Updated Planning Appeals in April 2026: The Need for Proper Flood and Drainage Planning
From April 2026, the planning appeals process in Burnley is changing in a way that is more significant than it may appear. This is more than just a change in procedure; it transforms the approach to risk in the planning process and its resolution. For developers, planners, and technical advisors, the message is that it is no longer possible to rely on the appeal process to compensate for flaws in the application process.
The focus now is on ensuring that applications are comprehensive and robust right from the beginning. As outlined in the updated procedural guidance, most appeals will now move forward under a more constrained written process for flood risk and planning with less opportunities to introduce new information later.
Chris Vose at Flood Risk and Drainage Solutions explains that “this marks a major shift in how appeals operate. The expectation that issues can be resolved later is no longer dependable and applications must now be fully ready to stand on their own from start.”
Key Changes to the Planning Appeals Process from April 2026
Appeals Will Default to a Restrictive Written Process
The proposed new framework provides that for the majority of Section 78 appeals, the starting point will be a written representation process. This is an attempt to expedite matters, but at the expense of the flexibility which the applicant had previously enjoyed.
Whereas inspectors still have the power to refer certain applications to a hearing or inquiry, the general presumption would be that the matter is to be dealt with through documents alone.
The Evidence Base Is Fixed at the Application Stage
One of the major shifts in this process is the move towards assessing the information available to the local planning authority at the time of its decision.
This means that in practice, there will be an enormous limitation on introducing new technical evidence at the stage of the appeal. Of course, certain exceptions may apply if circumstances change. However, these exceptions should be regarded as limited and should not constitute an approach.
According to Chris Vose, “the documents and evidence submitted with your application play a decisive role, as the strength and the completeness of the initial submission will shape the outcome of the appeal.”
Limited Scope for Amendments or Scheme Changes
Appeals are no longer a platform for refining or evolving any proposals. Amendments to drawings, layouts or mitigation measures will generally not be considered as part of the written process. It all removes a long-standing approach where schemes could be improved following refusal.
Faster Decisions but Higher Risk
The intention behind these changes is to deliver decisions more quickly. However, speed comes with increased risk. With a reduced ability to respond to reasons for refusal and under-evidenced applications now carry significantly greater consequences.
Real-World Impact of the New Appeal Rules
Appeals Are No Longer a Safety Net
Traditionally, many projects proceeded with appeals on the assumption that their technical considerations would be reconsidered later. However, it is no longer an effective strategy. Where a proposal has been denied due to a lack of evidence or technical considerations, it is unlikely that such deficiencies can be rectified on appeal.
Applications Must Be Fully Prepared From Day One
These reforms place strong emphasis on fully front-loaded applications. All major technical aspects, including highways, heritage, flood risk & planning, and drainage, should be sorted out to an excellent standard prior to submission.
In fact, this highlights the importance of early technical involvement and supports making sound decisions based on expert flood risk assessment in planning.
Chris Vose at Flood Risk and Drainage Solutions emphasises that “applicants must assume there is no second chance if key technical issues remain unresolved at submission.”
Incomplete Evidence Now Carries Greater Consequences
Applications supported by incomplete or insufficient evidence now carry greater consequences. Refusal based on the technical grounds is far less likely to be recoverable through appeal often resulting in delays and the need to restart the process.
Why Early Flood and Drainage Evidence Is Essential
Flood Risk Assessments Must Be Done at Submission Stage
Flood risk is already an important factor in planning decisions when the site falls within designated flood zones or has been defined on the flood map for planning purposes.
Under the new system, a flood risk assessment for planning applications must be complete, policy-compliant and technically sound at submission. It leaves little scope to improve models or alter assumptions following a refusal.
The second important factor is that the flood risk assessment for planning applications must comply with local policies right from the start.
Sequential and Exception Tests Must Be Right the First Time
Both sequential and exception tests play important roles in decision-making for flood-risk management areas. If these tests lack adequate evidence during the application process, they are unlikely to be revisited.
It is imperative to have an aligned strategy and a strong approach backed by flood risk assessment skills.
Drainage Expectations Are Increasing
The issue of drainage is coming into focus for both planning and flood authorities. A drainage strategy for surface water needs to make it clear that all policies have been met, explain the reasons for any design decisions, and take into account specific site considerations. What is expected from an authority is comprehensive surface water drainage strategies.
Chris Vose notes that “flood risk, planning, and drainage are often the weakest parts of applications, and under the new system, these issues must be fully addressed and resolved before submission to avoid problems later in the appeal process.”
Environment Agency Views Will Carry Greater Weight
Where objections are raised regarding the flood risk and planning, they will be very hard to overcome at appeal without any new technical evidence. Understanding consultation expectations early is now vital.
A New Approach to Strategy Planning
From Iteration to Risk Management at an Earlier Stage
Under the previous approach, plans would change through consultation and appeal. In contrast, the new regime greatly limits this possibility.
Instead, risk will need to be assessed earlier and managed to ensure that submissions are ready for consideration.
Technical Specialisms Influence the Outcome Earlier
The flood risk and drainage assessment would previously have been considered only as supportive evidence that could be improved later. Now, they form the main factors determining acceptability with flood risk assessment expertise in planning.
This demonstrates the increasing influence of Flood Risk and Drainage in the early stages of planning.
Key Implications for Developers and Planning Teams
Greater Upfront Investment, Reduced Long-Term Risk
There is an unmistakable move towards more upfront investment to improve the chances of success on the first try and avoid resubmitting.
The Cost of Errors Has Increased
Where the application lacks sufficient supporting evidence, it is much more likely to be delayed or result in higher costs than an appeal.
Selecting the Right Technical Expertise Matters More Than Ever
The quality of technical input, especially in the flood risk and drainage, is a crucial factor influencing planning decisions under the new regime.
The message could not be any clearer. Appeal will no longer serve as a safety net for poorly conceived and presented applications. The ability to submit a properly-evidenced and compliant application will be the key to success.
Chris Vose notes that “margins of error have become much smaller. Where there are technical problems associated with flood risk or drainage, failure to address them up front means there is little hope of resolving them via an appeal process.”
So, it implies that development and planning should focus on extensive preparations, sound technical arguments, and early problem-solving. Applications that are clear and comprehensive will minimise any risks, prevent delays, and maximise the probability of success under the new planning regime.
