Flood Resilience in England: A Wake-Up Call

The Committee concludes that England’s approach is fragmented, underpowered, and too dependent on short-term capital projects. Without a statutory framework for resilience, clear accountability, or consistent funding, it warns, the system “will remain reactive and costly” — a situation that is “no longer tenable under escalating climate risk.”

The scale of the challenge

The report sets out stark figures. Around 6.3 million properties in England are already at risk from rivers, the sea or surface water — a number expected to rise sharply under climate change. The Environment Agency projects a 90 % increase in properties at highest risk from river and coastal flooding and a 200 % rise in surface-water risk by the 2080s. Two-thirds of England is now considered potentially floodable under certain conditions, reshaping public and private exposure alike.

Flooding costs the UK an estimated £2.4 billion annually, projected to rise to £3.6 billion by 2050, with wider economic disruption reaching £6 billion per year. Beyond the figures are the human consequences — displacement, uninsured losses, and persistent mental-health impacts — which the Committee identifies as being “poorly represented in current policy metrics”.

These findings sit alongside broader funding commitments, including Defra’s £10.5 billion flood defence overhaul and the £7.9 billion infrastructure investment programme aimed at future-proofing national defences against increasing flood risk.

Fragmented responsibility, unclear leadership

Flood risk management remains divided across multiple authorities — the Environment Agency, Lead Local Flood Authorities, water companies, drainage boards, and local councils — with no single body owning national accountability. Despite the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 being intended to clarify roles, the report finds the system “opaque and inconsistent”, calling for statutory duties across all risk types and a permanent national coordinating body to provide strategic oversight.

Defra’s position as lead department for flood and coastal erosion risk management is central to this balance between policy and delivery, supported by the Environment Agency’s strategic flood-risk role.
A more joined-up approach between national oversight and local implementation would help ensure consistency in the way Flood Risk Assessments are interpreted and applied in planning.

No standard for resilience

A recurring theme is the absence of clear, measurable resilience standards. Communities do not know what level of protection to expect, nor what a “flood-resilient property” should look like. The Committee recommends that by 2027 the Government establish national flood resilience standards — tiered by risk, forward-looking, and embedded in the National Adaptation Programme.

Such standards would provide a framework for consistency across planning and investment and strengthen application of the 2010 Act, ensuring resilience moves from aspiration to enforceable reality.

Surface water: the overlooked risk

Surface-water flooding now affects an estimated 4.6 million properties, three times more than previously understood. Yet responsibility for managing it remains divided between Lead Local Flood Authorities and water companies, with limited data-sharing and no national standardisation. The Committee notes that sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) remain inconsistently applied, as Schedule 3 of the 2010 Act — which would make SuDS mandatory — is still not enacted in England.

Recent updates to national SuDS standards and improvements in surface-water drainage strategy practice provide progress, but the report is clear: surface-water flooding must “no longer be treated as a second-tier issue”.

Catchment-based and nature-based solutions

The Committee argues that catchment-based planning must move from pilot to principle — coordinating land, water, and infrastructure decisions across entire river systems. Examples such as the River Severn Partnership and Dutch water-management models show how large-scale collaboration can reduce downstream risk while supporting biodiversity and agriculture.

Equally, nature-based solutions — from wetland restoration and leaky dams to tree planting and soil improvement — remain undervalued in national funding models. Despite growing evidence of their multiple co-benefits, they are still treated as peripheral rather than fundamental to national strategy. The report calls for funding reforms that capture their full economic and environmental value and for measurable national uptake targets by 2026.

This approach mirrors the shift towards green SuDS and nature-based drainage design, ensuring resilience measures contribute to wider ecosystem and community benefits.

Development still permitted in flood zones

One of the report’s most striking findings is that 110 000 new homes built in the last decade are located in high-risk flood zones. Flood Re insurance protection does not apply to most of these properties, leaving owners exposed to rising costs and potential uninsurability.

This reflects a broader tension between national housing plans and flood-risk policy — and the growing financial exposure of the UK housing market as climate-related flood threats intensify.

The Committee calls for:

• Statutory cumulative-impact tests within local and regional plans;
• Mandatory updates to Strategic Flood Risk Assessments every five years; and
• Immediate commencement of Schedule 3 to make SuDS compulsory in all new developments.

Such reforms would transform how planning authorities assess and manage risk, reinforcing principles already promoted through sequential testing and evidence-led development control.

People, preparedness and awareness

Beyond infrastructure, the Committee highlights gaps in public awareness. Fewer than half of those receiving flood warnings know how to respond, and confusion remains over which agency to contact during a flood event. It recommends a single national flood-reporting and information service and a major awareness campaign delivered through local flood groups, schools, and emergency services.

Flood resilience, it notes, “is as much about people and communication as it is about engineering.”

Financing resilience

The report calls for flood investment to rise to £1.5 billion per year by 2030, matching National Infrastructure Commission recommendations, and for a “resilience test” to be embedded across all departmental spending.
These goals align with recent national announcements — including the £2 billion boost for UK flood defences and the continuing expansion of Defra’s funding programmes — to secure long-term protection and support more sustainable planning.

Effective coordination between departments, the Environment Agency and the Flood Resilience Taskforce will be essential to ensure that investment delivers consistent, measurable outcomes across regions.

A turning point for English flood policy

The Environmental Audit Committee’s report provides the most comprehensive roadmap yet for reforming flood management in England — calling for statutory resilience standards, catchment-scale planning, mandatory SuDS, and national coordination.