North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Anor

Failure of the flood-risk sequential test does not automatically determine a planning application. The decision-maker must place that failure in the overall planning balance with all other material considerations. Matters corresponding to the limbs of the exception test may be material considerations even where the exception test is not formally engaged.

An inspector’s decision letter is read as a whole and with reasonable flexibility. A challenge based on policy misinterpretation must be distinguished from a challenge to planning judgment. A previous inspector’s decision may be material, but consistency does not require judgment-style reasons distinguishing every earlier decision.

The claimant sought statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the Secretary of State’s decision allowing Persimmon’s appeal and granting outline permission for 190 homes and associated earthworks at Rectory Farm, Yatton.

The inspector found that the site failed the flood-risk sequential test but concluded that the development would be safe for its lifetime, would not increase flood risk elsewhere, and would provide wider sustainability benefits. Applying the planning balance and paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, he allowed the appeal.

The claimant alleged that the inspector had unlawfully applied the exception test after finding that the sequential test was failed, and had reached irrational conclusions or failed to give adequate reasons concerning lifetime safety and departure from an earlier decision.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The inspector found that the sequential test was not passed. He did not state that he was applying the exception test. Read fairly and as a whole, the decision showed that he treated the matters corresponding to the exception test’s limbs as material considerations in the overall planning balance.
2. The NPPF and PPG did not provide that matters relating to sustainability benefits or safety ceased to be material considerations merely because the exception test had not been formally reached. The inspector was entitled to assess their weight against the failure of the sequential test. His conclusion that the benefits outweighed the flood risk did not demonstrate that he had treated the exception test as a route to permission or deprived the sequential test of effect.
3. The approach was consistent with Mead [2025] EWCA Civ 32 and Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2026] EWHC 51 (Admin).
4. Ground 2(a) dismissed. The choice of the defended 1-in-200-year scenario with the higher central climate-change allowance was a matter of planning judgment. The inspector gave rational reasons for treating the undefended scenario as a sensitivity test. His conclusions, including the use of a flood-management condition, freeboard and an evacuation plan, were not irrational.
5. Ground 2(b) dismissed. The decision letter gave intelligible reasons when read as a whole. The inspector was aware of the Lynchmead decision, but the sites and evidential assessments differed. An earlier inspector’s decision may be a material consideration, yet an inspector need not provide judicial-style reasons distinguishing every earlier decision. The statutory-review claim was dismissed.

This was a first-instance statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Permission to bring the claim had been granted by Johnson J on 2 October 2025. The court dismissed both grounds and upheld the Secretary of State’s decision allowing the planning appeal.