Source · Select Committees · Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Recommendation 18
18
Rejected
Paragraph: 79
We are concerned that the words on flood risk in national planning policy still do...
Recommendation
We are concerned that the words on flood risk in national planning policy still do not always translate into actions. We are encouraged by the Government’s proposal that planning applications approved against flood risk advice could in future be subject to call-in by the Secretary of State. The Government should provide further detail on its proposals for cases in which flood risk advice on planning applications is not followed. The remit of the Environment Agency as a statutory consultee should be expanded to include areas of future risk owing to climate change.
Government response summary AI-generated
The Government rejected expanding the Environment Agency’s remit for planning applications, stating it has no current plans to do so. It did not provide further detail on proposals for call-in where flood risk advice is not followed, reiterating local planning authority responsibilities instead.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Paragraph Reference:
79
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government · verbatim extract
Rejected
The Government recognises that local planning authorities are best placed to make decisions on planning applications and considers that planning conditions are generally best determined and monitored at the local level. Government supports local planning authorities and the Environment Agency to work together to ensure that planning conditions are correctly followed. The Government has no current plans to widen the Environment Agency’s remit in relation to planning applications. They are a statutory consultee and provide expert advice in relation to flood risk. Lead local flood authorities, who are best placed to understand local flood risk issues, are also statutory consultees for major planning applications with surface water drainage implications.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗