[2004] EWHC 1818 (Admin), 13 July 2004. Concerns an application under the Town and County Planning Act 1990 s288 to quash a decision made by an inspector appointed by the first defendant (S) dismissing the claimant's (B) appeal against the refusal of the second defendant (M) to grant planning permission for the construction of dwellings and associated ancillary development at Heybridge in Essex. The inspector dismissed the appeal because the site was at high risk of tidal flooding which would remain an obstacle to its future development and there was already an adequate supply of housing land in the district. C's principal contention was that the inspector did not take into account the actual risk of flooding but simply applied the sequential test in PPG25 on the basis that the site was shown as a Zone 3 high risk site on the flood plain map which did not take into account the existence of a flood defence. "Held": decision quashed. The judge held in favour of S on the important issue of the interpretation of the sequential test in PPG25. However, the inspector failed properly to take into account the actual flood risk to the site, its degree of flood protection and the hydraulic independence point put forward by B's consulting engineer.