14 January 2026
Climate change is forcing the housing sector and related policy to confront some uncomfortable truths. Homes and the people that live in them must cope with hotter summers, heavier rainfall and increasing pressure on infrastructure. Energy efficiency and carbon reduction dominate much of the housing sector’s response to climate change, with water playing the role of Cinderella – despite it being key in shaping whether homes are deliverable, insurable and resilient.
Flooding, water scarcity, water quality and their long-term management are often treated as separate issues, addressed late or delegated to technical detail within planning and housing policy. Yet climate change is making one thing clear: too much water and too little water are part of the same problem, and both could significantly influence the success or failure of housing growth.
From within the housing sector, targets for water efficiency, or aspirations for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) are often described as overly ambitious. From a water management perspective, these targets are incremental, pedestrian and in some places disconnected from the emerging climate reality. They’re also frustratingly slow to respond to challenges and opportunities.
The government established its first ever Flood Resilience Taskforce in September 2024, and that recognition is welcome. But as climate impacts intensify, it may not be long before flood resilience alone proves too narrow a lens and we need to consider our reliance on wider water management pressures. Housing policy should think in terms of water resilience as a whole – how we manage and capture rainfall, water supply, drainage, flooding and recovery together – if future homes are to be genuinely fit for purpose.
The latest national assessments show that around 6.3 million properties in England – roughly one in eight – are already at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea or surface water. Of these, around 4.6 million are at risk from surface water flooding, making it by far the most widespread and fastest growing flood risk. Climate projections suggest that, without further action, around one in four properties could be at flood risk by 2050.
Surface water flooding is particularly relevant to new housing. It can occur almost anywhere, is closely linked to development patterns, and is driven by intense rainfall overwhelming drainage systems and hardened landscapes.
At the same time, water availability is under increasing stress. The Environment Agency estimates that England could face a supply-demand deficit of around 5 billion litres per day within the next 25 years, with roughly 2 billion litres per day needing to come from demand reduction and water reuse, not new abstraction alone. Many of the areas targeted for housing growth are already classified as seriously water stressed.
From a water perspective, housing growth that does not actively reduce demand or manage rainfall differently is increasingly difficult to justify.
Flood risk impacts the location of housing, how homes are financed and insured and how communities recover following floods. Rain entering sewers also impacts the ability of water companies to manage wastewater and reduce combined sewer overflows – impacting river quality health. Water scarcity affects whether growth can proceed at all in some catchments.
Yet we continue to deal with water in silos – drainage here, water efficiency there, flood risk somewhere else – rather than treat it as a strategic design issue from the outset within an approach that holistically manages the water cycle. This is precisely the gap that integrated water management is designed to fill.
Evidence from CIWEM and the Enabling Water Smart Communities (EWSC) programme shows that high-quality sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) deliver multiple, measurable benefits. EWSC analysis demonstrates that if high-quality SuDS were delivered consistently across around 1.3 million new homes, they could generate:
This research also shows that households are willing to pay around £281 more per year to live in homes with SuDS compared to conventional drainage. This could perhaps cover some of the maintenance cost for the SuDS that provide those recognised benefits.
SuDS also reduce surface water flood risk, relieve pressure on sewers, improve water quality, provide potential water supply resources, support biodiversity, reduce urban heat and enhance placemaking. They address the fastest growing flood risk while improving quality of life.
Yet delivery remains inconsistent. Requirements vary between authorities, thresholds exclude many developments and the quality of SuDS is highly variable. Despite repeated reviews and consultations SuDS are still too often treated as optional rather than essential infrastructure. This may also be because of over emphasis on a combative and already creaking planning and development process.
EWSC’s work on water reuse in new homes reinforces the case for integrated water management. The evidence shows that rainwater and stormwater reuse, particularly at community scale, can be a cost-effective and scalable way to reduce potable water demand. EWSC analysis indicates that:
In growth locations where supply constraints are already limiting development, reuse is no longer a niche innovation. It is becoming one of the few credible ways to enable housing while protecting water resources and reducing reliance on major new supply infrastructure.
Without clearer policy signals, however, reuse risks remaining the exception rather than the rule.
Alongside SuDS and reuse sits a third, under used component of water resilience – property flood resilience (PFR). PFR in new build housing is not a new idea. It was first considered in 2007, when the government chose to wait for the market to respond. Nearly two decades on, flood risk has increased significantly – particularly from surface water – yet PFR remains absent from standard new build design.
The FloodReady action plan is clear that resilience works best when it is designed in from the outset and regulated via the planning system and building regulations, not just retrofitted after flooding. It highlights flood performance certificates (FPCs) as a key mechanism for making flood resilience visible and valued in the housing market, helping to inform insurance, lending and consumer choice.
The insurance sector is aligned with this view. Flood Re, Aviva and others have warned that flood risk is rising faster than protection measures, and that new homes are still too often built without adequate resilience. Embedding PFR at construction stage is consistently shown to be cheaper, less disruptive and more effective than retrofitting measures.
When combined with SuDS, the logic is straightforward. SuDS reduce flood risk around the development and home, while PFR addresses residual risk at the property level. Together, they offer a proportionate response to surface water flooding and a changing climate.
The pressure to deliver homes quickly is real, and the political pull of over simplistic messages is understandable. Slogans like “build, baby, build” cut through. So does broad anti-climate rhetoric. But neither are likely to stand up to people’s lived experiences or stand the test of time.
A basic question now sits beneath housing and water policy: do future governments – whatever their political colour – really believe they will remain electable if significant parts of their electorate are repeatedly flooded, or face water supply interruptions and drought restrictions?
Flooded homes, uninsurable properties and hosepipe bans are not abstract risks. They are visible, personal and politically toxic. We saw much of this last year: they undermine trust not just in water companies, planning systems and governments but in the idea that growth is being managed competently and fairly.
Short-term delivery that ignores long-term water resilience simply shifts costs forward – into flood damage, water shortages, insurance stress and expensive retrofitting and infrastructure investment. That is not a sustainable political strategy, nor a credible housing policy.
What the CIWEM and EWSC evidence consistently shows is that integrated water management is not a brake on growth. It is one of the ways to make growth viable, defensible and durable across electoral cycles. SuDS, water reuse and PFR work best when planned together, early and consistently. They reduce future disruption, better protect communities and help ensure that housing growth remains something governments can stand behind – not apologise for later.
If integrated water management is to move from aspiration to reality, three things are needed:
Consultations on planning policy, Building Regulations and on adoption and maintenance of infrastructure show that government is actively shaping the future of housing. This is precisely the moment to ensure that water resilience is treated as core infrastructure, not a secondary consideration. This direction of travel will hopefully be underlined by the government’s forthcoming water white paper.
Water no longer belongs in the shadows of housing policy. Climate change is making water availability and flood risk central to whether homes succeed over their lifetime. Integrated water management – combining SuDS, water reuse and PFR – is not the problem to be managed around. It is part of the future of housing.
There is now a clear opportunity to act. Ongoing consultations by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government on the National Planning Policy Framework provide a chance to strengthen and clarify the role of sustainable drainage systems in new development (see ‘policy F8’). If SuDS are essential infrastructure, policy needs to say so more clearly and consistently.
At the same time, proposals to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements raise important questions about the long-term stewardship of SuDS and other green and blue infrastructure. How these systems are adopted, managed and funded over time will determine whether they continue to deliver flood risk, water quality and amenity benefits.
Together, these consultations underline the need for clarity, certainty and consistency in how integrated water management is embedded in housing. For CIWEM members and those working across the water, environmental management, planning and housing sectors, this is the moment to speak up. Responding to these consultations is not just about policy wording. It is about making the case for:
If water is to move from a Cinderella issue to a cornerstone of future housing, it will only happen if those with the evidence, experience and expertise help shape the system.
--
| Paul Shaffer is director of projects at CIWEM |  |
Whether you are studying, actively looking to progress your career, or already extensively experienced, our membership will add value and recognition to your achievements. We can actively help you progress throughout your career.
Become a memberWe organise a wide portfolio of UK and international thought leading events, providing an industry recognised forum for debate, CPD and sector networking. These events also support our policy work and inform key initiatives.
View our eventsCIWEM and CSL Ltd are part of the CIWEM Group.
CSL Ltd (CIWEM Services Limited). Registered in England and Wales. Company No. 3166701. Registered office address: 106-109 Saffron Hill, London EC1N 8QS.
CIWEM (The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management) Registered Charity No. 1043409 (England & Wales) Registered Charity No. SCo38212 (Scotland). Registered office address: 106-109 Saffron Hill, London EC1N 8QS.
Site designed and developed by Studio Republic
