NEWS·SEPTEMBER 2026
A High Court judgment has confirmed that failing the flood risk sequential test does not automatically prevent housing development from receiving planning permission, with potential implications for developers, landowners and planners across England.
The ruling concerned Persimmon’s proposed development at Rectory Farm in Yatton, North Somerset. It reinforces the importance of considering housing need, development benefits and evidence of flood safety within the overall planning balance.
For the real estate sector, the judgment provides a reason to reassess some flood-constrained sites, while maintaining a clear distinction between securing planning permission and delivering resilient, commercially viable homes.
Context of the Ruling
On 12 June 2026, the High Court dismissed North Somerset Council’s challenge to an inspector’s decision granting outline planning permission for 190 homes, including 50% affordable housing, at Rectory Farm.
The site lies within Flood Zone 3a, a category indicating a high probability of river or sea flooding. This is distinct from Flood Zone 3b, the functional floodplain where water flows or is stored during flooding.
The inspector found that the proposal failed the sequential test because 12 reasonably available alternative sites had lower flood risk. The purpose of this test is to steer development towards locations with the lowest risk of flooding.
However, the inspector concluded that the scheme’s benefits outweighed the identified harms. The decision took account of the substantial local housing shortfall, affordable housing provision and evidence that the development could be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.
The High Court upheld the lawfulness of that approach. It confirmed that the matters addressed by the exception test, including wider sustainability benefits and lifetime safety, could be considered within the planning balance even where the sequential test had failed.
The distinction is important: the court did not approve housing that had been found unsafe. It upheld a planning decision in which failure of a test concerning alternative locations was weighed against other material considerations.
Market Implications for Developers and Investors
For land promoters and developers, the judgment may strengthen the case for revisiting sites previously discounted because lower risk alternatives were available.
This could be particularly relevant in areas with significant housing shortages, where a proposal offers substantial public benefits and credible evidence that flood risks can be managed.
However, the ruling does not make all land within Flood Zone 3a suitable for housing. Sites within the same flood zone can have materially different characteristics, including the source and speed of flooding, the condition of existing defences, safe access arrangements and exposure to future climate change.
Any reassessment should therefore consider both the planning opportunity and the cost of delivering an acceptable scheme. Depending on the circumstances, mitigation could include drainage improvements, raised floor levels, flood storage and measures to manage access during flood events.
Planning permission also does not resolve questions of insurance, mortgage availability or investment appetite. These require separate assessment, particularly where a development relies on flood defences or infrastructure that must be maintained over its lifetime.
Strategic Considerations Across the Sector
The judgment reinforces the need to assess planning prospects alongside technical deliverability and commercial viability from the outset.
For GLPG’s Agency division, the relevance lies in helping landowners and developers assess whether a site’s perceived planning constraints merit further investigation. A stronger planning argument may improve development prospects, but its impact on land value will depend on mitigation costs, obligations, timescales and the marketability of the completed homes.
From a Capital Advisory perspective, a planning consent is one part of the funding assessment. Developers should be prepared to provide lenders and equity partners with clear evidence of flood mitigation, associated costs, maintenance responsibilities and insurability, supported by appropriate specialist advice.
Affordable housing delivery is also a significant consideration. The Yatton proposal included 50% affordable housing, forming an important part of its public benefits. On comparable sites, early engagement with housing associations can help establish whether proposed homes meet their acquisition, operational and resilience requirements.
Across these areas, commercial advice should sit alongside specialist planning, legal and flood risk expertise.
What to Watch Next
The judgment's practical significance will become clearer as councils and inspectors consider its application to other proposals.
The ruling builds on existing case law rather than creating a blanket exemption from flood risk policy. Failure of the sequential test remains an adverse consideration, and decision-makers must assess the evidence and circumstances of each application.
For developers and landowners, the opportunity is to reconsider sites where the sequential test has been a principal obstacle and where a robust case can be made for safe, sustainable development.
The commercial question remains whether an improved prospect of planning permission can translate into homes that are deliverable, fundable and resilient over the long term.
NEWS·SEPTEMBER 2026
A High Court judgment has confirmed that failing the flood risk sequential test does not automatically prevent housing development from receiving planning permission, with potential implications for developers, landowners and planners across England.
The ruling concerned Persimmon’s proposed development at Rectory Farm in Yatton, North Somerset. It reinforces the importance of considering housing need, development benefits and evidence of flood safety within the overall planning balance.
For the real estate sector, the judgment provides a reason to reassess some flood-constrained sites, while maintaining a clear distinction between securing planning permission and delivering resilient, commercially viable homes.
Context of the Ruling
On 12 June 2026, the High Court dismissed North Somerset Council’s challenge to an inspector’s decision granting outline planning permission for 190 homes, including 50% affordable housing, at Rectory Farm.
The site lies within Flood Zone 3a, a category indicating a high probability of river or sea flooding. This is distinct from Flood Zone 3b, the functional floodplain where water flows or is stored during flooding.
The inspector found that the proposal failed the sequential test because 12 reasonably available alternative sites had lower flood risk. The purpose of this test is to steer development towards locations with the lowest risk of flooding.
However, the inspector concluded that the scheme’s benefits outweighed the identified harms. The decision took account of the substantial local housing shortfall, affordable housing provision and evidence that the development could be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.
The High Court upheld the lawfulness of that approach. It confirmed that the matters addressed by the exception test, including wider sustainability benefits and lifetime safety, could be considered within the planning balance even where the sequential test had failed.
The distinction is important: the court did not approve housing that had been found unsafe. It upheld a planning decision in which failure of a test concerning alternative locations was weighed against other material considerations.
Market Implications for Developers and Investors
For land promoters and developers, the judgment may strengthen the case for revisiting sites previously discounted because lower risk alternatives were available.
This could be particularly relevant in areas with significant housing shortages, where a proposal offers substantial public benefits and credible evidence that flood risks can be managed.
However, the ruling does not make all land within Flood Zone 3a suitable for housing. Sites within the same flood zone can have materially different characteristics, including the source and speed of flooding, the condition of existing defences, safe access arrangements and exposure to future climate change.
Any reassessment should therefore consider both the planning opportunity and the cost of delivering an acceptable scheme. Depending on the circumstances, mitigation could include drainage improvements, raised floor levels, flood storage and measures to manage access during flood events.
Planning permission also does not resolve questions of insurance, mortgage availability or investment appetite. These require separate assessment, particularly where a development relies on flood defences or infrastructure that must be maintained over its lifetime.
Strategic Considerations Across the Sector
The judgment reinforces the need to assess planning prospects alongside technical deliverability and commercial viability from the outset.
For GLPG’s Agency division, the relevance lies in helping landowners and developers assess whether a site’s perceived planning constraints merit further investigation. A stronger planning argument may improve development prospects, but its impact on land value will depend on mitigation costs, obligations, timescales and the marketability of the completed homes.
From a Capital Advisory perspective, a planning consent is one part of the funding assessment. Developers should be prepared to provide lenders and equity partners with clear evidence of flood mitigation, associated costs, maintenance responsibilities and insurability, supported by appropriate specialist advice.
Affordable housing delivery is also a significant consideration. The Yatton proposal included 50% affordable housing, forming an important part of its public benefits. On comparable sites, early engagement with housing associations can help establish whether proposed homes meet their acquisition, operational and resilience requirements.
Across these areas, commercial advice should sit alongside specialist planning, legal and flood risk expertise.
What to Watch Next
The judgment's practical significance will become clearer as councils and inspectors consider its application to other proposals.
The ruling builds on existing case law rather than creating a blanket exemption from flood risk policy. Failure of the sequential test remains an adverse consideration, and decision-makers must assess the evidence and circumstances of each application.
For developers and landowners, the opportunity is to reconsider sites where the sequential test has been a principal obstacle and where a robust case can be made for safe, sustainable development.
The commercial question remains whether an improved prospect of planning permission can translate into homes that are deliverable, fundable and resilient over the long term.