A
flood is the most effective and indiscriminate ‘burglar’ there is. It
will take everything you have, including items of no value to anyone
else.
I’ve
not been the victim of a flood myself. My experience of flooding
fortunately has been from an armchair. However, as we move to a more
hostile and unpredictable climate, it’s impossible to ignore. You only
need to look back to last year to see several records broken.
- Feb 2020: wettest February on record dating back to 1862, with 3 storms hitting the UK (Ciara, Dennis, Jorge). Previous record from 1990.
- May 2020: driest May on record (Carbon Brief Ltd, 2021).
- October 2020: 3rd October became the wettest day on record for the UK (Met Office, 2021).
Flooding
is not a recent phenomenon. It’s a natural event that would have
occurred since rivers graced the landscape. Unfortunately, it’s now
something that is ingrained into life for some of us. Its impact on our
society in areas of the UK are significant. The causation is simply what
would be considered now as poorly planned development, in areas at risk
without suitable, sustainable mitigation. Development took precedent
over understanding risk and if appropriate, risk management.
It’s
not just the location of the development which has been key in
increasing flood risk. Settlements characterised by concrete and tarmac
have broken the natural hydrological cycle, increasing run-off and
preventing infiltration. Watercourse have been over engineered,
straightened and diverted into shorter, man-made channels resulting in
less volume, higher erosion and higher discharge rates.
The result of this is millions of people and businesses at risk in any given year
Our
causation of this issue has left us in a place where flood risk can’t
be unacceptable. That stance is now impossible, albeit it could be
applied to planning and new developments if we wanted to take a very
firm stance. This would be difficult especially with a necessary focus
on brownfield development and urban regeneration. Flooding now has to be
seen as a scale of risk. What is an acceptable frequency of risk for us
to be exposed to?
In
reality, this will vary person to person however regulators need to
take a stance. Given over 5 million properties are at risk it’s
impossible to be so black and white.
In
some areas of the country, risk can be argued as being unavoidable. For
example, in Boston Borough Council, over 90% of properties located in
the borough are deemed to be within a Flood Zone 3 area. This is
followed by properties in Kingston upon Hull City Council, South Holland
District Council, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, at c. 90%,
77% and 62% respectively.
It’s
important to note that this data only shows the percentage of
properties located in a Flood Zone 3 area. It does not comment on any
additional precautions taken to mitigate such risks. However, on the
counter side of this argument, it also only assesses risk from two
mechanisms, fluvial and tidal and omits pluvial (surface water) and
groundwater risk areas.
Given both the impact and cost of flooding, are we:
- Taking it seriously enough during the homebuying process?
- Doing enough to protect ourselves from risk where it exists?
Are we taking risk seriously enough?
The
scale of risk across the UK is quite a well understood entity. We know
that over 5 million properties are at risk of flooding. Less known is
that because of the impacts of climate change, some suggest this could
increase to 1 in 3 (RIBA, 2021).
Climate
change is going to result in increased risk from both a storm ferocity
and regularity standpoint and whilst climate change is expected to bring
longer, dryer summers, it’s also predicted to result in longer, wetter
winters.
Despite
this, even considering the scale of risk now, the frequency of events
and how they are reported in the media, at the point of buying a home or
investment, there is a strong position to argue that the answer to the
above question is “No”.
According to the Law Society’s website:
Practice notes give you guidance on a range of important legal topics,
helping you give your clients the best possible advice. They set out our
view of good practice for our members.
The
Law Society Practice Note on flood risk has been around since 2013.
Despite this, is there still a barrier to understanding flood risk as
part of pre-acquisition due diligence?
With less than 30% of residential transactions annually carrying out a proper flood assessment, it seems there might be.
Given
the significance of flood risk and the impact it can have on property
value, insurance terms and (often overlooked) mental well-being, surely
if this was a valued risk the percentage would be a lot higher than 30%?
If we look at the commercial market, flood risk is taken a lot more
seriously with the percentage of transactions with a full flood
assessment closer to 60%. Furthermore, the impact on climate change on
flooding is already becoming a talking point amongst the investor
community as environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) and
sustainability move up the agenda within the industry.
The
price of conveyancing inevitably has an impact on the take up of flood
reports, due to what is an ever-increasingly competitive market.
To
account for this, flood reports that screen risks and are purely based
on data dominate the residential market, whereas in the commercial
space, combined environmental reports do. While these types of reports,
like Landmark’s Envirosearch provide excellent insight into risk, when a
risk is identified it’s important that flood risk is assessed and
reported in more detail beyond that of basic and limited automation.
However,
where I think we need to get to is the view that the small added cost
at the beginning shouldn’t be a barrier. A flood report should be an
enabler to the transaction especially as its cost will be negligible in
comparison to any excess paid on a flood claim, and the disruption to
someone’s life.
Are we doing enough to protect ourselves from risk where it exists?
Answering
this question is tricky, especially from a legal due diligence
standpoint as its remit is providing information on risk to in effect,
inform someone else’s decision. Again, people’s appetite to risk will
always be intrinsic and balanced against what they perceive the value to
be and what is important to them.
One
issue skewing this, though, is how risk is often portrayed. For speed
and ease of interpretation, too much focus is on providing a simple
answer rather than explaining risk. This can be highlighted by what we
often assume low risk is. We assume low risk pretty much means no risk
and when reported we don’t bother reading further. In fact, low risk
maybe as a result of defences and without them, a high risk could exist.
As we know all too well in the UK, defences aren’t perfect and low risk
areas can and do still flood if they’re reliant on physical barriers
holding flood water back.
However,
focussing on the question at hand, given the UK’s position on flood
risk and that it’s a property owner's responsibility to protect their
property from flooding, do we acknowledge and subsequently act on this?
Yes,
the government plays an integral role in managing and reducing risk,
the Department of Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) having overall
national responsibility for policy. But do we truly accept
responsibility for this issue, and if not, why not?
Within
this space I think more can be done by flood risk report providers.
However, search providers do need to walk along the fine line, ensuring
the needs of the industry are met (short, concise and clear), as well as
discussing the key mechanisms for managing risk set out in the Law
Society Practice Note, and insurance.
Insurance
is vital in managing flood risk. It plays an intricate part in flood
risk management, even more so since Flood Re was established to provide
cover for those at greatest risk. However, insurance is still only
reactive, only relevant once the impact and disruption of flooding has
already happened. Really, more proactive measures need to be taken to
aid insurance to not just manage risk exposure, but to reduce its
overall economic and human impact.
Many
of us happily invest in smoke alarms and security locks to protect
ourselves against fires or thefts; but if you live in a floodplain,
you’re far more likely to be flooded than have your belongings lost in a
fire. Yet, when it comes to flooding, we don’t seem to value the risk
in the same way and as a result, prepare.
What is within the Conveyancer’s control?
There’s
more within our control than perhaps we think. Not all environmental or
flood risk searches provide the same level of quality to the
conveyancer. This fact is often overlooked, which is understandable if
you’ve ever held two searches up together and tried to understand the
differences.
Flood
data itself has come on leaps and bounds from where it was only a
decade ago. However more importantly, the interpretation of data in
flood risk reports provided by the likes of Landmark and Argyll
Environmental have also evolved dramatically.
One thing a conveyancer can do before affirming a policy on searches, especially in regard to flood risk is ask the question: Where has this assessment come from?
Yes,
data plays an integral part and is the foundation of environmental
reports. However, an assessment and the advice within should come from
interpretation. From a consultant. This is what is unique to Landmark
residential flood reports. This is the real value in an assessment at
any level.
As
standard, Landmark flood reports offer a manual review of data by a
consultant where a high risk may exist, at no extra cost. This is within
both the Landmark Flood report and the market leading All-in-One
environmental report, RiskView Residential.
This
ensures that, as a conveyancer, you’re only ever providing property
specific and accurate flood assessments to your clients, provided by
experts in flood risk data.
