How Havering actually applies 32: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.
32 is a published Havering planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.
Cited under: Havering Local Plan (adopted)
Havering · 32
Where 32 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0More citations ~2
Showingre-scopes the headline figures and the trend
5
times cited
in parsed decision notices
—
appeal survival
no PINS appeal decisions cite it
4 of 14
officer reach
29% of officers recorded in this period
St Edward's
top hotspot ward
2 citations
What this policy is about
Policy 32 requires development to avoid flood risk and manage residual risk. It applies to sites with drainage problems, the Washlands Flood Storage Area, and areas deemed necessary by the Council. The Council will support development with sustainable drainage systems and flood risk assessments.
Plain-English summary of the adopted policy text below. The full text is the rule; this is the gist.
The policy — as adopted
Flood management
The Council will support development that seeks to avoid flood risk to people and property and manages residual risk by applying the Sequential Test and, if necessary, the Exception Test as set out in the NPPF.
The Council's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment should be used as a starting point regarding local flood risk guidance.
In addition to the requirements set out in the NPPF, the Council will require site-specific flood risk assessments for development on: i.
Sites where drainage problems have been identified by the Council;
Local Plan 2016-2031 Adopted 2021 London Borough of Havering
12 Green Places
ii. The Washlands Flood Storage Area (FSA); and
iii. Sites deemed necessary by the Council as a Lead Local Flood Authority.
The Council will seek to reduce the risk from surface water flooding by requiring development proposals to: iv.
Reduce surface water runoff by providing sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), unless there are practical reasons for not doing so; and Ensure that proposals for SuDS apply the London Plan drainage hierarchy achieving greenfield run-off rates, where feasible, and include clear arrangements for ongoing maintenance over the lifetime of the development.
v.
The Council will expected developments to identify reasonable opportunities for flood risk reduction measures and resilient design and construction and not increase the risk of flooding.
The Council will seek financial contributions towards the anticipated costs of flood risk management infrastructure required to protect the proposed development over its lifetime.
12.4.1
Havering has a large proportion of London’s floodplains. In addition to the areas of the borough at risk of flooding from rivers, other areas may also be at risk from flooding from groundwater, surface water runoff, ordinary watercourses and/or culvert blockage. The Havering Local Flood Risk Management Strategy provides information on all types of flooding in the borough and explains the powers and responsibilities regarding flood risk.
12.4.2
The requirements for the Sequential and Exception Tests are set out in the NPPF. The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. If development cannot be located in zones with lower probability of flooding development will need to apply the Exception Test, demonstrating that wider sustainability benefits outweigh the flood risk and including a site-specific flood risk assessment.
12.4.3
Policy 32 has been informed by the recommendations of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2016) (SFRA), which should be used by developers as a starting point regarding flood risk guidance. The SFRA identifies the areas at risk of flooding in the borough and sets out when developers need to submit site-specific flood risk assessments.
12.4.4
Apart from the requirements in the NPPF and London Plan, site-specific flood risk assessments will also be required where drainage problems are identified by the Council. This specifically includes development in the Havering Critical Drainange Areas (HCDAs) as identified in the SFRA. Site-specific flood risk assessments are particularly important as these HCDAs have known localised flooding problems which can cause significant damage. No Critical Drainange Areas have been identified in Havering by the Environment Agency. Site-specific flood risk assessments will also be required on other sites with potential flooding issues known by the Council. Early engagement with the Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority is therefore recommended.
12.4.5
The Washlands is a Flood Storage Area (FSA) for the River Beam. Due to the significant amount of development being proposed in, and nearby, the Washlands FSA as part of the Rainham and Beam Park Strategic Development Area, developments within the FSA will need to submit a site-specific flood risk assessments. This should specifically demonstrate resilience measures, safe access and egress or places of refuge as well as the potential of increasing flood risk elsewhere.
12.4.6
Developers should utilise the Government's Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment Checklist in preparing site-specific flood risk assessments. The Council will consider the information in the Government's (15) Flood Risk Assessments Checklist , the PPG and the SFRA in evaluating planning applications and accompanying site-specific flood risk assessments.
12.4.7
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be designed appropriately for the local site characteristics. The Council's SuDS Developer Guide (2015) provides detailed guidance on the optimal integration of SuDS in the design of developments. The Havering Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (2015) sets out what runoff rates are expected to be achieved by implementing SuDS.
http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/ guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/site-specific-flood-risk-assessment-checklist/
London Borough of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Adopted 2021
12 Green Places 12.4.8
Developers should consult the Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority at an early stage in the design process to create a clear understanding of site-specific design requirements and constraints.
Measures to make development resilient to flooding should be included in the development of design proposals, dependent on the likely level of flood risk at a site. This will permit a quick recovery post-flooding. The Council has specific guidance available to appropriately consider flood resilient development. Developers are also expected to include proposals for future maintenance and operation, including continued realisation of any non-drainage related benefits.
12.4.9
In some cases, the discharge or infiltration of surface water may require a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations developers are therefore advised to review available (16) guidance and seek advice from the Environment Agency at an early stage.
Verbatim from the adopted Havering plan · source document. The council's published plan is the authoritative version.
How it lands
0% in approvals · 100% in refusals 5 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue 32 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.
What the published record shows
32 appears most often in St Edward's, Rainham & Wennington, St Alban's. It appears across 4 of 14 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.
Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
0%
in approvals
0 citations
100%
in refusals
5 citations
This shows the decision reports in which 32 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes.
Reason · role · consequence
Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why 32 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.
Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance
No Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions on record cite 32. When one lands (the appeals table refreshes each weekday), the dismissed/allowed record appears here — never estimated.
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Havering decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.
Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.