The Flood Protection Gap
There is a chasm opening up between our flood planning regulations and the growing flood risk. This situation isn’t helped by flood planning regulations and guidance that is considered by some to be confusing.
Change is needed.
An example is the current debate around building on floodplains. In planning terms, floodplains only refer to the ‘functional floodplain’ or Zone 3b in England. No housing is allowed to be built in the functional floodplain.
Instead, properties are being built in flood zones. Areas that will be increasingly prone to flooding as evidenced by the last 20 years in this country.
Properties are intended to be ‘safe for their lifetime’ but the set threshold for rivers and seas is a very arbitrary threshold in reality. The need to build new homes is clearly recognised including land that may be classed as a flood zone. In fact, we could even support this approach but for the one gaping chasm which is not currently addressed.
This is the problem.
At the moment, you can legitimately build a new residential property next to a river provided it won’t flood to a 1 in 100 annual return period plus climate change.
But if more extreme weather comes along, like many of the named Storms we’ve seen in the last 20 years, the property will flood.
In order for regulations to cope with extreme weather, we need to carry out another check. We should check the flood risk to the 1 in 500 annual return period. This may sound extreme, but our weather is becoming more extreme.
As an example. In one location, the extra analysis demonstrates that there will only be a few extra centimetres of flood depth to 1 in 500. This is then considered to be an appropriate development as the additional flood depth can be designed out.
At the second location, the extra analysis demonstrates an increase of 0.5 metre in the flood depth. This location is considered to be completely inappropriate.
As planning legislation currently stands, both the first and second locations would be considered ‘safe for their lifetime’. This gap between the extreme flood and the level accepted by planning regulation is called the residual flood risk. The Environment Agency in their terminology refer this as ‘cliff-edge effects’.
Those that currently oversee the flood planning process, such as the Environment Agency, are constrained by the framework they operate in. Unless we change this approach, we will continue to see new properties flood.
Building in property flood resilience
In a discussion around public policy, the most important aspect of this debate can be overlooked. Flooding has a dreadful impact upon those who are flooded.
It creates enormous stress during the flood and subsequent clean up and repair. But longer term, research indicates the burden and worry of future floods can have.
It’s for this reason that we recommend a three step process to help those in flood vulnerable areas:
- Understand your flood risk – always consider the extreme weather event. That is, always plan for the worst, hope for the best.
- Consider measures to stop water coming in to the property – consider all openings however small.
- If water does get in, take measures to help speed up the recovery and minimise the damage.
Building back better is key concept for us following a flood. Flood resilience grants, normally for £5,000, are often available following a flood to support this.
Flood grants, however, are not available prior to a flood. If your home or business is at risk of flooding you will need to fund these measures yourself.
Flood resistance measures, the ‘keep the water out approach’, can include measures such as flood proof doors, rendered walls and non-return values to gutters and drains.
Flood resilience measures, ‘let the water in but minimise the damage’ approach is also effective. Measures include flood proof floors, flood resilient kitchens and signing up to flood alerts to allow time to relocate valuable possessions to a higher level.
We know the benefits of flood resistance and resilience measures but they are expensive. At present, flood grants are only available after the flood. They are a reactive measure. At the moment there are few incentives to support a proactive approach.
Flood adaptations must be appropriate to the type of property and area, and those living in it. For example, one vulnerable resident living alone was unable to fit the gates. In another case, flood barriers had to be removed to evacuate a vulnerable householder.
A Flood Code of Practice has been developed which will support a more holistic approach to property flood measures. This is very welcome as an effective flood strategy is difficult to achieve.
