How to Respond to an Environment Agency Objection on Flood Risk

An Environment Agency objection on flood risk grounds is one of the most serious obstacles a planning application can face. It signals to the local planning authority that the statutory flood risk consultee has concerns about the development — concerns that, if left unresolved, can delay or prevent planning permission entirely.

But an EA objection is not the end of the road. Most objections are resolvable with the right technical evidence. Understanding the type of objection, the process for resolution, and what evidence the EA needs to see is the key to getting your application back on track.

Types of EA Objection

The Environment Agency issues two distinct types of objection to planning applications, and the distinction matters enormously for how you respond.

Holding Objections

A holding objection means the EA has concerns about the application but believes those concerns can be addressed through the provision of additional information or revisions to the submitted documents. In practical terms, the EA is saying: “We cannot support this application as submitted, but we are willing to work with the applicant to resolve our concerns.”

Holding objections are the more common type and the more favourable position for applicants. They typically arise when:

• The flood risk assessment is incomplete or does not address all flood sources
• Climate change allowances have been applied incorrectly or are outdated
• The proposed mitigation (finished floor levels, compensatory storage, safe access) is insufficient or inadequately evidenced
• The FRA relies on assumptions that the EA does not accept without further evidence
• Hydraulic modelling has not been provided where the EA considers it necessary

The critical point is that a holding objection is an invitation to engage. The EA expects the applicant to respond with revised or additional evidence, and the EA will review that evidence and, if satisfied, withdraw the objection.

Sustained Objections

A sustained objection is more serious. It means the EA has considered the evidence and concluded that the development should not proceed on flood risk grounds — either because the risk cannot be adequately mitigated, or because the applicant has failed to provide the evidence needed to demonstrate that it can.

Sustained objections arise when:

• The development is proposed in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) and is not water-compatible or essential infrastructure
• The proposed development would increase flood risk to third parties with no viable compensatory storage solution
• The Sequential Test has not been passed and no compelling case has been made for the Exception Test
• The applicant has been given the opportunity to provide additional evidence (following a holding objection) but has failed to resolve the EA’s concerns
• The flood risk is so significant that the EA considers the development fundamentally inappropriate for the location

A sustained objection carries significant weight. While the LPA is not bound by the EA’s view, granting permission contrary to a sustained objection triggers a formal referral process, as discussed below.

The Negotiation Process

When you receive a holding objection, the first step is to understand precisely what the EA requires. The objection letter will set out the EA’s concerns and, in most cases, indicate what additional evidence or revisions would resolve them. Read it carefully — the EA is usually specific about what they need.

Engaging with the EA

Contact the EA planning team directly to discuss the objection. The case officer named in the objection letter is your primary point of contact. This discussion serves several purposes:

• Clarifying the concerns. The objection letter may be concise. A phone call or meeting can clarify the detail of what the EA expects — for example, the specific modelling approach they would accept, or the precise climate change allowances they want applied.
• Agreeing the scope of additional work. Before commissioning expensive modelling or redesign work, agree with the EA what they need to see. There is no point producing a revised FRA that addresses some concerns but not others.
• Setting realistic timescales. The EA can advise how quickly they can review revised submissions, and whether there are any capacity constraints in their local team that might affect response times.

Preparing Revised Evidence

The evidence required to resolve an EA objection varies depending on the nature of the concerns, but commonly includes one or more of the following:

Revised flood risk assessment. If the original FRA was incomplete or based on incorrect assumptions, a revised FRA addressing the EA’s specific concerns is the most common response. This might involve applying updated climate change allowances, assessing additional flood sources, or providing a more detailed safe access and egress analysis.

Hydraulic modelling. Where the EA’s concerns relate to flood levels, extents, or depths at the site, detailed hydraulic modelling is often required to provide the site-specific evidence that the EA needs. This is particularly common where the EA’s own broad-scale modelling is insufficient to determine flood risk at the site level, or where the applicant is proposing development within the modelled flood extent and needs to demonstrate that mitigation is effective.

Compensatory storage design. If the development encroaches on the floodplain, the EA will require compensatory flood storage to be provided on a volume-for-volume, level-for-level basis. The compensatory storage design must demonstrate that there is no net loss of floodplain storage and no increase in flood risk to third parties. This is a technically demanding exercise that typically requires hydraulic modelling to verify.

Revised finished floor levels and mitigation. The EA may require higher finished floor levels, improved flood resilience measures, or changes to the site layout to ensure that the development is safe for its lifetime.

Submitting the Revised Evidence

Once the revised evidence is complete, submit it to the LPA with a clear covering letter explaining how each of the EA’s concerns has been addressed. The LPA will reconsult the EA, which triggers a fresh review period.

The EA’s target response time for reconsultation is 21 days, consistent with the statutory consultation period. However, in practice, the EA often takes longer — particularly for complex cases involving hydraulic modelling review. Allow 6 to 8 weeks for the EA to respond to a substantive revised submission, and longer if detailed model review is required. Some EA area teams have significant backlogs, and response times of 10 to 12 weeks are not unusual.

When the EA Withdraws

If the revised evidence satisfies the EA’s concerns, they will write to the LPA confirming that their objection is withdrawn. This is typically accompanied by recommended conditions — for example, requiring finished floor levels to be set at the modelled flood level plus a specified freeboard, or requiring compensatory storage to be constructed before the development is occupied.

The withdrawal of an EA objection is a strong positive signal to the LPA. In most cases, the LPA will proceed to determine the application on the basis of the revised evidence and the EA’s recommended conditions.

We achieved exactly this outcome on a mixed-use development in Edinburgh, where SEPA (the Scottish equivalent of the EA) issued a holding objection that was withdrawn after we provided revised flood modelling and an updated FRA demonstrating that the proposed mitigation was adequate.

When the EA Sustains

If the revised evidence does not resolve the EA’s concerns, the objection becomes sustained. At this point, the options narrow:

• Further engagement. In some cases, additional rounds of evidence can still resolve the matter. If the EA’s sustained objection identifies specific remaining deficiencies, it may be worth addressing those and resubmitting.
• Accept the position. If the EA’s concerns are fundamental — for example, the site is in functional floodplain and there is no viable compensatory storage solution — it may be necessary to accept that the development cannot proceed as proposed and consider alternative designs or locations.
• Ask the LPA to determine regardless. The LPA can grant permission despite a sustained EA objection, but doing so triggers the referral process described below.

The Referral Mechanism: Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021

If the LPA is minded to grant planning permission for major development in a flood risk area contrary to a sustained EA objection, the application must be referred to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021.

The Direction applies where:

• The Environment Agency has sustained an objection on flood risk grounds
• The proposed development is for 10 or more dwellings, or is on a site of 1 hectare or more, or is major non-residential development (1,000 square metres of floor space or more)
• The LPA is nevertheless minded to approve the application

Upon referral, the Secretary of State has 21 days to decide whether to call in the application for determination or to allow the LPA to proceed with its decision. In practice, call-ins on flood risk grounds are relatively rare — the Secretary of State typically allows the LPA to determine the application — but the referral process adds delay and uncertainty.

The practical effect of the Direction is significant. Most LPAs are reluctant to grant permission contrary to a sustained EA objection because of the administrative burden of the referral process, the risk of call-in, and the political and legal exposure of approving development that the EA has advised against. This makes resolving the EA’s concerns before the LPA reaches a decision all the more important.

Timeline Expectations

Understanding realistic timescales is essential for managing the planning programme. A typical timeline for resolving an EA holding objection looks like this:

Stage	Typical Duration
Receive EA objection and review	1 week
Engage EA to clarify requirements	1-2 weeks
Commission and prepare revised evidence	4-12 weeks
LPA reconsults EA	1 week
EA reviews revised evidence	6-8 weeks
EA withdraws or sustains	-
Total (straightforward)	12-20 weeks

If the objection requires hydraulic modelling, the evidence preparation stage will be at the longer end. If the EA requires further revisions after the first resubmission, add another round of 8-12 weeks.

The key message is that resolving an EA objection takes time. Starting the process promptly and providing comprehensive evidence on the first resubmission is the most effective way to minimise delay.

Practical Tips for a Successful Response

1. Read the objection letter carefully. The EA is usually specific about what they need. Address every point.
2. Engage the EA directly. A phone call to the case officer before commissioning work can save weeks of abortive effort.
3. Do not submit piecemeal. Provide all the revised evidence in a single comprehensive submission rather than drip-feeding documents. Each resubmission triggers a fresh review period.
4. Use the EA’s preferred modelling software. If the EA has an existing model in Flood Modeller or TUFLOW, build on that rather than starting from scratch in a different package. This speeds up EA review.
5. Apply current climate change allowances. Outdated allowances are one of the most common reasons for objection. Check the EA’s guidance at the time of submission.
6. Address compensatory storage early. If the development is in the floodplain, compensatory storage design is often the most complex element. Start it early and discuss the approach with the EA before finalising.
7. Keep the LPA informed. The LPA is the decision-maker, not the EA. Keep the case officer updated on your progress in resolving the EA’s concerns so they can manage their determination timeline accordingly.

For a broader understanding of when an FRA is required and what it should contain, see our guide to flood risk assessments.

How Aegaea Can Help

If you have received an EA objection on your planning application, Aegaea can help you resolve it. We produce the revised technical evidence that the EA needs to see — whether that is a comprehensive revised flood risk assessment, detailed hydraulic modelling, compensatory storage design, or a combination of all three.

We have extensive experience engaging with EA area teams across England and with SEPA in Scotland. We understand what the EA expects, we produce evidence to their technical standards, and we manage the dialogue with the EA on your behalf to get the objection withdrawn as efficiently as possible.

Get in touch to discuss your EA objection and how we can help resolve it.