|
Frazer Gillespie
Associate Director, Inverness Office
This year summer rainfall levels in the UK have
been well documented. Amounts of precipitation
have put paid to many well laid plans for summer
pursuits. Provisional figures issued by the met
office showed that an almighty 390mm of water
fell from the skies during May, June and July
across England and Wales. This summer was the
wettest since recording of data began in 1766.
With this, came widespread flooding in several
areas across England with the hardest hit
regions being in and around South Yorkshire and
Gloucestershire. Damage was occasioned to
property, buildings, infrastructure and
businesses to a degree never previously seen in
the UK.
Much discussion has since followed seeking to
establish why the flooding occurred. Global
warming and the changes in seasonal weather,
which are becoming the trend of recent years,
being the obvious answer for many. For others
suggestions of how we develop land into the
built environment should be analysed. With much
of the previous soak away ground being clad with
tarmac, concrete, paving and the like this has
caused rain water to drain away far more
rapidly. In almost all the areas where flooding
was prevalent the existing surface and waste
drain infrastructures failed to cope with the
sheer
volume of run-off water.
The flooding has lead to the inevitable blame
culture raising its head with the finger being
pointed at local authorities, the accusation
being the failure to maintain clear passages of
drains and culverts. Developers have also been
criticised for building houses in areas which
now appear to collect run-off water. Politicians
too have come under fire with the then Deputy
Prime Minister John Prescott’s constituency of
Hull East being a particular hotspot. But can
anybody really be to blame?
Once the flood water levels dropped and the
devastating effects could be seen more clearly
the true scale of what lay ahead in terms of
repair works could begin to be assessed. In
addition to the physical property damage so many
other problems arise in these situations. Lack
of alternative accommodation, contamination,
cost surges due to increased demand, and
under-insurance of buildings and contents, as
mentioned in Charles Dupplin’s article opposite.
Not to mention the general disruption to
everyday family and working life.
|
|
Alney Terrace, Gloucester
As a professional working in these circumstances
with people who are very often at the end of
their tether it is necessary to be reactive and
flexible, and prepare for some very long working
days. Insurance staff and their appointed agents
gathered in and around South Yorkshire and
Gloucestershire to begin the process of clearing
up, assessing repairs, and appointing
contractors. Loss adjusters, cleaning companies,
contamination experts, building surveyors like
myself, engineers, and insurance brokers
commenced the large scale gathering of
information that would form the initial stages
of the reinstatement process.
Perhaps the saddest aspect to such a massive
undertaking was a simple shortage of people on
the ground whether that be cleaners, assessors,
or building contractors. The immense scale of
what lay ahead resulted in insurance companies
drafting back-up from outwith the UK with help
coming largely from the Netherlands and other
northern European countries. Whilst
policyholders remained patient the inevitable
delays in servicing thousands of households
became a complaint for many. The already high
demand on the construction workforce nationwide
was now under even more pressure. To expect
insurance companies to employ staff, effectively
on standby for situations such as this, wouldn’t
be viable and the majority of people thankfully
recognised this. The promise of a repair company
calling within 24 hours simply goes out the
window in such circumstances.
From our own perspective, Bell Ingram in
association with UK Building Surveyors were
appointed to assess damage and provide measured
reinstatement schedules to loss adjusters and
insurers. Thereafter they appointed identified
contractors on an agreed rates basis. Our
involvement may well continue for some months as
the actual building works will certainly take up
to or in excess of 12 months to complete.
If any positives can be drawn from this
disaster, it has witnessed first hand the
re-establishment of strong community ties which
will no doubt remain long after the physical
damage has been made good.
|
|
