Kent Coast Development – Flood Risk Assessment

A judicial review claim brought by concerned local residents to a controversial development (primarily a leisure centre and 150 houses) at Princes Parade. The proposed development was located in a prominent, open position on the coast, immediately to the south of the Royal Military Canal (RMC), a Scheduled Monument and an important part of Britain’s military history.

The main ground of challenge related to flood risk – It was accepted that the site was at risk of wave overtopping and that part of the site fell within (EA) Flood Zone 1. The key issue was whether the Council had properly applied the relevant local policy and the requirement for a sequential approach to be taken (considering whether the development could take place in a Flood Zone of lower risk). Supporting text to the policy indicated that the sequential approach should be carried out on the basis of the EA’s Flood Zone maps. Instead, the Defendant used different Hazard Zone Maps to conclude that “the site was identified as being an area where flooding was not an issue” and submitted that the development would therefore pass the sequential test. Although the Claimant’s approach (carrying out the sequential approach in accordance with the EA’s Flood Zone maps) is consistent with a precautionary approach of steering developments to areas where the risk of flooding is minimised, this argument was rejected by the Judge. The other ground of challenge was that the planning committee failed to determine whether various local policies (intended to protect the character and setting of the RMC/environmental quality) had been complied with or breached. The judge concluded that it was not necessary for the officers/committee to mechanically engage with each limb of each policy. Instead it was clear (reading the Officer’s Report as a whole) that there was environmental harm, particularly in respect of the RMC, and the development was a significant departure from the development plan. The judge concluded that the committee exercised their independent judgement in relation to the extent of that harm and the departure from the development plan as part of striking the overall balance in relation to whether to grant planning permission.

Andrew Parkinson acted as Counsel for the Claimant.