Development Intent
AtlasLambethPolicyEN5
Planning AtlasLambethEN5
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Lambeth · Local Plan · Policy

EN5 — Flood risk.

How Lambeth actually applies EN5: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

EN5 is a published Lambeth planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Lambeth Local Plan (adopted)

Lambeth · EN5
Where EN5 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~27
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
205
times cited
in parsed decision notices
4 appeals
appeal survival
3 dismissed · 1 allowed at appeal — too few to rate
43 of 70
officer reach
61% of officers recorded in this period
Clapham Town
top hotspot ward
27 citations
What this policy is about

Policy EN5 minimises flood impact by avoiding flood risk areas and managing residual risk. It applies to development in flood zones and areas at risk of flooding. The council will resist developments increasing flood risk.

Plain-English summary of the adopted policy text below. The full text is the rule; this is the gist.

The policy — as adopted

Flood risk

A. The council will seek to minimise the impact of flooding in the borough through: i. applying a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change over the lifetime of the development; ii. steering development towards areas of lowest flood risk, both across Lambeth and within the development site boundary, through the application of the Sequential Test in accordance with the NPPF, taking the vulnerability of the proposed uses into account, as set out in the Lambeth Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA);  To table of contents Lambeth Local Plan 2020–2035 | Section 9: Environment and Green Infrastructure iii. ensuring development does not increase flood risk and where possible reduces flood risk from all sources of flooding; iv. permitting appropriate development in Flood Zones 1, 2, 3a and 3b subject to meeting the criteria set out in Annex 4; and v. taking account of the flood risk management measures identified by the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan. B. All development in Flood Zones 2, 3a and 3b defined in the SFRA, or identified as at risk of flooding from other sources, should contribute positively to actively reducing flood risk through avoidance, reduction, management and mitigation. C. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be required for major development proposals within Flood Zone 1, all development within Flood Zones 2, 3a and 3b, or where the development may be subject to other sources of flooding. The FRA should be proportionate with the degree of flood risk posed to and by the proposed development; consider the impact of climate change on flood risk to and from the development using the latest government guidance; and take account of the advice and recommendations set out in the SFRA, Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) and Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS). D. FRAs must consider the risks of both on and off-site flooding to and from the development for all sources of flooding including fluvial, tidal, surface water run-off, groundwater, ordinary watercourse, sewer (separate or combined) and reservoir. E. For all developments, it must be demonstrated that the development will be safe (for its lifetime), and where required, it will reduce fluvial, tidal, surface water run-off and groundwater flood risk and manage residual risks through appropriate flood risk measures, including the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in accordance with Local Plan policy EN6. Measures to mitigate flooding from sewers should be discussed with Thames Water Utilities Ltd. and be included in development proposals for which this is a risk. F. The use of basement space for bedrooms and non-residential uses where flooding could threaten the safety of people will not be permitted in areas susceptible to flooding (including but not limited to areas within current modelled breach flood extent and surface water modelling). The use of basement space for all other residential and non-residential uses must adopt resilient design techniques and be flood resilient. Basement proposals should not increase flood risk elsewhere. See also Local Plan policy Q27. G. For developments adjacent to the River Thames and River Graveney, maintenance, remediation and improvements to the flood defence walls will be required where necessary. Developments adjacent to defences and culverts should demonstrate that their development will not undermine the  To table of contents Lambeth Local Plan 2020–2035 | Section 9: Environment and Green Infrastructure structural integrity or detrimentally impact upon its intended operation and future maintenance.

Verbatim from the adopted Lambeth plan · source document. The council's published plan is the authoritative version.

How it lands
88% in approvals · 12% in refusals
205 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Clapham Town27
Clapham Common & Abbeville18
Streatham Wells12
What cites it — application types
all years on record · click a slice to filter
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue EN5 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

EN5 appears most often in Clapham Town, Clapham Common & Abbeville, Streatham Wells. It appears across 43 of 70 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
88%
in approvals
180 citations
12%
in refusals
24 citations

This shows the decision reports in which EN5 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes; 1 citations sit outside the approval/refusal split.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why EN5 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
survival
3 dismissed · 1 allowed4 PINS appeal decisions cite EN5

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite EN5. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. Too few decisive appeals for a rate — the counts are the record. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing EN5 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

Related — follow the thread
Lambeth
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Lambeth's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Lambeth 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.