I recently wrote a LinkedIn article about the paradox of the “compliant” Flood Risk Assessment, and the response highlighted exactly why I wrote it in the first place.
Some professionals commented, “I don’t understand your post. Literally 100% of all the FRAs I’ve ever written have passed planning,” and “100% of our FRA’s have ticked the boxes.”
But that, to me, is the issue. A Flood Risk Assessment is exactly what its name suggests, an assessment of risk, not a certificate of compliance or a guarantee of planning approval.
So, what does compliant actually mean? Does it mean the assessment followed the guidance, accurately identified the risk, and made proportionate recommendations? Or does it mean it helped the client achieve planning permission? The two are not always the same.
To me, success means producing a technically sound, evidence-based report that informs decision-making, even if that conclusion is that the site, as designed, isn’t viable and alterations are needed. To a client, success might simply mean a ticked planning box for the lowest possible cost. Those differing definitions are where confusion creeps in.
It’s also easy to talk about “choosing easy wins,” but you can’t always know whether a site will be straightforward until you’ve run the modelling and completed the analysis. By that point, you’re already deep into the assessment. That’s the very purpose of it, to assess viability, not to pre-select winners.
And this misunderstanding can have knock-on effects. When flood risk is treated as something to be “overcome” later in the process, it’s often not properly embedded in the design.
Clients come to believe that a flood risk consultant with a “99% success rate” can simply rubber-stamp their proposal. In reality, the best outcomes come from engaging early, building in sustainable drainage, resilient layouts, and mitigation from day one, so that what’s approved is also buildable, safe, and future-proof.
DIVE RIGHT IN
Sign up to our newsletter
With that context in mind, here’s the original article that sparked the debate:
“When it comes to Flood Risk Assessments, you’ll often see companies advertising a percentage “success rate.” I’ve even seen one claim 99% success.
But what does that actually mean? You can’t pin the success of a planning application on one document. Does success mean they got paid for the work? Or that the client got approval, regardless of whether the assessment was realistic? It’s not clear, and in my experience, the truth is rarely that simple.
This leads to the paradox of the word “compliant.” A Flood Risk Assessment is designed to analyse the risk, set out mitigation if possible, and recommend alternatives that make development safer. Compliance, in my view, should mean following the guidance. But does compliance also mean planning approval? Not always.
Take a real example. A client wanted to convert an old barn in Flood Zone 2/3 into a home with ground-floor bedrooms. The finished floor level needed to be raised above flood levels, or bedrooms had to be upstairs. They didn’t want to change the design, and there wasn’t enough headroom to lift the floors. In that case, the compliant outcome was simple: the risk was too high, and the site wasn’t suitable for that layout.
That is the point. A Flood Risk Assessment is not a rubber stamp. It is exactly what the name says: an assessment. And sometimes the assessment shows that the design needs to be reworked, or that the development just isn’t viable as planned.
The problem is that many people treat an FRA as a tick-box exercise halfway through the process. That’s too late. The value comes from engaging early, so the findings can influence the design. When drainage and flood risk are considered from day one, you can usually plan accordingly and achieve better results.
Of course, not every client sees it that way. Earlier in my career, I had one who refused to pay unless I “downgraded” the flood risk to their property. They wanted me to do it to make the house easier to sell. I refused, because without extensive modelling and a formal flood map challenge, it simply wasn’t viable. That experience was the reason we started charging upfront for Flood Risk Assessments. Once the report is issued, there’s no leverage left, and chasing invoices wastes time.
What I’d like to see is clearer communication from the industry. A Flood Risk Assessment is not a guarantee of planning permission. It’s a tool to test and improve proposals, and sometimes that means showing why the original idea won’t work. That isn’t failure. That is what makes development safer, more resilient, and truly compliant.
The takeaway is simple: engage early. Treat the Flood Risk Assessment as part of the design process, not an afterthought. It will save time, money, and frustration in the long run, and it’s the only way to achieve genuinely better outcomes.”