisions to allow housing despite unresolved flood risk concerns.

A call for reform

The TCPA’s call for reform is to strengthen the NPPF by replacing “should” with “must” in paragraphs 172 and 173, removing any ambiguity that the sequential approach is optional. As we noted in our own discussion of whether the sequential test can be reformed to unlock homes, such a change would tighten the language, but it may not wholly prevent Inspectors from applying the tilted balance in favour of development.

Are the TCPA’s concerns valid?

So how valid are the TCPA’s concerns? In our assessment, they are well founded. The NPPF is explicit that flood risk policy is intended to provide a safeguard against the presumption in favour. Yet Inspectors in Yatton and Faversham have treated the sequential test as something that can be outweighed by other considerations. That interpretation risks hollowing out the very policy intended to keep people and property safe from flooding. While Mead does not allow the sequential test to be ignored, it does leave room for Inspectors to reduce the weight attached to a failure. The problem is less about what national policy says, and more about how it is being applied in practice.

The stakes for future development

This is not simply an academic debate. As we set out in our piece on UK housing plans and flood risk, speculative applications in high-risk locations are only likely to increase as more local plans fall out of date. If the sequential test is not applied rigorously, more communities could face housing built on land that cannot be guaranteed safe over its lifetime.

For anyone needing a refresher, our explainer on the sequential and exception tests sets out how the policy is supposed to work. Judged against that baseline, the TCPA’s warning is timely. Their proposed reforms would help to underline the importance of the sequential approach. But what these appeals really show is that the safeguard is already being eroded in practice — and that is where the immediate risk lies.

How Unda can help

At Unda we work daily with developers, local authorities and communities to navigate these challenges, preparing robust Flood Risk Assessments, designing Sustainable Drainage Systems, and applying a Sequential test or exception test correctly. If you are bringing forward development in a location where flood risk is a concern, our team can help you build a defensible planning case while keeping people and property safe.