Changes to Chapter 14 of the NPPF: Flood Risk Updates July 2021
The July 2021 NPPF updates expanded flood risk assessment to cover all sources of flooding, broadened the sequential test, and added emphasis on property flood resilience.
The July 2021 NPPF updates introduced several significant modifications to Chapter 14 (Planning and Flood Risk), though the overall structure remained intact. The alterations primarily involve clarified language and expanded scope regarding flood risk assessment.
Major Updates
All Sources of Flooding
Paragraph 161 now requires plans to assess “all sources of flood risk” rather than focusing solely on traditional fluvial and tidal risks. This represents a substantive shift requiring consideration of surface water and pluvial flooding in climate change modelling — an area where implementation guidance remains unclear.
Sequential Test Expansion
The sequential test now explicitly references “any source” of flooding, formalising an approach already adopted informally by Environment Agency officials and local authorities.
Exception Test Language
Changes shifted references from “zones” to “areas,” reflecting the expanded assessment scope beyond conventional flood zone classifications.
Property Resilience Emphasis
New wording emphasises that development should be “appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that…it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment,” signalling increased focus on flood-resistant construction and property flood resilience strategies.
Essential Infrastructure Additions
Solar farms and electricity infrastructure now qualify as essential infrastructure — categories previously limited in scope.
Green Infrastructure Integration
The revised language promotes incorporating “natural flood management techniques” into development design.
Practical Implications
Development sites classified as Flood Zone 1 may now face sequential test challenges if located in high-risk surface water areas. However, the exception test provisions allow flexibility when lower-risk alternatives conflict with sustainable development objectives.
The changes position flood resilience as a design requirement rather than merely a compliance checkbox, potentially making flood-mitigating developments more favourable during planning review.