Pittwater Online News

Australia’s housing crisis has created a push for fast-tracked construction. Federal, state and territory governments have set a target of 1.2 million new homes over five years.

Increasing housing supply is essential. However, the homes must be thoughtfully located and designed, to avoid or withstand natural disasters such as bushfires, floods and cyclones.

Recent severe weather, including floods in Queensland and severe storms in north-east Victoria, underscore the growing vulnerability of Australian homes. As climate change worsens, the risk becomes ever-greater.

Our new research examined how disaster risk informs housing location and design in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. We spoke to planners, developers, insurers and housing providers, and found crucial problems that leave communities exposed.

Getting to grips with disaster data

Australia’s towns and cities are increasingly affected by natural disasters. The consequences extend beyond physical destruction to social, psychological and health effects. Disasters also harm the economy.

Despite this, government housing policies and strategies often fail to adequately focus on natural disasters.

Accurate, up-to-date information is crucial when seeking to protect new homes from natural disasters. Informed decisions typically require three types of data:

• foundational: relating to vegetation, landscape features, weather, climate change and building characteristics such as height and materials

• hazards: the risks of different disaster types such as historical flood data, maps of bushfire-prone areas and the recurrence of cyclones

• vulnerability: the potential and actual impacts of natural disasters such as building damage, fatalities and injuries, displacement, psychological and health impacts and insurance losses.

Our research, for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, examined how data could be better used and shared to plan and deliver new housing and protect Australians from disasters.

What we did

We started by identifying what data was available in Australia for bushfire, flood and cyclone risk. Then we examined who owned and managed the data and how it was, or wasn’t, shared.

The next step was to explore how decision-makers use the data to assess disaster risks for new housing. This involves interviews, workshops and questionnaires with:

• government planning agencies (both state and local government)

• housing providers (public and not-for-profit/community housing)

• housing and land developers (private and public)

• banks and insurers.

What we found

Overall, we found data on disaster risk was fragmented and inconsistent across multiple agencies, and not regularly updated.

Decision-makers in state and local planning agencies often cannot access accurate information about disaster risk. This means they lack the power to restrict housing in areas prone to bushfires, floods or other extreme events.

Flood hazard data is particularly problematic. One planner from Queensland described it as “patchy, of variable quality and currency and not always open source” – the latter meaning it was hard to access.

Many households only learn about their disaster risk when discovering their homes are uninsurable or premiums are prohibitively high. Others become aware of the problem when premiums rise with an existing insurer.

A community housing provider told us:

I think the way people are finding out about risk now is by their insurance policies going up. That’s the market reality. When they get an increase in their insurance policy next year, that will wake them up that they are actually in a high-risk area.

Data held by emergency service agencies and insurers is mostly inaccessible to planners, developers and households due to privacy and commercial sensitivities.

However, this information is crucial. Government agencies should establish protocols to enable data-sharing while protecting privacy and commercial interests.

Lack of transparency for homebuyers

A recent report suggested only 29% of Australian home buyers know the disaster risks associated with the homes they live in.

Disclosure statements are required by the vendor (seller) when marketing their house or land for sale. These vary between states and territories and, in most cases, do not compel the owner to reveal all known risks.

For example, in Victoria, a vendor is required to disclose whether the land is in a designated bushfire-prone area, but not whether it is exposed to flooding.

What’s more, a vendor motivated to sell a house is probably not the best source to provide accurate, impartial information about its exposure to disaster. This is better left to an independent entity such as a local council.

Thorough investigations into a home’s disaster risk is usually at the discretion of the buyer.

Making this information readily available to prospective homebuyers prior to purchase would allow more informed consumer decisions. It would also pressure governments and housing suppliers to address disaster risks.

Where to next?

Australia urgently needs a national framework to ensure data on housing and disaster risk is comprehensive, current and embedded in housing development decisions.

The federal government’s Digital Transformation Agency could establish and implement this system, with input from state and local governments.

Technology known as “spatial digital twins” could also vastly improve how disaster risk is assessed and communicated. These tools enable users to pull together and arrange large amounts of data, to visualise it in the form of models.

For example, a spatial digital twin could combine real time flood sensor data with historical flooding patterns to predict and visualise flood risks before they occur. Federal and state governments are already investing in such technology.

Australia’s push to increase housing supply must be matched with a commitment from governments to ensure the homes are safe, resilient and sustainable in the face of our changing climate.

Addressing the housing crisis isn’t just about numbers – it’s about making sure homes are built in the right places, with the right protections, for the long-term safety of communities.

Francesca Perugia, Senior Lecturer, School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University; Courtney Babb, Lecturer in Urban and Regional Planning, Curtin University, and Steven Rowley, Professor, School of Economics, Finance and Property, Curtin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Houses and fire do not mix. The firestorm which hit Los Angeles in January destroyed nearly 2,000 buildings and forced 130,000 people to evacuate.

The 2019–20 Australian megafires destroyed almost 2,800 homes. This summer, houses and buildings have been lost in Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania.

As temperatures inch upwards, bushfires will become more severe and more frequent, posing risks to more homes. But fires don’t affect homes equally. Older homes built before fire resilience standards became mandatory are at higher risk of going up in flames.

In the aftermath of the devastating LA fires, there are signs that newer homes have fared better than older ones. Previous fires in California and Australia have shown newer homes built with fire-resilient features are more likely to survive than older homes.

The problem is, more than half (55%) of Australia’s homes were built 30 or more years ago – before national standards for fire resilience were introduced.

The good news: you can take action to make older homes more resilient.

Why are new homes better able to survive bushfires?

Location, vegetation and luck play a role in determining which houses survive fires. But there is also evidence newer homes with heat- and ember-resistant features survive better.

Construction standards in both Australia and the United States require the use of materials and designs which reduce fire risk.

In Australia, the national construction standards have been in place since the early 1990s. Over time, the standards have expanded to include more fire-resistant features, such as fire-resistant external walls.

By contrast, older homes are more likely to be built of flammable materials such as wood and untreated timber. Older homes are also more likely to have mature trees and shrubs closer to the house, which can increase fire risk. But as the CSIRO Bushfire Best Practice Guide points out, “trees can also be used to shield against wind, absorb radiant heat, and to filter embers […] when located at a safe distance from the house”.

More exacting construction standards apply for homes built in areas considered at risk of bushfire. State and territory governments have interactive maps of these areas.

Unfortunately, climate change is expanding these areas at risk. As the LA wildfires show, warmer climates mean fire can attack suburbs and cities thought to be safe from bushfire.

Climate change is also making home ownership more expensive, as insurance premiums rise in the wake of more expensive disasters. Analysts predict banks may begin rejecting mortgage applications for properties in areas at high risk from fire.

How can we make older homes more resilient?

Older homes remain highly sought after, especially in cities such as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

But for these homes to be brought up to modern standards of bushfire resistance, they often require significant retrofitting. These retrofits can drastically reduce the risk of ignition.

How do houses actually ignite? Wind-blown embers are a common cause in starting house fires. If a few houses in a town start burning, the fire can spread house to house.

Here are 5 ways to protect your older house:

1. Upgrade external vents. Traditional external vents are designed to ventilate rooms and roofs. But they also permit embers to gain access to attics and crawl spaces and spark a fire. Upgrading to ember-resistant vents can directly improve your home’s resilience.

2. Install ember gutter guards. Ember-resistant gutter guards are made of metal and have finer mesh than normal gutter guards. These help to prevent the build-up of dry leaves and twigs and stop small embers from landing.

3. Upgrade windows and walls. You can cut your risk further by installing bushfire-resistant shutters for windows, using fire-resistant material for wall insulation and replacing combustible material with better alternatives such as metal roofing, fibre cement siding for walls and tempered glass windows.

4. Check your deck and verandah. Wooden decks and verandahs are risky in high-risk areas. If they need to be rebuilt, choose fire-resistant materials.

5. Make space around your home. In fire-prone areas, removing trees and shrubs within 20 metres of the house can reduce risk. A well-managed area of pavers and low-density plants and shrubs close to the home acts as a fire break.

Ahead of fire season, making and updating an evacuation plan is equally vital. Homeowners should prepare emergency kits with essential documents, medications, and protective gear. If a fire starts in your area, applying fire-retardant gels to surfaces at risk can provide temporary protection.

Homeowners can use the National Emergency Management Authority’s bushfire resilience rating app to assess their home’s bushfire risk and to see which retrofits are highest priority.

State or territory governments offer advice on making your house more resistant to fire attack: New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory.

Protecting our homes takes time – and money

Australia’s housing crisis has been front page news for months. As we head towards the federal election, it will remain a hot-button issue. Unfortunately, we haven’t yet heard discussion of the risk posed to our housing stock from bushfires made worse by climate change.

While planning controls and building standards can raise the standards of future homes, better support and incentives are needed to retrofit existing homes – especially for those built before fire safety standards became the norm.

Retrofitting is crucial. But it’s not cheap. Costs can range from A$8,500 to $47,000 per property.

These expenses can be prohibitive for many homeowners. Initiatives such as the Bushfire Resilience Rating Home Self-Assessment app can result in insurers offering premium discounts to homeowners using it to introduce recommended measures.

In some areas, local governments offer financial assistance for retrofitting, such as the Bushfire Wise Rebate by Ku-ring-gai Council in NSW.

Without greater financial support or government incentives, a significant portion of Australia’s housing stock will remain vulnerable, increasing risks as climate change expands fire-prone areas.

Subha Parida, Lecturer in Property, University of South Australia; Lyrian Daniel, Associate Professor in Architecture, University of South Australia, and Michaela Lang, Postdoctoral Researcher in Behavioural Science, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The cleanup is underway in northern Queensland following the latest flooding catastrophe to hit the state. More than 7,000 insurance claims have already been lodged, most of them for inundated homes and other structures.

The Queensland floods are a reminder that climate-induced natural disasters are becoming more frequent and severe in Australia. Recent reports have identified the high number of Australian homes that are vulnerable to the increased risks of floods, coastal erosion and bushfires.

Despite the evidence of escalating danger to homes and communities, we are ill-prepared for severe weather events. A new report from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute spells out the case for better integration, especially of urban planning processes. This is urgently needed to reduce the exposure of housing to growing disaster risks.

Top priorities for planning authorities must include an end to building homes in the wrong locations, such as flood zones, and improving the resilience of dwellings to disaster hazards.

Poor coordination

At the national level, there is little integration of the three pillars of sound strategy: housing policy, settlement planning and disaster management. For example, neither housing policy nor planning frameworks incorporate disaster preparedness or mitigation.

A focus on disaster response and recovery also hinders proper coordination in the disaster prevention area, even though avoidance in the first place is clearly more cost effective.

However, this may be changing. Both the Issues Paper for the National Housing and Homelessness Plan and State of the Housing System report have acknowledged climate change and natural disasters are risk factors affecting housing.

And the National Urban Policy includes “sustainable and resilient” as one of its three major goals for liveable cities.

At the state and territory level, there is more clearly defined coordination through state emergency management planning. It also occurs via fire agencies that advise on planning proposals.

In New South Wales, the NSW Reconstruction Authority is responsible for developing and implementing the State Disaster Mitigation Plan and for housing recovery.

This means settlement planning and relevant housing issues are directly under the auspices of the agency responsible for disaster prevention and recovery. This is one way to improve integration, but further coordination with housing and planning agencies would be desirable.

Greater focus on risk reduction

Relevant Australian agencies are enhancing their approaches to disaster management in relation to housing. But housing policy still needs to accord greater priority to disaster risk reduction. This includes the location and resilience of housing relative to climate change hazards, such as fires and floods.

In settlement planning, tensions between disaster risk reduction and economic and other development goals need to be addressed. Planning processes and policies to move communities away from risk areas via managed retreat and possibly compensation schemes must be developed.

We can look to international experience for guidance. In Quebec, Canada the provincial government offered significant funding towards property buybacks after floods in 2017 and 2019. It also introduced a cap on disaster aid in high risk locations. Bylaw regulations banned any new developments or reconstruction.

Households had to decide to either relocate or bear the cost of repeated disaster recovery. This strategy is an example of a successful relocation plan in an area at risk of repeated future flooding.

The strategy received a relatively positive response from the affected municipalities and homeowners, potentially due to the generous buyout offers.

This example illustrates the need for policies to manage disaster risk and urban development much more clearly.

Better integration needed

A whole of government approach that establishes clear policy and planning responsibilities would improve integration. It would also allow agencies to develop clearer strategies for the task. Improved data availability and harmonisation of risk identification would further support good decision making by housing and planning agencies.

At the operational level, more staff exchanges between housing, planning, and emergency agencies would support capacity building.

Detailed evaluations of housing experiences and planning outcomes from previous disasters would underpin improvements and integration. This occurs to some extent through formal statutory inquiries into disasters.

A standardised evaluation for housing and planning agencies would provide more focused insights. One idea is to gauge temporary housing programs to build an inventory of suitable and available temporary housing types.

In addition to coordination between government agencies, there is also a need to better communicate with the public on potential disaster risks. Local communities need to be included in planning, both for short-term disaster management and longer-term resettlement decisions.

If we fail to better integrate housing policy with disaster preparation, we will continue to build on flood plains and other high risk areas. People, and their homes, will remain on the front line of deadly natural disasters.

Annette Kroen, Research Fellow Planning and Transport, RMIT University and Jago Dodson, Professor of Urban Policy and Director, Urban Futures Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.