Yatton floodplain ruling prompts call to change England’s planning policy

A campaign to change national planning policy has been reported after a High Court ruling left outline permission in place for 190 homes at Rectory Farm North in Yatton, north Somerset. The Guardian reported on 27 September that campaigners want the rules changed because the proposal failed a test intended to steer development towards land at lower flood risk.

The court dismissed North Somerset Council’s challenge on 12 June. Its judgment concerned the legality of a planning inspector’s decision to grant permission in March 2025, rather than a fresh decision to approve the scheme this month. The newly reported development is the campaign response to that ruling.

Why permission survived the flood-risk test

The council challenged the inspector’s decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The inspector had found that the scheme failed the flood-risk sequential test, which is intended to direct development towards sites at lower risk. He gave that failure substantial weight but concluded that it did not provide a strong enough reason to refuse permission after considering flood risk, housing need and the proposal’s other benefits.

The Guardian reports that the Yatton land is in flood zone 3a and that the inspector identified 12 alternative sites at lower flood risk. It also reports that the Environment Agency objected on flood-risk grounds. Those objections formed part of a planning dispute in which the inspector nevertheless granted outline permission for the homes and associated drainage earthworks.

The distinction matters for other applications. The judgment records that national policy says development should not be permitted if reasonably available, appropriate sites have a lower flood risk. It also records the inspector’s assessment of that policy alongside the wider planning balance. The ruling does not establish that every proposal on a floodplain can obtain permission after failing the sequential test; each application still requires a decision on its circumstances.

Call for a policy change

The Guardian says Tessa Munt, chair of the flooding and flooded communities all-party parliamentary group, plans to meet housing and planning minister Matthew Pennycook to seek a change to the National Planning Policy Framework. Munt called the decision a ‘dangerous and nationally significant exploitation of planning loopholes’ and said the framework should be changed urgently to discourage similar applications.

The Guardian reports that the campaign was agreed at a flood-resilience conference. Its account establishes the reported proposal to press for change, but it does not establish that Munt’s proposed meeting has taken place or that ministers have agreed to amend the framework. The planning rules therefore remain a question for the government, separate from the court’s decision about this permission.

Residents and developer respond

North Somerset Council cabinet member Annemieke Waite told the Guardian that the council accepts the need for new homes but opposes what she sees as a precedent that could weaken local environmental protections. Her concern addresses the wider use that other applicants might seek to make of the decision; the court’s judgment resolved the legal challenge to the Yatton permission.

Residents living near the site told the Guardian they fear increased flooding and harm to their homes. Sue Gardiner said three major insurers had refused cover because of the plans. That is her reported experience, rather than an independently measured finding about future flood risk, insurance availability across the area or the eventual effect of building the scheme.

Persimmon Homes told the Guardian that the Yatton proposals underwent detailed scrutiny at a public planning inquiry. It said flood risk was considered in detail before the inspector granted permission. The parties’ different accounts leave a practical issue for residents: outline permission is in place, while the eventual effect of the development on surrounding properties has not been established by the reported ruling.

The court’s judgment provides the legal history of the Yatton decision. The related archive report covers the floodplain ruling and local reaction in more detail.