Source · Select Committees · Environmental Audit Committee
Recommendation 12
12
Not Addressed
Planning system fails to account for cumulative development impacts on flood risk.
Conclusion
As our recent report on flood resilience stated, the planning system fails to account for the cumulative and cross-boundary impacts of development on flood risk. Land use decisions are often made in isolation, without considering downstream consequences, catchment-scale dynamics, or long-term resilience. This fragmented approach undermines catchment- based and natural flood management, can lead to new development in floodplains, increases exposure for vulnerable communities, and represents a critical weakness in national flood strategy. (Conclusion, Paragraph 61)
Government Response Summary
The government's response discusses the impact assessment of the Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) using nutrient neutrality as an example and the legislative safeguards for Environmental Delivery Plans, but it does not address the committee's observation regarding the planning system's failure to account for cumulative and cross-boundary impacts on flood risk.
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
40. The Impact Assessment for the NRF used the example of nutrient neutrality to demonstrate how a strategic approach could reduce delays and improve environmental outcomes. Given the range of potential environmental impacts that could be addressed through an EDP, it would not be possible to consider all of these through the impact assessment but an indicative example of a known issue was used to demonstrate the potential scale of impact of this new approach. 41. The efficacy of the NRF model will be considered through each EDP and these will clearly set out how the NRF approach differs depending on the environmental issue at hand. There are a number of legislative safeguards to ensure that an EDP can only be made where it will improve environmental outcomes. These include: • An EDP only being able to be put in place where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the effect of conservation measure will materially outweigh the negative effects of development. • EDPs and conservation measures they propose must be evidence- based considering the best available scientific evidence and will be subject to public consultation. • EDPs must include back-up measures and set out circumstances in which these must be deployed. This will be triggered where monitoring shows the conservation measures that have already been implemented are performing as intended under the EDP. 42. In addition, and as set out in our response to Recommendation 11, there are legislative monitoring and reporting requirements and we have committed to implementing nutrient EDPs first. Overall, this will ensure that the efficacy of the NRF is considered for each environmental issue and ensure that EDPs are not made unless there is confidence that positive environmental outcomes will be secured.