Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Building and Infrastructure
Buildings & Infrastructure
Planning Applications, PD and the like (General Chat)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dookist" data-source="post: 7761563" data-attributes="member: 102960"><p>In carrying out some research in relation to the FRA, I came across this & found it very helpful. </p><p>I also found details showing that my LPA got a good telling off by the EA when they messed up spectactularly with their proposal to put a large development on flood zone 3 but without the essential Sequential/exception testing... </p><p>Which made me feel a lot better about my stuggle to understand how it all works and why I need these tests when there's a flood zone 1 within 50m of the site! (Just turn right out of the gate and walk across the road to the church)... Anyway.... Dx</p><p></p><h2>How to Carry Out the Sequential Test</h2><p>At a national level guidance on how to carry out the sequential test is very wooly / vague / nebulous. However there is some guide guidance available in some areas at a local level, and where this does occur it is a godsend / blessing / bonus.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Without a good set of rule on how to carry out the sequential test you are left at the mercy of whoever is assessing your sequential test report. That could be you local planning authority (LPA) or the Environment Agency (EA). Hopefully not the latter.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The test requires that other sites in the area are checked to see if they are viable alternatives, to the site you are proposing. In reality this is crazy because most of our clients already own the piece of land they are trying to develop, and so to consider alternatives is . . . not realistic.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Thankfully in areas where LPAs have a good set of rules there are a list of criteria, which an alternate site must meet to become a viable alternative. These might include area, planning status, geo-locality and in short this results in most development sites in the area being found to be unsuitable.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If you are looking to undertake this work yourself, it can be done if you have the time. Bristol City Council have the best guidance I know of, perhaps use that if your LPA does not publish its own guidance on sequential testing. However, if you would rather we carry out your sequential test on your behalf then please get in touch.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Please feel free to <a href="https://www.southwest-environmental.co.uk/contacts.html" target="_blank"> contact the office</a> for an informal discussion regarding your requirements.</p><p></p><p></p><h2>How is the Sequential Test Applied?</h2><p></p><p>The sequential test is applied in very different ways depending on who is dealing with the application. It is left to the "local authority" to choose alternative site search criteria. This introduces a massive amount of subjectivity in to the process. Some planning officers may be very pragmatic in their application of the sequential test, whilst other . . . not so.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The problem on the whole is the complete lack of guidance on how the sequential test should be applied. With the exception of 2 administrative areas that SWEL know of(see below), the NPPF is followed to the letter, which states that the entire administrative area (i.e. district council) should be considered for the alternative site search area. This introduces a number of problems, but first let us consider some of the other assessment criteria which are sometimes used: such as size and proximity to public services.</p><p></p><p></p><h3>Size</h3><p></p><p>A small garden infill plot could not be considered as a reasonable alternative to a large multi-residential development.</p><p></p><p></p><h3>Value</h3><p></p><p>If you have a single plot valued at 200,000, then a 1,000,000 site is not likely to be considered a reasonable alternative.</p><p></p><p></p><h3>Public Services</h3><p></p><p>Distance to public transport hubs might also be considered. If you site is within 100 meters of a bus stop of train station, then this is a positive sustainability feature that you could use to compare it against other perhaps less sustainable options.</p><p></p><p></p><h2> Which County, City or Borough has Good Guidance on the Sequential Test?</h2><p></p><p>Many of the assessment criteria (other than search area) stem from the Excellent guide published by Bristol City Council. This is the only solid guidance SWEL know of. Other authorities have defined search areas that break down their administrative area in to smaller sections. The <a href="http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/planning/useful_links_living_in" target="_blank">Lake District National Park </a>for example have a set of discrete areas within their boundary such as "north east" and "central".</p><p></p><p></p><p>Any guidance given in writing from your local authority is a bonus since, there is so little guidance around!</p><p></p><p></p><h2>Choosing Your Sequential Test Search Area?</h2><p></p><p>In general you will not get to choose. The area is chosen by the planning authority. There is no harm in suggesting a search area, or SWEL preparing your sequential test using our own search area, but you should expect in 25% - 50% of cases that this will be contested.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Example: In a recent report in Salford (Manchester) we were asked to consider a 1km search radius, despite this overlapping in to several <a href="https://www.southwest-environmental.co.uk/further%20info/in%20depth/map_of_salford_wards.html" target="_blank">wards of Salford</a>. In other cases we might asked to consider a planning authorities enforcement area, such as <a href="https://www.westminster.gov.uk/" target="_blank"> Westminster City Council.</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p>Regeneration Areas are commonly used as a search area, we have used regeneration areas for reports in <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/X5yddmxUaESi4fym8" target="_blank">South-end-on-Sea</a> and <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/4HEBeqbpVUZF851i9" target="_blank">Rochford District Council</a> Areas</p><p></p><p></p><h2>Sequential Test at Planning Appeal</h2><p></p><p>We have had 1 <a href="https://www.southwest-environmental.co.uk/planning_applications.html" target="_blank">appeal</a> case to date that have in centered around the sequential test. In this instance <a href="http://www.southglos.gov.uk/" target="_blank">South Gloucestershire Council</a> insisted on the use of a very broad sequential test search criteria which consisted of any alternative land within flood zone 1 in the whole of South Gloucestershire! We considered this to be wholly unreasonable, but to our surprise the appeal inspector supported this view.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This demonstrates the futility of trying to appeal against sequential testing decisions, and also the fact that the local authority have supreme power in determining the outcome of the sequential test.</p><p></p><p></p><h2>Sites with Planning as a Reasonable Alternative</h2><p></p><p>North Somerset Council (by Example) will not consider sites with planning granted as reasonably alternative. I would query why sites with planning consent cannot be considered, and as a result any site without planning could therefore be considered. The planning process depends on so many different aspects meshing together for a project to be successful, so by considering a site without planning one is comparing a partially known site, to an unknown one. Even if a site without planning were deliverable with regards to sequential test assessment criteria, then it could be undeliverable when considering any number of any other factors such as transport, drainage, feasibility, noise etc. which would not be apparent at the time of carrying out the test. Bearing these factors in mind, would it not be fair to include a list of criteria for the assessment of alternative sites that make account for these unknowns.</p><p></p><p></p><h2>Sequential Test Problems</h2><p></p><p>We perhaps 3 or 4 times year received phone calls from exasperated individuals or company representatives who are have problems passing the sequential test. These normally fall within 2 categories:</p><p></p><p></p><h3>1 - Concept Error </h3><p></p><p>Proposed: Trying to build a large industrial build next to a small house, or building a small house next to a large industrial building. Building a house which is too large when compared to surrounding houses. i.e. Trying to get planning for something that is unrealistic.</p><p></p><p></p><h3>2 - Personal Differences </h3><p></p><p>Applicant or Landowner has had a "difference of opinion" with planning officer. This could involve lost tempers (farmers <em>usually</em>), strategic crying (ladies <em>usually</em>) or trying to throw the planner's own rule book at them (retired army officers <em>usually</em>).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Either of the above situations may cause the planning officer to play their trump card: The Sequential Test. Outside of Bristol they are rule maker and rule keeper, and that leaves the applicant, and us if involved, in a very sticky place.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So however you are actually feeling about your planning application never loose you temper / cool / respect (pretend if needed) for your planning officer, it is counter productive, and will cost you hard cash. Don't do it!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dookist, post: 7761563, member: 102960"] In carrying out some research in relation to the FRA, I came across this & found it very helpful. I also found details showing that my LPA got a good telling off by the EA when they messed up spectactularly with their proposal to put a large development on flood zone 3 but without the essential Sequential/exception testing... Which made me feel a lot better about my stuggle to understand how it all works and why I need these tests when there's a flood zone 1 within 50m of the site! (Just turn right out of the gate and walk across the road to the church)... Anyway.... Dx [HEADING=1]How to Carry Out the Sequential Test[/HEADING] At a national level guidance on how to carry out the sequential test is very wooly / vague / nebulous. However there is some guide guidance available in some areas at a local level, and where this does occur it is a godsend / blessing / bonus. Without a good set of rule on how to carry out the sequential test you are left at the mercy of whoever is assessing your sequential test report. That could be you local planning authority (LPA) or the Environment Agency (EA). Hopefully not the latter. The test requires that other sites in the area are checked to see if they are viable alternatives, to the site you are proposing. In reality this is crazy because most of our clients already own the piece of land they are trying to develop, and so to consider alternatives is . . . not realistic. Thankfully in areas where LPAs have a good set of rules there are a list of criteria, which an alternate site must meet to become a viable alternative. These might include area, planning status, geo-locality and in short this results in most development sites in the area being found to be unsuitable. If you are looking to undertake this work yourself, it can be done if you have the time. Bristol City Council have the best guidance I know of, perhaps use that if your LPA does not publish its own guidance on sequential testing. However, if you would rather we carry out your sequential test on your behalf then please get in touch. Please feel free to [URL='https://www.southwest-environmental.co.uk/contacts.html'] contact the office[/URL] for an informal discussion regarding your requirements. [HEADING=1]How is the Sequential Test Applied?[/HEADING] The sequential test is applied in very different ways depending on who is dealing with the application. It is left to the "local authority" to choose alternative site search criteria. This introduces a massive amount of subjectivity in to the process. Some planning officers may be very pragmatic in their application of the sequential test, whilst other . . . not so. The problem on the whole is the complete lack of guidance on how the sequential test should be applied. With the exception of 2 administrative areas that SWEL know of(see below), the NPPF is followed to the letter, which states that the entire administrative area (i.e. district council) should be considered for the alternative site search area. This introduces a number of problems, but first let us consider some of the other assessment criteria which are sometimes used: such as size and proximity to public services. [HEADING=2]Size[/HEADING] A small garden infill plot could not be considered as a reasonable alternative to a large multi-residential development. [HEADING=2]Value[/HEADING] If you have a single plot valued at 200,000, then a 1,000,000 site is not likely to be considered a reasonable alternative. [HEADING=2]Public Services[/HEADING] Distance to public transport hubs might also be considered. If you site is within 100 meters of a bus stop of train station, then this is a positive sustainability feature that you could use to compare it against other perhaps less sustainable options. [HEADING=1] Which County, City or Borough has Good Guidance on the Sequential Test?[/HEADING] Many of the assessment criteria (other than search area) stem from the Excellent guide published by Bristol City Council. This is the only solid guidance SWEL know of. Other authorities have defined search areas that break down their administrative area in to smaller sections. The [URL='http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/planning/useful_links_living_in']Lake District National Park [/URL]for example have a set of discrete areas within their boundary such as "north east" and "central". Any guidance given in writing from your local authority is a bonus since, there is so little guidance around! [HEADING=1]Choosing Your Sequential Test Search Area?[/HEADING] In general you will not get to choose. The area is chosen by the planning authority. There is no harm in suggesting a search area, or SWEL preparing your sequential test using our own search area, but you should expect in 25% - 50% of cases that this will be contested. Example: In a recent report in Salford (Manchester) we were asked to consider a 1km search radius, despite this overlapping in to several [URL='https://www.southwest-environmental.co.uk/further%20info/in%20depth/map_of_salford_wards.html']wards of Salford[/URL]. In other cases we might asked to consider a planning authorities enforcement area, such as [URL='https://www.westminster.gov.uk/'] Westminster City Council.[/URL] Regeneration Areas are commonly used as a search area, we have used regeneration areas for reports in [URL='https://goo.gl/maps/X5yddmxUaESi4fym8']South-end-on-Sea[/URL] and [URL='https://goo.gl/maps/4HEBeqbpVUZF851i9']Rochford District Council[/URL] Areas [HEADING=1]Sequential Test at Planning Appeal[/HEADING] We have had 1 [URL='https://www.southwest-environmental.co.uk/planning_applications.html']appeal[/URL] case to date that have in centered around the sequential test. In this instance [URL='http://www.southglos.gov.uk/']South Gloucestershire Council[/URL] insisted on the use of a very broad sequential test search criteria which consisted of any alternative land within flood zone 1 in the whole of South Gloucestershire! We considered this to be wholly unreasonable, but to our surprise the appeal inspector supported this view. This demonstrates the futility of trying to appeal against sequential testing decisions, and also the fact that the local authority have supreme power in determining the outcome of the sequential test. [HEADING=1]Sites with Planning as a Reasonable Alternative[/HEADING] North Somerset Council (by Example) will not consider sites with planning granted as reasonably alternative. I would query why sites with planning consent cannot be considered, and as a result any site without planning could therefore be considered. The planning process depends on so many different aspects meshing together for a project to be successful, so by considering a site without planning one is comparing a partially known site, to an unknown one. Even if a site without planning were deliverable with regards to sequential test assessment criteria, then it could be undeliverable when considering any number of any other factors such as transport, drainage, feasibility, noise etc. which would not be apparent at the time of carrying out the test. Bearing these factors in mind, would it not be fair to include a list of criteria for the assessment of alternative sites that make account for these unknowns. [HEADING=1]Sequential Test Problems[/HEADING] We perhaps 3 or 4 times year received phone calls from exasperated individuals or company representatives who are have problems passing the sequential test. These normally fall within 2 categories: [HEADING=2]1 - Concept Error [/HEADING] Proposed: Trying to build a large industrial build next to a small house, or building a small house next to a large industrial building. Building a house which is too large when compared to surrounding houses. i.e. Trying to get planning for something that is unrealistic. [HEADING=2]2 - Personal Differences [/HEADING] Applicant or Landowner has had a "difference of opinion" with planning officer. This could involve lost tempers (farmers [I]usually[/I]), strategic crying (ladies [I]usually[/I]) or trying to throw the planner's own rule book at them (retired army officers [I]usually[/I]). Either of the above situations may cause the planning officer to play their trump card: The Sequential Test. Outside of Bristol they are rule maker and rule keeper, and that leaves the applicant, and us if involved, in a very sticky place. So however you are actually feeling about your planning application never loose you temper / cool / respect (pretend if needed) for your planning officer, it is counter productive, and will cost you hard cash. Don't do it! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Building and Infrastructure
Buildings & Infrastructure
Planning Applications, PD and the like (General Chat)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top