Opportunity
Flood-Risk Evidence Assembly and Sequential-Test Workspace
Flood-risk planning requires combining national maps, local SFRAs, climate-change scenarios, site vulnerability and sequential/exception tests.
Decision snapshot
- Primary user
- Planning consultants, flood-risk consultants, developers and local planning authorities.
- Likely buyer
- Professional flood-risk and planning consultancies are the most credible users because they retain responsibility for judgement and modelling.
- Why now
- Flood-risk assessments are already a paid professional service and planning validation depends on them. Faster evidence assembly can improve margin without replacing expert judgement.
- Initial wedge
- A case workspace that assembles authoritative flood datasets, determines applicable policy tests and produces a traceable evidence pack for consultant review.
- Key uncertainty
- Raise above 84 if consultants adopt it for most screening jobs and trust the versioned evidence trail. Reduce below 62 if local data variation prevents reliable automation beyond a simple map lookup.
The problem
Flood-risk planning requires combining national maps, local SFRAs, climate-change scenarios, site vulnerability and sequential/exception tests. Applicants and officers often assemble this evidence manually across multiple sources. Environment Agency guidance updated in May and August 2026 continues to require current national risk information and site-specific FRAs in defined circumstances, while councils such as Arun are publishing new 2026 SFRAs. The repeated workflow is assembling national and local evidence, classifying vulnerability and documenting sequential or exception-test reasoning.
Operational consequences
- Consultants spend desk time locating the current SFRA appendix, EA mapping and climate-change allowance relevant to one site. - Sequential-test searches need a defensible record of alternatives and why sites were excluded. - Changes to national flood datasets can make an earlier screening conclusion stale. - Smaller planning practices can over-commission specialist work or discover flood evidence requirements late.
Who is underserved
Planning consultants, flood-risk consultants, developers and local planning authorities.
Buyer and user context
Professional flood-risk and planning consultancies are the most credible users because they retain responsibility for judgement and modelling. Developers and architects can use a screening tier; LPAs could use the same evidence format for validation and review.
Evidence
F1–F9 require SFRAs, sequential testing, climate-aware risk assessment, site-specific FRAs and SuDS evidence. Government guidance instructs LPAs to prepare SFRAs, and current council SFRAs combine many datasets and appendices. Government guidance states every LPA should prepare an SFRA and defines it as evidence for planning decisions. Environment Agency planning-FRA guidance was updated in May 2026, national flood/coastal risk information in August 2026, and Arun's 2026 SFRA demonstrates continual local refresh.
Evidence interpretation
The data sources are authoritative and mostly public, so raw mapping is not defensible. The opportunity is assembling the correct versioned evidence and policy-test audit trail faster for professional review.
Demand
Flood-risk assessments are already a paid professional service and planning validation depends on them. Faster evidence assembly can improve margin without replacing expert judgement. FRA and sequential-test work is already a paid consultancy service. A productivity tool can create value through faster screening, fewer omissions and standardised reports without automating hydraulic modelling.
Validation approach
Give 50 historic sites to two flood and planning consultancies. Test whether the tool identifies required evidence, vulnerability class and relevant local sources, then compare report-preparation time. No automated output should bypass professional sign-off.
Competition
JBA and other flood consultancies, GIS products and EA mapping are strong incumbents. Opportunity is a workflow/evidence layer for consultants and LPAs rather than automated engineering. EA mapping, specialist flood consultancies, commercial risk datasets and GIS platforms are mature. Any product claiming to replace flood modelling would be both weak and risky.
Potential defensibility
Versioned local-SFRA indexing, a reliable sequential-test evidence workflow and links from every conclusion to the exact map/report version are the potential moat. Consultant precedent libraries could add further value.
The opportunity
A case workspace that assembles authoritative flood datasets, determines applicable policy tests and produces a traceable evidence pack for consultant review. Make the product a professional evidence workbench: source discovery, site classification, alternatives log and report assembly. Hydraulic calculations and engineering conclusions remain outside the MVP.
Intended outcome
Reduce time spent finding and assembling flood-planning evidence while improving provenance and consistency across site assessments.
Commercial model
Pricing classification
Proxy based — medium confidence.
Indicative pricing
- Paid test offer: Paid portfolio pilot: £15,000–£40,000 £50–£250/site self-serve screening; £3,000–£15,000/year professional; enterprise data/API tier. £50-£200 per screening plus £2,000-£10,000/year professional licences is more credible than large enterprise pricing. Larger API licences could serve practices with high volume.
Evidence basis: Brightly Asset Investment Planning (£1,000–£5,000 per month) is the closest verified adjacent anchor used here. Its buyer, duration and scope are not assumed to be identical; implementation is separated where the opportunity requires integration, assurance or managed delivery.
Commercial test
Ask one asset owner, council, utility, developer or environmental programme owner to fund a paid test of Flood-Risk Evidence Assembly and Sequential-Test Workspace lasting 8–12 weeks, using an opening price of £15,000–£40,000 and covering 10 live assets, sites, interventions or evidence packs across one portfolio. Paid scope: A case workspace that assembles authoritative flood datasets, determines applicable policy tests and produces a traceable evidence pack for consultant review. Charge by asset/site, project, portfolio or organisation and compare the fee with consultant assessment, repeated survey, evidence reconciliation and capital-prioritisation effort. Measure evidence completeness, assessment time, duplicate work, prioritisation quality, compliance exceptions and verified outcomes. Continue only if assessment/reconciliation effort falls by at least 20%, required evidence is at least 90% complete and the portfolio owner renews. Stop or reprice if specialist judgement is obscured, evidence quality does not improve or incumbent asset tools already deliver the workflow.
Monetisation models and pricing estimates are research-informed and indicative only. Where direct pricing evidence is unavailable, estimates may use comparable products, procurement data, adjacent market benchmarks and stated assumptions. They are not financial advice, forecasts or guarantees of commercial viability. Independent market, legal and financial validation is recommended before acting.
Score rationale
Underserved score 77/100
Frequent mandatory evidence task with strong data fragmentation, though specialist incumbents mean the product should augment rather than replace consultants. Mandatory evidence, frequently updated public data and professional repeat work support the opportunity. Specialist incumbents mean the product must be an evidence/workflow layer.
What would change the score
Raise above 84 if consultants adopt it for most screening jobs and trust the versioned evidence trail. Reduce below 62 if local data variation prevents reliable automation beyond a simple map lookup.
The score is evidence-informed editorial judgement based on manually reviewed sources. It is not a forecast or guarantee. How we score →
Evidence sources8
- Cheshire West – 2026 SFRA
planningpolicy.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk
- Planning Portal – What to submit
planningportal.co.uk
- Arun District Council – SFRA 2026
arun.gov.uk
Some evidence sources may require an account or sign-in to view the original content.