Vulnerability
We know a great deal about how to design buildings to be flood proof or flood resilient, but much more could be done to encourage the use of such methods. This could be done by changes in building regulations or standards, or as part of planning consents. Also insurers could insist on resilience or flood proofing, as part of the policy conditions. Some ideas are listed below.

•  First, however, the vulnerability of people must be considered, and this includes the despair and distress which flood victims suffer. Councils could encourage social workers to develop contingency plans that include voluntary groups. The Samaritans are especially well trained and experienced in giving on site comfort to the victims of a major flood disaster, and can be mobilised very quickly and effectively. The presence of voluntary workers talking to flood victims has been known to cause resentment amongst social workers who may not have confidence in the training and abilities of the volunteers. There should be no grounds for concern about The Samaritans due to their high level of training and selection, but this may not be the case with other groups. These issues need to be explored in advance, before the flood happens, so that good relationships can be developed based on mutual respect for each organisation's role.The National Flood Insurance Claims Database has details of claims costs for every major flood from 1993 to 1998, including the Easter 1998 floods. This project was initially funded by AON and General Accident, but the resulting analyses were published so that everyone could benefit. The database is currently being updated, thanks to sponsorship from a major insurance company, to include details of floods from 1998 to date. Again, results from the enlarged database will be published in due course.

•  Another measure which could be taken would be for the insurance industry to agree to introduce the FASTER system (Flood and STorm Event Reporting System). In extensive trials, this system has been shown to speed up claims handling, improve customer service, reduce claims handling costs, check for fraudulent claims, and capture data which could feed into building standards reviews and flood modelling. This system was extensively piloted amongst loss adjusters and was strongly supported by all who used it, because it allowed them to work more efficiently and deal more quickly with insurance claimants in the immediate aftermath of a flood event. There would be very little cost to the industry to introduce this system, which would pay for itself when the first major event occurs in terms of more efficient claims handling. However the industry still tends to resist change, especially if it means putting some money up front. A copy of the data collection form is shown in Appendix 3. The project was shelved in 1999, despite strong support from insurance underwriters and ABI's own expert committees. If it had been introduced, we would know a great deal more about the components of the costs of flood claims and the different causes of flood damage, because the system was designed to capture such information in a central point using automated computer scanning systems. The ABI would have then been in a much stronger position to lobby government, and insurers would have been better able to calculate accurate premium rates. The industry would also have been able to estimate much more quickly the overall costs of a flood or storm event.

•  There are many commercial flood-proofing products listed in SEPA's website but there is no official endorsement of any particular product. (The EA used to have a similar list, but dropped it presumably in case it was seen as an endorsement.) The Department of Trade and Industry has sponsored a research project to develop a National Standard Certification Scheme for temporary flood products. Two "Publicly Available Specifications" (PAS) have been developed by the British Standards Institute (BSI) and HR Wallingford. PAS 1188-1 is for temporary products to fit over openings, for example flood boards, while PAS 1188-2 is for items such as flood barriers designed for installation away from the property. Products are tested in a specially adapted tank at HR Wallingford.

Even if a product is awarded a kitemark, this may not have much influence on insurers' decisions regarding that property, for a number of reasons:

•  Deployment - there is no guarantee for the insurer that the product will be deployed in time, or at all, unless the system is automatic, such as the Dutch "floating barrier system". In some cases, deployment may be complex, or may need two physically strong people, who may not be available at the time. It is also dependent on adequate warnings, and proper maintenance of the system.

•  Water pressure has been known to demolish walls, so any system dependent on the strength of the building it is attached to will be limited to low depth and low velocity floods.

•  Flood water can readily seep through standard cavity wall construction, nullifying the effectiveness of systems designed to block openings in walls.

•  Debris impact may damage the system, so back up pumps will be needed to deal with possible leakage. These will need to be independent of mains power.

•  Rising Groundwater and sewage backup are very common causes of flooding. There is no point in having an above ground defence, if the water is going to come up through the floorboards, or a ground floor toilet.

This latter aspect is not considered in the kitemark testing, and a more realistic test would be to flood a house built on normal foundations, with normal sewage and drainage pipes, rather than one resting in a tank. For full protection the system should have the following features:

•  One way valves on all sewage and drainage pipes

•  Waterproofing of below ground structures, including under the floor

•  Sump pumps with power independent of mains electricity

•  A barrier capable of withstanding the water pressure and velocity likely to be encountered without being entirely dependent on the structure of the building.

There is no certification scheme available as yet for such systems, but in the meantime, any systems that can provide some protection are welcome, so long as the buyer is made fully aware of their limitations. For more information on temporary flood defences, see the author's separate report on the Benfield web site.

•  In the Zuider Zee museum in Holland , there are plenty of examples of flood resilient buildings constructed centuries ago and designed so that frequent flooding causes no damage. Some of the techniques used are hundreds of years old, but could easily be incorporated into current building methods.

For example, tiled floors with drains built in and a waterproof membrane underneath, alternatively solid wood floors with drainage holes and an under floor drainage system. Waterproofed external walls below and above ground, tiled internal walls, resilient furniture such as solid wood units on legs, are all less vulnerable.

Instead modern building design seems to be going the other way, with MDF, chipboard, plasterboard and other vulnerable materials. Concrete floors "floating" on a layer of insulation material are becoming more common and pose special problems (see Appendix 5).

More recently, new Building Regulations are designed to make new houses easier for disabled access, by requiring ground floor toilets and doing away with doorsteps.

A recent survey (not yet published) shows that:

•  In order to avoid the costs of a long ramp to the doorway, builders are using lowered floor heights, and there have already been some cases of flooding as a result

•  Ground floor toilets are vulnerable to sewage backup, yet builders are not fitting non return valves in the sewage system.

•  The regulations are not in any case achieving their objective because hallways are still too narrow with no space to park or turn a wheelchair.

For more details see Appendix 5.

•  In the USA , programmes have been established by the US insurance industry and FEMA to help the public to make their property more flood proof or resilient and there is much to be learned from them. The British insurance industry does not have similar programmes, and indeed the ABI has been reducing its direct involvement with building research and loss prevention.

•  Tougher building standards should apply in flood hazard areas not only to make properties more resilient to flood damage, but also to safeguard health and safety. These should be developed in consultation with the insurance industry and loss adjusters to tap into their expertise and data. Apart from using materials that are undamaged by short-term exposure to water, and apart from routing electrical cables and sockets etc above flood height, the building itself needs to be physically strong. The pressure of floodwater on a building can break windows and knock down walls and doors. (For more details, see Appendix 5)

•  The new building standards should be made retrospective, so that after a flood the property owner or insurer would be required to reinstate to a more resilient standard, or to demolish the building altogether and restore the land to its natural state. In Scotland the Executive now have powers under the Buildings ( Scotland ) Act 2003 to introduce compulsory resilient reinstatement.

•  The new ABI Statement of Principles refers to insurers undertaking to maintain flood insurance on a property even when it is sold. This could mean that an insurer could end up being perpetually on risk for a property which is regularly flooded. In such cases, the total loss or demolition option would start to look very attractive to the insurer.

•  Over the years, Government has given grants for insulation, double glazing, replacing lead water pipes with safer materials, removing coal fires etc. Why not grants for flood proofing and flood resilience?

•  Low cost or "social" housing is often more likely to be located in flood hazard areas where the land is cheap, and occupied by people who are more vulnerable, financially and in other ways. Special assistance may be needed to help such people, especially the old and infirm.

•  Older people often prefer single storey accommodation, which again makes them more vulnerable to flood because they cannot escape upstairs. Such properties should be located in safer areas as indicated in the Insurance Template. Or they should be fitted with emergency means of escape skylights in the roof.

•  New Emergency Planning legislation is urgently needed in England and Wales to deal with future disasters, not just flood, but also other impacts of climate change and terrorism. The insurance industry should be invited to contribute advice and comment.

•  Extensive research in Australia into flood warning methods could benefit British flood warning systems, but the author is not aware of any attempts to tap into this valuable work. Instead the wheel is being reinvented.

•  The government should support the UK Advisory Committee on Natural Disaster Reduction by starting to provide it with funding to commission research into natural disaster mitigation. The author is a member of this committee, which is the UK focal point for the United Nations International Strategic Disaster Reduction Initiative (UN-ISDR). There are corresponding local committees all over the world, supported financially by their respective governments. However the UK committee receives no research funding from its own government to research disaster issues at home, even though the Department for International Development does provide funding directly to UN-ISDR to research disaster mitigation work overseas.

«back to top«