Equestrian developments—such as stables, maneges, horse-walkers, and associated rural buildings often occupy sites on the edges of settlements or within open countryside, where flooding and drainage constraints can be significant. The September 2025 updates to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG): Flood Risk and Coastal Change reinforce the need for applicants to demonstrate robust, proportionate management of flood risk. The following considerations are particularly relevant to equestrian proposals.
Sequential Approach Across All Sources of Flooding
The updated PPG confirms that the Sequential Test must now consider all sources of flood risk, not just rivers and the sea. For equestrian schemes, this often brings surface water, groundwater emergence, local drainage pathways, and overland flow routes into sharper focus. Applicants must demonstrate that there are not reasonably available lower-risk sites to accommodate the proposed scale of development. Steering vulnerable components—such as stables, welfare facilities, tack rooms, or groom accommodation—towards Flood Zone 1 remains the priority.
Limited Carve-Out for Surface Water Risk
The new allowance for bypassing the Sequential Test where surface water is the only flood source can be relevant for equestrian facilities, which frequently encounter pluvial flooding or waterlogging rather than fluvial flooding. However, this exemption applies only if a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) shows that the design and layout fully safeguard people, animals, and property over the development’s lifetime without increasing off-site flood risk. For equestrian uses, this could include demonstrating that horses can be safely evacuated and that yard runoff won’t worsen conditions downstream.
Proportionate Area of Search
The guidance now adopts a more proportionate approach to the “area of search” for the Sequential Test. For rural equestrian proposals, the functional need to remain close to grazing land, bridleway networks, or the applicant’s landholding can justify a localised search area. Indeed, some Local Plan policies, relating to equestrian, specifically require proposals to be in close proximity to bridleways which can assist with justifying an area of search in such circumstances. The updated PPG supports defining search boundaries that reflect the practical and geographic realities of equestrian operations, rather than requiring applicants to consider distant, unsuitable parcels of land.
Meaning of “Reasonably Available” Sites
The September 2025 update clarifies that alternative sites need not be owned by the applicant and that multiple smaller sites can count if they could theoretically accommodate the same use. For equestrian development, this means applicants must explain why other parcels of land—whether or not under their control—cannot viably or safely provide facilities of the required size, layout, and proximity to pasture.
FRA and Drainage Design
Equestrian development typically introduces impermeable areas (hardstandings, roofs, arenas). High-quality FRA and drainage design, particularly SuDS, runoff control, exceedance routing, and protection of adjacent land is now essential. Arenas and yards must be designed to remain operable and safe in extreme rainfall events.
Key Takeaways
With a stronger emphasis on future risk (climate change) and surface water, high-quality FRAs are more important than ever. Detailed hydraulic and rainfall modelling, assessment of exceedance flows, SuDS design and plans for safe access/egress will be essential, particularly if developers hope to rely on the surface water carve-out.
Given the tighter requirements and greater scrutiny, early engagement with LPAs, Lead Local Flood Authorities, and the Environment Agency is strongly advisable. Presenting clear, proportionate search area justifications and robust FRA evidence will help secure buy-in and reduce risk at the decision-making stage.
The PPG updates strengthen and clarify how flood risk should be managed in planning applications. While they restate the primacy of the Sequential Test, they introduce limited flexibility for surface water risk and insist on proportionate, evidence-based approaches. For developers, the message is clear: demonstrate safety and reasonableness clearly and do not, for example, rely on housing need to shortcut flood risk requirements.