Counting non-Flood Defence Grant in Aid
property level investment
The National Flood Forum • Registered Charity No. 1121642
A Company Limited By Guarantee • Registered in England & Wales No. 4349401
Registered Office: Old Snuff Mill Warehouse, Park Lane, Bewdley, Worcs DY12 2EL • VAT Registered No: 786 2681 83
NFF Office
The National Flood Forum
Snuff Mill Warehouse
Bewdley
Worcestershire
DY12 2EL
Counting nonFlood Defence
Grant in Aid
property level
investmentRev
Amendments
Issued to
2012
2013
2013
ision History
Revision Ref / Date
Issued
Draft 1
Final Report
Final Summary Report
2013
Contract
The project was led by Paul Cobbing (National Flood Forum) and managed through a Project Board
consisting of Richard Walker (Environment Agency), David Beuzeval (National Flood Forum) and
Robbie Craig (Defra). Work on delivering the project was undertaken by Paul Cobbing, Amanda
Davies, Jayne Paget and Chris Wright of the National Flood Forum.
This collaborative project was conceived and contracted by Richard Walker (Environment Agency)
with Paul Cobbing (national Flood Forum). It was jointly resourced and was delivered via a Project
Board that consisted of - .....
. Work on it was undertaken by .....
Prepared by .......................................... Paul Cobbing, BSc, MSc, MCIEEM, CEnv
Reviewed by .......................................
David Beuzeval& Richard Walker
Purpose
This document has been prepared for the Environment Agency. NFF accepts no responsibility or
liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the Environment Agency for the
purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared.
NFF has no liability regarding the use of this report except to the Environment Agency contract.
2
Acknowledgement
NFF extend their thanks to members of the Steering Group, particularly Richard Walker, Robbie
Craig, David Beuzeval and to all those who guided us in formulating and implemented this project.
We all like to thanks the dedicated staff and volunteers from the NFF who worked tirelessly to collect
and analyse the data as part of this project.
Copyright
Counting non-Flood Defence Grant in Aid property level investment
National Flood Forum 2013
3
Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Methodology
4. Results
5. Discussion and evaluation
6. Key Findings and recommendations
7. References
Appendices
1. List of companies
2. List of companies surveyed
3. Questionnaire for flood product manufacturers and services providers
4
1. Executive Summary
The primary commissioning aim of this collaborative research project was to; provide an
initial evidenced assessment of the size and rate of growth of the emerging market in the
supply of flood risk protection to individual properties.
The emphasis is on looking beyond Defra grant-funded property level protection (PLP)
programmesand PLP projects supported via Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) to evaluate
the scale and growth in the wider supply of and demand for PLP products and services. The
objectives were to:
1.
Devise a method and produce an initial evidenced assessment of the scale and
distribution, geographically and by sector, of expenditure by households, businesses, LAs
and the third sector on FCRM measures to protect individual property (looking beyond the
part-FDGiA funded property level protection schemes).
2.
Identify how to utilise/adapt a parallel method of assessment of the likely damage
avoidance benefits (from linkage with JBA cost effectiveness study results), essentially
identify a compatible way of measuring the outcomes of that expenditure.
3.
Utilise both of the above and combining them, define net value (and thus ‘returns’) for
such property level investment across sectors.
4.
Ensure that techniques and tools developed will be available for ongoing use to
measure annually.
The starting assumption was that that there were around 50 companies in the PLP supply
chain, however, 192 were found within a couple of weeks. A cross-sectional sample of 42
were surveyed via a questionnaire, resulting in an estimated turnover of £32,081,000 per
annum in 2011/12, of which £24,776,250 was non-grant aided The conclusion is that in the
UK there is a supply side estimated total PLP turnover of£127,655,646 with an estimated,
non-grant aided turnover of £89,072
On the demand side, a questionnaire of 16local authorities and water companies revealed
that procurement was from a relatively small number of companies due to difficulties in the
procurement process, the lack of companies able to deliver a complete service, a lack of
time and expertise on the part of the procurers and the availability of certain products. A few
companies are highly dependent upon grant aid, but the majority (58%) are not reliant on
grant aid at all. 30% of turnover is reliant upon grant aid, indicating that the market has
developed significantly in recent years and has the potential to be self-sustaining.
The JBA Cost effectiveness study, Defra 2012, Establishing the Cost Effectiveness of
Propoerty Flood Protection FD257 identified typical benefit;cost ratios of greater than 1:1 for
manually deployed flood resistance measures for flood thresholds of up to 2.5% annual
exceedance (1 in 40 years). However these rose to 5.1 for all core property types exposed
to flooding with a 10% annual exceedance probability (1:10) threshold.
Taken at face value, benefit cost ratios of 5:1 for a reduction of flood risk through the use of
manual resistance methods would provide a public benefit of £445,363280 from the estimate
of non grant aided spend of £89,072,656, though not all non-grant aided spend is on manual
resistance measures and the Cost Effectiveness study focusses on residential property,
5
whereas the spend in this study covers all sectors, residential, business and commercial
despite these reservations, it would be reasonable to expect the results to be meaningful as
the benefits for residential and business are likely to be similar, as backed by crosscomparison of Cost:Benefit between homes and offices in FD2607.
The conclusion is that there is currently a significant private sector, non-FDGiAgrant aided
spend of £89,072,656 on flood risk management through individual property level protection
that is currently not accounted for in current estimates of flood defence spending. When
benefit:cost ratios are taken in to account this produces a range of up to £445,363,280 in
annual benefits.
The sector is still in its infancy, with strong characteristics of an emerging sector. However,
there are signs that it is beginning to mature, with some companies delivering a cradle to
grave service, rather than a product, and with a number negotiating linkages with insurance
companies. In addition, there are attempts to professionalise the sector through trade
associations. Several companies have started to export their services and products,
particularly in to Europe, USA and South East Asia. There is very little experience outside of
the UK of these products and it would appear that this is a significant opportunity if it can be
capitalised on.
The Commission of Climate Change has estimated that there are up to 190,000 residential
properties in England and Wales that would benefit from Property Level Protection (CCC
Adaptation Sub Committee 4th Annual report). Multiplied by the average cost of proptecting
a property (£5,000 is the grant aid offered by the Defra and Environment Agency pilot
schemes), this equates to a potential market of £950,000,000. This is a huge potential
market and does not take account of the potential for non-residential property. Delivering
measures on this scale would require a significant increase in capacity and capability in the
sector.
The likely damage avoidance benefit value to customers (and their insurers, family,
communities, shareholders and supply chain customers_ of this approach at the 5:1 ratio
estimated in the JBA Cost effectiveness study, Defra 2012, Establishing the Cost
Effectiveness of Property Flood Protection FD257 report would be £4,750,000,000.
6
2. Introduction
2.1
Context
Property Level Protection (PLP) against flood risk, also sometimes known as
property flood protection, or Individual Property Protection, takes two forms –
Flood Resistance Measures – actions to reduce the risk of flood water entering a
property
Flood Resilience Measures – actions to minimise risks, damage and disruption
caused if flood water does enter property
Property level resistance and resilience measures are not mutually exclusive, in fact
they are often complementary, the former reducing the likelihood, the latter reducing
the consequence from the residual flood risk.
In a similar sense the effectiveness and value of property level protection measures
can be significantly enhanced through complementary community resilience
measures and even community level FCRM schemes.
Types of PLP resistance actions – (list) air brick covers, flood doors and barriers and
non-return valves on the drainage system
Types of PLP resilience actions -raising electrical circuits
It is estimated that in England and Wales –4.15 million homes are at risk of flooding.
2.5 millionproperties are at risk from sea and/or river flooding, while a further 2
million are at risk from surface water (350,000 from both).
Considerable progress has been made in recent years through significant capital
investment to reduce the significance of fluvial and coastal flood risk to many
properties and communities.
A greater understanding of the likelihood of flooding to properties from surface water
(sometimes combined with water from overflowing drainage and non-critical
watercourses) has developed since the Pitt review.
7
However, the more diverse patterns and the extent of surface water flooding to
homes and businesses during the summer, and latter months, of 2012 suggest that
an increased focus, fresh approaches and targeted investment are required to
enable communities to better manage and cope with localised sources of flooding.
Both forms of PLP have a significant part to play alongside a range of catchment
land management and community approaches to managing and minimising the
impact of flooding.
Flooding causes huge damage every year. The ABI estimate that an average of
£350 million of insurance claims are paid each year for households and small
businesses (ABI perscomm February 2013) and that this figure has been rising
consistently. The 2007 floods resulted in total economic (damage) costs of £3.2bn,
of which £2.12 billion estimated to have been incurred by households and
businesses (Delivering benefits through evidence; the costs of the 2007 floods in
England, Project: SC070039/R1, 2010, Environment Agency.
The Climate Change Risk Assessment 2012 (CCRA 2012) ((Defra Project Code
GA0204) Climate Change Risk Assessment for the Floods and Coastal Erosion
Sector, January 2012) has projected that the risk of flooding will increase,
with“annual flood damages to properties projected to increase by between 70% and
400% by the 2080s”.
The Pitt Review of the 2007 floods in England recommended that government
should take steps toincrease resilience in flood prone communities throughout the
United Kingdom (UK), including theencouragement and implementation of more
Property Level Protection (PLP) particularly in areaswhere large flood defence
schemes are not feasible (Pitt, 2008)
“RECOMMENDATION 12: All local authorities should extend eligibility for
home improvement grants and loans to include flood resistance and resilience
products for properties in high flood-risk areas.
RECOMMENDATION 13: Local authorities, in discharging their
responsibilities under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to promote business
8
continuity, should encourage the take-up of property flood resistance and
resilience by businesses.”
The Resilience Grants Pilot Projectsin 2007/2008 funded by Defra, resulted in 199
properties implementing flood resistance/resiliencemeasures in six communities
Since then several other schemes have beenimplemented throughout the UK, with
over 1,109 government funded PLP projects implementedthrough 63 schemes as a
means of flood risk and vulnerability reduction strategy at a local level (Evaluation of
the Defra Property-level Flood Protection Scheme: 25918 Draft ReportDefra,
2008).The Environment Agency funded measures in a further 1135 properties in
2011/12 through 72 schemes, perscomms – Robbie Craig, Defra. In addition, a
number of other schemes have been funded by local authoritiesand water
companies. One of the largest of these was the scheme in Cumbria following the
2009floods, delivered through the Cumbria Development Fund.(2012 National Flood
Forum, PLP and insurance report)In addition, some water companies, local
authorities and Community Foundation, Cumbria have also grant aided the
installation of PLP.
Prior to 2000, there were very few products available, apart from the ubiquitous
sandbag, or home made “flood doors”. During the intervening years there has been
a proliferation of products and services, as well as companies offering these. In
parallel, use of at least some of these products and services for property level
protection has been grant aided from the Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FD GiA)
budget, firstlydirectly from Defra and more latterly through the Environment
Agency.In the first round of funding,£3 million was made available to 25 local
authorities in June 2009, to protect up to 593properties. In the second round, a
further £2.6 million was awarded to 28 local authorities inMarch 2010, to protect an
additional 532 properties, Evaluation of the Defra Property-level Flood Protection
Scheme: 25918, Summary report March 2012.
The Adaptation Sub Committee 3rd Progress report, Climate Change – is the UK
prepared for flooding and water scarcity? 2012 estimates that, under a low
investment in flood defences scenario, up to 330,000 properties could be protected
from flood risk by 2035 by property level protection measures. Uptake rates would
need to increase 35-fold to 14,000 properties per year to achieve this.Although the
9
report makes the assumption that all investment is currently government funded,
which is almost certainly incorrect, the figures are nevertheless an interesting order
of magnitude assessment of what is needed.
Property level measures can offer alternatives where the creation and maintenance
of FCRM asset systems (flood defences) are unfeasible or not financially viable.
FCRM Partnership Funding (FDGiA) has the potential, coupled to local contributions,
to support PLP and PLP inclusive community FCRM schemes.
The overall effectiveness of PLP schemes (as per all other FCRM measures) won’t
finally be known until they are tested in flood situations.
A number of projects are underway to explore the relationship with insurance, the
economic benefit and their long term viability, notably PLP and Insurance (2012,
National Flood Forum), Defra: FD2657 Establishing the Cost Effectiveness of
Property-level Flood Protection and Evaluation of the Defra Property-level Flood
Protection Scheme: 25918 Draft Report, December 2011.
Alongside the development of property level protection schemes has been the
creation of business opportunities and the development of a range of products to
meet that need. What is not clear is how much economic activity has been created,
nor of the business benefit. There are further questions around what sectors have
shown the greatest business activity and where this has taken place.
One of the purposes of installing property level protection is to avoid economic
damage to property and loss of income. Defra R&D project FD2607 undertaken by
Entec in 2007 developed economic and financial models on the benefits of property
level protection schemes (updated in 2012 through contract 2011s5610 PLP Cost
effectiveness project).
There is an opportunity to better understand these issues and bring the strands
together to get an improved understanding of the economic impact and opportunities
presented by property level protection schemes. The purpose of this study, and the
contribution it can make to a better understanding, is to provide an estimate of the
10
scale, rate of growth and value of the emerging non-grant aided market in PLP
products and services.
The purpose of this project is to make use of the prior and 2012 refresh of valuation
of PLP scheme outcomes and economic benefits and relate it to an evaluation of
size and growth of non-FDGiA funded investment in and supply (and demand)
market.
The implications are that the drivers and rationale for growth assumption and
establishing a baseline now are the pilots and demonstrable worth of FDGiA funded
PLP coupled with growth in supply-side players that appears to be larger than just a
response to more FDGiA investment in PLP. Flood events, media coverage and
growing awareness of use of individual resistance and resilience products and
services are also contributing and it appears that there is an emerging private market
in PLP products and services.
2.2
Aims and objectives
The project therefore aims to investigate and explore the supply chain benefits of the
flood protection products market and the economic benefits of property level
protection for non-FDGiA schemes.See the executive summary
The primary commissioning aim of this collaborative research project was to provide
an initial evidenced assessment of the size and rate of growth of the emerging
market in the supply of flood risk protection to individual properties.
The emphasis is on looking beyond Defra grant-funded property level protection
(PLP) programmes and PLP projects supported via Flood Defence Grant in Aid
(FDGiA) to evaluate the scale and growth in the wider supply of and demand for PLP
products and services.
2.2.1 Specific objectives
11
1.
Devise a method and produce an initial evidenced assessment of the scale
and distribution, geographically and by sector, of expenditure by households,
businesses, LAs and the third sector on FCRM measures to protect individual
property (looking beyond the part-FDGiA funded property level protection schemes).
2.
Identify how to utilise/adapt a parallel method of assessment of the likely
damage avoidance benefits (from linkage with JBA cost effectiveness study results),
essentially identify a compatible way of measuring the outcomes of that expenditure.
3.
Utilise both of the above and combining them, define net value (and thus
‘returns’) for such property level investment across sectors.
4.
Ensure that techniques and tools developed will be available for ongoing use
to measure annually.
2.2.2 Key themes
The project explored a number of themes through the use of a survey of a sample of
PLP companies within the emerging supply market. This was complemented by
cross-reference surveying of a sample of local authorities and water companies to
minimise risk of counting PLP produced and supplied in direct response to FDGiA
funded demand, and to cross-reference PLP company claims of total annual
turnover against company returns to Companies House.
1. Can a robust methodology be developed to estimate the size and value of the
PLP industry?
2. Can this methodology be replicated?
3. What are the characteristics of the industry?
4. How well developed is the industry?
5. What are the challenges that the industry faces?
6. To what extent is the industry dependent upon grant aid?
7. Are there any geographic patterns observable?
12
3. Methodology
The project aimed to investigate and explore the supply chain benefits of the flood
protection products market and the economic benefits of property level protection for
non-FDGiA schemes.
Specific objectives
Objective 1 - Devise a method and produce an initial evidenced assessment of the
scale and distribution, geographically and by sector, of expenditure by households,
businesses, LAs and the third sector on FCRM measures to protect individual
property (looking beyond the part-FDGiA funded property level protection schemes).
Objective 2 - Identify how to utilise/adapt a parallel method of assessment of the
likely damage avoidance benefits (from linkage with JBA cost effectiveness study
results), essentially identify a compatible way of measuring the outcomes of that
expenditure.
Objective 3 - Utilise both of the above and combining them, define net value (and
thus ‘returns’) for such property level investment across sectors.
Objective 4 - Provide recommendations for development and refinement of method,
including future expansion to explore worth of investment in better localised
awareness and preparatory actions to reduce incident consequences.
Ensure that techniques and tools developed will be available for ongoing use to
measure annually.
Objective 1
Objective 1 - Devise a method and produce an initial evidenced assessment of the
scale and distribution, geographically and by sector, of expenditure by households,
businesses, LAs and the third sector on FCRM measures to protect individual
property (looking beyond the part-FDGiA funded property level protection schemes).
To understand objective 1 required:
13
1.
A measure of how much households, businesses, local authorities and the
third sector spend on FCRM measures
2.
An understanding of how this is distributed geographically and by sector
3.
A measure of how much FCRM measures are purchased through FDGiD
Tasks
PLP Companies
1. Design a questionnaire for PLP companies.
2. Get questionnaire checked for efficacy with Project Board
3. Write a covering letter
4. Produce a list of PLP providers and service deliverers and place into sectors,
as per Blue Pages. Develop the list by speaking to staff, Trustees and
wholesalers.
5. Deliver the questionnaire using staff and volunteers
6. Collect data from Companies House records and/or other sources in order to
gain information about annual turnover.
Local authorities and water companies
1. Design a questionnaire for surveying local authorities
2. Get the questionnaire checked for efficacy with Project Board
3. Write a covering letter
4. Survey local authorities
5. Deliver the questionnaire using staff and volunteers
Individuals
1. Design a questionnaire
14
2. Get the questionnaire checked for efficacy with Project Board
3. Write a covering letter
4. Survey our membership and affiliates
5. Deliver the questionnaire using staff and volunteers
Analysis and reporting
1. Analyse data
2. Draft report for the section
3. Get feedback from Project Board
4. Finalise report
Objective 2
Objective 2 - Identify how to utilise/adapt a parallel method of assessment of the
likely damage avoidance benefits, essentially identify a compatible way of measuring
the outcomes of that expenditure.
Evaluation of the Defra Property-level Flood Protection Scheme information
1. Research literature on measuring the intangible impacts of flooding
2. Evaluate the Evaluation of Defra Property-level Flood Protection Scheme
information
3. Identify a compatible way (if available) of measuring the outcomes of that
expenditure
4. Draft report for the section
5. Get feedback from the Project Board
15
6. Finalise report
Objective 3
Objective 3 - Utilise both of the above and combining them, define net value (and
thus ‘returns’) for such property level investment across sectors.
1. Review the evidence from Objective 1 and Objective 2
2. Devise a methodology if possible.
3. Apply the methodology
4. Draft report
5. Get feedback from the Project Board
6. Finalise report
Objective 4
Objective 4 - Provide recommendations for development and refinement of method,
including future expansion to explore worth of investment in better localised
awareness and preparatory actions to reduce incident consequences.
1. Develop recommendations
2. Draft report
3. Get feedback from the Project Board
4. Finalise report
Ensure that techniques and tools developed will be available for ongoing use to
measure annually.
16
Throughout the project the methods will be documented ad reproduced to enable
replicability
17
4. Results
4.1
Objective 1
Objective 1 - Devise a method and produce an initial evidenced assessment of the
scale and distribution, geographically and by sector, of expenditure by households,
businesses, LAs and the third sector on FCRM measures to protect individual
property (looking beyond the part-FDGiA funded property level protection schemes).
Survey of businesses
A search for companies involved with PLP unearthed 190 organisations, roughly four
times what had been expected (Appendix 1). Their distribution is shown in Figure 1
18
Aberdeenshire x1
Dorset x2
Lincolnshire x5
Sandwell x1
Bedfordshire x1
Dudley x2
London x4
Sheffield x4
Berkshire x3
Dundee x2
Manchester x2
Shropshire x2
Birmingham x4
Durham x2
Merseyside x1
Somerset x1
Bristol x1
East Sussex x3
Monmouthshire x2
South Yorkshire x1
Buckinghamshire
x4
East Yorkshire x2
N Ireland x1
Staffordshire x4
Essex x10
Newport (Wales)
x1
Stirlingshire x2
Camarthenshire x1
Flintshire x1
Cambridgeshire x2
Suffolk x1
Norfolk x3
Gloucestershire x3
Cardiff x1
Surrey x8
North Ayrshire x1
Hampshire x4
Cheshire x9
Swansea x2
North Yorkshire x5
Herefordshire x2
Colwyn Bay x1
Unknown x2
Hertfordshire x6
Northamptonshire
x2
Warwickshire x3
Hull x3
Northumberland x1
West Sussex x5
Ireland x2
Norwich x1
West Yorkshire x4
Kent x2
Nottinghamshire x1
Wiltshire x3
Lancashire x4
Oxfordshire x3
Wolverhampton x1
Leeds x3
Powys x2
Worcestershire x6
Leicestershire x3
Rhyll x1
Yorkshire x7
Cornwall x2
Coventry x2
Darlington x1
Denbighshire x1
Derbyshire x5
Devon x2
Figure 1 Distribution of companies involved with flood risk
The unknown category includes 2 businesses, one of which has gone out of
business since the survey started, the other which operates off a mobile telephone
number One other company has ceased trading, from Lincolnshire. The rest are
predominantly rural but otherwise with a fairly even distribution.The 190 companies
was the total unearthed through a combination of prior knowledge, searching Blue
Pages (the online directory of flood product companies) discussions within the
19
National Flood Forum and web searches on key words – “flood product”, “flood
protection”, “flood defences for homes”, “property level protection”,
Companies were from the following categories:
1. Manufacturer of flood products
2. Supplier of flood products
3. Installer of flood products
4. Wholesaler of flood products
A number of other categories were also recorded
1. Surveyors
2. Reinstaters
3. Loss adjusters
4. Telemetry providers
5. Others
Where a company occurred in more than one category, all of its attributes were
recorded.
The location of the companies (minus the 2 unknowns) were analysed as follows:

City – 57 (30%) vs rural (130 %)
Places were categorised by their Tier 1 status and whether the area is predominantly
urban or rural

England 164 (87%), Wales 14 (7%), Scotland 7 (4%), Ireland 2 (1%),
Northern Ireland 1 (1%)
The overwhelming majority of companies were based in England

North 49 (26%), South 84 (45%), East 27 (14%), West 28 (15%)
The vast majority of companies were based in the South of England.
48 companies (Appendix 2) were surveyed through a telephone questionnaire
(Appendix 3). These were selected randomly, but cross checked at the end to
20
ensure that there was a good distribution geographically, with a range of products
and/or services. No adjustment through additional surveying was undertaken.
Almost all companies responded favourably[WHICH ONES?]. Details of turnover
are provided at Table X, and Figures 13 and 14. They provide a very broad
spectrum.
Geographic distribution is shown in Figure 2, indicating a broad spread across the
country, but also a concentration in rural areas.Using the same measures of
distribution, the following results were obtained:

City – 14 (29%) vs 57 (30%)in the main database

Rural 34 (71%) vs (130 %) in the main database
The vast majority of companies are based rurally

England 41 (85%) vs 164 (87%) in the main database

Wales 5 (10%) vs 14 (7%) in the main database

Scotland 1 (2%) vs 7 (4%) in the main database

Ireland 0 (0%) vs 2 (1%) in the main database

Northern Ireland 1 (2%) vs 1 (1%) in the main database
The overwhelming majority of companies were based in England

North 16 (33%) vs 49 (26%) in the main database

South 20 (42%) vs 84 (45%) in the main database

East 3 (6%) vs 27 (14%) in the main database

West 8 (17%) vs 28 (15%) in the main database
21
The vast majority of companies were based in the South of England.
Comparison between the main dataset and the sample shows a very close
correlation. The most significant difference is in the North, South East, West
distribution, where the sample has a higher number in the North compared to the
data set and a correspondingly lower sample from the East. However, the
differences are not large.
Yorkshire
Dundee
Leeds
Oxfordshire x2
Bristol
East Sussex x2
Leicestershire x2
Sheffield x2
Buckinghamshire
East Yorkshire
Lincolnshire
Swansea
Cambridgeshire
Essex x2
Merseyside x2
Newport
Cardiff
Flintshire
London
Staffordshire
Cheshire X2
Colwyn Bay
Norwich
Warwickshire X2
Derbyshire
Herefordshire
North Yorkshire
West Sussex
Devon x2
Hertfordshire
Northamptonshire x2
West Yorkshire
Dorset
Hull
Northern Ireland
Wiltshire x2
Worcestershire
Figure 2 Distribution of companies completing the questionnaire
21 companies were VAT registered, less than half those sampled, indicating the
small size of many of the organisations.
All respondents agreed to be contacted for further information should this be
required.
Figure 3 identifies the sectors that companies in the sample are trading in. This is
fairly evenly spread, but with the supply of flood products predominating. With 104
responses, many companies are clearly involved with several sectors and almost all
are involved in the supply of flood products.
22
Figure 3 Sectors that companies are trading in – Q5a
Figure 4 identifies the types of flood product that companies trade in. There is a
strong predominance of flood barriers, door barriers and air brick covers.
23
Figure 4 – Type of flood product that companies trade in – Q5b
Figure 5 identifies the services provided by companies. A smaller number of these
types of service are being provided, but with a small emphasis on property surveys.
Figure 5 Services provided by companies – Q5c
24
The largest category was “other” with 24 responses. These consisted of:

















commercial and larger openings, patio and garage doors, gateways
Hire services
Design and testing of products
Training and CPD
Insurance for people who have a kitemarked product/excess insurance
providing have PLP
Timber treatment
Survey and advise
Emergency planning
Drying houses
Advice on how to use flood products
Flood kits
Visits to schools to advise on flood risk
Water Resources Assessment
Steel stairs, platforms, custodial doors
Engineering feasibility, coastal drainage
Catchment modelling, water cycling, strategic FRA , drainage
Annual Maintenance contracts, work with Insurers to reduce risk
The main business interest of companies(Q6)was listed as:
























Manufacturing and installing flood protection products
Flood barriers
Manufacture and supply of alternative sandbags
Design and manufacture of flood products and services.
Water Proofing Specialists
Manufacturers of ventilation products - builders merchants supply
Monitoring, telemethry, early warning system
Flood Risk Assessment and Hydraulic modelling
Flood drying/ alternative to Insurance
Plastic Moulders
Manufacture of fencing, building products, supplier of agricultural buildings
Fire and Flood Damage
Paper Rolls, General stationery
Supply of flexible and protective packaging
Engineering consultants
Buy and sell bags
Consultant Engineering and Coastal Management
Sewerage pumps
Water Resources Assessment
Flow control 50%
Provision of services for local government/Councils and Water Authorities
Water Industry related services
Military
Flood Defences
25


Building Consumables
Pump Hire
Of these, 29(60%) are primarily flood related
Most companies (25, 51%) had been trading for over 10 years and 34 (69%) had
been trading for over 5 years. Only 14 companies had been trading for 5 years or
less.
Figure 6 – Length of time that companies had been tradingQ7
A very similar response was obtained when people were asked how long their
company had been trading in flood related products. 22, 46%) had been trading in
flood products for over 10 years and 34 (71%) had been trading for over 5 years.
Only 14 companies had been trading for 5 years or less. However, there was a
slight increase in the number of companies who had been trading in flood products
for 1 year or less (8, 16%) compared to companies who had been in existence for 1
year or less (5, 10%).
26
Figure 8 Length of time that companies had been trading in flood related
productsQ8
Almost all of the companies (44, 90%) were limited companies, with one instance
where the original company was a limited liability partnership. Only 3 companies
were sole traders (0.6%) and one company listed itself as “other”, describing itself as
“private”, possibly a sole trader. Q9
Figure 9 Type of company structure
Respondents were asked through an open question how many people they employ.
People responded in a number of ways, but overall the minimum number of
employees was taken to be 11,088, and the maximum, taking in to account ranges
given and the use of temporary staff, was 11,509. Taking account of international
operations this figure rose to 24,024.
27
Figure 10 illustrates the breakdown of these figures for the maximum number of
employees (11,509). 30 companies (61%) employed up to 10 staff. 12 companies
employed between 11 and 50 staff (25%), 2 companies employed between 51 and
100 staff (4%), and 3 companies employed between 101 and 200 staff (6%). This
illustrates that there is a strong predominance of micro businesses and small and
medium enterprises (SMEs). However, the data include several much larger
companies that contained PLP related teams within them (see below for further
details) The largest companies do other FCRM work beyond PLP products and
services and so probably a return of over 100 employees don’t represent PLP
activity as exclusively as with some others/
Figure 10 Number of companies employing different numbers of employees
Figure 11 illustrates the number of employees per company categorised by company
size (as measured by the number of employees working in flood risk management).
The remainder of the graph demonstrates a rising number of employees with
company size.
There is a large spike of people represented in the 101-200 employee category.
This figure comes from only 3 companies and may include people in other roles.
28
Figure 11 Number of employees per company working in flood risk,
categorised by company size
For some companies, especially larger ones, flooding related work is only one
aspect of their business. For example two companies employing over 1000 staff,
one of them over 8000, are both very large infrastructure and professional services
consultancies with several divisions. Flooding forms only part of their work. By way
of example, Capita Symonds has a total workforce in the UK of about 2000 and a
global workforce of about 20,000, but has a flood risk team of 30-35 people in the
UK. In addition they utilise other people in the company, such as building surveyors
as necessary. Similarly a number of construction and agricultural merchants have a
PLP element to their work.
Figure 12 sets out total number of employees per company, illustrating the role of
large institutions and international companies whose products and services extend
beyond PLP products and in to other flood risk management activities as well as
other areas of activity.
29
Figure 12 Total number of employees per company
Respondents mentioned flexibility of approach as being important in being able to
cope with fluctuating market demand:
20 - 9 Consultants
3 - 9 Temporary
Less than 10 (encompasses several 100 national network)
X and his wife are directors. They borrow labour from the parent comapny as
and when needed
8 Directors - 16/17 Associates contract work
38, staffing has increased each year. Last year it increased gradually. They
are concerned that if there is a lull they will have to let people go, but because
of their global market, their interest in the heavy flood protection products and
commercial products, they can keep going.
A few of the larger companies sell abroad, or have operations overseas
Globally 4000
Capita Symonds 2000 (Group - 20,000)
19 plus 5 in Holland
200 in UK also have company in India
Respondents were asked for their company turnover, Q11. 36 companies provided
data and 12 declined, were unable to provide the figures or were in their first year of
trading. Cross referencing with employment figures, the number of companies that
declined includes the full range of company size, ranging from 1 to 200 employees:
There was a huge range of turnover, from £2,000 to £350 million. Summing the
responses from the 36 companies that responded, annual turnover was
£430,039,000. Respondents were also asked what proportion of this turnover was
related to flood risk activities, Q12. Again, not all companies responded. The 38
30
that did were a slightly different set to the previous question, but broadly similar in
cross section.
Using these figures, the median annual turnover that was from flood risk activities
from the 38 companies that responded was 71.32% of total turnover.
There were 32 respondents that answered both questions 11 and 12 in a way that
could be analysed together. These had a combined turnover of £290,739,000
with a flood related turnover of £87,453,000 (3%). The average turnover per
company was £2,732,906. However, this masks the impact of one very large
company, Polygon UK and Ireland with a turnover of £250 million and a turnover of
£62,500 on flood related products and services, illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 13.
2,000
12,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
50,000
100,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
200,000
300,000
310,000
360,000
420,000
450,000
500,000
500,000
600,000
649,000
650,000
650,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2,000,000
2,400,000
3,000,000
9,000,000
62,500,000
Table 1 Annual turnover (£) of flood related products for 32 companies, in rank
order
Figure 13 Annual turnover of flood related products for 32 companies, in rank
order
Figure 14 illustrates annual company turnover on flood related products and services
with Polygon UK and Ireland data removed. These had a combined turnover of
31
£40,739,000, with a flood related turnover of £24,953,000 (61%). The average
turnover per company was £804,935.
Figure 14 Annual turnover (£) of flood related products for 30 companies, in
rank order
Using £2,732,906 as the average turnover per company would produce an overall
turnover of £519,252,140for the 190 companies identified.
Using the figure of £804,935 as the average turnover per company would produce
an overall turnover of £152,937,650 for the 190 companies identified
Therefore there is a potential range of the turnover of flood related products and
services of £152,937,650 to £519,252,140.
An analysis and rationalisation of Questions and figures 10 – 14 above to identify the
likely total size and proportionate cashflow of the sample companies that relate to
property level protection manufacture, distribution, specification and installation
activities – thus defining the supply side annual turnover of the private sector PLP
market in the UK is reflected in Table 2 below.. This also includes cross-referencing.
The gross annual turnover amounts to £32,081,000. If translated to the 190
companies identified this would equate to a gross turnover of £127,655,646
Column 5 of the table highlights the PLP turnover probably related to the private
sector for the sample, £24,776,250, i.e. non-grant aided. If translated to the 190
companies identified it would equate to a gross turnover of £89,072,656.
Questionnaire row
Adjusted
number NB NEED TO turnover
REMOVE
(£)
DESCRIPTORS
FROM THIS
COLUMNBEFORE
PUBLISHING
% to
count as
PLP
32
% private
sector
Probable
PLP
turnover
related to
the private
sector, (£)
1.(Flood Ark)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. (Scotland)
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18. (Wales)
19.
20. (Floodbond)
21.(North of Ireland)
22.
23.
24.
25.
26. (Polygon)
27. (South Wales)
28.
29. (bag wholesaler)
30.
31.
32.
33.(capita symmonds)
34.(sandbag fillers)
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
600,000
310,000
1,400,000
3,000,000
200,000
350,000
850,000
70,000
649,000
2,000,000
100,000
650,000
360,000
150,000
50,000
40,000
50,000
350,000
500,000
250,000
50,000
350,000
100,000
130,000
2,000
1,750,000
650,000
300,000
2,400,000
100,000
20,000
25,000
600,000
75,000
175,000
500,000
500,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
50,000
30,000
420,000
350,000
50,000
9,000,000
25,000
32,081,000
100
100
100
100
100
70
70
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
100
10
25
0
50
10
100
100
100
100
100
33
50
50
100
50
60
50
70
100
100
100
100
50
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
75
100
10
100
100
100
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
300,000
155,000
1,400,000
1,500,000
120,000
122,500
416,500
70,000
649,000
2,000,000
100,000
325,000
180,000
150,000
50,000
40,000
50,000
175,000
405,000
250,000
50,000
350,000
100,000
130,000
2,000
875,000
650,000
300,000
2,400,000
100,000
20,000
25,000
300,000
56,250
175,000
25,000
500,000
150,000
250,000
0
15,000
420,000
350,000
50,000
0
9,000,000
25,000
24,776,250
Table 2 - Likely total size and proportionate cashflow of the sample companies
that relate to property level protection manufacture, distribution, specification
and installation activities, together with the cashflow related to private
companies, ie non-FDGiA activity
Question13 asked respondents if they produce more than one flood risk product or
service, what proportion of turnover does each product/service type contribute. 12
companies responded, identifying a range of products from sandbags to flood doors.
However, the larger companies all offered a range of services and products, aiming
to provide a package.
Of the 13 companies with a turnover greater than £1 million, 7 were involved in more
than one element of the supply chain for flood related products and services. 4 of
these companies specifically mentioned that they had a solutions based approach
that involved other partners to provide a package of services around flood protection
for homes and businesses. One of these involved a link to insurance and
maintenance of installed products as part of an overall contract and we are aware of
at least one other company that is about to enter the market to do the same.
In Question 14 respondents were asked if turnover in flood related products and
services had stayed the same, increased significantly or decreased significantly.
Figure 15 illustrates that almost double the number of companies thought that
turnover was increasing significantly compared to those who thought that it had
stayed the same and those who had thought that it had decreased significantly.
Trends in turnover of flood risk
products and services
25
21
Number
20
15
12
11
10
4
5
0
stayed the same
increased
significantly
decreased
significantly
nil response
Turnover
Figure 15 – Trends in turnover of flood risk products and services
Table 3 demonstrates that where we have sufficient data (for 32 companies) different
sized companies tend to have different perspectives of the market for flood risk
properties and services. The smallest companies are by far and away the least
optimistic, those with a turnover of between £500,000 and £1,000,000 most
consistently perceive that turnover has increased significantly, whilst the largest
34
companies (with a turnover over £1,000,000) overall see the market as increasing,
but with a higher proportion stating that it has remained the same and a smaller
proportions stating that it has decreased significantly.
The companies under £100,000 might be expected to be new entrants to the market,
and therefore more vulnerable to fail. However, of the 7 companies, 2 were less
than 2 years old, 1 was less than 3 years old, 2 were between 6 and 10 years old
and the other 2 were over 10 years old.
Turnover
Stayed the same
Increased
significantly
7
6
Decreased
significantly
2
0
Over £1,000,000
4
£500,000 1
£1,000,000
Between £100,000 3
2
2
and £500,000
Under £100,000
1
1
5
Table 3Trends in turnover of flood risk products and services as perceived by
companies of different sizes.
In response to the question, “Does turnover fluctuate?” respondents overwhelmingly
felt that it did, Figure 16. Nil responses were largely from new entrants to the
market.
Number of responses
Does turnover fluctuate?
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
40
yes
no
5
3
yes
no
nil response
nil response
Response
Figure 16 Does turnover fluctuate?
Comments on the reasons for doing so included:
 Defra grant had a major negative impact as it was all about price and not
about quality or suitability and householders seem to be waiting to see if they
can get a grant rather than purchasing privately.
 The recession
 Seasonality
35
















Getting Councils who have grants to make their minds up what they are
doing. Very slow to act - panic near end of financial year. Panic and want
stuff done in 5 mins
Warnings of floods
The weather has a knock on effect rather than seasons
Weather, Government Grants, Councils spending
Weather and Council funding
Increasing - people abroad are more prepared to spend money on flood
products/services than in England
People say if they have been flooded once it will not happen again, people
cannot be bothered because they think it is someone else’s problem, not
theirs – they are not willing to help themselves
The funding system - more co-operation needed with EA and DEFRA
There are a lot more calls from areas that have flooded in recent weeks
Delays in scheme implementation
Economy - public sector decrease in spending.
Shifting responsibilities for who provides sandbags
Price competitive - not enough demand - funding revenues vary. Ring fenced
money from DEFRA finishes next year - 6/12 months to teach new systems of
funding
Rainfall and flooding
Government grants are only available at the end of their fiscal year. People
have short memories so only buy or call when the floods have arrived. No
floods = no sales
EA cuts have hindered
There was no common reason why the 3 companies that stated that turnover doesn’t
fluctuate, one supplies materials to distributers all year, one is a large international
concern and the third is a services company.
In Question16 respondents were asked “There is often more interest in flooding after
a flood event. How has this affected your company?”
Responses varied and are summarised in Table 4 below. Broadly, there is a three
way split between businesses that see no response, businesses that see increased
interest, but not an increase in sales and those that do see a positive response.
1. There is more interest but it takes 3-6/6-9/12 months to result in more
business 4
2. It hasn’t – 12
3. After 2007 the uptake was enormous but has gradually declined
4. It only affects people who have actually been flooded once/twice, so
a response is limited
5. There is increased interest, but it is short lived and there is little
impact on sales 14
6. We get a much better response from people abroad than in the UK
7. Sales increase afterwards 13
8. It depends on when new budgets start
36
4
12
1
1
14
1
13
1
Table 4 Summary to the question “There is often more interest in flooding after
a flood event. How has this affected your company?”
Q17 Respondents were asked “what proportion of flood risk sales have been grant
aided?” In Figure 16, 28 (58%) of companies responded that they did not do grant
aided work. 9 companies did grant aid work for local authorities, 5 for Defra, 5 for
Environment Agency and 4 for water companies. 8 companies responded that they
did grant aid work for other organisations. These included, Welsh Government (1),
Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnership (1), EU Funding (1) and 5
companies where it was not clear who the funder was.
Figure 17 What proportion of flood risk sales have been grant aided?
Selecting only those companies that were grant aided and provided details of their
turnover (6 companies out of 10) and summing their turnover related to flood risk
products produces a figure of £3,628,500 grant aided work, see Table 5. Of the four
companies where the data could not be used, one was a new start up where the
aspiration was to have a turnover of £100,000, all of it grant aided by local
authorities,one provided no details of turnover and the others did not provide details
of turnover that was grant aided. The total turnover of these four companies was
£2,410,000, assuming that the aspiration of £100,000 was realised.
Company
Flood related
turnover
1
2
3
4
£600,000
£3,000,000
£50,000
£300,000
5
6
£1,200,000
£650,000
Percentage of
turnover grant
aided
50
60
32
90-95 (90
selected)
90
25
37
Turnover that
is grant aided
£300,000
£1,800,000
£16,000
£270,000
Turnover that
is not grant
aided
£300,000
£1,200,000
£34,000
£30,000
£1,080,000
£162,500
£120,000
£650,000
Total
£5,162,000
£3,628,500
£2,334,000
Table 5Grant aided and non-grant aided turnover for companies that do grant
aided work and who have declared their turnover.
Table 4 also indicates that for the 6 companies that provided data, turnover that is
not grant aided was £2,334,000, and an average of £389,000.
None of the very small companies were involved with grant aided work, with only one
company with a turnover below £300,000. All of the companies that did provide
information were reliant for a substantial proportion of their work on grant aid. For
some of them it might be considered that they are over reliant.
In addition, comments from one company indicates that grant aid fluctuates
significantly and from another that they form part of the supply chain for a company
that sometimes does grant aided work.
Of the 28 companies that indicated that they do not do grant aid work, 23 provided
sufficient details of turnover, Table 6.Two of these had negligible turnover of flood
related products due to this being the first year of trading. Therefore the total
number of companies is 21, rather than 23. Of the 5 that provide details, two didn’t
want to tell us, 2 didn’t know and 1 was in their first year of trading.
Company
Flood
related
turnover, £
Company Flood
related
turnover, £
9
0
10
100,000
11
130,000
12
2,000
13
62,500,000
14
2,400,000
15
20,000
16
15,000
Company Flood
related
turnover, £
17
500,000
18
£1,000,000
19
30,000
20
420,000
21
9,000,000
22
25,000
23
0
1,400,000
1
2
649,000
3
2,000,000
4
650,000
5
360,000
6
40,000
7
450,000
8
12,000
Total
£81,703,000
Table 6Non-grant aided turnover for companies that do not do grant aided
work and who have declared their turnover.
Total turnover in flood related products that was not grant aided was £81,703,000.
Once again there is one company with a very large turnover of £62,500,000. Taking
this out,and adjusting the figures as per Table 2, leaves a turnover of £19,203,000
that was not grant aided.
Relating to Question18, the proportion of sales to independent households or
businesses is illustrated in Figure 18. This shows that most businesses had either a
very low or very high proportion of sales to this sector.
38
Figure 18 Proportion of sales to independent households and business
The turnover for each category is shown in Figure 19. It was possible to use data
from 29 companies who between them had sales to individual households and
businesses of £11,534,925. The turnover of the 12 companies who sold the highest
proportion of sales to independent households and business spanned the full range
of business size.
Total turnover
on flood risk
products
Number of Number of
Percentage sold
companies companies
to individual
with no data households and
businesses
£3,549,000
£3,875,000
£1,310,000
0
£470,000
£3,050,000
£600,000
£0
£0
£0
£30,000
£11,434,000
£63,135,000
£87,453,000
3
10
5
0
3
2
3
0
0
1
1
12
8
0
5
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
3
0%
2.5%
7.5%
15%
25%
35%
45%
55%
65%
75%
85%
95%
Nil return
Turnover sold
to individual
households and
businesses,
based on
companies who
provided data
0
£96,875
£982,500
£0
£117,500
£1,067,500
£270,000
£0
£0
£0
£22,500
£10,862,300
£0
£11,534,925
Respondents were asked whether they supplied flood product parts, products or
services to other companies. 36 (75%) said that they did.
39
Figure 19 Whether companies supply flood product parts, products or services
to other companies
Respondents were asked whether they bought flood product parts, products or
services from other companies. 29 said that they did.
Figure 20 Whether companies buy flood product parts, products of services
from other companies
Of the 36 companies who did supply other companies, 21 also bought from other
companies. Of the 10 companies that didn’t supply other companies, 9 bought from
other companies. The one company that didn’t buy or sell from other companies has
been trading for less than 3 years and has a turnover of approximately £2000.
Of the 29 companies who bought from other companies, 19 supplied other
companies.
Respondents described a wide variety of supply chains, from very simple,
we manufacture and supply to distributors nationally
40
to very sophisticated:
There are approximately 30 suppliers, many of them from X. The Xare made
across the road. The new Xproduct is to be made by XXX on the same
estate. The X product is manufactured by partnering firms in X and X. They
still have a factory in [country]. They are ISO 90001 and 14001 and try to get
suppliers that are ISO registered. Supply chain management is important.
Full traceability is required for all products. They have a compliance
procedure and lessons learned quarterly meetings.
This example also illustrates both a very local supply and demand chain dimension,
as well as an international component within the same company.
Sister company in Germany where made, designed in UK. Use smaller
companies to fabricate
A typical approach is
Manufacture main barriers, buy in nuts, bolts, frames and plastic bring in to
factory in Leicester and then wholesale and retail
A number of companies emphasised the service element of their work:
Get a job, surveyor goes in, assesses job and decides best product, comes
back to company best products sources and ordered and fitted by
experienced contractors
Air brick covers, etc are bought in; everything other than the doors. This
allows them to provide a complete service. They also buy in an independent
chartered surveyor.
A number of companies work in partnerships
Agreement with XXX. Advert on website - domestic given to XXX - Industrial
they do
The flexible nature of some of these arrangements is also clear
Sub contract -topographic survey. Also other way - they are asked to assist
other companies doing surveys etc.
A number of companies act as intermediaries
Buy direct from Manufacturer, sell at a discount to XXX, XXX and builders
In Question 22 respondents were asked whether the distribution of sales was even
across the country. Figure 20 illustrates that 12 (25%) agreed that sales were evenly
spread, whereas 34 (71%) thought that they were not.
41
Figure 21 Are products and services distributed evenly across the country?
Respondents were asked where they were concentrated; responses were highly
variable, with a slight concentration in the north, midlands and south west, Table 5
North 2
North East 5
North West 5
Yorkshire
Midlands 8
South West 7
East
South 4
London and the south 2
Depends on grant
allocation 3
Urban areas
Where it floods 3
International 3
Scotland better as more
finance has been released
and less red tape 5
Ireland
Wales 3
Table 5 Concentration of sales
Respondents were also asked where sales were least concentrated. Again, there is
great variability, but some concentration of responses around the south and east, but
also for Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
East 5
South 3
London 4
Southeast 5
South West 5
North West 6
North East
North 2
West of England
Mainland UK
Scotland 10
Wales 4
Ireland 4
UK poorest, better in
Europe
Table 6 Areas where fewest sales occur
Both Tables 5 and 6 illustrate an international dimension to company trading
30 (63%) of companies were set up with the purpose of trading in flood products and
services, 18 (37%) were not; see Figure 22.
42
Figure 22 Were flood related products or services part of the original purpose
of your company?
Of the 18 companies that were not set up originally to trade in flood related products
and services, most were involved in the manufacture and trading of products. Only
two companies were involved with consultancy type work.
Water proofing preventative measures
Ventilation
Engineering approach to
drainage
Flood Risk Management
and Planning
Plastic Mouldings
Wire Products
Paper Rolls, General
stationery
Buying and selling
packaging
Gates
Engineering Consultants
Packaging
Motor winding
Pumps
Equestrian
matting/bedding. Forest
machinery
Water Resources 10%,
Flood 15%
Civil Structural
Engineering
Provide Protective
Equipment to the MOD
Fixings, Power Tools and
screws
Sole Trader - Pump Hire
Table 7 Original purposes of companies, where this was not related to flood
risk products and services.
In response to the question, “What motivated you to trade in flood related products
and services?” (Table 8), 18 were motivated by a gap in the market, 12 developed a
product and 6 were stimulated to produce an idea by floods. In most instances there
were a combination of motives.
Change of career
Saw a gap in the market
18
Developed a product 12
Floods generated an idea
6
Market development from
an existing product 4
Requests from clients 5
An area where he could
help
Wanted to protect their
own property 2
43
Problem solving as part of
a partnership 2
Background in local
authority working
Interested in flood
protection products
Part of an international
company
Table 8 What motivated you to trade in flood related products and services?
Respondents were asked if the value of the market for property level protection
products and services is growing, contracting or stable, Figure 23. 28 (58%) believe
that it is growing with only 5 (10%) believe that it is contracting, 6 (13%) believe that
it is stable and 7 (14%) believe that it is fluctuating. This is a very positive view of
the future and contrasts with the responses highlighted in Table 3 where large and
medium sized companies have a positive view compared to small firms who typically
have a poor outlook of the future.
Figure 23 Is the value of the market for property level protection products and
services growing, contracting or stable?
Companies were also asked for the reasons for their responses. For those that
thought that the market is growing a greater awareness was given as the most
common reason, as well as a maturing market in property level protection.
GROWING
1. Funding from grant aid 3
2. Flooding is not going to go away
3. Installing a few products is cheaper than retrofitting a whole house
4. People are taking measures as they forsee mortgage/insurance problems 2
5. This is not solely residential. Commercial opportunities especially in Scotland
- different scheme whereby Government pay for certain amount
6. Greater awareness of the issue and products 12
7. More, better, cost effective and cheaper products available/ market maturing 8
8. New council responsibilities
9. Climate change 4
10. Media coverage 3
11. Changing weather –flooding 6
12. Influence of Insurance Companies on businesses and households
44
13. People see the damage caused by flooding - a little protection better than
nothing
Companies that saw the market contracting thought that this was due to lack of
funding, lack of interest and the recession
CONTRACTING
1. Lack of funding 2
2. Lack of interest
3. Recession, andcouncils cutting back
Companies that indicated that the market was stable provided a combination of
positive and negative views about the reasons for this
STABLE
1. Systems are expensive for the average person. If insured and have not
flooded they do not think it will ever happen and if so they are covered
2. Lack of confidence in the government and insurance industry
3. Good range of companies offering a selection of products. EA & DEFRA
funding. Flooding more to the forefront
4. No grants given this year and no real floods
5. Have money, product awareness - only effects people who have been flooded
6. Lack of funding and view that it is potentially a long term problem
7. Lack of awareness
Companies that regarded the market as fluctuating mostly took a negative approach
FLUCTUATING
1. Last year it was growing, its currently in transition and they see a good future.
2. General public is reticent to pay, dependant on grants and funding
3. Solutions to flooding is changing, money not available
4. Weather 2
5. Costs increasing all the time
6. Government inertia, lack of viable products to satisfy the insurers, lack of
understanding from property owners, lack of understanding about flood risk
and where it is coming from
7. Economy - public spending cuts,
Nil responders, nevertheless provided comments, essentially taking a negative
perspective.
NIL
1. People living in flood plains
2. Grants complicated, Grants mostly for social housing, stops the market
operating
Q29 – Companies were asked to identify the main barriers to the market for PLP
growing further. There were almost as many responses as responders (see Annexe
XXX for details; however, the most common factors were lack of funding (for a
variety of reasons) and lack of awareness of flooding.
Respondents were asked what action is required to overcome barriers to the market
developing. Figure 24 illustrates that 31 (65%) companies stated that government
action is required, 29 (60%) that awareness needs to be raised, 28 (58%), 26 (54%)
45
that clearer funding is required, 17 (35%) that industry action is needed and 11
(23%) that a lobby should be created.
Other comments included:
1. Councils need to be made aware of different products. Need to increase
contact with councils very difficult to get in touch with as no consistent
department dealing with flooding so don't know who to get in touch with.
People need to be more responsible for their own protection. Insurance
companies need to endorse the use of these products only kitemarked ones.
2. LA should send out mailshot to each household explaining they are not going
to send out sandbags
3. Stability of policies
4. EA should be involved in awareness of products that are not kitemarked. EA
should have yellow pages of Flood Products
5. Flood alleviation - research - coherent funding. Strategy - diverse range of
input - co -ordination
6. People cannot be bothered to spend money
7. Sent 3 products to many agencies and received no feed back
8. Time scale for completion [of projects] increased
9. The insurance industry incetivising people to invest
10. Government need to know what is available and economic, public need to
know who is responsible
11. NFF to be more proactive in promoting tried and tested solutions and not just
using Blue Pages as a revenue generation. A lot of these products are not fit
for purpose and any failure of them in a real flood incident will push back the
PLP opportunity massively
12. All about the Budget
13. Believes mortgage companies should insist on other help - ie add to mortgage
14. Need to be better advertised. Need to be sold through builders merchants
46
Figure 24 What is required to overcome barriers to the market growing?
Approximately a third (17, 34%) of respondents said that they were familiar with how
flood protection funding is going to work and two thirds (30, 63%) stated that they
didn’t.
Figure 25 Are you familiar with how flood protection will be funded
(partnership funding?)
47
Respondents were asked whether they were familiar with the institutional
responsibilities of the Environment Agency, local authorities, Defra and the RFCCs.
23 (48%) respondents did not mark any categories indicating that they were not
familiar with any of these organisations. 24 (50%) of respondents were familiar with
the work of the Environment Agency, 21 (44%) were familiar with the work of local
authorities, 22 (46%) were familiar with the work of Defra and 15 (31%) were familiar
with the work of RFCCs. Overall this indicates a lack of awareness of the work of
these bodies and there were several notes indicating that people would like to be
better informed. For example one respondent state that they would like a 1 page
briefing on each organisation.
Figure 25 Familiarity with institutional responsibilities of different public
bodies
Companies were asked how the market for Property Level Protection Products and
services could be encouraged, Annexe XXXX.
Raising awareness21
An association of manufacturers 2
Government legislation
Changing flood risk terminology
Insurance industry signalsand solutions eg requirements for protection 12
Encouragement of innovation through grants and funding 3
Develop flood groups and forums 2
Develop better quality products
Local solutions 2
More government grants/funding 9
Local authority/flood group block buying of products 2
Better industry promotion of its products and services 2
Government/EA/local authority promotion of PLP
Better local authority awareness
Partnership working
48
If people cannot get insurance, need incentives to encourage them to get protection,
show value of property can be increased
Local authority awareness of problems in the commissioning process
Respondents were asked, how the market for property level protection products and
services purchased by individuals rather than through grant aid could be
encouraged? Very similar responses were obtained, listed in Anexxe XXXX
Respondents were asked what difference this would make to their company.
Responses are listed below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Would help to maintain the market
Increase sales/business/the market 34
Not much 9
Greater awareness should lead to more sales 2
Been in market 40 years - is a realist. Better workmanship/delivery needed.
If products were free, people would still be sceptical!!
6. Agencies together should have supported small companies
7. Work level should level out
8. Allow new ways of providing a service and presenting solutions to property
owners
Clearly respondents are looking for an increase in the business as being the primary
outcome
Respondents were asked to raise any additional issues that were of concern to
them. Significant issues were:






This is a difficult industry - the factors against us are price as we are not the
cheapest but we are quality. SMARTEST was a total waste of time as it has
not raised awareness at all but has taken our time. More people are setting
up in business as they see climate change funding as a good money spinner.
Insurance companies are key to growth they should treat these products like
they do burglar alarms.
Kitemark - understand the concept but feel penalised because our system is
not a bolt down and we have been quoted £40k. We have testimonials from
the EA etc but are always asked about kitemark.
The market is very young and nieive. There are a lot of small participants of
very variable quality and provenance, who may not be around for long.
Currently there is a lot of infighting and backstabbing. A reputable
representative body is needed, a National Flood Defence Association
composed of Universities, BRE, RUSI, Red Cross, EA, RICS, Flood Hazard,
Defra, etc charged with developing best practice and innovation. This needs
to be scoped out and developed.
Testing criteria for kitemark. EA are promoting kitemark only & this is a barrier
for any innovation. Do not test in flood water only clean. Survey needs to look
at geology and geography
Where communities do not know where grants are available
Qualified contractors doing work - cowboys a concern - must have products
fitted correctly to work
49

















People need to be more aware of complications of things blocking up. Pros
and Cons need to be more aware
Products available should all be tested/kitemarked. All should be quality fitted
products
Property Protection does not cover businesses, some funding to assist small
businesses.
More awareness, Do not build in Flood Plains, tighter controls. Lack of
investment by Government and Local Authorities in supporting ongoing
development
Cost of Kitemarking - In Scotland don't have to have kitemark - goes on
recommendation
Everything is 'after the horse has bolted' - need incentives desparately.
General Public often not worried about products after flood - just on clearing
up
FPA - historically not helped itself. Co-ordination needed between providers
and installers - stop in fighting. Best solutions in one place, market will sort
itself out
Government/EA/Industry need to educate people 'not fit and forget' as their
slogan. Products need maintaining to perform properly. Involvement from the
Industry needs to change people’s perspective
Need more Flood Fairs - people need to be made aware of thier risk and what
you can do
False claims made by some manufacturers - BSI need to overhaul current
system - rigorous testing fit for purpose
Stop building in flood plains - if do need much stricter controls.
Set up local Flood Brigades like the Fire Service - local volunteers nned to
act, know the area, trained by manufacturers, have access to products, stored
locally
Purchasing schemes for EA too diverse, too segregated, not uniform.
Councils do not have enough money
Increase education, get into schools, create flood community groups, locals
band together to help their community
Stop building in the Flood Plains - raise awareness of problems
EA major flood people not helpful, take long time to give you information 21
days - not good in a demanding world. Charge for everything, knowledge
often poor and too bureaucratic
Standards of protection/services offered need strong regulation - cowboys out
there.
Summary of key results
1. A database of businesses was developed. This is much larger than had been
anticipated, with 190 companies on the list compared to an estimated 50 at the
outset. Since the survey was undertaken a few more companies have emerged
2. A survey of 48 property level protection products and services businesses was
undertaken. The results identified that:
a. The companies surveyed covered the full range of products and services
fairly evenly
50
b. Half the companies have been in existence for over 10 years and almost
half have been trading in flood related products and services for over 10
years
c. The vast majority of companies are Limited Companies, with only a small
number of sole traders
d. There is a concentration of SMEs employing 0-10 people with a scattering
of firms in each category above that, including large international
concerns.
e. There is a huge range in turnover from £2000 to £300 million.
f. For the majority of firms, flood related products and services form a
significant proportion of turnover, but the range is very wide.
g. Slightly more companies think that turnover has increased significantly
than has either stayed the same or decreased significantly, and a very
high proportion state that turnover fluctuates significantly. Reasons given
include the variability of the weather, the availability of grant aid, the way
the grant aid is delivered and the lack of flood risk awareness in the UK
compared to other markets.
h. The proportion of sales that are grant aided are highly variable from 0 –
100%.
i. The supply chains described are quite varied and the location of each
company in its supply chains is very variable also. In many ways this is
similar to the situation in the retrofitting energy efficiency sector for
domestic properties, characteristic of new markets.
j. Sales do vary across the country, but no common patterns have been
found so far.
k. Most companies believe that the market for flood risk products and
services is growing
l. Barriers identified are many, but include:
i. Lack of funding
ii. Lack of public awareness of flood risk or flood products
iii. Lack of incentive for people to protect their own property
iv. Public sector contracts and procurement processes
v. Cost of kite marking is preventing innovation
m. Using the data provided by the survey it was possible to estimate:
i. Turnover of the industry
ii. Grant aided turnover
iii. Non-grant aided turnover
iv. One particular company’s figures skewed the data significantly. A
better understanding of the activities of this company would help to
clarify the data.
n. There is evidence that some of the larger companies are looking to
provide a solutions based approach to property level protection, rather
than just supplying and installing products. This indicates that the supply
chain is beginning to mature. It includes an example of a service that
51
starts with a survey and installation, is linked to insurance provision and
includes ongoing maintenance. We are aware of another company
looking to take this approach.
3. The gross annual turnover of the companies surveyed amounts to £32,081,000.
If translated to the 190 companies identified this would equate to a gross turnover
of £127,655,646
4. PLP turnover probably related to the private sector for the sample was identified
as £24,776,250, i.e. non-grant aided. If translated to the 190 companies
identified it would equate to a gross turnover of £89,072,656.
52
Local Authority and Water Company survey
All of the water companies in England were contacted as part of the survey. None
responded.
Most of the local authorities who had participated in the Defra and Environment
Agency Property Level grant schemes from 2008 to 2011 were contacted and asked
to complete a survey about their experiences of managing PLP schemes and the
companies that they used. 16 local authorities responded:
Wakefield Council
Wychavon District Council
South Derbyshire District Council
Lewes District Council
Bournemouth Borough Council
Middlesborough Council
Rotherham MBC
Shropshire Council
Table 9
Huntingdonshire District Council
Oxford City Council
Vale of White Horse District Council
Somerset County Council
Ribble District Council
Newcastle City Council
Leeds City Council
Milton Keynes Council
Local authorities who provided questionnaire responses
Eight of these councils are urban and 8 rural. 6 come from the south of the country,
4 from the midlands and 6 from the north. Broadly speaking, 9 come from the east
of the country and 7 from the west.
1. Why did your local authority get involved with the PLP Scheme?
Respondents all wanted to provide protection to people from flooding, but for a
variety of reasons:








Where conventional defences cannot be used or are not financially available
Where a number of properties suffered severe flooding in July 2007 and on
occasions prior to that
To protect an elderly lady who flooded annually, couldn’t get insurance and
where there were significant public health issues.
We considered PLP was a useful tool to assist in delivering and encouraging
increased community participation on flood matters.
To gain experience as we had never considered this before
Because we had properties at risk which did not meet the government funding
levels and they had been waiting for several years to get a scheme
The potential availability of grant funding to address historic problem of
property flooding
Because we had four flood warning areas identified. We had done a
considerable amount of work engaging with the public about flood risk and
then we had a number of properties which met the Defra grant criteria
53



We were encouraged by local EA to apply for a grant following flooding of
some properties in September 2008
Residents of properties affected by flooding contacted the council and asked
for something to be done.
We already knew where the most vulnerable sites were located so this was an
opportunity to support the residents of qualifying properties.
2. To what extent has the PLP scheme addressed the issues you were
concerned with?
Respondents provided a great variety of comments, with 7 responses declaring that
the scheme had been completely successful, one noted that the real benefit was
peace of mind and another highlighted the relief for residents. However, 6
responses declared that the issues had only been partially addressed or that we
wouldn’t know how effective they are until they are tested in a flood situation.
One respondent said that uptake was very low and therefore didn’t address the
issues concerned, whilst three stated that they could have funded many more
schemes if the grant had been available.
3. How many different companies’ products and services did you use for your
scheme?Which companies did you use and what for?
Respondents came up with a number of different strategies to procure products.
Number of companies used
No response
1
2
3
4
5
Number of responses
2
2
4
1
0
7
Table 10- The number of different companies products and services used for
schemes
The non- respondents gave householders grants, who then chose and procured the
services and products directly. Otherwise, there was an equal split between using a
small number of companies and those who used 5.
The companies used were:
A private survey company who went bust 2 JBA
Atkins for surveys
JT Atkinson 2
ECO Coverage UK
Local builders 3
54
Flash Flood Doors 2
Flood Angel 3
Flood Ark 3
Flood consult
Floodgate 2
Floodguard
Harvey Clarke Building Contractors
Our current minor works Civil
Engineering Contractor 2
Smart Airbricks 2
UK Flood Barriers 5
Water Tight International 3
Whitehouse Construction 5
Yorkshire Dampcourse
Two companies, Whitehouse construction and UK Flood Barriers were each involved
with just under one third of the schemes. Both of these companies, together with JT
Atkinson undertake surveys and install a range of products, as well as their own.
Therefore they make an ideal choice for local authorities wishing to procure through
a small number of companies.
It was noted that Whitehouse were at one point the only people who could provide a
kitemarked flood door.
Local builders and in-house civil engineering consultants were used on a number of
occasions to deal with bespoke issues and minor works around installation.
4. Were these procured through a single contract or several?
Several procurement strategies were evident from the responses received;
sometimes more than one was used as part of the same process:
1. A single contract – “procurement rules meant that we had to go through one
contract.” 2. A grant was provided to householders who then purchased the products. The
local authority provided technical advice.- 3
3. Several contracts were let, mostly in batches of orders – 1
4. A single contact excluding surveys - 2
5. Several contracts were let to cover the range of goods and services required
–5
6. A contract was let with a main civil contractor (one private, one the direct
services contactor for the council) who bought in the best product for each
location - 2
7. We used a single contract for surveys and the same for products and
installation
8. XXXXX did the full installation although we had tried to set up a framework we
thought would allow residents choice of products if they wished. A long
process working through procurement procedures. We are currently trying to
set up a framework we can use to employ contractors on behalf of residents
55
who wish to install PLFP but don't want to wait until grants may become
available through EA
Point 8.reflects comments from many flood product manufacturers that it would be
really helpful to set up a simple procurement system with one council that could then
be used as a framework contract for others around the country. They say
(perscomm) that each council procures in a different way and that this makes it very
difficult and time consuming to tender. A framework agreement would help
everyone.
One council evolved their approach as the scheme developed.
“We explored at single contract for 40 properties, but realised once we received the
tenders how inappropriate PLP was for the situation. With the other 8 properties we
let individual contracts for each property - this enabled us to overcome issues
between neighbours, which raises the question whether PLP can improve
community resilience. It was our experience in one community that there was and is
a distinct desire not to look after each other - this appears to originate from long
standing disputes.”
This also reflects a frequent comment from flood product companies that local
authorities do not understand what PLP is or what is required to make it work
successfully. They frequently get caught out by procurement rules that mean that
they take short cuts, such as procuring all the products from a single firm and then
finding that they are only appropriate for some buildings and some people.
9. Why did you take this approach?
Essentially 7 approaches were adopted by local authorities:
1. Timescales to deliver the grant scheme meant that 5 local authorities felt that
they had to use the most expeditious route. However, one local authority
cited this as an opportunity to bring forward work, “in the EA's MTP plan
process we would apply next summer for funds to start work Apri 2014 and its
too long to wait. Unless local levy funding can be made available. Large
contractors don't want to deal with private individuals but with larger schemes
so if the Local Authority can act as an intermediary we can still progress work
and give the public some confidence with the choice of contractor being used.
I think residents are concerned about employing consultants to do a flood risk,
give advice about protection and employ contractors so the LA can assist.”
2. Procurement rules – 4 councils cited needing to follow procurement rules,
“Local Government procurement rules required us to go out to tender for each
new scheme. (Note: it is possible to piggy back additional works onto an
56
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
existing contract, but the additional work cannot be too large, and requires
Chief Officer Approval, we also have to demonstrate that this provides the
best value for money”
Easiest–2 councils followed their procurement approach because it was the
easiest, “to simplify contract administration.” Another was concerned about
complications from several contractors being on site at once.
Lack of skills and/or experience was cited by one council, “with no
experience of property flood protection, or managing contracts, the project
needed to be easily and professionally managed and this approach added the
benefits of all service suppliers and clients being "joined up". A single
installation contractor offered a holistic approach to the block of terraces, as
well as dealing with each household's individual needs. It was also
considered to be the most cost effective solution, as we were offered high
quality products at the least cost amongst the competition to be installed by
experienced contractors who were flexible in offering suitable options for the
residents preferences. This proved most valuable as some residents didn’t
want the construction of sumps with submergible pumps in their homes for
example, so alternative portable pumps were provided. Employment of a
council led contracts manager ensured that the administration was managed
professionally throughout.”
We went to the only people who could supply the goods, was one
response, “the contract that went out was split into three parts, one for plastic
doors so we had to go to the only person who provides them. Then went to
JT Atkinsons as they were the only ones who could supply hardwood doors.
Third element i.e. tanking, sealing, external rendering etc., went out as a
contract”
It’s what the community wanted was cited by two local authorities, “we
followed the line proposed by Dr Tim Harries of getting the communities
involved in the process. We allowed them to select their own lead contractor.”
Although some properties suffered similar flooding problems, the majority
required different approaches to managing flood risk. It was therefore not
beneficial to procure a single contract and potentially install unnecessary
products at a property. It was therefore not beneficial to procure a single
contract and potentially install unnecessary products at a property. Two local
authorities took this approach. One authority however, was worried that “if
everyone chooses different [products], once fitted they may prefer another
product, etc.”
We had in-house experience that we could utilise. Because of this, “we
thought it best to allow individuals to choose what products/services they
thought would benefit them, based on the Statement of Flood Risk Report
produced and in conjunction with advice from us.”
57
9. Would you take a different approach in the future? If so, why and what
would you do differently?
Ten local authorities stated that they would not adopt a different approach in the
future. This included all the different approaches listed in Question 8 above, apart
from those who had a community led approach. It included responses such as:
“No, I feel the resources required for this type of protection with multiple
properties and owners involved are very time consuming and using the same
supplier was easier and less problematic.”
“No, seemed to work well, especially with the contractor that we had.”
“I don't think there is any other way we could do it. We sent out specification
to about 8 kitemarked companies and advertised in a civil engineering
national publication. The trouble is there are so many people now jumping on
the bandwagon.”
Where a community led approach had been adopted, there was much greater
equanimity:
“Yes, as the process was fraught with problems, bickering between firms, if
given the project again I would ask all companies to give presentations and
have the communities select just one lead contractor. This was the process
taken by Bath and NE Somerset.”
“It would have been great to offer the scheme as a grant to the householders so that they liaised directly with the installers - we did this for one property as
an experiment - but found it to be more costly as the VAT has to be paid as
well. If the Local Authority undertakes the work we can claim the VAT this
means that the monies go further. We also found that residents were
reluctant to become directly involved (this is a wealthy, articulate community).
If we commissioned the work we also ensured the work got done in the time
allocated, which begs the question should flood defence products be VAT
exempt.”
There were also a few other comments:
“Each project is different and the participation of residents is crucial, so I
would keep an open mind and assess the best way of managing the needs of
each property/community. However I suspect that a different approach would
be unlikely as it is necessary for the project manager to have the appropriate
skills and level of expertise to coordinate and quality control the various
elements of the scheme. i have also seen the benefits of dealing with a single
company steering the project through its stages and how its easier to deal
with a single provider when difficulties arise.”
58
“it would depend on the circumstances and what had to be done.”
“I think the main thing we would do is ensure the surveys were carried out by
companies who could then do the installation.”
10. What funding did the local authority receive from outside sources, such as
Defra or the EA?
With two exceptions, all of the schemes were funded entirely from Defra and/or EA
grant, though for one scheme there was the possibility of top-up funding through
discretionary grants held by county councillors. One respondent did not name the
source of the grant, but it provided 100% of the funding.
The two respondents that mentioned a variety of funding sources, predominantly
sourced funds from flooding related budgets, plus local authority funds. One
respondent sourced a small sum from the PCT.
“XXXX pilot scheme - £90k Defra + £10k RFDC + £90k LCC, Defra PLP £131,100 (round 1) plus £79,800 (round 2), EA PLP £85k, EA Grant in Aid
(over programme) £120k, XXXX Local Levy £73k”
“Defra £32k, local authority - £40k ish possible more fingers crossed, PCT £1.5k”
11. What contribution, if any, did the Local Authority make?
13 local authorities stated that they made no financial contribution, but they all
mentioned the staff costs incurred by the local authority,
“Time and therefore costs evaluating the reports produced for each property;
advice to individual property owners; site visits to properties pre installation to
give advice and how best to implement solutions and post installation prior to
the release of grant monies.”
“We made no contribution except with officer time which was considerable.”
One respondent stated that the local authority contributed as follows:
“Project 1 £5k for additional property and all admin/officer costs circa £10k.
Project 2 -£ 5k but also extended to two other properties not part of the
original bid £12k.”
Another mentioned that they had “topped it up with the recent annual Defra funding.”
59
12. Are you aware of individuals or businesses who have bought PLP products
and services over and above what was grant aided? If so please outline
this.
Eight local authorities responded that either individuals or businesses did not
purchase PLP products and services over and above what was grant aided or that
they were not aware of this.
Eight respondents were aware of additional purchases:
“Numerous individuals spent above the grant available, this however did not
exceed 10-15% of the original grant sum available to them”
“Only at one property - one barrier only. We try to encourage self-funding but
are not aware whether people elect to do this.”
“We are aware of one or two business investing in PLP -the details of which I
do not have at hand”
Yes the property in XXXX made a personal contribution to enable a level of
protection outlined in their initial survey report. The residents contributed an
additional £1k to provide flood barriers at 900m high.”
”Because of the costs of some work to properties, these exceeded the
maximum allowed on the Defra scheme and the householders contributed the
extra. This was 3 houses and up to £3,500.”
“Yes, there were a number of properties that had more than the £7k maximum
of work that was payable under Defra funding so they met the excess
themselves. One homeowner withdrew from the scheme and had the work
carried out under separate contract made privately.”
“Yes one household decided not to go with flood barriers but to make up the
difference to have plastic doors”
“Northumbrian Water using Whitehouse Construction to fit PLFP to properties
prone to sewer flooding. Will come from their own funding sources”
13. Are you aware of any business manufacturing or trading in flood products
or services in your local authority area?
Ten local authorities were not aware of business manufacturing or trading in flood
products or services in their local authority area. One local authority referred to
companies in their region that they worked with and another mentioned two
companies that stocked flood products in their area.
60
Three respondents referred to specific companies in their areas, all of them
significant organisations in the supply of flood protection products. One respondent
specifically referred to Blue Pages as the best source of information on the topic.
61
Individual household survey
198 households were interviewed as part of the PLP and Insurance survey.
Question 17 asked respondents about how their PLP scheme was funded
58 of the 198 responses indicated that they had made a financial contribution to the
project, the rest being entirely grant aided. 25 indicated that they had funded the
project entirely themselves. These tended to be the older schemes, but not
exclusively, and cost from £100 to £10,000, with most schemes costing individuals
between £1000 and £7000. However there were instances of individuals spending
£10,000, £25,000, £45,000 and £100,000. Where individuals’ contributions and
grant aid were involved, the grant aid typically formed between £30% and 60% of the
total value, but some individual contributions were much greater, up to 90%. Most
schemes ranged between £1000 and £10,000.
From the data collected, the more expensive schemes involved significant building
works, such as laying new solid floors, raising floor levels, tanking, raising electrics
and building features such as garden walls, as well as the installation of PLP such as
non-return valves, flood doors and air brick covers.
There were 27 self-funded projects totalling £1,276,660, ranging from £10 to
£1,000,000. There were 29 projects which were part grant aided, the self-funded
element totalling £191,934. 27 respondents provided sufficient information to
provide a number for the grant aided element, which totalled £104,800. There were
two respondents who did not provide sufficient information to identify grant aid and a
further two who did not provide sufficient information to identify personal and grant
aid information.
Therefore, the total self-funded element in the sample was £1,468,594 and the
multiplier from the grant aid was 1.83.
It should be noted that the sample was not specific to one year and contained
schemes dating back to the year 2000.
62
Alternative approach to estimating the market in PLP
It was anticipated that it would be possible to undertake a parallel exercise to
estimate the scale of the market in PLP. Objective 1, tasks 6 and 7 were:
6. Collect data from Companies House records and/or other sources in order to
gain information about annual turnover.
7. Verify data “as validated by” use of an accountant/graduate in accountancy
role
Annual reports from Companies House were obtained for a selection of businesses
listed as trading in PLP. 10 reports were obtained from Companies House
webcheck service. These reports also failed to provide the information necessary.
The businesses covered the full range of business size.
The information provided was not of sufficient detail to be of any practical use
VAT registrations were also considered to be a possible way of obtaining information
on turnover. VAT registration means sales of VAT rated goods are expected to be
above £77,000 per year however being registered does not prove that this amount
comes from flood protection products or services. It is not possible to get VAT
reports.
Therefore, it was not possible to obtain data that could be used to corroborate
market information from the surveys
Therefore it was also not possible to verify the data.
63
Evaluation of methodology
1.
Can a robust methodology be developed to estimate the size and value
of the PLP industry?
The investigation produced a number, but how confident can we be that it truly
represents turnover of the industry, rather than just the sample?
The alternative approach (Companies House and VAT) didn’t work and validation of
turnover of the sample against the overall population of companies remains the
outstanding issue. Therefore, whilst there is some useful and interesting information
it is not clear how robust the estimates of turnover are.
The majority of the turnover reported is not grant aided and many companies do not
produce any outputs that are grant aided. But a few companies are heavily reliant
on grant aid for their work. Without this support it is not clear that these businesses
would be viable.
The PLP and Insurance report demonstrated that there is a lot of investment in PLP
that occurs outside of grant schemes. This was partly validated by the survey of
local authorities in this report, where some non-grant aided work was identified.
2.
Can this methodology be replicated?
With the exception of the validation process through Companies House and/or VAT
registration, all aspects of the methodology can be replicated. However, it could be
made simpler.
The survey of companies could be shorter and simpler, whilst retaining the key
questions. It may not be necessary to survey local authorities again, unless there
has been a significant change in policy, such as the development of a new insurance
framework.
It is clear that many companies produce flood protection products and services as
part of a wider product range that may, or may not, have anything to do with flooding.
An example would be a large consultancy that provides surveying services as part of
a much larger portfolio that covers flood defence schemes, climate change
adaptation and mitigation, policy support and development consultancy. A clearer
definition of what companies to include would help set some boundaries
Some companies are developing a solutions approach where flood products are part
of an overall service to a client, rather than trying to sell flood products. The client
may nominally be a householder, but it could also be a water company, and
insurance company, a housing association or a local authority. It is likely that this
aspect of the industry will grow, especially if the insurance framework incentivises
this approach. A clear definition as to what elements to include in this approach
would be helpful, for example, should it include maintenance of products once
installed.
Some products are questionable as flood products. For example, specialist external
renders are used as part of the waterproofing process to help protect properties from
64
flooding, but they are also used in normal construction work. Although not included
in this report, should they be regarded as a flood product?
3.
What are the characteristics of the industry?
The flood resistant products industry is still relatively young and has the
characteristics of a sector that is still developing rapidly:
1. Standards are available for some products and processes, but not all, and
these are still the subject of discussion
2. A lack of trust from related industries and the public about the efficacy of the
products. This is not that they don’t necessarily work, but that the industry
has not developed the systems and process to provide assurance
3. The Flood Protection Association is relatively new and not all producers are
members
4. There are a lot of very small companies producing a single product or service,
as well a huge range of company size.
4. How well developed is the industry?
The industry is showing some signs of fairly rapid development:
1. All of the companies surveyed were limited, with no sole traders
2. Many companies were very well established, having been in existence for
over 10 years, although a number of these were established in other areas
and have developed flood protection products and services subsequently.
3. There is now an industry boy, the Flood Protection Association
4. A number of companies are working across several niches
5. A number of companies are becoming part of, or constructing, supply and
demand chains. Within this process there are a number of companies that
effectively act as enablers or as a fulcrum. Examples include UK Flood
Barriers who have a range of suppliers and partners, and Whitehouse
Construction, who bring a series of services and products together, as well as
being manufacturers and suppliers.
6. A few companies have identified that they offer solutions rather than a product
or service. Polygon for example, offers a reinstatement solution to the
insurance industry,
5. What are the challenges that the industry faces?
As an emerging industry there are a number of particular challenges that need to be
addressed:
1. Whilst building regulations and kite marks are available, there is still a
question about what quality control really means. Is it just the product, the
installation, the survey or the whole process? To what extent should the type
of building be reflected in standards and how can the characteristics of the
user be properly taken into account, such as age, physical ability, learning
ability and cultural differences? To what extent should products be
permanently integrated in to buildings (such as flood doors) or is this totally
unrealistic, particularly for retrofitting a wide variety of buildings?
2. In part due to the above, but also because of a lack of systematic evaluation
of the effectiveness of property level protection, individuals and the insurance
industry is not clear as to how effective PLP is. This is made more difficult by
reports of cases where it has not worked. Individual reports of failure tend to
be disseminated much more effectively than successes. The result is that
65
there is a lack of trust, particularly from the insurance industry in factoring in
PLP in to insurance premiums and excesses. The recently produced Flood
Risk Report Template is one way of helping to address this.
3. With the emergence of the Flood products Association, the need for
companies to collaborate is becoming clearer. The recognition that there are
areas where they need to collaborate and others where they should compete
is an important milestone in the development of the industry. However, this is
not universally recognised and much more work is required.
4. Whilst a few companies have recognised that they need to provide solutions,
rather than just products or services, most have not.
5. Whatever replaces the Statement of Principles for household and small
business flood risk insurance, there will be an opportunity to work with the
insurance industry to help communities to become more resilient and improve
access to insurance.
6. To what extent is the industry dependent upon grant aid?
A striking finding from the results is that the industry is not very dependent upon
grant aid. Out of a gross estimated turnover of £127,655,646 it was estimated that
£89,072,656, 70%, was not grant aided, p51. Effectively this means that an
additional £89,072,656 is being spent annually on flood risk management than is
currently being accounted for.
A few companies are highly dependent upon grant aid, but most (58%) are not
reliant on grant aid at all. Only 30% of turnover is reliant on grant aid.
Grant-aid from Defra and Environment Agency is focussed onachieving behaviour
change with householders rather than business, although the net result is the
increased protection of individual properties. This has implications for the future use
of grant aid; how it should be focussed to best achieve the behaviour change results.
In addition, how can behaviour change best be achieved with small businesses. Part
of the solution will be contingent upon the outcome of the negotiations on a
framework for flood risk insurance.
7. Are there any geographic patterns observable?
No geographic patterns were observable in the data regarding concentrations of
companies.
8. Did survey work come up with the numbers that are useful?
The survey did produce a baseline indicating the size of the industry. It was found to
be much larger than anticipated (190 companies) and with a significant annual
turnover (£127,655,646) p51. Of this, only 30% is grant aided. This is effectively a
useful baseline against which to compare future developments in the industry.
What is not clear is what component of the turnover is driven by opportunities
derived from insurance policy payments or reinstatement conditions when people
make a claim.
Further information and detail is also needed about the transactions of the larger
companies, in order to more clearly establish what turnover relates to. This could be
achieved by more detailed interviews.
66
The transactions from one or two large companies can affect the figures
disproportionately. In this survey, these companies were removed from the dataset,
so further investigation would be useful.
During the course of the investigations a lot of “fuzzy” boundaries began to emerge.
For example, whilst de-humidifiers do not really count as PLP, they do in the minds
of the companies supplying them. Similarly, how do you separate out the PLP
component in companies that provide an end to end service as part of reinstatement.
67
Objective 2
Objective 2 - Identify how to utilise/adapt a parallel method of assessment of the
likely damage avoidance benefits, essentially identify a compatible way of measuring
the outcomes of that expenditure.
The intangible human impacts of flooding
Evaluation of the Defra Property-level Flood Protection Scheme: Summary project
March 2012 evaluated a programme of FDGiA funded Property Level Protection.
By the close of the 2 year programme in March 2011, over £5.2 million had been
awarded to 63 individual property-level flood protection schemes, offering practical
flood protection solutions to 1,109 properties, using a variety of flood barriers, nonreturn valves and airbrick covers or replacements.
In the first round of funding, £3 million was made available to 25 local authorities in
June 2009, to protect up to 593 properties. In the second round, a further £2.6 million
was awarded to 28 local authorities in March 2010, to protect an additional 532
properties.
The benefits of this programme were estimated to be £4.80 per £1.00 spent. Defra
set a cost benefit target to ensure flood and coastal risk management projects
provide value for money. Projects funded by Flood Defence Grant in Aid must
achieve a cost benefit ratio of 5 to 1. This means for every £1 spent, £5 of benefits
(money saved in flood damages) must be achieved.
The report also states, “generating other intangible benefits which are not included in
the cost benefit analysis. These include reducing stress and anxiety for those living
in fear of flooding, bringing communities together to decide how to manage their
flood risk (one of the aims of Partnership Funding) and raising the general level of
flood awareness and preparedness in communities.”
Intangible impacts of flooding
The impacts of flooding on people and communities can be devastating, with
frequent reports of what appear to be extreme language to describe it.
Some days I just felt like jumping off HumberBridge. It’s been that low, it’s
been that bad, except I’m not brave enough to do it. But the state of mind
you’ve been in – some days I’ve just sat in here and just sobbed and sobbed
and sobbed. (Leanne, interview)
Feelings of anxiety can continue to be experienced long after repairs have been
completed and the person has returned to their home. Periods of bad weather, in
particular, can be particularly stressful, as people fear a return of the flooding and
are reminded of the emotions and hardships that they faced at the time:
When I go home, the first thing I do if it’s been raining or is raining, is stop and
check the level of the drain. The last thing before I leave is check the level of
the drain just to make sure that I’m aware of its current state… There is a lot
68
of anxiety if the weather is going to be bad. As we move more into winter…
the anxiety, I think, will rise and it’s affecting people. I think the main one is
sleep patterns because a lot of us have said we are not sleeping through it
and a lot of us are waking up and we’ve dreamt it’s been raining through the
night because that’s on our mind all the time. (Amy, interview)
When it rains I suppose, yes, I feel quite depressed … it maybe just triggers
something in my brain. Yesterday it rained quite bad and I was coming in and
the drain at the front is blocked and that was starting to fill and do you know,
when you think - I just walk away and I don’t know what I’d do, I’d rather just
set fire to the house, walk away and just never come back I think. I couldn’t
do it again. (Abby, interview)
Householders also describe the strain on their family relationships, for example with
an increase in arguments. In some cases, the stresses on relationships can be
amplified by the type of accommodation used during the recovery process. Those
living in caravans or moving in with relatives while their home is being repaired often
describe their stress and irritability as a result of having no personal space. However,
relationships can also struggle in cases where the temporary accommodation is
more adequate as people struggle to deal with their feelings of anger, tiredness and
frustration.
You get very fraught marriage-wise. We’ve had lots of arguments and lots of
discussions and lots of “I’m leaving you when this is all done!” and “That’s it,
the house is going up for sale!”. Because there’s nobody to help you – if my
husband is working away during the week and he comes home on a weekend
and we are in here, and it’s like all the stress I’ve had in the week goes
straight on him, and all the stress he’s had in the week goes onto me…
(Debbie, interview)
Diarists also note concerns about their physical health. For example, some with longterm health problems, such as angina and arthritis, say that the flooding has made it
harder for them to manage their condition, while other participants report suffering
from coughs, colds, flu, stomach upsets and increased blood pressure in addition to
more generalised feelings of malaise:
I seem to be very run down and lethargic all the time (Kate, diary)
Excerpts from The ongoing experience of recovery for households in Hull– response
to the Pitt Review Interim Report Learning the lessons from the 2007 floods, Chapter
9 of the Pitt Review Interim Report.Rebecca Sims1, Will Medd1, Elham Kashefi1,
Maggie Mort1, Nigel Watson1, Gordon Walker1, Clare Twigger-Ross2.1Lancaster
University.2Collingwood Environmental Planning, 31st March 2008.
CorrespondenceWill Medd (w.medd@lancaster.ac.uk) Rebecca Sims
(r.sims@lancaster.ac.uk)
These impacts can be long term too, The Effects of Flooding on Mental Health
Health Protection Agency December 2011, exacerbated by the knowledge that
69
flooding, unlike other forms of “natural” disaster can, and often does, strike more
than once. The National Flood Forum frequently receives comments such as “the
recovery was far worse than the flood itself” and “I can’t sleep at night for fear that it
will happen all over again”.
The report Health Impacts of Climate Change, Health Protection Agency 2012,
highlights that the evidence articulating the health impacts of flooding is not well
researched, with several significant gaps. Therefore the benefits of flood defence
schemes are unlikely to be valued sufficientlyin cost benefit estimates. This may be
particularly the case where schemes actively require individual and community
participation; where the process of engagement and empowerment can be valuable
in itself.
Market and non-market value
Market and non-market valuation has been extensively studied in recent decades.
For example, Valuing Our Natural Environment, Final Report NR0103, For
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 20th March 2006 includes an
articulation of the different types of value that make up Total Environment Value in
relation to the Environment. The same principles apply to measuring society as well
as the environment.
“Total Economic Value
The concept of Total Economic Value (TEV) has proven useful as a conceptual
framework for keeping track of the wide range of complex and interrelated physical
and value flows involved in valuing the natural environment. It reflects the use
humans make of the natural environment (both through markets or informally) and
also the value they may attribute to it unrelated to their current or future use. In other
words, TEV consists of use value and non-use value (Defra, 2005)1.
Use value involves some interaction with the resource, either directly or indirectly:
Direct use value: Individuals make use of a resource in either a consumptive way
(e.g. the fishing industry and agriculture) or a non-consumptive way (e.g. rambling).
Indirect use value: Individuals benefit from ecosystem services supported by a
resource rather than actually using it (e.g. watershed protection for flood mitigation,
cycling processes for agriculture or carbon sequestration).
Non-use value is associated with benefits derived simply from the knowledge that
the natural environment is maintained. By definition, non-use value is not associated
with any use of the resource or tangible benefit derived from it, although users of a
resource might also attribute non-use value to it. Non-use value can be split into
three basic components:

Altruistic value:
Derived from knowing that contemporaries can enjoy the
goods and services the natural environment provides.
1
‘Total’ in the term refers to the sum of its components, not the total value of the natural environment. The value measured is individuals’
preferences for or against changes in the quality and quantity of environmental goods and services. It is not the value of the entirety of the
natural environment, without which we cannot contemplate human life on earth.
70


Bequest value:
Associated with the knowledge that the natural
environment will be passed on to future generations.
Existence value:
Derived simply from the satisfaction of knowing that
ecosystems continue to exist, regardless of use made of them by oneself or
others now or in future (also associated with ‘intrinsic value’).
Finally, two categories not immediately associated with the initial distinction between
use value and non-use value are:


Option value:
An individual derives benefit from keeping open the
option to make use of some aspect of the natural environment in the future,
even though he or she does not currently plan to make such use. It is “an
additional value to any utility that may arise if and when the good is actually
consumed” (Perman et al. 1999), and only exists because of uncertainty
concerning future preferences and/or the availability of the good, and if the
valuer is risk-averse. It can be regarded as a form of insurance to provide for
possible future use.
Quasi-option value:
A related value arising through avoiding or
delaying irreversible decisions, where technological and knowledge
improvements can alter the optimal management of a natural resource. It
does not require risk aversion. It is particularly relevant to the precautionary
principle. A common example is the potential for genetic information in
biodiversity to be used for creating pharmaceuticals or improved crop
varieties.
The term ‘benefit’ is used in the description of TEV above to mean maintaining or
increasing human welfare. A cost, on the other hand, would relate to a change in the
natural environment (e.g. pollution) that leads to a decrease in human welfare. Some
use values can be expressed in monetary terms using data from actual markets. Use
values derived from environmental goods and services that are not traded in
markets, i.e. are non-market, and non-use values in general, are not reflected in
market transactions unless there has been a government intervention in the form of
taxation or another policy that forces the market price to incorporate these values. “
Results
UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2012 – Health Report S5.14.2. The total percase treatment and labour opportunity costs for cognitive behaviour therapy and
non-directive therapy identified in Table 5.25 are rounded and define a range to be
applied to the mid depression end point, within which the GP care cost is found. A
central value is derived by taking the simple mean of these three values. This
equates to £970 per person
71
This illustrates a typical market value where the impact is measured in terms of the
cost of the services delivered.
“There are also ‘intangible’ damages caused by flooding. These include stressrelated health impacts and loss of, or damage to, irreplaceable personal possessions
(e.g. family photos, diaries etc.) and manifest themselves as the value of lost utility
because of restricted activities, pain and suffering, anxiety about the future and
concern and inconvenience to family members and others. These costs are not
reflected in actual markets and hence cannot be estimated using actual market data.
Generating evidence that such costs exist and producing initial estimates of their
magnitude have been the focus of this study”. p9 R&D TECHNICAL REPORT
FD2005/TD The Appraisal of Human related Intangible Impacts of Flooding. This
particular study produced a sum for these damages of “about £200” per person
through a willingness to pay to prevent flooding exercise.In essence, this research
has attempted to value all of these intangibles through a single measure.
Further work is currently being undertaken by the Health Protection Agency in West
Sussex (pers. comm.) to better characterise the mental health impacts of flooding.
This should then provide an opportunity to establish improved non-market values for
these intangibles.
Recent academic research and government policy has promoted a multi-criteria
approach to the valuation of intangible impacts. See for example,Defra Evidence
and Analysis series. Paper 5 Social Impacts and Wellbeing: multi-criteria analysis
techniques for integrating nonmonetary evidence in valuation and appraisal. A
discussion of current approaches and opportunities A paper for the Social Impacts
Taskforce. Dec 2011. This paper advocates a multi-criteria approach to integrating
non-monetary evidence.
72
Therefore, it seems likely that current values of the intangible benefits of flood
defence schemes, including PLP, may be too low and it is possible that a very
different value for the intangible impacts of flooding would be achieved through a
multi-criteria approach.
Therefore, more research is needed to come up with a value representing the
intangible impacts of flooding.
73
Objective 3
The purpose of Objective 3 was to utilise both the survey of businesses and the
analysis of date from Companies House and through combining them to define net
value (and thus ‘returns’) for such property level investment across sectors.
However, because the work with Companies house failed to produce useful results it
was impossible to cross correlate in this way.
On the demand side a partial analysis was conducted through a questionnaire of
local authorities and water companies. The salient results are that:
1. Local authorities used a very limited number of companies for PLP work
2. Many of the same companies were used by different local authorities, so that
the overall pool of companies involved with FDGiA grant work is quite small.
3. In addition to the PLP work, a proportion of the FDGiA grant was spent on
ancillary works with traditional building firms.
4. A variety of constraints on local authorities shaped the way that they
approached grant giving. These were a mixture of timescales, lack of
expertise, procurement rules, what the community wanted, what was needed
and available and what could be done most quickly and easily.
5. There was very little topping up of grants from local authorities, p59.
6. Local authorities were aware of some private purchasing of PLP, but not in a
way that can be quantified easily. A better assessment of this is provided in
the report PLP and Insurance, see p62 above, where householders were
surveyed directly. 58 of the 198 responses indicated that they had made a
financial contribution to the project, the rest being entirely grant aided. There
were 27 self-funded projects totalling £1,276,660, ranging from £10 to
£1,000,000. There were 29 projects which were part grant aided, the selffunded element totalling £191,934. 27 respondents provided sufficient
information to provide a number for the grant aided element, which totalled
£104,800. There were two respondents who did not provide sufficient
information to identify grant aid and a further two who did not provide
sufficient information to identify personal and grant aid information.
Therefore, the total self-funded element in the sample was £1,468,594 and
the multiplier from the grant aid was 1.83. This is likely to be a significant
underestimate as the sample for this survey was obtained by contacting those
who had received grant aid, as well as surveying local flood groups.
Therefore the proportion could be skewed in favour of those receiving grant
aid.
It should be noted that the sample was not specific to one year and contained
schemes dating back to the year 2000. Nevertheless this does indicate that
there is a strong self funding component to the purchase of PLP and tends to
74
corroborate the finding in this survey that not all PLP schemes are grant
aided.
75
5. Project Evaluation
The project aimed to investigate and explore the supply chain benefits of the flood
protection products market and the economic benefits of property level protection for
non-FDGiA schemes. The primary aim was to provide an initial evidenced
assessment of the size and rate of growth of the emerging market in the supply of
flood risk protection to individual properties. The emphasis was on looking beyond
Defra grant-funded property level protection (PLP) programmes and PLP projects
supported via Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) to evaluate the scale and growth
in the wider supply of and demand for PLP products and services.
The specific objectives were to:
1.
Devise a method and produce an initial evidenced assessment of the scale
and distribution, geographically and by sector, of expenditure by households,
businesses, LAs and the third sector on FCRM measures to protect individual
property (looking beyond the part-FDGiA funded property level protection
schemes).
2.
Identify how to utilise/adapt a parallel method of assessment of the likely
damage avoidance benefits (from linkage with JBA cost effectiveness study
results), essentially identify a compatible way of measuring the outcomes of
that expenditure.
3.
Utilise both of the above and combining them, define net value (and thus
‘returns’) for such property level investment across sectors.
4.
Ensure that techniques and tools developed will be available for ongoing use
to measure annually.
Supply side
The project started with the assumption that there were about 50 companies
operating in the sector, based upon the National Flood forum’s previous experience,
but through a scoping exercise found 190 Limited companies. A cross-sectional
sample of 48 companies was surveyed via a questionnaire
The gross annual turnover of the companies surveyed amounted to £32,081,000 in
2011/12. If translated to the 190 companies identified this would equate to a gross
turnover of £127,655,646. PLP turnover probably related to the private sector for the
sample was identified as £24,776,250, i.e. non-grant aided. Translated to the 190
companies identified it equated to a gross turnover of £89,072,656.
Demand side
A survey of local authorities and water companies revealed that procurement was
from a relatively small number of companies. This was for a variety of reasons, but
included issues procurement processes, lack of time and expertise and the
availability of certain products. It also showed that a proportion of FDGiA grant went
to other non PLP companies undertaking ancillary works such as groundworks and
pointing.
Data from this survey did not reveal that grant aided PLP schemes drew in additional
funding from the local authority, insurance companies, water companies or
householders, but a separate survey of householders who had protected their
76
homes, National Flood Forum 2012, PLP and Insurance, revealed that there was
considerable additional funding provided by householders. The total self-funded
element in this sample was £1,468,594 and the multiplier from the grant aid was
1.83. This is likely to be a significant underestimate as the sample for this survey
was obtained by contacting those who had received grant aid, as well as surveying
local flood groups, rather than all those who might have protected their homes.
Therefore the proportion could be skewed in favour of those receiving grant aid.
This corroborates the finding in this survey that the industry is not very dependent
upon grant aid. Out of a gross estimated turnover of £127,655,646 it was estimated
that £89,072,656, 70%, was not grant aided, p51. Effectively this means that an
additional £89,072,656 is being spent annually on flood risk management than is
currently being accounted for.
A few companies are highly dependent upon grant aid, but most (58%) are not
reliant on grant aid at all. Only 30% of turnover is reliant on grant aid.
The JBA cost effectiveness study,Defra 2012,Establishing the Cost Effectiveness of
Property Flood Protection: FD2657 reviewed and updated the average costs and
damage avoidance benefits from the FDGiA programme. It found:





“Compelling evidence for the cost effectiveness of manually deployed flood
resistance measures, with high benefit cost ratios and high Partnership
Funding Outcome Scores for typical flood thresholds of up to 2.5% annual
exceedance probability (1 in 40 year).
The higher cost of Automatic Resistance measures results in lower benefit
cost ratios but there are still significant cost effective opportunities for
schemes with appropriate levels of contribution, but at typically lower flood
thresholds of 5% annual exceedance probability (1 in 20 year).
The high cost of resilience measures indicates that these are a less cost
effective option for Government intervention, unless flooding of a property
occurs at greater than a 20% annual exceedance probability (1 in 5 year).
Manual Resistance measures are more than twice as cost beneficial as
automatic measures, achieving some very high benefit cost ratios.
The effects of reliability have been examined but found not to have significant
impacts on the overall outcomes.”
Typical Benefit:cost ratios of greater than 1:1 were found for manually deployed flood
resistance measures for flood thresholds of up to 2.5% annual exceedance
probability (1 in 40 year). However these rose to 5:1 for all core property types
exposed to flooding with a 10% AEP (1:10 year) threshold.
This is in contrast to Automatic Resistance measures which generally exceed a
benefit cost ratio of 2:1, but which never reach 4:1, for the higher frequency 10%
AEP (1:10 year) flood threshold.
Automatic Resistance measures are not cost beneficial for lower frequency flooding
thresholds of 4% AEP (1:25 years) or less.
77
Taken at face value, benefit:cost ratios of 5:1 for a reduction of flood risk through the
use of manual resistance methods would provide a public benefit of £445,363280
from the estimate of non-grant aided spend of £89,072,656. However there are a
number of caveats:
1. Not all of the non-grant aided spend is on manual resistance measures
2. The Cost Effectiveness study focusses on residential property whereas the
spend estimated in this study covers all sectors (residential, business and
commercial). Nevertheless the benefits for business and residential are likely
to be similar.
Nevertheless, although there are some significant reservations, it would be
reasonable to expect the results to be meaningful. This is backed by the results of
the cross-comparison of thebenefit:costratio between homes and offices in Defra
2010,Developing the evidence base for flood resilience FD2607.
Conclusions
The conclusion is that there is currently a significant private sector, non-grant aided
spend £89,072,656 on flood risk management through individual property level
protection that is currently not accounted for in current estimates of flood defence
spending. When benefit:cost ratios are taken in to account this produces a range of
up to £445,363,280 in annual benefits.
The survey of flood product suppliers indicates that the market for most firms is
growing, reflecting that this is a relatively young sector. There is evidence from this
survey that it is also maturing through supply and demand chain development and
the development of a solutions focussed approach. In addition, Government policy
(Flood and Water Management Act 2010) is increasingly seeking to provide a
community focussed approach, particularly where traditional flood defences either
will not work or where they do not offer sufficient benefits.
Public attitudes to investing in protecting their own property have been at the heart of
the grant aid programme. From this survey at least, there appears to be a proportion
of the population that is investing in reducing their flood risk. Further development is
likely to be contingent upon a number of factors, such as the outcome of the
negotiations on a flood risk insurance framework, future incidences of flooding and
the level of trust that PLP appears to engender. Nevertheless, this sector might
reasonably be expected to continue growing.
78
6. Recommendations
Objective 4 - Provide recommendations for development and refinement of method,
including future expansion to explore worth of investment in better localised
awareness and preparatory actions to reduce incident consequences.
Now have a baseline. It could be improved by:
Better definitions
Clarity about what is and is not PLP
Greater clarity about the turnover of larger companies
How to deal with situations where PLP is part of a solutions based approach
Greater understanding of grant aid from water companies and insurance companies
Further studies – how the supply and demand site develops. How the solutions
approach develops
The role of quality and trust in developing in developing the marketand the supply
and demand chain to support it.
The extent of collaboration
The spend on Manual vs automatic and Resilience measures
79
7. References
80
8. Appendices
Companies involved with flood risk products
Companies sampled in the questionnaire
Questionnaire for companies dealing with Property Level Protection products and
services
Graphs of results and data
81
Appendix 1 Companies identified as being involved with flood risk products
and services
A Turner & Sons Ltd
AAC Cryoma
AAH Planning Consultants
Absorbeez
Absorbeez by Forkoak Rolls Ltd
Acorn Group
Action Dry Emergency Services
Action Speedry
AET formerley Aqua sac
Affordable Flood Solutions
Airbrick Flood Defence by Manthorpe
Aire Group
Andrew Collins
Aqua Barrier Systems Ltd
Aquacast
Aquafence
Aquatic Control Engineering Ltd
AquatitePanseal
Ark Total Solutions
ARUP
Avantiahomeprotect
Balds Balm
Bauer Inner City
BCB International Ltd
Betts Associates Ltd
Birch Brothers
Brian Percival
Capital Symonds
Caro Flood Defence Systems Ltd
Carrier Barrier - Kintec
Cleanwater Ltd
Cobra
Cole Easdon Consultants
Crompton Moudings Ltd
Dam Structures
Damfast Flood Solutions
Defence Doors Ltd
Depositit
DisasterCare Platinum
Drymat® Systems
Dryright Ltd
Eaga
EasifitVentguards
Easiview Drainage
Ebac
Eco Coverage Technologies
Gooch Group
Eco Sound
Eco Valve
Ecochoice Ltd
Edge Equipment Hire Ltd
Egniol
Egniol
Environmental Defence Systems Ltd
Environmental Innovations Ltd
Environmental Sustainable Solutions Ltd
Equity & General Insurance Services Ltd
Euroblock Scotland Ltd
Euroflo Fluid Handling
Farrow Systems UK
Flash Flood Doors
Floating Castle Flood Prevention
FloDef Limited
Flood Ark Ltd
Flood Bag - Mangar
Flood Block
Flood Consult
Flood Control Ltd
Flood Defend
Flood Defender Ltd
Flood Guards Systems Ltd
Flood Management Company
Flood Master
Flood Matters Ltd
Flood Proof Limited
Floodbond
Floodgate
Floodsax
Floodsearch UK
Floodsentry Limited
Floodshield
Floodskirt (Woodward Associates)
Floodstoppers
Floodtite Systems Ltd
Floodwall
Flowstop
Fluid Systems Technology
Fluvial Innovations Ltd
FRMS
GDM Siphons Product
Geodesign Barriers Ltd
Geoff. Evans BSc CEng MICE
Globehuggers Emergency Supplies
RAB Consultants
82
Gravitas International
Hamer Car Lift Co Ltd
Hesco Bastian Ltd
HiBar Flood Systems Ltd
Home Dry Restoration
Homeguard Products
Hydrologic Ltd
Hyropanel
Ian Summerfield MRICS MCIOB
IBS Engineered Products Limited
Ideal Group
IFDP Ltd
IH Tools & Fixings Ltd
Insurance Choice
International Flood Control
ISS Damage Control
J BrehenyConstractors Ltd
J T Atkinson & Sons
Janus Uk Flood Defences Ltd
JBA Consulting
John Kilbride
K B I (Installations) LTD
Kayron
Krustec UK
L B Plastics Ltd
Land and Partners
Landscope Engineering Ltd
Liquavision
M Design UK Ltd.
Maltby Land Surveys Ltd
Malty Land Surveys Ltd
Mangar International
Marley Eternie
Martin Wright Associates
Mason Clark Associates
McArthur Group Task Green Ltd
Micro Drainage
Mission Rubber (UK) Ltd
Mouchel
Multi-Flood Solutions
Munters
National Flood School
One Delta Ltd
Pebble Black Ltd
Pell Frischmann Consultants
Plasicab
Protectahome
Protek Risk UK Limited
Proten Services Ltd
Rainbow International
Rapid Climate Control
Raymond Brown Construction Ltd
Reach and Rescue Ltd
Rentokil Hygiene
Restoration Express Limited
Revetment Ltd
RKB Ltd
Robinson and Son
Ryton Building Products Ltd
Sanderson Associates
Scrimsign Microelectronics Ltd
Secure Inventories
Sentry Safe UK Ltd
SG Baker Ltd
sld pumps
Snorkelvent
SPE Limited
Sutcliffe & Co Insurance Consultants
Telling Ltd
The Alternative Accommodation Agency
Ltd
The Honeywagon Company
The Property Care Association
Three Counties Flood Risk Assessment
Three Counties FRA
Tilt Dam Ltd
Total Flood Solutions
txttools Ltd
UK Flood Barriers
UK Flood Control
UK Pipelines Ltd
Ventguard Products Ltd
Verdeant Ltd
Versadock International Ltd
Water Out
Water Resource Associates Ltd
Waterco
Watermark Projects WAC
Watertight International Ltd
Wavin Plastics Ltd,
Weetwood
Weir & Carmichael Ltd
WERM
Whitehouse Construction
William M. Snape Manufacturing
Services
Woodway Engineering
Zorbmat Ltd
83
Appendix 2 Companies sampled in the questionnaire
Absorbeez
Absorbeez by Fortoak Rolls Ltd
AET
AquatitePanseal
BCB Internatyional Ltd
Capita Symonds
Carol Flood Defence Systems
Defence Doors
EasifitVentguards
Eco Coverage
EDS
Flash Flood Doors Ltd
Flood Ark
Flood Control International
Flood Defender
Flood Divert Ltd
Floodbond
Floodgate Ltd
Floodshield
Floodtite Systems Ltd
Fluvial Innovations
Geodesign Barriers
Gravitas International Ltd
I H Tools & Fixings Ltd
IBS Engineered Products Ltd
Isodaq Technology
Maclennan LSE
Maris Pumps
Martin Wright Associates
Mouchel Consulting
MrArthur Group Ltd
Pell Frischmann Consultants
Polygon UK & Ireland
Pro Earth Developments (Europe) Ltd
RAB Consultants
Revetment Ltd
Rytons Building Products Ltd
S G Baker
Snorkejvent
Tilt Dam
Total Flood Solutions Ltd
UK Flood Barriers
W Robinson & Sons
Water Resources Assoication Ltd
Waterco
Watertight International
Weir & Carmichael Ltd
Zorbmat Ltd
84
Appendix 1
Questionnaire for companies dealing with Property Level Protection products
and services
This survey asks questions about Property Level Protection (PLP) against flood risk and the
supply of flood protection products in order to help to gain an understanding of size and
nature of the supply chain. A report will be produced outlining the industry characteristics,
opportunities and challenges. All information provided will be made anonymous and
information aggregated so that individual companies cannot be identified.
This research covers the supply and installation of products and services involved in
delivering Property Level Protection (PLP) against flood risk.
Examples of flood products - Alternative sand bags, door barriers, flood barriers, air brick
and vent covers, sewage flood prevention, tanking, manual and automatic pumps
Examples of services - Flood risk assessors, Property surveys, Hydrological surveys
Thank you for your participation, it is greatly appreciated.
Instruction: please tick one answer (unless indicated otherwise) and respond in the space
provided, where appropriate.
Details about your company
1. Contact name
……………………………………………………………………………………………….......................................
2. Name of company
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
3. Address
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Postcode ………………………… Telephone …………………………………… Email …………………………………
4. Which sectors are you involved with?
Flood products
85
Manufacture of flood products
supply of flood products
Installation of flood products
wholesaler of flood products
Types of flood product that your company trades in
alternative sand bags
door barriers
flood barriers
air brick and vent covers
sewage flood prevention
tanking
pumps
Services
Flood risk assessors
Property surveys
Hydrological surveys
making properties flood resilient
Other products or services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
5. What is the main business interest of your company? ……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
6. How long has your company been trading?
0-1 Year
1-3 Years
3-5 Years
5-10 Years
Over 10 Years
7. How long has your company been trading in flood related products or services?
0-1 Year
1-3 Years
3-5 Years
5-10 Years
Over 10 Years
The proportion of turnover related to flood risk
We are interested in the type of companies that are operating in this sector, whether they have
developed around one particular flood related product of service, whether a flood product or service
has developed as a side operation from a product line or service.
8. What type(s) of company are you?
Sole trader
Limited Liability Partnership
Public company
Charity
Limited company
Industrial and Provident Society
Other
If “other” please specify ……………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………
86
9. How many people do you employ? ……………………………..………………………………………………………………
Turnover
10. What is your overall turnover in a year? ………………………………………………………………..……………………
11. What percentage of turnover is related to flood risk products or services? -…………………………………
12. If you produce more than one flood risk product or service, what percentage of turnover does
each product/service type contribute? ………………………………………………………………………………...........
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
13. Has the turnover related to flood risk products and services in the last twelve months
Stayed the same?
Increased significantly?
Decreased significantly?
14. Does turnover fluctuate?
Yes
No
If ”yes”, are there any particular reasons for this? ………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
15. There is often more interest in flooding after a flood event. How has this affected your
company?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
16. What proportion of flood risk sales have been grant aided? …………………………………………………………
Defra
Environment Agency
Don’t know
Water company
local authority
Other, please indicate ……………………………………………………………………………
17. What proportion of sales have been to independent households or businesses?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Supply chain characteristics
One measure of business benefits of a sector is the extent to which a supply chain has developed.
18. Do you supply flood product parts, products or services to other companies?
Yes
No
19. Do you buy flood product parts, products or services from other companies
87
Yes
No
20. Please describe these supply chains …………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Geographic distribution of sales of products and services
The distribution of sales may not be even across the country for a variety of reasons. There may be
trends for the industry as a whole that would indicate how policies are applied differently in
particular areas.
21. Have you found that the sales of products and services is distributed evenly across the country?
Yes
No
If not, where are they concentrated? ………………………………………………………………………………………………
22. Where do fewest sales occur? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
The degree to which companies have developed into flood risk products and services from other
fields, such as fire and recovery, general surveying or telemetry for other purposes.
It is suspected that some companies have been set up to deliver a specific flood related product or
service, but that many others have developed into this market from other fields.
23. Was flood related products or services part of the original purpose of your company?
Yes
No
24. What was your company originally set up to deliver? …………………………………………………………………
25. What motivated you to trade in flood products or services? ………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Your views about the future
Your perceptions about the future of flood products and services market are important, as are the
challenges and opportunities you see ahead. So this is an opportunity to outline what things you
would most like to see happen to make the value of the market and its supply chains develop in the
future.
26. Is the value of the market for Property Level Protection products and services growing,
contracting or stable?
Growing
Contracting
Stable
Fluctuating
27. What do you see as being the main reasons for this? …………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
88
28. What are the main barriers to value of the market for Property Level Protection products and
services growing further? .…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
29. What help is required to overcome these barriers?
Government action
lobby
Local authority action
Industry action
Clearer funding
below
Greater public awareness of products
Creation of a
Other, please explain
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
30. Are you familiar how flood protection will be funded in the future (Partnership Funding)?
Yes
No
31. Are you familiar with the institutional responsibilities of different public bodies and future
funding. Please tick all that you are familiar with
Environment Agency
Local authorities
Defra
RFCCs
32. How could the market for Property Level Protection products and services be encouraged? …….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
33. How could the market for Property Level Protection products and services purchased by
individuals, rather than through grant aid, be encouraged? …………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
34. What difference would this make to your company? ……………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
35. Please tell us about any other issues that may be of concern to you in the space below, by email
or telephone.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
89
36. Are you willing for us to contact you if we have any questions about the answers that
you have provided?
Yes
No
Thank you for your time and help.
Please return this questionnaire to Amanda Davies (Amanda.davies@floodforum.org.uk ) or:
National Flood Forum, Old Snuff Mill Warehouse, Park Lane, Bewdley, Worcestershire DY12 2EL
The questionnaire may also be completed online at www.floodforum.org.uk
90
Appendix 2
91
Appendix XXX
Update on the Counting non-FD GiA property Level Investment
Project
The Environment Agency and the National Flood Forum entered into a partnership project to
investigate the emerging market for property level flood protection products and services
(PLP), as well as the economic benefits of property level protection for non-FDGiA schemes.
Progress on the project has been delayed by the recent floods in England and Wales. This
note therefore provides an update on progress and a plan for completion of the work.
Update
An essential component of the work has been to provide a methodology to establish the
scale of the commercial activity being undertaken on property level investment so that
comparisons can be made in the future. To establish this a series of activities have been
undertaken:
9. A database of businesses has been developed. This is much larger than had been
anticipated, with 190 companies on the list compared to an estimated 50 at the outset.
10. The opportunities for gathering data about these companies from external sources such
as Companies House was investigated. The information gained was found to be not
particularly useful. This will be detailed in the report.
11. A survey of over 40 property level protection products and services businesses has been
undertaken. Initial analysis has identified that:
a. The companies surveyed covered the full range of products and services fairly
evenly
b. Half the companies have been in existence for over 10 years and almost half
have been trading in flood related products and services for over 10 years
c. The vast majority of companies are Limited Companies, with only a small number
of sole traders
d. There is a concentration of SMEs employing 0-10 people with a scattering of
firms in each category above that, including large international concerns.
e. There is a huge range in turnover from £2000 to £300 million.
f. For the majority of firms, flood related products and services form a significant
proportion of turnover, but the range is very wide.
g. Slightly more companies think that turnover has increased significantly than has
either stayed the same or decreased significantly, and a very high proportion
state that turnover fluctuates significantly. Reasons given include the variability
of the weather, the availability of grant aid, the way the grant aid is delivered and
the lack of flood risk awareness in the UK compared to other markets.
h. The proportion of sales that are grant aided are highly variable from 0 – 100%.
i. The supply chains described are quite varied and the location of each company
in its supply chains is very variable also. In many ways this is similar to the
92
situation in the retrofitting energy efficiency sector for domestic properties,
characteristic of new markets.
j. Sales do vary across the country, but no common patterns have been found so
far.
k. Most companies believe that the market for flood risk products and services is
growing
l. Barriers identified are many, but include:
i. Lack of funding
ii. Lack of public awareness of flood risk or flood products
iii. Lack of incentive for people to protect their own property
iv. Public sector contracts and procurement processes
v. Cost of kite marking is preventing innovation
12. A survey of water companies and local authorities is underway. It is not yet possible to
identify any clear themes or issues
Schedule for completion
It is planned that the survey of water companies and local authorities will be completed
during November. In the meantime the existing results will be analysed more fully and
reported.
The next step is to analyse what worked and what could be improved, leading to the design
of a methodology that can be replicated in future years and which will allow comparison of
how the market has developed, identification barriers to progress and any policy
interventions that might be considered.
Subject to more flooding, the National Flood Forum will produce a draft report by the end of
December 2012 for discussion. A final report will be produced in Quarter 4 of the financial
year.
Paul Cobbing
21st October 2012
93
Annexe XXX Barriers to the market for PLP
1. Defra funding has a negative effect
2. There is no clear direction from government
3. People are unaware of their responsibility and expect councils to deliver
sandbags 2
4. The market is currently self limiting by local authority perceptions about the
difficulties of the grant schemes e.g. legal difficulties leading to delays.
5. Whether or not insurance/mortgage companies look to see if they are going to
lose money. Council of Mortgage Lenders, Building Societies own flood
prone houses and need to sort this out to enable sales of properties.
6. Lack of knowledge. Home owners value their properties - businesses not fully
aware – it’s a small industry
7. Having the money to take defence measures.
8. People who are not flooded are not interested 3
9. Government cutbacks / recession - good products but money not available
10. Problem with lowest costs wins tenders - desire to say protected lots of
properties cheaply. Schemes only provides barriers to householders - do not
protect property.
11. Lack of Government assistance
12. Funding and industry being reactive not proactive
13. Government Insurance and SOP expiring soon 2
14. Ridiculous price of kitemarkin products
15. Funding - co-ordination throughout the industry. Lots of people involved in
different sections - too scattered need to blend together
16. Grant Aid - If Government support is withdrawn - no money available significant barrier. Go to community - inform - this only happens when
someone pays
17. Not being proactive. People cross that bridge when come to it
18. Most people under the impression Government fund or supply products
19. Cost
20. Money, people don't want to spend money 'after' an event and will not happen
to them again!
21. Marketing of products. Greater clarity needed from Insurance Companies as
what is needed to comply
22. Councils reluctant to give grants due to financial pressure. EA not interested
in PLP
23. Insurance - more needed to make it compulsory to have flood insurance.
More work with insurance industry needed
24. Cost
25. Prices of every commodity going up. Glass up 26%. Grant system is a closed
shop, no consistency from Councils. Work on contract basis very long and
hard with very little reward. Contract specification 40/50 pages too long short
time to complete tenders
94
26. They have a basic item - sandbag -more competition lack of product
innovation
27. N/A
28. Lack of funding and view that it is potentially a long term problem, other
pressures on businesses more important 1:50, 1:100 risk
29. Education and economy
30. Ensure time set aside for research and development to improve products.
Changes in funding from ring fenced to new scheme will cause problems as
Councils do not have the expertise to handle. They will help councils
31. Restriction of Councils lack of funding. Only if flooded do they get
Government help
32. Lack of Government understanding of flash flooding, continuing focus on
fluvial flood protection which neglects impact of pluvial events, lack of
insurable product solutions
33. many people believe barriers need to be large scale and are difficult to install
34. Challenging market for new products. Need to educate people, need to
demonstrate product is reliable and works effectively
35. Lack of finance, Public perception - people think Government/LA should pay
not individuals
36. People need to know what they can do, Need to raise awareness
37. Funding - lack of from all areas
38. None, lots of Hydrologists around, can cope with and do more work
39. Budget availability
40. Do not see any barriers
41. Money - lack of
42. Competition - now lots of alternatives available
43. Grant schemes - adverse way, Insurance company offer cheap insurance householder not going to spend large amount on protection unless incentives
are given. LA interfere manipulate market -= stops free market. LA more
interested in Social Housing than the Private sector
44. Lack of investment from Government - stifles innovation
45. Awareness of products - Local Councils need to be more responsible
95
Annexe XXXX Companies were asked how the market for Property
Level Protection Products and services could be encouraged.
1. Raise awareness via an independent body such as the NFF who are totally
impartial
2. LA should send out mailshot to each household explaining they are not going
to send out sandbags
3. An association of manufacturers. Government legislation.
4. People need to TRULY know their flood risk. Terminology (1:100) is
responsible for a lot of misunderstanding. People need to understand that
they can take practical steps to protect themselves. They need to know the
efficacy of flood products. The insurance sector can encourage action and
signpost support.
5. Encouragement of innovation through grants and funding
6. Getting Individual Insurance companies to make up their minds what to do
Building Societies.
7. Social media - interact with people. Areas flood regularly - flood groups and
forums need to be formed and people aware of
8. Local Authorities make people more aware and what is available - mail drops,
media coverage, local radio
9. Better quality products, some very poor ineffective material out there
10. Greater awareness - Insurance - serious flooding event
11. Insurance Companies to enforce Flood Protection in flood risk areas
12. Government incentives/subsidies for investment in design
13. Greater awareness
14. Through EA. This is where people go to look
15. More awareness of damage it can do
16. Government action - distinct upturn in sales to public when grants awarded
17. Insurance Companies do not acknowledge products installed - need to push
for protection products
18. Engage with developers, education programme for householders - know
where their property is, measures open to them
19. Promote and use local solutions. Local flood authorities not EA
20. Not sure - Insurance Companies - main drivers
21. Make Grants available
22. Insurance Companys offer incentives for protection measures taken - have it
underwritten in the contract
23. Only if 'forced' into doing something (Insurance) Local Councils need a
contingency plan in place
24. Clearer warnings - weather changes and bad weather - better clarity,
education and awareness
25. Funding and awareness
96
26. Compulsory Insurance cover for everyone - more policies mean more work
27. Subsidy given to Householders for protection taken. Central Funding Grants &
ABI must be transparent and offer something for protection
28. Insurance Companys need to be more involved. Homeowners cannot see a
reason to spend a fortune on protection. Do not want to spend money if they
cannot see a reduction in premiums. Ins Companys need to recognise
protection taken, be consistent and offer reduced rates of insurance
29. Industry very fragmented, more uniform approach , encourage development
of new products
30. The insurance industry incentivising people to invest in flood protection
31. By lobbying and greater understanding and effective Government support
32. Education
33. Make more affordable to homeowners - expensive for individuals. LA should
block purchase and sell on. Stigma of flooding needs to improve, shame
factor removed and make a more normal event
34. Government increase funding, more awareness
35. The industry has to do a better job of promoting its products and services.
There has to be a general understanding that PLP is at the expense of the
High Street
36. Get Home owners to club together, buy store and set up themselves. Need to
be trained on how to install correctly. Group of pensioners in Witney set up a
group, funded by Oxford CC, David Cameron attended
37. Government, marketing, educate everyone. EA need more marketing people
need to be aware of local suppliers
38. Make Grants easier to obtain
39. Make Insurance more affordable
40. The Public are confused - some might need, others definitely, all about getting
the right product for individual situation. More information
41. More publicity and education
42. Budget availability
43. Publicity - Local businesses to be more pro-active. Community/Councils
identify areas
44. Council members not keen on some products see them as a temporary
measure 'Ugly' not a long term solutions - 'a sticking plaster'. Local authorities
not aware of all the funding that is available
45. More local Government funding, better partnership working
46. If people cannot get insurance - need incentives to encourage them to get
protection, show value of property can be increased
47. Funding - Councils have no forethought - want products now - not prepared to
wait weeks whilst made
48. More awareness of products
97
Appendix XXX
Respondents were asked, how the market for property level
protection products and services purchased by individuals rather
than through grant aid could be encouraged? Very similar
responses were obtained, listed in Anexxe XXXX
Raise awareness via an independent body such as the NFF who are totally impartial
LA should send out mailshot to each household explaining they are not going to
send out sandbags
public awareness.
Provision of facts (eg relative risk of fire and flooding), Promotion of an
understanding of flood risk (eg surface water). Need more levers. Building regs
should be updated. The more the market develops, the more confusing it is. Where
would you go to get started? People need to be directed. The market has the
potential for abuse. There is a reputational risk for all providers eg Trust and
reputational risk for Blue Pages
Not sure if it can, unless they have experienced flooding, not sure they are
interested. Products expensive and might never be used.
Building Societies, Estate Agents to help the sale plus individual builders especially
on flood plains. Need code put in place.
On line
Greater awareness
Perceive benefit of buying product. Better Insurance, be aware
Insurance Companies to enforce Flood Protection in flood risk areas
Lower end user cost to attract people to protect themselves
Trade Journal published quarterly
Through EA. This is where people go to look
Media, TV, Papers reporting, Councils notifying people at risk
Individuals get cash back from Councils/Insurance Companies if they install
protection products
98
Insurance Companies do not acknowledge products installed - need to push for
protection products
Insurance Companies offer discounts - make it part of the policy if Flood Protection
measure taken
Reduction in premiums and excesses to encourage growth of protection levels
installed
Not sure - Insurance Companies - main drivers. Need to know the benefits especially of their company - reduces time out of property
Householders reluctant to part with their money, if flooded once - it will not happen to
them again - more grants needed
Economic Climate - not much money around need grants to encourage
development. Householders have no spare money not encouraged to protect
Apathy all round - people aren't bothered. Market will not flourish
Education and Greater Awareness - as previous
Needs to be part funded
Compulsory Insurance cover for everyone - more policies mean more work
ABI need to be involved. Incentives offered. Central Government involved. Insurance
Companies must be aware of protection taken by householders and press to keep
flooding cover
Grant maintained systems paid for by Councils - not maintained/looked after - they
are abused/kicked in as don't have an incentive - insurance not reduced
Sell mostly to businesses ( large quantities) sell low volume to the public - no ideas
The insurance industry incentivising people to invest in flood protection
By lobbying and greater understanding and effective Government support
Who is responsible - people need to know. Insurance Companies
People need confidence of the people doing/installing work and products. Some
solutions not tried and tested. BSI needs stronger/tougher regulations - products
tested on site in a real event. Remove grant system make individuals more
responsible
Only people flooded buy products, if not flooded, won't buy - need greater awareness
Education, people protect themselves from fire and theft - why not flooding
PLP has to be seen as an investment rather than as a resentful purchase
99
Insurance is the key
General Public need more education and knowledge of products available. Need to
see and understand protection products
Advertising
Raise awareness, people usually only motivated when they have been flooded.
Need to encourage protection
Make Insurance coverage more beneficial - if people have a flood plan/products in
place
More awareness, DIY stores making products available, education and information.
People must be prepared
More floods! People need to be aware, help from Insurance companies. Need to
know of products/services available and where to get information
Down to individual resource
More information - and how to go about protection
Those that have been flooded are aware, those not affected need to be educated
need to be aware and proactive, incentives needed
Do not sell to the public
Educate homeowners to realize if protection taken they can sell their property and
increase its value
Funding needs a partnership 50:50 between householder and product. Then not too
expensive an outlay, Investment needed both sides and encourage people to selfprotect
More awareness of products
100