The Planning Problem

“…when the too fatal Experience of Years has shewn the Sufferers the inevitable Consequence of their wilful and wayward Habit of placing their Residences and Stock Yards within the reach of the Floods… the Compassion excited by their misfortunes is mingled with Sentiments of Astonishment and Surprize that any People could be found so totally insensible to their true Interests, as the Settlers have in this instance proved themselves.”

General Orders issued by the Governor General of Australia, Lachlan Macquarie, in 1817 after serious flooding of the Nepean and Hawkesbury rivers.

An increasing number of new houses have been built in flood hazard areas in England and Wales, often against the advice of the Environment Agency (EA). While the percentage of cases where the EA advice has been ignored reduced between 1996 and 2000, the actual number of cases more than doubled (see panel).

According to National Land Use Change Statistics, 591,566 new houses were built in England between 1995 and 1999. Of those, more than ten percent (62,434) were built in the floodplain.
More recent figures are rather easier to obtain, thanks to High Level Targets introduced for the EA in 1999. These targets mean that the EA is now keeping better records of information about planning decisions. Among these targets is the important “Target 12”, (see panel).

Thanks to these new reporting rules, industry associations have been able to find out more details. Unfortunately these show that the position is still deteriorating:

•  According to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, figures issued by the Office for National Statistics on 28 May 2002 show that 11% of all new dwellings built in England between 1997 and 2000 were in areas defined as at flood risk by the EA.

•  Currently 27% by value of new properties are now being built in floodplains against EA advice. This seems to indicate that either the percentage of new properties in floodplains has increased dramatically since 2000, or the value has increased, or both.

So it is clear that the planning community in England and Wales are often quite happy to ignore the advice of the EA, and allow developments to proceed in flood hazard areas despite the risks, and despite the legal consequences of possible lawsuits by flood victims.

There seems to be no prospect of any improvement in the situation. Stephen Byer's Green Paper on future planning policy issued in 2002, proposed fewer planning controls, not more, and incredibly, it did not even mention flood as an issue. The planning system may need to be more responsive and less bureaucratic than present, but it certainly must also ensure that issues like flooding and contaminated land are dealt with adequately.

On one level, it is hard to argue with planners who have to meet targets for new house building. Besides, if people want to live by rivers or near road and rail links (which tend to use floodplains as transport corridors), it is not up to the insurance industry to complain, so long as the community does not expect insurers to subsidise such properties. There is no social duty on the insurance industry to provide cheap flood cover after all, even though the media seem to take it for granted that there is. Local planning is part of our democratic tradition, and where there is a shortage of land and a high demand for housing, the use of floodplains for housing may well be justified on the grounds of economic efficiency, so long as public safety is not compromised.

What does seem unfair, however, is that

•  frequently the purchasers of these properties are not aware of the flood hazard,

•  when they do become aware of it, they expect the EA to fund flood defences to protect them, even if the EA has advised against the development in the first place.

•  often flood plain land, being cheap, is used for social housing, where the residents may not be able to afford to buy insurance.

The general public should have a right to expect that experts, such as the planning authorities, will take all reasonable steps to protect the interests of the people who are affected by their decisions, namely those who buy new homes built with the consent of the local planners. Indeed this sort of duty is enshrined in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners [1964] A.C. 465.

«back to top«