“Build, baby, build” meets its match in “Sponge, baby, sponge.” The UK government announced a £10.5 billion flood-defense investment over 10 years, a headline number meant to show seriousness in the face of rising flood risk.

But beneath that funding is a stubborn contradiction: we’re asking water to retreat using harder surfaces, slower change, and weak planning alignment. The letter in The Guardian argues that without integrating land use, nature infrastructure, and timely data, the plan is a showpiece with cracks.

Why the fuss?

  1. The funding is “record,” but it’s not enough
    The flood risk models released earlier this year outpace even this investment. And when compared to the more than £100 b water companies are spending to fix sewage and build reservoirs, it’s a drop.
  2. Nature-based solutions are seen as optional
    The letter calls out the push for “sponge city” infrastructure, green space, reforestation, permeable surfaces, as the very tools many planners resist labeling as mandatory in the name of unlocking housing.
  3. Policy mismatch is a silent killer
    The housing machine and the flood resilience machine are running at odds. Developers complain of incomplete or late flood-risk data, plans get refused, delays mount. Meanwhile, authorities stall on land use and flood-pland frameworks.
  4. Equity and insurability hang in the balance
    Flood-prone areas are often the ones with lower insurance access or expensive premiums. If climate risk isn’t baked into planning rather than treated as a retrofit, vulnerable communities lose twice.

This story feels like Urbanism 101: you can’t fight water with steel alone. The flood defense fund is ambitious but what good is money if it ignores how cities grow, where developers build, how data is shared, and how nature already wants to help?

Sponge city isn’t just a trend or buzzword. It’s a design ethic: let water rest where it falls. Let land soak, hold, release. Let park edges, swales, wetlands, porous pavement, and reforested hills be the first line, not afterthoughts.

When flood planning is misaligned with housing pressure, you end up doing two things badly: building unsafe places, and investing in defenses for those unsafe places. That’s design failure.

If the UK truly wants to make a “record” move, the record should be in integration: planning that sees rainfall, land, houses, and people as one system. Where flood risk isn’t an obstacle to building, it’s the condition of building.

The challenge isn’t just engineering bigger walls. It’s planning walls that breathe, landscapes that heal, and codes that let cities soak, not resist.

‍

Read full article here.