The health of our chalk rivers and streams is a topic which is now rarely out of the news, most of it bad. I was asked recently to do a presentation which would explain what the country’s planning system could do to help improve them and why planning seemed to be limited in its impact. Here I will try and set out a shortened version of that presentation.
The management of the water environment is spread across numerous pieces of legislation and regulation, various public agencies such as Natural England, Environment Agency, OFWAT, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the private water companies. Planning gets involved when an application is made for the change of use of land or buildings and its role is to assess the impact of that change on the environment and to either permit or refuse development. The decision will be informed by the advice received from the aforementioned bodies as well as others such as the local lead flood authority in respect of surface water drainage. I think it is fair to say that planners have tended to follow the advice provided by those with expertise in their field. This reliance on others is encouraged by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 201 which politely tells planners to stay in their lane and assume others will undertake their functions efficiently.
Given the declining health of our chalk streams clearly something is not working. That has not gone unnoticed by planners as well as others and there are now a growing number of examples of planning authorities taking a more proactive role within the legislation and national guidance it operates.
The NPPF helpfully includes advice, have a look at paragraphs 187e) and paragraph 198 which clearly gives planners a reason to scrutinize the impact of development on the water environment. The courts have recently provided some very useful case law which says that when playing planning Top Trumps paragraph 187 and 198 beats paragraph 201. Planning authorities can refuse permission if they consider there will be harm to the environment and can make that case.
This year there have been several examples where councils have pushed back and been successful. Horsham District Council’s approach of using a planning condition to link development to the provision of a water supply in an area of water neutrality was upheld in the courts. Wealden District Council won an appeal where it refused an application because the wastewater infrastructure capacity necessary was not in place despite the advice of the water company. Arun District Council won an appeal where the right to connect to a public sewer to take surface water run-off was tested by the developer.
The scope to use Local Plans, which provide the framework for decision-making on application, to be more proactive is being explored by Councils. A legal case in July 2025 confirmed that planning authorities can include policies in their local plans which are not consistent with national guidance provided they can justify their approach. This would, for example, enable councils to consider making policies more challenging than the national standards when seeking to limit water consumption on new homes.
A number of councils have adopted Rights of Rivers Declarations. As far as planning is concerned they do not have any formal status. However, where a council has made such a declaration it would be reasonable to expect that its local plan would include a range of detailed policies to support each of the rights included.
It is not all good news. Where the Government sees the planning system being used to hamper its pro-development agenda it engages in its version of whack-a-mole. The Government has resisted attempts to include the importance of chalk streams in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It has engineered a solution to the water neutrality issue raised in the Horsham case earlier this year. It has introduced Environmental Delivery Plans (EDP) which could result in the local impact on the environment for development being compensated in areas remote from that impact. Quite how harm to an irreplaceable habitat such as a chalk stream in one part of the country is compensated by a scheme elsewhere is unclear. We will need to see how Natural England progress the first round of its EDPs and address the issue.
The publication of the draft revised National Planning Policy Framework in Policy N1a) and its reference to chalk streams, provides the scope for local plans to include policies which would recognise their importance. The document reaffirms the Government’s pro-development agenda but this does not in my view, undermine the case that environmental harm should be avoided.
The agencies who have responsibilities to protect the water environment and advise local planning authorities on the impact of development have a key role to play. Currently the co-ordination of the various regulatory processes and planning is not working in the best interests of chalk streams and needs to be improved. Thankfully the number of partnership projects where a range of agencies are working together is increasing with positive results.
Fortunately, planners are not alone in attempts to improve the health of our chalk streams. There is a growing and very active environmental lobby with organisations such as Wildfish and Fish Legal prepared to lodge legal challenges. Local projects aimed at supporting chalk streams are spreading across the country such as the Watercress and Winterbournes Landscape Partnership Scheme or the Wessex River Trust’s project on the River Anton and newly emerging community groups such as the Pillhill Brook Association and the Upper Itchen Restoration CIC are increasingly shouting out about the need for chalk stream policies and protection.
The publication of the draft revised National Planning Policy Framework in Policy N1a) and its reference to chalk streams provides the scope for local plans to include policies which would recognise their importance.
Help us speak up for chalk streams!
While it is a welcome step forward that chalk streams are included in the National Planning Policy Framework, the current wording is too weak to truly protect them. Despite these unique rivers being globally rare, impossible to create or replace and supporting a variety of wildlife, including threatened species, they have still not been recognised as irreplaceable habitats. In the planning system, habitats classified as ‘irreplaceable habitat’, such as ancient woodland, receive stronger protections meaning developments aren't allowed to destroy or damage the habitat, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons.
We’ve already written an email template for you so all you need to do is use our simple e-action to submit your response to the consultation calling on Government to add chalk streams to the irreplaceable habitats list in the National Planning Policy Framework.
We’ve also provided some new advice on how to respond to planning applications to best protect your chalk stream. This advice can be found here.