Proposed changes to make Logan City Council’s controversial flood mapping easier to understand would see thousands of at-risk properties reclassified.
Council’s planning department last week called for the recently adopted risk-based approach to flood mapping – comprising of very low, low, moderate and high-risk categories – to be “simplified”.
This means the two lowest flood-risk categories would merge, with the “very low” risk category removed completely.
It would also “reduce the extent” of the moderate risk category – lowering some properties currently at the bottom end of the moderate threshold to low risk.
But council’s acting road infrastructure planning manager said the actual risk for these properties wouldn’t change.
“All that we’re proposing is that we combine them – there’s no increased constraints on those areas, the flood data doesn’t change,” she said.
“There could be a perception that someone has gone from ‘very low’ to ‘low’ risk, but in fact the level of risk hasn’t changed, it’s just that we’ve consolidated.”
Despite this, it is unclear whether insurance premiums could be affected by the risk-category changes due to an obscure insurance-pricing system.
Last week council voted for a motion that would call on the insurance industry to provide transparency into how flood insurance is priced.
The motion asks for the Local Government Association of Queensland to call on the state and federal governments to “require greater transparency”.
The motion also called for higher levels of government to establish a State Insurance Pricing Select Committee to conduct an inquiry into building and contents insurance pricing.
“Residents and businesses are entitled to understand the source of flood risk information used in determining premiums, as well as the assessed level of risk for their property,” the motion outlines.
“We are hearing from our communities about the severe increases in insurance premiums they are experiencing, and in many cases, they simply cannot afford.
“In one example brought to our attention, insurance had risen from $150 per month to $500 per month.
“The residents were considering removing their contents insurance altogether to make it affordable.”
Other proposed changes to council’s flood policy would “relax” the restrictions on “flood island” developments – properties that become isolated in floods.
Current policy restricts council’s ability to approve developments on properties that don’t have flood-free access, even if the property itself is untouched by flood water.
Council’s acting road infrastructure planning manager said this was to ensure residents on these properties had access to essential services during flooding – specifically food and water.
“And are less reliant on emergency response,” she said.
The initial proposal was to make an exception for properties cut-off for a maximum of 24 hours, which the acting manager said was “how long we think people can reasonably look after themselves”.
Eventually, the period was negotiated to a 36-hour window.
However, some councillors, including mayor Jon Raven, called for a 72-hour window.
“24 hours is pretty short – I know I get isolated at my property for about two to three days in a 50-year flood – everybody knows in that part of Waterford West that they get isolated,” Cr Raven said.
“They’ve got generators, they’ve got beer, they’ve got everything they that they need.
“There’s about eight houses that all get together and have what they call the flood holiday, and that’s what resilience looks like.”
He said people could find out if they’re on a “flood island”, and how long they will be isolated for, allowing residents to live happily during isolation.
Deputy mayor Scott Bannan said it was ironic the state government demanded flood-isolation policies, despite establishing state-run priority development areas in isolation-prone suburbs like Flagstone.
The changes will need approval from the state government planning minister.
