The Planning (Flooding) Bill requires local planning authorities in England to consult the relevant Internal Drainage Board (IDB) on any development in or close to areas the IDB manages, and prevents the Secretary of State from removing that duty except to replace it with an equivalent local flood-management body. It also creates a statutory presumption against granting permission where the Environment Agency, the lead local flood authority (LLFA) or an IDB represent that a proposal would increase flood risk to existing buildings.
The Bill further compels the Secretary of State to publish (within six months) expert-panel–prepared guidance setting minimum drainage and maintenance standards for new development, makes non‑compliant developers subject to exclusion from future consents and public naming by local authorities, and gives the Secretary of State a formal role in referrals and in assessing the decision‑quality of planning authorities. For practitioners, the Bill shifts the balance toward flood‑risk precaution, raises compliance and evidential expectations for developers, and creates new administrative duties for local authorities and central government.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Bill inserts a requirement in the Development Management Procedure Order that the relevant Internal Drainage Board be consulted on development in or close to areas it manages, and bars local planning authorities from granting permission if the Environment Agency, the LLFA or the relevant IDB state a proposal would increase flood risk to existing buildings. It also mandates centrally prepared guidance on drainage minimums and allows LPAs to blacklist developers who fail to install or maintain drainage to those standards.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are Internal Drainage Boards, local planning authorities in England, the Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities, developers (particularly those working near water-management infrastructure), and property owners in flood‑prone areas. The Secretary of State and parliamentary oversight bodies are also implicated by the new regulations and affirmative statutory instrument requirement.
Why It Matters
The Bill converts certain flood-risk representations into a statutory bar on permission and formally elevates IDBs in the planning process, increasing the likelihood that flood-management concerns will stop development. It also creates fast timelines and delegated powers for technical standards, which could reshape site design, maintenance obligations and the evidence LPAs require from developers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Bill works on three linked fronts. First, it makes the relevant Internal Drainage Board a statutory consultee for developments in or near areas the IDB manages by amending the 2015 Development Management Procedure Order.
That change gives IDBs a formal place in the consultation chain and restricts the Secretary of State’s ability to remove that requirement without substituting a body with equivalent local flood expertise.
Second, the Bill establishes a bright‑line presumption against granting planning permission where one of three named flood bodies—the Environment Agency, the lead local flood authority, or the local IDB—has submitted representations concluding that the proposed development would increase flood risk to existing buildings. If a local planning authority grants permission despite such representations, the Secretary of State must direct that the application be referred to them under the existing section 77 referral route; the Bill also requires the Secretary of State to treat such referrals as part of the evidence when deciding whether a planning authority’s decision‑making quality warrants designation under section 62A.Third, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance within six months, prepared by an appointed expert panel, setting minimum standards for sustainable drainage infrastructure and for ongoing maintenance tied to new development.
Local planning authorities must have regard to that guidance. The guidance can be updated, at least every five years, and may set different standards for different cases.
The Bill gives LPAs the power to refuse future applications from developers who have failed to install or maintain drainage per the guidance and to publish a public list of such developers.Finally, the Bill uses affirmative parliamentary procedure for any consequential regulations and allows regulations under the Act to modify other enactments. It extends to England and Wales and comes into force three months after passage.
In practice, the Bill couples increased technical guidance and naming/blacklisting sanctions with a statutory, consultative uplift for IDBs and an enforceable presumption that prioritises protection of existing properties from increased flood risk.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Bill inserts a new consultation requirement into Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 so the 'relevant Internal Drainage Board' must be consulted on any development in or close to areas it manages, and prevents removal of that requirement except to replace it with an equivalent local flood‑expert body.
If the Environment Agency, the lead local flood authority or a local Internal Drainage Board makes representations that a proposed development would increase flood risk to existing buildings, the local planning authority must not grant permission; breach of that duty triggers an automatic direction that the application be referred to the Secretary of State under section 77.
The Secretary of State must take referrals driven by those flood-risk objections into account when assessing an authority’s decision‑making quality for the purposes of possible designation under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Within six months of enactment the Secretary of State must publish guidance, prepared by an expert panel, setting minimum standards for drainage infrastructure and maintenance for new development; LPAs must have regard to that guidance and it must be refreshed at least every five years.
Where a developer fails to install or maintain drainage as the guidance requires, a local planning authority may refuse future applications from that developer (or associated individuals/entities) and must publish a list of such named developers; regulations under the Act are by affirmative statutory instrument and may modify other enactments.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Make Internal Drainage Boards statutory consultees
This section amends Schedule 4 of the 2015 Development Management Procedure Order so that the 'relevant Internal Drainage Board' is listed as a consultee for any development in or close to areas the board manages. Practically, LPAs will need processes to identify whether a site falls within an IDB area or close to it and to time consultations accordingly. The clause also limits ministerial discretion by forbidding the Secretary of State from removing the consultation duty, except to substitute a different body with equivalent local flood expertise—raising the bar for deregulatory changes to the consultation regime.
Statutory presumption against permission where key flood bodies object
This section creates a legal prohibition on granting permission where representations from the Environment Agency, the LLFA or a local IDB say a proposal would increase flood risk to existing buildings. The practical effect is to convert certain technical objections into a near‑absolute bar on consent unless the objection is withdrawn. If an LPA does grant permission anyway, the Secretary of State must direct referral under section 77. That redirects contested applications to central decision‑making and ties those referrals into the performance assessment used for possible designation under section 62A, increasing reputational and administrative stakes for LPAs.
Mandatory guidance on sustainable drainage and maintenance
The Secretary of State must publish, within six months, guidance setting minimum standards for drainage design and ongoing maintenance for new development; the guidance must be drafted by an expert panel and refreshed at most every five years. LPAs are legally required to 'have regard' to this guidance. The section also gives LPAs the power to reject future applications from developers who fail to meet the guidance and requires publication of a list of such developers—an administrative sanction intended to create market pressure for compliance but which will require careful evidential and procedural safeguards at local level.
Regulations, extent, commencement and scope
Regulations under the Act must be made by statutory instrument and may modify other enactments, but the Bill requires a draft instrument to be laid and approved by resolution of each House—an affirmative procedure that increases parliamentary oversight of consequential rules. The Act extends to England and Wales and comes into force three months after passage. The combination of broad modifying power and affirmative procedure means consequential detail—definitions, evidence standards, and procedural rules—will largely be set in secondary legislation subject to both Houses' approval.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Internal Drainage Boards — the Bill makes them statutory consultees, elevating their technical role in planning decisions and ensuring their local knowledge must be sought for development near their areas.
- Owners and occupiers of existing buildings in flood‑prone areas — the statutory presumption and strengthened drainage standards increase protection against developments that could raise their flood risk.
- Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities — their flood‑risk representations acquire greater legal weight and will more reliably prevent developments judged to increase flood risk.
- Local communities in high‑risk catchments — better designed and maintained sustainable drainage obligations could reduce local flood impacts over time.
- Insurers and mortgage holders concerned about asset exposure — a precautionary approach to development approvals may reduce future claims and devaluation risks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Developers and landowners — stricter consultation, binding drainage standards, the risk of blacklisting and the need for stronger evidence on flood‑risk impacts will increase design, construction and compliance costs.
- Local planning authorities — new duties to consult IDBs, assess representations, implement guidance, maintain a developers' exclusion list and manage referrals to the Secretary of State will add workload and potential legal risk.
- Secretary of State and Planning Inspectorate — increased referrals under section 77 and responsibility for timely expert guidance will create administrative and decision‑making burdens.
- Small and speculative builders — greater upfront technical requirements and the prospect of being named for non‑compliance could disproportionately affect smaller firms with limited compliance capacity.
- Potentially housing delivery — the presumption against development in cases of objection could constrain supply in certain areas, affecting housebuilders and local housing strategies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between a precautionary lock on development to protect existing properties from increased flood risk and the need for certainty and timely housing delivery: the Bill strengthens flood‑risk protection by elevating technical objections and prescribing drainage standards, but in doing so it reduces local discretion and raises costs and timing risks for developers, creating a trade‑off between safeguarding current flood exposure and enabling new development.
The Bill leaves several practical and legal questions unresolved. It does not define how close is 'close to an area managed by an Internal Drainage Board', nor the evidential standard a flood body must meet to show a proposal 'would increase the risk of flooding for existing buildings.' Those gaps create uncertainty for LPAs and applicants about when the presumption applies and how to contest flood‑risk representations.
The guidance regime is time‑compressed: a six‑month deadline to appoint a panel and publish minimum drainage and maintenance standards will pressure the Secretary of State to make quick technical choices that will significantly affect design and cost standards across many projects.
Two other implementation tensions stand out. First, the Bill centralises significant outcome control: LPAs face a legal bar enforced by referral to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary will factor referrals into designation decisions under section 62A.
That raises the prospect of more centralised intervention in planning decisions and politicises the referral process. Second, the blacklist and naming power creates reputational sanctions without an express appeals or remediation pathway in the Bill; local authorities will need robust processes and evidential thresholds to avoid legal challenge.
Finally, the power for regulations to modify any enactment—subject to affirmative procedure—gives the executive broad scope to fill detail but shifts major policy choices into secondary legislation rather than the primary text, which concentrates contested choices into a later stage where detailed scrutiny will be critical but compressed.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.