Planning and the "Insurance Template"
The Scottish Executive recently published a review of flooding risk in Scotland which highlighted the importance of land use planning in adaptation policies, particularly in adapting to the increased risk of flooding due to climate change. An awareness of the importance of planning as an adaptation tool does not seem to have been recognised to the same extent in England or Wales .

When comparing the different approaches to planning between Scotland and England , one important measure stands out, namely the existence in Scotland of Flood Liaison and Advice Group.

Most Scottish local authorities, including all with a potentially serious flood hazard, have set up "Flood Liaison and Advice Groups" in line with the recommendations of the relevant planning guideline, and these now cover more than 90% of the population (see the panel at the end of this section).

The planning guideline recommends that Flood Liaison and Advice Groups should include a representative from the insurance industry, and the author is a member of all of them. He has been funded by the insurance industry since 1995 to represent insurance interests in considerations about planning strategy, flood defence work and maintenance of watercourses. Local authorities have all responded very positively and have accepted that they have a duty not to put people in danger by allowing inappropriate developments in flood hazard areas. Most have also accepted some or all of the elements of the "Insurance Template" (© Crichton, 1998) even if it is only the 200 year return period standard for housing.

A full copy of the template appears as Appendix 1, and an extract appears in the panel.

The Insurance Template

Extract from the residential property section of the 'insurance template'

Return period up to the year 2050 in each case, taking climate change into account

© D. Crichton, 1998

This template provides the only consistent national standard of what levels of flood risk are acceptable to insurers, by showing what levels of risk can be insured at normal terms. (A copy of the template had appeared in the first draft of the new English planning guideline, PPG 25, but it was deleted from the second draft.) One advantage of the adoption of the template by many authorities is that it has produced a greater level of consistency and definition in planning strategies across Scotland . Previously, most planning authorities did not state any particular return period for flood risk for example, and where they did, it was generally 50 or 100 years. If the template or something like it, were to become a universal standard amongst councils, it would mean that property developers would be able to operate on a level playing field, and this would reduce the problems of developers playing one council off against another. Amy Tavendale, a researcher at Leeds University , conducted a survey of Scottish Local Authorities in July 2002, and found that more than 50% of respondents had incorporated the template in their strategies, or intended to do so.

It is interesting that while developers have been invited to Flood Liaison and Advice Groups since 1995, it is only in the last four years that they have started to send representatives, and this could well be a sign that the insurance template is making a real difference. Now that they are attending, this gives the members of the groups the opportunity to explain the extent of the flood problem and why it must be taken seriously.

The new Scottish Planning Policy for flood, SPP 7 was published in 2004 and contains a risk framework which is entirely consistent with the insurance template.

In the first part of this report, some figures were given about the growing number of properties that were being built in England and Wales , despite EA objections on the grounds of the flood hazard. The reader may well be interested in the corresponding figure for Scotland . The answer is simple; while 27% by value of new building in England and Wales is against EA advice, the corresponding figure in Scotland is zero. SEPA have never officially objected to any development on the grounds of flood risk.

This does not mean that there are never any cases where the flood issue causes concern.

SEPA usually works by persuasion, often with the help of the relevant flood appraisal group. Flood Liaison and Advice Groups have helped to enable issues to be resolved in a non-confrontational way in Scotland , because all the stakeholders meet regularly and can discuss the issues in a spirit of co-operation.

While theoretically SEPA has the power to object, as at February 2005, SEPA staff have never felt the need to raise an official objection against a development on the grounds of the flood hazard, partly because the simple use of the word "object" in Scotland could automatically trigger a Planning Inquiry. On the other hand, the absence of any objection by SEPA to the proposed development does not imply approval of it. In order to clarify the position, a protocol was agreed between SEPA and Scottish Councils in September 2000, under which SEPA sets out guidance on how their statements should be interpreted. This protocol saves SEPA from having to use the "O word", but the protocol also explains how SEPA can still trigger notification to Scottish Ministers who may then call in the application.

The system works well; it is efficient, effective, and minimises confrontation.

Table 7

In fairness it has to be said that while almost all councils in Scotland have made great progress in reducing flood risk, there is one exception. Despite the author's efforts, and the strong recommendations from the Scottish Executive, Moray, which has the worst record for flooding in Scotland , does not have a Flood Liaison and Advice Group. It regularly suffers from summer floods, and was the main area affected by the Great "Muckle Spate" in August 1829.

Although little known, "The Muckle Spate" ("Big flood") was the biggest flood ever recorded in Scotland . It devastated much of the North East of Scotland, and particularly Deeside and Moray. The severity of the flood is hard to imagine: for example, the level of the River Findhorn rose by 50 feet, giant boulders weighing over 8 tons were washed aside, and many bridges were destroyed. It is reckoned to have been a 500 year return period event, caused when three powerful weather fronts converged over Moray. A local clergyman described the weather conditions as being "like the ordnances of heaven being let loose, the lightning was like liquid fire filling the sky."

Despite its severity, there were only eight deaths. There is a detailed contemporary description in the book "An account of the floods" by Sir Thomas Dick Lauder. This is long out of print although two copies are held in Elgin public library.

Heavy floods in the summer are relatively common in Moray, and in recent years these have caused a lot of damage because of the rapid increase in the number of properties being built in the flood plain.

Some of the most serious floods in Moray have occurred in July or August:

•  1956 (twice)

•  1957

•  1958

•  1970

•  1978

•  1982

•  1997

•  2004.

These are in addition to winter floods which have also been serious, but due to different weather conditions, such as snowmelt. In almost every case, damage is confined to buildings constructed since the 1960s, and located in the floodplain. (Moray is almost the only Scottish council which ignores insurance recommendations in its planning decisions). Because of this increase in exposure, another Muckle Spate would be a much more serious matter than even the 1829 event, especially as many businesses and households can no longer obtain flood insurance in the area.

«back to top«