The skyrocketing costs of home insurance is a massive issue for people in the Hawkesbury.
Damage from flooding could cost us billions, but the risks of living in on a floodplain have driven up Insurance costs even when the sun is shining.
I wish people had the good sense not to build or live in areas we now recognise at at high risk of floods. But there are about 5388 houses on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain that sit below the level we currently mark as the redline for development, which is 17.3m (at Windsor), otherwise known as the “One in One-Hundred” level or the “1% AEP” level. These areas include some of the most historic areas of Windsor and Pitt Town.
These people built before there was such a thing as flood height planning controls. I agree with having this standard and banning new residential building below that level. But this is a vexed issue that defies a black-and-white analysis. What if an existing homeowner below that level wants to expand or rebuild? What if it’s a non-residential structure like a shed? Or a function centre in a low-laying area like Cornwallis?
Many residents I speak to find it increasingly difficult to access and then pay for insurance. When the government says “don’t build here”, insurers take note and jack up their premiums because our policies give a green light to insurers to declare some homes to be at such a risk they refuse to insure, or offer “go away” quotations like $20,000pa.
At the March 2025 meeting of Council, we considered adopting a long-awaited new Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan that included a recommendation to raise the minimum height for new residential builds from the “One in One Hundred” (1% AEP, 17.3m) level to the “One in Two Hundred” level (0.5%AEP, 18.53m), adding an additional 1823 existing houses to a category where it is likely that insurance prices will climb further because of that designation.
I wanted to pass the plan because it contains a good deal of updated data and excellent policy initiatives. However, the costs of sending a signal concerning flood risk and the impacts on Insurance were not something I could ignore. Council staff in their responses to these concerns effectively tried to say that Insurers don’t pay attention to what Councils do when defining and proclaiming risk. I disagreed, pointing to the fact sheet that the Insurance Council of Australia themselves issue on exactly this question, which says
“…it is up to individual insurers to decide what criteria they use to determine flood risk. They may examine information from many sources to identify properties that are prone to flooding. These may include local government flood mapping, historical flood information, terrain data and insurance claims information.” (my emphasis)
Let me repeat: I don’t want people to build in flood prone areas, and the existing rules already ban it. It’s madness to let Sydney’s pressure for development over-ride our common sense about flood risk (a risk that Governor Macquarie was opining about as far back as 1810!)
I was heartened when the Chamber was prepared to pass the plan but leave the flood height controls at the 1:100 level for now. Further investigation will explore the impacts of changing to the 1:200 level.
My remarks are in the video.