Risks and costs

Local bodies could be seen to be neglectful if they did not use the information they had on flood risks to prevent development intensifying in flood-prone areas, a University of Otago lecturer says.

People and councils needed to exercise more caution than they had done in the past in these areas, senior lecturer in geography Dr Michael Hilton said.

Flood plains were a good place to farm as regular inundation brought sediments which created rich soils, but as a place to live they were "highly fraught", he said.

Councils now had a history of observations of river and coastal behaviours and risks and it would be "neglectful if they ignored that history to allow [development] to intensify in areas which flood".

The controls on building in these places were not adequate and landowners were overly optimistic, not taking into account the risks, he said.

"There's a lot of crossing fingers behind backs."

It was not just a question of "buyer beware", as the pressure mounted to protect these often very expensive properties, he said.

"Naturally, there is the call to protect them, but unfortunately the cost is not borne by the property owners and, even if it is, the engineering works can end up eroding the natural character of a place."

While there was a move towards those property owners picking up the cost of protection, general ratepayers could still end up paying 20% to 30% of the costs to protect them.

 

Add a Comment

 

Advertisement