Build more to respond to housing hunger or build better so as not to expose thousands of families to foreseeable risks? In England, the dilemma is not theoretical. A recent study based on cross-referencing building data with official hydraulic risk maps shows that, in recent years, about one in nine new homes has risen in areas classified as medium or high flood risk. A trend that is growing as the climate becomes more unstable and extreme events more frequent.
The figure recounts a transformation of the urban landscape. Where building was once avoided, residential neighborhoods now rise, often justified by the urgency of increasing supply. The British government has set ambitious targets for new construction, and pressure on available land has progressively pushed expansion into less hydrogeologically safe areas. The result is a short-circuit: housing policies that risk colliding with climate adaptation policies.
The risk you can’t see (until the water comes)
Flood-prone areas are not necessarily places destined to end up under water every winter. They are areas where the likelihood of river flooding, storm surges, or flooding from heavy rains is highest. With global warming, these probabilities increase. More concentrated rainfall, saturated soils, stressed drainage systems-the perfect combination for a rare event to become less rare.
The problem is that the risk remains invisible until the moment it materializes. A road that becomes a canal, a ground floor flooded with water, a new house that suddenly turns out to be vulnerable. And when it happens, the economic and psychological damage is anything but marginal: costly repairs, loss of property value, difficulty getting insurance.
The insurance node
Here one of the most critical aspects emerges. In the United Kingdom there is a public-private scheme designed to make flood insurance affordable, but many homes built after a certain date remain excluded from it. So those who buy a recent home in an area at risk could face high premiums or, in the worst cases, an inability to obtain insurance coverage. A vulnerability that affects not only the environment, but the financial stability of families.
Insurance companies warn that the growing number of exposed homes could have systemic effects. More claims, higher premiums, progressively less insurable areas. A vicious cycle that turns an urban planning choice into a widespread economic problem.
Urban planning under indictment
Experts are openly talking about a planning issue. Risk maps exist, climate models as well. Continuing to build in vulnerable areas means accepting that part of the building stock is already born with a safety deficit. This is not about stopping development, but seriously integrating resilience criteria into local and national decisions.
Authorities point out that many new constructions include mitigation measures-structural elevations, drainage systems, barriers-and that investments are being made in flood defenses. But how sustainable is it to expand construction precisely where climate risk is growing fastest?
The images of recent years – rivers over the levees, neighborhoods evacuated, homes damaged – are not isolated incidents. They are signs of a changing normalcy. In some areas of the United Kingdom, they even went so far as to consider buying up and demolishing repeatedly flooded homes because defending them had become too costly or ineffective. Drastic choices that show what happens when prevention comes too late.
The British affair sounds familiar even outside British borders. Throughout Europe, the climate crisis is calling into question established urban planning criteria. Building remains necessary, but it cannot ignore the geography of risk. Every new home should be born not only energy efficient, but resilient to climate shocks.
