E D I T O R I A L

Developmentofgoodprofessional practice

DOI:10.1111/j.1753-318X.2010.01089.x

In recent years, I have reviewed several flood risk assessment

(FRA) documents produced by other organisations. This has

led me to reflect on what is now good professional practice

and how practice in this aspect of flood risk management

has changed over the past decade.

FRAs are formal documents required by planning legisla-

tion in England, with similar documents required in the

other countries of the United Kingdom (Scotland, Wales

and Northern Ireland). Properly prepared assessments of

flood risk form part of the evidence base for the decision-

making process at all stages of spatial planning. Their

purpose is to identify the flood risk issues and appropriate

mitigation measures associated with any proposed develop-

ment that requires planning permission, from a single house

to major residential or commercial development. The detail

required for a FRA increases as the plans become more

specific on site location, layout and use.

At the scale of the local plan, major developments require

considerable investment and expenditure; the financial value

of a particular site increases significantly with the identifica-

tion of the land being suitable for development. Typically,

the cost of preparation of a FRA is only a small proportion

of the whole project expenditure but an inadequate FRA can

have serious consequences both for the client and the

subsequent owners and occupiers of the development.

Knowing the extent of flood hazard and understanding the

design requirements to mitigate flood risk are crucial in

determining the scope of development and the capacity of a

site. Knowledge of the flood hazard can also be used in the

site layout to locate less vulnerable elements and to enhance

the environment, e.g. water or channel features. If an

inadequate FRA leads to poor decisions early in the project

development, the client may need to redesign the site or the

project may become uneconomic.

All stakeholders in the development process – the pro-

moter of the scheme, their consultants, local government

and the Environment Agency as the lead agency on flood

risk management – need to approach the preparation of

FRAs following good professional practice. Failure to do so

may lead to delay, additional expense, loss of profit, un-

necessary construction work or higher flood risk for later

occupiers. For the client, good professional practice will

include agreeing an appropriate brief and selecting experi-

enced consultants and advisors at a level of fee that fairly

accounts for the necessary work in the FRA. For local

government and the Environment Agency good practice will

include access to information, data and models so that the

FRA can take account of the most up-to-date and best local

information.

The Planning Policy Guidance issued in 2001 and up-

dated in 2007 has led to the growth of the FRA ‘industry’; it

has meant that many more engineers and scientists in

professional practice are now undertaking FRAs than a

decade ago. To reduce the likelihood of poor FRA docu-

ments being prepared and therefore the risk to the client, the

government and the Environment Agency have produced

guidance documents covering the preparation of FRAs and

the modelling that is often required. A decade ago there was

no such best practice guidance apart from advice in a few

textbooks and commercial model documentation. No mat-

ter how good guidance is, it must be taken up into practice

in order to achieve a good effect. This requires all those

involved with FRAs to undertake some form of professional

development, indeed maintaining a record of appropriate

Continuing Professional Development is one of the com-

mitments expected of all members of CIWEM, a founding

partner of this journal.

Once there is documented good practice in some area of

professional activity, then failure to follow that practice can

be grounds for a claim of negligence and the loss of

reputation that this involves. Typically the test for negligence

will be taken with regard to the standard of the ‘average

skilled professional’. At the very minimum, following good

practice will be part of the standard of reasonable skill, care

and diligence any professional must exercise in performing

their services to a client. Moreover, a client should expect

any consultant offering FRA services to have the technical

competence and understanding of good practice necessary

to do so. Lack of experience or pressure of time may lead to

mistakes such as

� using incorrect catchment or model boundaries,

� failure to identify and appraise all sources of flood hazard

at a site,

� failure to resolve discrepancies between alternative sur-

veys from different models of the same site,

� poor calibration arising from belief in the model results

rather than in observation,

� failure to address concerns raised in consultation with the

Environment Agency.

J Flood Risk Management 4 (2011) 1–2 c� 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management c� 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

It is instructive to read the list of mistakes that

Bartlett (2004) has drawn from his experience. How-

ever, such issues are covered within the good practice

guidance available and can be prevented through internal

reviews that form part of good project and quality manage-

ment practice.

Flood risk management is a developing professional

activity with changes in legislation, policy and practice.

The management of flood risk is broader than just the

engineering of structural flood defences and involves the

use and integration of knowledge from several disciplines.

The launch of the Journal of Flood Risk Management 3 years

ago has supported all flood risk management professionals.

The journal has the explicit aim to disseminate ideas across

a range of disciplines and to provide content ranging from

leading edge academic papers to applied content with the

practitioner in mind. As editors of the journal it is our aim

that the papers we review and publish will spread knowl-

edge and illustrate good practice to enable better decisions

to be made in flood risk management. We hope that all

readers of this journal will incorporate into their profes-

sional development plans some time to reflect on what we

publish.

References

Bartlett J. A Comedy of Errors – ten modelling mistakes we wish

we had never made. In: Paper presented at the 39th Annual

Conference of River and Coastal Engineers, University of York,

June 2004. London: DEFRA, 2004.

Construction Industry Research and Information Association.

Development and flood risk – guidance for the construction

industry. Report C624, CIRIA, London, UK, 2004.

Department for Community and Local Government. Planning

Policy Statement 25. Development and flood risk practice guide.

Revised edition. London, UK: DCLG, 2009.

Environment Agency. Using computer river modelling as part of a

flood risk assessment – Best practice guidance. Document

reference GEHO0406BKTG-E-E. Bristol, UK: Environment

Agency, 2006.

Paul Samuels

Associate Editor

J Flood Risk Management 4 (2011) 1–2c� 2011 The AuthorsJournal of Flood Risk Management c� 2011 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

2 Editorial