Hazard maps allegedly impacting property insurance

Hazard maps allegedly impacting property insurance | Insurance Business New Zealand

Insurance News

Hazard maps allegedly impacting property insurance

Homeowners in Nelson say proposed hazard maps will make their homes practically uninsurable

Insurance News

By
Steven Byerely

Nelson’s proposed hazard maps are reportedly making it difficult for homeowners across the city to insure their properties, according to claims presented at a city council hearing. The maps, part of a larger overhaul of planning rules, have sparked controversy by designating areas as high-risk for flooding, inundation, fault lines, and slope instability.

One resident of Rocks Road, whose home falls within a slope risk zone, shared her frustration with the commissioners overseeing the hearing. She said her property had never faced insurance issues until the council introduced the hazard maps for public consultation, according to a report by the NZ Herald.

“This has effectively made our property uninsurable,” the homeowner said, calling it a distressing situation for those trying to protect their most valuable asset. Despite acknowledging the risks of living on the Tāhunanui Slump, the country’s largest active urban landslide, she noted that extensive geotechnical engineering had been carried out on her property before redevelopment. Independent reports, she added, show the property has remained stable through recent storms and earthquakes.

“The council’s broad-brush approach has unfairly categorised properties with different risk levels, which is frustrating, morally wrong, and could have devastating financial impacts on homeowners,” she said. She called for a more nuanced hazard mapping process that considers individual property risks rather than applying a blanket approach to entire areas.

Developers echoed these concerns during the hearing, the NZ Herald reported. Simon Dobson of Bayview Nelson said he knew of three properties within the hazard overlays that have struggled to secure insurance, including two developed and engineered by Bayview. He added that house sales had fallen through because buyers were advised that insurance could be difficult to obtain.

“Insurance companies are looking for any reason to reduce their risk, so the information used in these maps must be accurate,” Dobson argued. Another developer, Scott Gibbons of GP Investments, warned that the hazard overlays were making potential buyers hesitant. “Nelson’s growth could be stifled if these maps don’t reflect the actual geotechnical conditions of each site,” he said.

Resource management lawyer Nigel McFadden, representing the developers, criticised the report underpinning the hazard maps, calling it “flawed” and poorly constructed from the outset. He urged the council to reconsider its approach and “get it done properly.”

Former Nelson mayor Rachel Reese also weighed in, stating the plan change had a “chilling effect” on the local property market. “Some properties have been unjustly blighted, and that needs to be corrected,” she said.

While council planning experts acknowledged that they were close to agreeing on the planning rules for the hazard zones, they suggested some adjustments could be made, including renaming overlays to reduce alarm for residents and insurers. However, senior geologist Dan Chamberose defended the accuracy of the report, stating that it had undergone a thorough review, according to the NZ Herald. He emphasised that the purpose of the overlays was to identify land that may require further examination to prevent potential instability.

The hearing for the proposed planning changes, known as Plan Change 29, concluded on Tuesday. The council’s experts are expected to submit final responses to the concerns raised by October 31. The panel of commissioners will then deliberate on the proposal and make a recommendation to the council, which will have limited authority to reject the final plan.

“We still have a long way to go,” said panel chair Greg Hill, signalling that further discussions may be necessary before a final decision is made.