Home insurance against flood in a medium risk area?

Section62

pieroabcd said:

...except for the cloakroom. I strongly dislike the idea of a loo at the ground floor -even more so if near the kitchen- but it seems to be unavoidable. I had already in mind a nice cloakroom cementification ).

You might dislike the idea, but since 1999 the choice is no longer yours.  It is a building regs requirement to have a ground floor accessible toilet in new builds, and removing it without consent (unlikely to be given) will cause you problems when you want to sell.

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/34/kitchens_and_bathrooms/4

The building police won't come round checking to make sure the toilet is still there and working, but you should also bear in mind the impact any alteration work might have on the building's warranty.  You deliberately making your property non-compliant with the regs would be a great get-out for the builders and/or the warranty co if they need one.

If it is really important to you, then possibly best to find a property where the ground floor toilet is in the least offensive location?

pieroabcd

Section62 said:

pieroabcd said:

...except for the cloakroom. I strongly dislike the idea of a loo at the ground floor -even more so if near the kitchen- but it seems to be unavoidable. I had already in mind a nice cloakroom cementification ).

You might dislike the idea, but since 1999 the choice is no longer yours.  It is a building regs requirement to have a ground floor accessible toilet in new builds, and removing it without consent (unlikely to be given) will cause you problems when you want to sell.

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/34/kitchens_and_bathrooms/4

The building police won't come round checking to make sure the toilet is still there and working, but you should also bear in mind the impact any alteration work might have on the building's warranty.  You deliberately making your property non-compliant with the regs would be a great get-out for the builders and/or the warranty co if they need one.

If it is really important to you, then possibly best to find a property where the ground floor toilet is in the least offensive location?

I didn't know. Thanks for pointing it out!

Tiddleshalifax

We are in hull where most of the city is high risk. Some areas did flood in 2007, but our areas weren’t one of them and thus no increase to premiums 

martindow

Section62 said:

pieroabcd said:

...except for the cloakroom. I strongly dislike the idea of a loo at the ground floor -even more so if near the kitchen- but it seems to be unavoidable. I had already in mind a nice cloakroom cementification ).

You might dislike the idea, but since 1999 the choice is no longer yours.  It is a building regs requirement to have a ground floor accessible toilet in new builds, and removing it without consent (unlikely to be given) will cause you problems when you want to sell.

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/34/kitchens_and_bathrooms/4

The building police won't come round checking to make sure the toilet is still there and working, but you should also bear in mind the impact any alteration work might have on the building's warranty.  You deliberately making your property non-compliant with the regs would be a great get-out for the builders and/or the warranty co if they need one.

If it is really important to you, then possibly best to find a property where the ground floor toilet is in the least offensive location?

And it is up to you whether you use the downstairs toilet or not.  A clean bowl with clean water in it can't be too offensive.

user1977

ss2020jd said:

pieroabcd said:

i've read some, but in none of them i've found an explicit mention of the flood risk ("not in the scope of this document").
Is the risk something that would come ouf from a survey, in time to get a proper quote from some insurance company and pull out of the purchase if the insurers weren's satisfied?

It should be flagged in the environment searches your solicitor does. There is an additional specific flood search that you can also request. I don’t think they cost too much but it does mean you will have to spend out money on solicitors and searches first. 

But like I said above in relation to the EA mapping, those desktop reports are going to be based on the current (or past) use of the land e.g. an empty field. They won't take account of how the new development affects that (for better or worse) in terms of changing ground levels, drainage, permeability etc.

Section62

user1977 said:

ss2020jd said:

pieroabcd said:

i've read some, but in none of them i've found an explicit mention of the flood risk ("not in the scope of this document").
Is the risk something that would come ouf from a survey, in time to get a proper quote from some insurance company and pull out of the purchase if the insurers weren's satisfied?

It should be flagged in the environment searches your solicitor does. There is an additional specific flood search that you can also request. I don’t think they cost too much but it does mean you will have to spend out money on solicitors and searches first. 

But like I said above in relation to the EA mapping, those desktop reports are going to be based on the current (or past) use of the land e.g. an empty field. They won't take account of how the new development affects that (for better or worse) in terms of changing ground levels, drainage, permeability etc.

Agreed, and as you highlighted in the first few posts, these issues should have been addressed in the planning process and the results of assessments and mitigation proposals should be available for anyone to view.

If the development has gone ahead without detailed work being done on flood risk and mitigation, it means either that the risk was assessed as being so low it was unnecessary, or else someone wasn't doing their job properly.  If the latter, the OP should seriously consider forgetting this property and looking elsewhere.