Building on floodplains: why is it still happening? – Analysis – Insurance News

The insurance industry’s message on improving disaster resilience is finally getting through – millions of dollars are being put aside for mitigation measures and ambitious buy-back and build-back programs have been launched.

But an equally important demand is still outstanding – the need for radical reforms to land use planning.

Even after a year like no other in terms of flood catastrophes, developments on flood-prone land are still getting the nod.

The latest – a former barracks site on the Brisbane River – sparked the ire of some in the insurance industry.

It’s all well and good trying to help the worst affected people now, but why would we continue to put future generations in harm’s way?

The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) made its views clear in the run-up to the federal election. It demanded, among other things, a review of land planning arrangements and natural peril risk in the first year of the new government’s term.

“The policy objectives of land use planning must change to focus on mitigation and the impacts of a disaster at the time of planning approval,” ICA said in its Building a More Resilient Australia document.

In other words – stop building on floodplains, now.

The new government does appear to be listening. At the launch of the $800 million NSW buy-back and build-back scheme Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he and NSW Premier Dominic Perottet were in agreement “to do better, to make sure we’re not building on floodplains”.

Mr Perottet will lead discussion at National Cabinet on making sure that “planning gets better right around our country”.

“It makes absolutely no sense, for example, for us to make the [Northern Rivers Resilient Homes Fund announcement] and then still continue to develop on floodplains,” Mr Perottet said.

“It makes no sense for governments to be investing in infrastructure, and road infrastructure particularly, for evacuation routes when there’s a major flood event or fire event, yet still develop and put more people into those high-risk areas.

“And it’s not going to happen anymore in New South Wales, I can tell you that.”

But Floodplain Management Australia (FMA) President Ian Dinham told that it is still happening – not just in NSW but right across the country.

He says the messaging from ICA, which is backed by the peak body for flood risk practitioners, is gaining traction in the wake of the recent floods but that there are legacy issues that are complex to unwind, along with a future demand for new housing which ramps up the pressure.

If land has already been zoned as residential by state governments, then a council’s hands are pretty much tied, he says.

Councils do have a statutory power to “re-zone” land, but this will almost certainly lead to developers taking costly court action.

“That path is fraught with difficulty and open to legal argument,” Mr Dinham said.

“All they can do is add conditions, there is not much they can do to stop it.”

Mr Dinham says after a year of record flooding, it defies logic to put more people in the way of future catastrophes.

But the Federal Government wants to build a million new homes by the end of the decade and “they’ve got to find land to build them on”.

The accuracy of flood mapping available to governments and its ability to stand up to the severity of future floods has also been questioned.

Finity Principal Climate & Sustainability Risk Sharanjit Paddam says state governments need to “draw a line in the sand” to restrict floodplain development.

“Not just the flood plains of yesterday, but the flood plains of the future allowing for future climate impacts over the long term,” he told

“We need to recognise the flood depths as well as the chance of flooding occurring. We need to recognise that resilience building is not always possible or cost effective.

“Clearly, there are adverse economic consequences of restricting development, but there are also huge costs for allowing development, as we’re now seeing in the cost of buy-back schemes following the recent floods.

“There’s no point in allowing development if we have to then buy back those houses.”

It’s also a safety issue, he says, as people’s lives are at risk.

“Those people depend on government to provide safe homes. While planning laws are complex and necessarily subject to local decisions, there is clearly a mandate for state governments to drive change through minimum standards of protection against floods.”

ICA told that it “encourages all levels of government to consider future development on flood-risk land” in a climate changing future.

“Informed decisions that consider the risks of building on flood plains must focus on what is built and where it’s built to ensure safety and the future resilience of the community, infrastructure and environment.

“Approving bodies, developers, owners and tenants all need to consider the future insurability of their property when making decisions on property location and construction.”

While the rhetoric from the Federal and NSW Governments is encouraging, this issue is urgent – every floodplain development nodded through now is a potential future disaster.

Those cabinet discussions, and a national plan, cannot come soon enough.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *