Ministerial guidelines
The Planning System and Flood Risk Management: Guidelines for Planning Authorities
Flood Zones A, B and C, the sequential approach and the Justification Test for development in areas at risk of flooding.
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Office of Public Works · November 2009 · 81 pages
Ask this document
Answers come only from the text of The Planning System and Flood Risk Management: Guidelines for Planning Authorities, each claim linked to its page. They are not advice; check the page itself.
Free, with a daily limit.
- 3.2 Fig. 3.2: Sequential approach mechanism in the planning process Sequential approach A sequential approach to planning is a key tool in ensuring that development, particularly new development, is first and foremost directed towards land that is at low risk of flooding. Sequential approaches are already established and working effectively in other areas in the plan making and development management processes (e.g. retail planning). The sequential approach described in Fig. 3.1 should be applied to all stages of the planning and development management process. It is of particular importance at the planmaking stage but is also applicable in the layout and design of development within a specific site at the development management stage. Fig. 3.1 sets out the broad philosophy underpinning the sequential approach in flood risk management, while Fig. 3.2 describes its mechanism for use in the planning process. 23 Guidelines for Planning Authorities The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Decision No Avoid Substitute Justify Mitigate Direct development towards Zone C / refuse application Allocate land / grant permission Justification Test Highly vulnerable? Highly vulnerable and / or less vulnerable? Flood Zone C Flood Zone B Flood Zone A FailedPassed Prepare land use strategy / detailed proposals for flood risk and surface water management as part of flood risk assessment YesNo Yes Zoning proposal / dev. proposal
- The sequential approach makes use of flood risk assessment and of prior identification of flood zones for river and coastal flooding and classification of the vulnerability to flooding of different types of development, as illustrated in Table 3.1. It is essential that the risk potentially arising from other sources of flooding should also be taken into account in all areas and at all stages of the planning process. As outlined in paragraph 2.25 the flood zones ignore the presence of defences. Areas that benefit from an existing flood relief scheme or flood defences have a reduced probability of flooding but can be particularly vulnerable due to the speed of flooding when overtopping or a breach or other failure takes place. Because this residual risk of flooding remains, the sequential approach and the Justification Test apply to such defended locations. The range of residual risks is described in Appendix A. In summary, the planning implications for each of the flood zones are: Zone A - High probability of flooding. Most types of development would be considered inappropriate in this zone. Development in this zone should be avoided and/or only considered in exceptional circumstances, such as in city and town centres, or in the case of essential infrastructure that cannot be located elsewhere, and where the Justification Test has been applied. Only water-compatible development, such as docks and marinas, dockside activities that require a waterside location, amenity open space, outdoor sports and recreation, would be considered appropriate in this zone. Zone B - Moderate probability of flooding. Highly vulnerable development, such as hospitals, residential care homes, Garda, fire and ambulance stations, dwelling houses and primary strategic transport and utilities infrastructure, would generally be considered inappropriate in this zone, unless the requirements of the Justification Test can be met. Less vulnerable development, such as retail, commercial and industrial uses, sites used for short-let for caravans and camping and secondary strategic transport and utilities infrastructure, and water-compatible development might be considered appropriate in this zone. In general however, less vulnerable development should only be considered in this zone if adequate lands or sites are not available in Zone C and subject to a flood risk assessment to the appropriate level of detail to demonstrate that flood risk to and from the development can or will adequately be managed. Zone C - Low probability of flooding. Development in this zone is appropriate from a flood risk perspective (subject to assessment of flood hazard from sources other than rivers and the coast) but would need to meet the normal range of other proper planning and sustainable development considerations. 3.5 3.4 3.3 24 3 Further details on the flood zones is contained in Chapter 2.
- Vulnerability class Land uses and types of development which include*: Highly vulnerable development (including essential infrastructure) Garda, ambulance and fire stations and command centres required to be operational during flooding; Hospitals; Emergency access and egress points; Schools; Dwelling houses, student halls of residence and hostels; Residential institutions such as residential care homes, children’s homes and social services homes; Caravans and mobile home parks; Dwelling houses designed, constructed or adapted for the elderly or, other people with impaired mobility; and Essential infrastructure, such as primary transport and utilities distribution, including electricity generating power stations and sub-stations, water and sewage treatment, and potential significant sources of pollution (SEVESO sites, IPPC sites, etc.) in the event of flooding. Less vulnerable development Buildings used for: retail, leisure, warehousing, commercial, industrial and non-residential institutions; Land and buildings used for holiday or short-let caravans and camping, subject to specific warning and evacuation plans; Land and buildings used for agriculture and forestry; Waste treatment (except landfill and hazardous waste); Mineral working and processing; and Local transport infrastructure. Watercompatible development Flood control infrastructure; Docks, marinas and wharves; Navigation facilities; Ship building, repairing and dismantling, dockside fish processing and refrigeration and compatible activities requiring a waterside location; Water-based recreation and tourism (excluding sleeping accommodation); Lifeguard and coastguard stations; Amenity open space, outdoor sports and recreation and essential facilities such as changing rooms; and Essential ancillary sleeping or residential accommodation for staff required by uses in this category (subject to a specific warning and evacuation plan). *Uses not listed here should be considered on their own merits Table 3.1 Classification of vulnerability of different types of development 25 Guidelines for Planning Authorities The Planning System and Flood Risk Management
- Justification Test Notwithstanding the need for future development to avoid areas at risk of flooding, it is recognised that the existing urban structure of the country contains many well established cities and urban centres, which will continue to be at risk of flooding. At the same time such centres may also have been targeted for growth in the National Spatial Strategy, regional planning guidelines and the various city and county development plans taking account of historical patterns of development and their national and strategic value. In addition, development plans have identified various strategically located urban centres and particularly city and town centre areas whose continued growth and development is being encouraged in order to bring about compact and sustainable urban development and more balanced regional development. Furthermore, development plan guidelines, issued by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, have underlined the importance of compact and sequential development of urban areas with a focus on town and city centre locations for major retailing and higher residential densities. The Justification Test has been designed to rigorously assess the appropriateness, or otherwise, of particular developments that, for the reasons outlined above, are being considered in areas of moderate or high flood risk. The test is comprised of two processes. The first is the Plan-making Justification Test described in chapter 4 and used at the plan preparation and adoption stage where it is intended to zone or otherwise designate land which is at moderate or high risk of flooding. 3.7 3.8 :: Tables 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate those types of development that would be appropriate to each flood zone and those that would be required to meet the Justification Test. Inappropriate development that does not meet the criteria of the Justification Test should not be considered at the plan-making stage or approved within the development management process. Flood Zone A Flood Zone B Flood Zone C Highly vulnerable development (including essential infrastructure) Justification Test Justification Test Appropriate Less vulnerable development Justification Test Appropriate Appropriate Water-compatible development Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Table 3.2: Matrix of vulnerability versus flood zone to illustrate appropriate development and that required to meet the Justification Test. 3.6 26 3
- The second is the Development Management Justification Test described in chapter 5 and used at the planning application stage where it is intended to develop land at moderate or high risk of flooding for uses or development vulnerable to flooding that would generally be inappropriate for that land. Flooding and Strategic Environmental Assessment The Planning Guidelines for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (DEHLG, 2004) outline an integrated process for SEA and plan-making. SEA is required to be undertaken for regional planning guidelines, development plans and variations, many local area plans and SDZ planning schemes. The SEA process provides a good practice framework for scoping and considering a range of planning and environmental issues, including flooding in the plan making process. Flood risk assessments carried out in response to these Guidelines should be integrated with the SEA process in, for example, a distinct chapter of the SEA where a full environmental report is required. Where SEA and the environmental report is required, flood risk assessment should be undertaken as early as possible in the process so that the SEA is fully informed of the flood risks and impacts of the proposed zoning or development (See Appendix A). Flood risk assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment At the project level, development either exceeding the specified thresholds for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) or development under the thresholds but with significant environmental effects and in an area at risk of flooding will require EIS. Flood risk will therefore need to be an integral part of the EIA process. Screening for EIA should be an integral element of all planning applications in an area at risk of flooding. For further details on how EIA would be applied see paragraph 5.18. As indicated in the Department’s Circular Letter SEA 1/ 08 & NPWS 1/ 08, appropriate assessments are required for plans and programmes potentially affecting Natura 2000 sites under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives. These assessments provide a structured process within which the flood risk assessment should relate. Important aspects of the processes are outlined in more detail in chapter 4. :: 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 27 Guidelines for Planning Authorities The Planning System and Flood Risk Management
No text on this page — it is probably a drawing, a map, a photograph or a scanned page. See it in the PDF.
- Flooding and Spatial Planning Key Messages Flood risk management should be integrated into spatial planning policies at all levels to enhance certainty and clarity in the overall planning process. The existing Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process for plans should be harnessed as a mechanism within which the identification and assessment of flood risk should be aligned. Regional planning guidelines should address flood risk by carrying out flood risk appraisal at a strategic level, focusing on the identification of the need for better co-ordination of local plans within their areas and between regional authority areas. Development plans should address flood risk by having the necessary flood risk assessments, including mapping of flood zones, in place at the critical decision making phases and the consideration of any subsequent amendments. The application of the sequential approach and, in some exceptional cases, the Justification Test should be used by planning authorities in successfully and transparently incorporating flood risk into the decision-making process on development plans and enabling town centre and minor infill developments to proceed. Development plans must include a statement of how the Guidelines have been implemented. Flooding and the National Spatial Strategy National planning policy supports the consideration of flood risk management as an important part of achieving proper planning and sustainable development. The National Spatial Strategy (NSS) sets out a framework within which a more balanced and sustainable pattern of development can be achieved. Spatial planning at regional and local levels is an essential part of the overall implementation mechanisms for the NSS and planning at these levels should address the suitability of locations for development including considerations relating to flood risk. Chapter 2 illustrated how flood risk assessment can be undertaken at a range of scales relevant to the planning process. 4.1 29 Guidelines for Planning Authorities The Planning System and Flood Risk Management
- Flooding and regional planning guidelines Regional planning guidelines (RPGs) are essential in translating the overall national approach of the NSS to the regional authority level, providing a framework for greater co-ordination of local authorities and their development plans. RPGs were adopted in 2004 and are statutorily reviewed every 6 years. Therefore, the next round of RPGs will need to take account of these Guidelines in addressing the issue of flood risk. Flood risk at the regional level will focus on identification and initial appraisal and should include the following: Incorporate a high level flood risk appraisal as part of the existing SEA process for the preparation of regional planning guidelines; Identify high level flood risk and spatial planning issues for the area covered by the RPGs; Set out a high level policy framework for development plans and local area plans of planning authorities to address the flood risk issues identified at a regional level; and Outline, with due consideration of the national flood risk assessment and management planning programme, any further requirements for flood risk assessments and/or studies at local authority level. Regional authorities should work closely with other agencies, such as the OPW, DEHLG, local authorities and other agencies, including neighbouring regional authorities, in addressing the spatial planning implications of flooding at the regional level. Regional Flood Risk Appraisal and SEA Consideration of flood risk within the RPG process, as set out above, should be strategic in nature and regional in scope (i.e. bearing in mind that more detailed assessments will be carried out when development plans and LAPs are being prepared) and ideally should be an integral part of the SEA process. It will generally comprise of flood risk identification stage outlined in chapter 2 and described in more detail in Appendix A. A regional level flood risk appraisal (RFRA) generally comprises a desktop study, drawing upon existing published sources of information, such as those identified in Appendix A, working with the OPW, DEHLG and making use of knowledge supplied by the constituent local authorities in each regional authority area. The appraisal should confirm the nature and sources of flooding that may affect the region and identify it on a broad, locational basis. It should 4.2 :: :: :: :: 4.3 4.4 4.5 30 4
- also appraise the availability and adequacy of existing information on flood risk and the possible impact of proposed development on flood risk outside the region. Key outputs from a regional level flood risk appraisal include the following: Summary plans/figures and statement showing the broad spatial distribution of flood risk and any potential conflicts with growth/ development areas; Supplementary description of any areas of a region where addressing flood risk is especially important – e.g. central urban areas in Gateways or areas of development pressure, with a view to highlighting these as priority locations for further assessment of flood risk, and / or the need for coordinated action at development plan level. Suggested policies for sustainable flood risk management for incorporation into the regional planning guidelines (RPGs); and Guidance on the preparation of city and county level SFRAs and the management of surface water run-off within new development, highlighting significant flood risk issues, potential infrastructure investment requirements and the need for co-operation between planning authorities and identifying any need for more detailed assessment. Integrating RFRA and SEA processes Scoping of the SEA will normally include flood risk as an environmental criterion and the preparation of the relevant issues paper should be informed by the findings of the RFRA. Flood risk management issues should be balanced with other broad environmental and planning considerations, including water management under the Water Framework Directive and Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive. Flood risk management should inform the evaluation of strategic development options developed as part of the RPG and SEA processes. Where such development options include proposals for significant new settlements and/or significant extensions to urban areas (as part of an overall settlement strategy) and/or significant public infrastructure projects, the sequential approach and the Justification Test, if appropriate, should be applied in the evaluation process. 4.6 :: :: :: :: 4.7 4.8 31 Guidelines for Planning Authorities The Planning System and Flood Risk Management
- 4.12 4.9 4.10 4.11 Once a preferred strategic development option is selected, any significant effects it may have on flood risk should be identified and used as a basis for the development of broad, regional flood risk management and mitigation measures for inclusion in the RPGs. Appropriate monitoring measures should also be put in place which will be informed by SFRAs and by the relevant planning authorities. Co-ordination of development plans RPGs should also identify opportunities where adjoining planning authorities can and should work together to prepare such further joint studies as might be necessary to address the issue of flood risk at a more detailed level to inform their preparation of spatial plans. Given the nature of flood risk, it is likely that more than one planning authority will be affected by, for example, coastal or river flooding of an extensive floodplain. Effective co-ordination and consistency between the development plans and local area plans of planning authorities will be essential in achieving the overall objectives of the RPGs and in turn, the NSS. Integrating flood risk into development plans The importance of including robust flood risk policies in the development plan cannot be overstated. While development plans will be informed by national planning policy such as these Guidelines and regional planning guidelines addressed above, they must take all practicable steps to ensure the prior identification of any areas at risk of flooding and flood zones in order to effectively shape the drafting process. The OPW is a statutory consultee for development plans and is the lead agency for implementing flood risk management policy in Ireland. As such, planning authorities should ensure that they consult effectively with the OPW at the start of the plan preparation and take careful account of observations made by the OPW on flood-related matters, and to the FRMPs, if available for the area in question. There may also be collaborative consultation between the OPW and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when preparing Ministerial observations in relation to development plans. For information regarding integrating flood risk management into LAPs see paragraphs 4.28 and 4.29. 32 4
Source Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Office of Public Works: The Planning System and Flood Risk Management: Guidelines for Planning Authorities (November 2009) · Licence the publisher's termsText read from the publisher’s PDF; tables, maps and drawings do not survive as text, and page numbers are the PDF’s (its first page is 1). Check the original before relying on a passage.