Gladman Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2026] EWHC 51 (Admin)
Gladman flood Sequential Test is an important Planning Court judgment on the relationship between national flood-risk policy and the statutory planning balance.
The High Court quashed the Inspector’s refusal of a 644-home scheme. Failure to satisfy the flood-risk Sequential Test was a serious policy conflict, but it was not a legal rule which automatically ended the planning balance.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2026] EWHC 51 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, King's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 15th January 2026
- Judge
- Mrs Justice Lieven
- Case number
- AC-2024-LON-004212; AC-2024-LON-004245
What Gladman decided
The case concerned a proposed development of 644 homes at Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster, together with an access road and associated works.
The Inspector concluded that the proposal failed the flood-risk Sequential Test. He treated that failure, together with the associated national policy wording, as effectively determinative and dismissed the appeal without carrying out a meaningful overall planning balance.
Mrs Justice Lieven held that this was an error of law. Ground 1 succeeded and the appeal decision was quashed.
The Sequential Test is important policy, not an automatic statutory veto
National policy can direct decision-makers strongly against development which fails the Sequential Test. That conflict may attract very substantial weight.
But planning applications and appeals remain governed by the statutory decision-making framework. Unless legislation itself creates a prohibition, policy should not be converted into an absolute legal rule simply because its wording is strong.
The Inspector therefore still had to consider the development plan and other material considerations in the planning balance.
A mechanistic policy approach can be unlawful
The court criticised the Inspector’s approach as too inflexible. He had treated failure of the Sequential Test as if it necessarily determined the appeal rather than as a highly significant policy consideration to be weighed lawfully.
The distinction matters. A decision-maker may ultimately conclude that the policy conflict is decisive, but that conclusion has to emerge from the planning judgment rather than from an assumption that the balance is legally closed.
Gladman and North Somerset point in the same direction
The principle is consistent with the later High Court decision in North Somerset District Council v SSHCLG, which also rejected the idea that a failed flood Sequential Test creates an automatic legal veto.
The two cases should still be applied against the current wording of national policy. They are authorities on how policy operates within the statutory planning system, not permission to disregard the Sequential Test.
The planning balance must be real
A decision letter does not satisfy the statutory approach merely by mentioning other benefits after treating one policy conflict as conclusive from the outset.
The decision-maker must genuinely assess the material considerations and explain why the policy conflict does or does not outweigh the competing factors.
That is particularly important on large housing schemes where housing delivery, infrastructure, environmental effects and other benefits may all carry significant weight.
Use the current flood policy
Gladman concerned the national policy wording applicable to the appeal before the court. The National Planning Policy Framework has since changed.
For current practice, use Planning Geek’s Flood Risk Assessment guide for the present Sequential and Exception Test framework rather than lifting the old policy wording from the judgment.
Why Gladman matters
The case is useful well beyond flood risk. It is a reminder that national planning policy, however strongly expressed, normally operates through the statutory planning balance unless Parliament has made the matter a legal prohibition.
A policy conflict can therefore be decisive without being automatic.
Read the full Gladman judgment
The full Planning Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Gladman Flood Sequential Test Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026