High Court Ruling Shakes Up Flood Risk Policy: What the ‘Gladman’ Judgment Means for Development
A recent High Court judgment has delivered a significant shake-up to how flood risk policy is applied in planning decisions. For developers, local authorities, and residents alike, the decision by the High Court in the case of Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State and Lancaster City Council [January 2026] challenges the “mechanistic” application of the sequential test.
At Dobson-Grey, we have been closely monitoring this outcome. Below, we explore what the sequential test entails, why this appeal changes the landscape, and what it means for flood-prone towns like our home base of Stratford-upon-Avon.
What is the Sequential Test?
The Sequential Test is a fundamental component of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Its primary aim is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding.
- The Process: A planning applicant must demonstrate that there are no other “reasonably available” sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding (Flood Zone 1).
- The 2025 Update: Under the September 2025 updates to Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), there is now a specific “carve-out.” If a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) demonstrates that a development is safe from surface water flooding for its lifetime without increasing risk elsewhere, the sequential test may not need to be applied.
The Appeal: A Victory for ‘Planning Balance’
In January 2026, the High Court quashed a decision by a Planning Inspector who had refused permission for 644 homes at Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster.
The Conflict: The Inspector acknowledged that the local authority had a severe housing land shortage (only 2.4 years’ supply) and that the site design offered “betterment”—actually reducing flood risk off-site. However, because Gladman had not performed a formal sequential test, the Inspector treated this omission as a “fatal” error.
The Outcome: The High Court judge ruled this approach was unlawful. The judge established that a failure to perform the sequential test cannot be assumed to automatically dictate a refusal; it is simply one factor to be weighed in the overall planning balance. If the “real-world harm” is zero, the procedural error should not necessarily sink the project.
Perspectives: Housebuilders vs. Local Residents
This ruling has sparked a distinct divide in opinion, highlighting the tension between development delivery and local protection.
- The Housebuilder’s View: For developers, this decision is a welcome checkmate against rigid bureaucracy. It suggests that if a scheme is technically safe—and especially if it offers flood betterment—it should not be stalled by procedural hurdles.
- The Resident’s View: Conversely, local residents often view the strict application of the sequential test as a necessary safeguard. There is a palpable anxiety that “bad faith” decisions or technical loopholes could lead to building in areas that locals instinctively feel are unsafe.
Dobson-Grey’s View: Relevance to Stratford-upon-Avon
As a practice based in Stratford-upon-Avon—a town historically defined by its relationship with the River Avon and its floodplain—we view this decision as highly significant.
In towns like ours, sites located in Flood Zones 2 and 3 are common. Previously, sustainable development on the edge of these zones might have been dismissed immediately if a “lower risk” site existed theoretically elsewhere in the district.
The Impact on Residential Development: The Gladman decision places a higher premium on engineering solutions and flood resilience. It suggests that if we can prove a development in Stratford will technically reduce flood risk (betterment) and provide significant community benefits, the lack of a sequential test may not be fatal to the application. This is not a “free pass” to build on floodplains; it is a mandate to prove that the benefits of a safe, flood-resilient home outweigh the procedural harm of the site selection process.
How Dobson-Grey Can Assist
Navigating the intersection of the sequential test, the “exception test,” and the new September 2025 guidance requires expert insight. The Dobson-Grey Town Planning Team can assist by:
- Strategic Advice: Determining if your site qualifies for the new surface water exemption.
- Planning Balance: Crafting detailed planning statements that weigh the benefits of housing delivery and flood betterment against policy constraints.
- Risk Assessment: Coordinating with flood risk specialists to ensure your FRA demonstrates that the development remains safe for its lifetime.
For the River Hope festival “A Gathering: for water and Nature” to be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel from 6 -15 March the debate on stewardship of our waterways is going to be a very hot topic in the wake of this decision.