Mead Realisations Ltd and Redrow Homes Ltd v Secretary of State [2024] EWHC 279 (Admin)

The point in plain English: The flood-risk sequential test is not limited to alternative sites that precisely reproduce the developer’s preferred scheme. The decision-maker must apply flexibility and realism when considering reasonably available sites at lower risk of flooding. But a general shortage of housing does not itself make an alternative site inappropriate or unavailable. Housing need may instead affect the wider planning balance.

This Planning Court judgment, handed down by Holgate J on 12 February 2024, considered two related challenges under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Mead Realisations Ltd challenged the dismissal of its appeal for up to 75 homes near Weston-super-Mare. Redrow Homes Ltd challenged the dismissal of an earlier scheme for up to 310 homes at Little Bushey Lane in Hertsmere. Both challenges were dismissed.

What happened in the two planning appeals?

Mead proposed housing at Lynchmead Farm, Ebdon Road, near Weston-super-Mare, on land subject to flood risk. North Somerset Council and the Inspector disputed whether lower-risk alternatives had been properly assessed. In Hertsmere, Redrow proposed a larger mixed housing and community scheme on land east of Little Bushey Lane, with streams and other sources of flood risk affecting the site. Both proposals failed the sequential test as applied by the respective Inspectors.

The court examined the 2021 National Planning Policy Framework, particularly paragraph 162, together with Planning Practice Guidance on reasonably available sites. It also considered the role of local flood-risk policies, including North Somerset’s Core Strategy Policy CS3. Importantly, the two claims did not involve exactly the same planning facts or grounds of challenge, although the core questions of policy interpretation overlapped.

Appropriate alternative sites require flexibility

The court rejected an interpretation which would require an alternative site to match all features of the proposed scheme, such as its precise size, form, number of homes and delivery programme. Such an inflexible approach could defeat the purpose of steering development towards land with a lower flood risk. Equally, a planning authority should not disregard legitimate requirements for a particular development or impose unrealistic alternatives.

The appropriate approach depends upon the evidence. Applicants can explain why a particular form of development, housing mix, scale, location or delivery programme is necessary. The decision-maker assesses the justification, the relevant search area and whether other sites could be reasonably available. Some alternatives may involve a series of smaller sites, rather than one identical parcel of land, where that is appropriate for the development in question.

The distinction between housing need and flood-risk alternatives

Holgate J distinguished general housing need from evidence about a particular proposed development. A shortage of deliverable housing sites across an authority’s area does not, without more, determine whether a lower-risk site is an appropriate alternative under the sequential test. The relevant questions concern the nature of the proposal and the availability and suitability of potential alternatives.

There is, however, a separate question in the overall planning balance. If unmet housing needs cannot realistically be accommodated on sequentially preferable sites, the need to deliver housing may influence the weight given to failure of the test and other policy harms. That does not change the outcome of the sequential assessment itself. It affects what the planning decision-maker does with that outcome.

Redrow’s earlier Bushey challenge

Redrow argued that the Inspector had wrongly considered groups of smaller sites and had mishandled the timing of alternatives. The court accepted that the Inspector had not fully addressed the asserted interdependence of elements of Redrow’s scheme when considering smaller sites. Nevertheless, that error did not justify quashing the appeal decision, because Redrow had not shown error in the treatment of other potentially available, larger sites.

Redrow had also relied on timing arguments, but the evidence about when alternative sites might come forward was insufficient. The judgment noted the lack of current enquiries with landowners and an over-reliance on older information. The court therefore rejected the linked grounds concerning the alternative sites assessment.

An additional argument that unmet housing need should have been considered differently in the planning balance also failed. That point had not been put to the Inspector at the inquiry. The court was not prepared to treat an Inspector as legally at fault for failing to resolve a material argument that the appellant had not advanced when the evidence could be tested.

The result and later Court of Appeal judgment

The court dismissed both Mead’s and Redrow’s statutory challenges. This did not grant planning permission or substitute a new planning decision for either scheme. Mead subsequently pursued an appeal to the Court of Appeal, addressed in Planning Geek’s separate Mead Realisations [2025] EWCA Civ 32 Case Law entry. The two judgments should be read together when considering the relationship between the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

The 2026 Bushey grey belt appeal relates to a different, later proposal for up to 280 homes and was decided under revised national policy and further evidence. The later permission does not overturn the earlier High Court judgment. Planning Geek’s flood risk assessment guide provides further background, but applicants should use the current Framework and guidance rather than assuming the 2021 paragraph numbers still apply.

Read the full 2024 judgment

The full 37-page approved judgment of Holgate J, dated 12 February 2024, is preserved in Planning Geek’s Gold-restricted Case Law download system. The primary decision was published by the UK Government and is recorded as [2024] EWHC 279 (Admin). The locally protected judgment is available to eligible members through the download control below.