Panel Report 4 June 2014 - Department of Sustainability...

Moyne Planning Scheme Amendment C54 | Panel Report | 4 June 2014

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Moyne Planning Scheme

Amendment C54

Implementation of Stage 1 of the Port Fairy Floodplain Management Plan

4 June 2014


Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Moyne Planning Scheme Amendment C54

Implementation of Stage 1 of the Port Fairy Floodplain Management Plan

Lucinda Peterson, Chair Greg Sharpley, Member


Contents

Page

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

2 The Proposal ................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 The Amendment .................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Background to the proposal ................................................................................. 6

2.3 Issues dealt with in this report.............................................................................. 7

3 Strategic Planning Context ............................................................................................ 9

3.1 Policy framework ................................................................................................. 9

3.2 Planning scheme provisions ............................................................................... 12

3.3 Other planning strategies ................................................................................... 13

3.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ........................................................... 14

3.5 Strategic Assessment .......................................................................................... 16

4 Proposed Statutory Framework .................................................................................. 17

4.1 The Issue ............................................................................................................ 17

4.2 Evidence and submissions .................................................................................. 17

4.3 Discussion .......................................................................................................... 18

4.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 19

4.5 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 19

5 Flood modelling and shape of overlays ...................................................................... 20

5.1 The Issue ............................................................................................................ 20


5.3 Discussion .......................................................................................................... 21

5.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 22

6 Mitigation options ...................................................................................................... 23

6.1 The Issue ............................................................................................................ 23

6.2 Submissions and evidence .................................................................................. 23

6.3 Discussion .......................................................................................................... 24

6.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 26


7 Managing flood access hazard .................................................................................... 27

7.1 The Issue ............................................................................................................ 27


7.3 Discussion .......................................................................................................... 28

7.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 30


8 Other Matters ............................................................................................................. 32

8.1 Wannon Water ................................................................................................... 32

8.2 Access to flood information ................................................................................ 32

8.3 Requests to consider rezoning ............................................................................ 33

9 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 34


Appendix A List of Submitters

Appendix B List of Documents

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Amendment Summary ......................................................................................... v

Table 2 Panel Process ....................................................................................................... v

Table 3 Parties to the Panel Hearing ................................................................................. 2

List of Abbreviations

AHD Australian Height Datum

ARI Average Recurrence Interval

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure

FO Floodway Overlay

GHCMA Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority

LFDP Local Floodplain Development Plan

LPP Local Planning Policy

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

LSIO Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

PPV Planning Panels Victoria

SLR Sea Level Rise

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VCS Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Amendment Summary

Table 1 Amendment Summary

The Amendment Moyne Planning Scheme Amendment C54

Subject Site Port Fairy township and surrounds

Purpose of Amendment The Amendment implements stage 1 of the Port Fairy Floodplain

Management Plan

The Proponent Moyne Shire Council

Planning Authority Moyne Shire Council

Exhibition 4 November to 13 December 2013

Panel Process

Table 2 Panel Process

The Panel Lucinda Peterson (Chair) and Greg Sharpley

Directions Hearing 19 March 2014

Panel Hearing 8 April 2014

Site Inspections 8 April 2014

Appearances Moyne Shire Council represented by Ms Sally Hetzel, Strategic

Planner and calling evidence in hydrology, Mr Warwick Bishop;

Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority represented by

Mr Brad Henderson, Statutory Water Program Manager;

Mr Gray Wilson (Submission 1) and assisted by Mr Chris Loorham;

and

Mr Ken and Mrs Elspeth Atkins (Submission 2).

Submissions 10 submissions were received. Two were received from government

and referral agencies with no objection. Eight were received with

objections or comments, six of these were from landowners.

Date of this Report 4 June 2014


Page 1 of 37

1 Introduction

Moyne Planning Scheme Amendment C54 (the Amendment) was prepared by the Moyne

Shire Council as Planning Authority and proponent. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes

to implement Stage 1 of the Port Fairy Floodplain Management Plan by amending flood

overlays and the local planning policy framework and by introducing a new incorporated

document which manages development having regard to flooding matters.

The Amendment applies to the township of Port Fairy and land surrounding the Moyne River

Estuary, Belfast Lough and the Moyne River and its floodplain.

The Amendment was authorised by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local

Infrastructure (DTPLI) on 19 July 2012. The authorisation was extended on 3 July 2013. The

authorisation was issued on the condition that ‘the sea level rise component of the flood

mapping proposed should reflect the intent and levels given in Clause 13 of the State

Planning Policy Framework’.

The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 4 November and 13 December

2013, with the following eight submissions received either objecting to the Amendment or

requesting changes or clarification:

• The Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority (GHCMA)

• Wannon Water

• Mr Gray Wilson

• Mr Ken Atkins

• Mr Michael Hearn

• Mr Adrian Crosier

• Mr John Wright; and

• Mr Donald Pevitt.

A further two submissions were received from the Country Fire Authority and the

Department of Environment and Primary Industries with no objections.

At its meeting of 28 January 2014, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel. As a

result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the

Minister for Planning on 14 February 2014 and comprised Lucinda Peterson (Chair) and Greg

Sharpley.

A Directions Hearing was held at Port Fairy in relation to the Amendment on 19 March 2014.

At that meeting the Panel confirmed the information already provided to the Panel by the

Council. It also issued directions that:

• Council present the background and methodology of the flood studies;

• Council provide the rationale of the use of the Port Fairy Local Floodplain Development

Plan as an Incorporated Document as opposed to using a local planning policy;

• Council’s expert witness to advise how Reedy Creek operates in high flows and low

flows, having regard to the existing culvert and modelling of any future augmentation.

• Council provide to the Panel a series of plans showing the location of properties

subject to submissions, contours and the extent of the proposed flood controls

overlaid on the latest aerial photo of Port Fairy;


Page 2 of 37

• Copy of Council Minutes and reports at pre and post exhibition stages; and

• Copies of public notices and the authorisation letter.

The Panel then met in the Port Fairy Yacht Club on 8 April 2014 to hear submissions in

respect of the Amendment. Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 3.

Table 3 Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by

Moyne Shire Council Ms Sally Hetzel, Strategic Planner, who called the following

expert witness:

- Mr Warwick Bishop, Engineer, Water Technology

Glenelg Hopkins

Catchment Management Authority

Mr Brad Henderson, Statutory Program Manager

Mr Gray Wilson Assisted by Mr Chris Loorham

Mr Ken and Mrs Elspeth Atkins

At the end of the hearing the GHCMA provided a map which showed the flood impact of

opening the Reedy Creek on land at the north west of the highway. This map was not tabled

formally during the hearing nor was it presented or referred to as part of the GHCMA’s

presentation during the hearing and was unable to be tested by parties at the hearing.

The Panel issued a direction following the hearing that the document was not tabled

appropriately and therefore had no status in the Panel’s deliberation of the Amendment.

Planning Panels Victoria (PPV) received a letter from Mr Loorham who appeared at the

hearing to assist Mr Wilson. The letter requested the Panel be reconvened to formally

receive the map (referred to in this report as the GHCMA Map) informally tabled at the

hearing by the GHCMA so that it and further submissions can be properly considered by the

Panel. In response, the Panel also received correspondence from the Council suggesting that

the GHCMA Map is essentially the same as that provided to the public during exhibition of

the Amendment1. The Panel reviewed correspondence from both parties and the GHCMA

Map and considered that Council is generally correct in its position, albeit there appeared to

be some minor differences between the exhibited map and the GHCMA Map informally

tabled at the hearing. Given the substantive material had previously been in the public

domain, the Panel did not reconvene the hearing with regard to this matter.

However to ensure clarity and to fully inform the Panel, the Panel issued a further Direction

on 16 April 2014 to request the GHCMA, by 2 May 2014, to provide an electronic copy of the

GHCMA Map dated January 2014 and provide a written explanation as to the context of the

map. PPV circulated this information to all parties who attended the hearing and directed

that if parties wished to formally respond to the information provided by the GHCMA, they

had until 16 May 2014 to do so. Further written material was confined to the GHCMA Map

1 Figure 3-5 map titled ‘Mitigation Option Osmonds Lane-Reedy Creek Culvert Removal 1% Flood

Comparison’, page 21 of the Port Fairy Regional Flood Study, Volume 5, Risk Report.


Page 3 of 37

and related issues and not the Amendment more broadly. Further discussion regarding this

issue is dealt with in Chapter 6.

Following the Panel Hearing, the Panel undertook unaccompanied site inspections of

properties subject to submissions and various specific sites around Port Fairy, including the

Reedy Creek Drain, as requested by attendees at the hearing.

PPV received a Request to be Heard notification from Mr Crosier (Submission 4) on 9 April

2014, although it was postmarked 11 March 2014. PPV contacted Mr Crosier to advise that

that it could reconvene the hearing or alternatively an additional written submission could

be submitted to the Panel within seven days. PPV emailed Mr Crosier on 16 April 2014 to

confirm if he wished to submit a further written submission. Although he advised that he

would lodge an additional written submission, the Panel did not receive a further written

submission from him and therefore has relied on Mr Crosier’s original submission.

In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel has read and considered the

submissions and a range of other material referred to it. This includes written submissions,

evidence and verbal presentations. The following chapters of this report discuss the issues

raised in submissions relating to the Amendment in further detail, with the Panel’s

conclusions and recommendations provided in Chapter 9.


Page 4 of 37

2 The Proposal

2.1 The Amendment

The current Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) which covers the old town area of

Port Fairy was developed in 1959, based on a major flood which occurred in 1946. Since that

time Regent Street was raised to act as a levee bank for the town centre. Since 2003, a

series of flood studies have been undertaken for the Moyne River at Port Fairy, culminating

in the preparation of Stage 1 of the Port Fairy Floodplain Management Plan and associated

mapping in 2012. This plan was updated in 2013 to reflect changes in relation to possible

sea level rise. The more recent studies have been used to prepare Amendment C54 to the

Moyne Planning Scheme.

The Amendment modifies the existing flood controls by replacing the majority of the areas

currently covered by the LSIO with the FO and expanding the coverage of flood controls

further to the north and east particularly areas around Belfast Lough and upstream along the

Moyne River floodplain. The current extent of coverage by the LSIO is proposed to be

removed from areas within the central area of Port Fairy (south of Regent Street) and new

areas are proposed to be covered including land to the north west of the town and east of

Belfast Lough.

The application of the FO represents the higher risk from the mainstream flooding modelled

on a 100 year ARI (Average Recurrence Interval) flood. The FO is proposed to be applied to

areas that are likely to convey active flood flows and/or store floodwaters to hazardous

depths, while the LSIO is proposed to be applied to areas that are subject to overland

flooding but have a lower flood risk than areas in the FO.

The areas covered by the FO was based on modelling of various flood events and their

ranges of probability as well as consideration of the effects on flood behaviour from a

projected 0.8 metre sea level rise by 2100 for greenfield development and 0.2 metre sea

level rise for urban infill development by 2040 (using an intermediate climate change impact

scenario) in combination with storm surge/tide effects. The modelling also considered the

extent of flooding known from the last and most significant major flood since that time, the

1946 flood, which was a significant event driven from an east coast weather system, which

mainly affects eastern Victoria and is seldom observed as far west as Port Fairy. The 1946

flood event is considered to be equivalent to a 1,000 year ARI flood event. Accordingly, the

delineation of the application of the FO based on a 1% AEP flood extent is the best practice

standard and considered a reasonable approach given the knowledge of previous severe

flooding (in 1946).

The use of the updated flood overlays is proposed to:

• Ensure that development maintains the free passage of floodwaters;

• Minimises flood damage;

• Is compatible with flood hazards and local drainage conditions; and

• Will not cause any significant rise in flood levels or flow velocities.

Geographically, the Amendment:

• Replaces the majority of the area currently covered by LSIO with the FO;


Page 5 of 37

• Expands the flood controls further north and east, particularly around Belfast Lough

and upstream along the Moyne River floodplain; and

• Removes flood controls (LSIO) from areas within the central area of Port Fairy, south of

Regent Street.

While the area of land covered by the Amendment is larger than the existing flood controls,

less properties will be subject to a flood overlay.

In detail, the Amendment implements Stage 1 of the flood studies as follows:

• Amends the following planning scheme maps to apply the Land Subject to Inundation

Overlay: 34LSIO, 35LSIO and 36LSIO;

• Inserts the following new planning scheme maps to apply the Floodway Overlay: 34FO,

35FO and 36FO;

• Amends Clause 21.06 Environment by inserting a descriptive section on Floodplain

Management that makes reference to the Port Fairy Local Floodplain Development

Plan 2013;

• Amends Clause 21.09 Settlement and Housing by inserting additional policy provisions

in Clause 21.09-2 in relation to flooding and including additional reference documents;

• Amends Clause 21.11 Reference documents by including the following additional

documents:

- Port Fairy Regional Flood Study (Water Technology, 2008)

- Port Fairy Regional Flood Study Addendum – Sea Level Rise Modelling (Water

Technology, 2010)

- Port Fairy Floodplain Management Plan Stage 1 (Water Technology, 2012)

- Port Fairy – Sea Level Rise Modelling Project (Water Technology, 2012)

• Amends Clause 22.01 Housing and Settlement by deleting Clause 22.01-3 Port Fairy

and adding policy objectives and strategies in Clause 21.09 and renumbering

subsequent clauses;

• Amends Clause 22.01-2 Urban Floodway Local Policy by renaming the policy to

Floodplain Management Policy and referring to the Port Fairy Regional Flood Study and

the Sea Level Rise Modelling Project;

• Introduces a new Schedule to Clause 44.03 – Floodway Overlay (FO), which exempts

minor forms of development from a permit in Port Fairy;

• Introduces a new Schedule to Clause 44.04 – Land Subject to Inundation (LSIO), which

exempts minor forms of development from a permit in Port Fairy;

• Amends Clause 61.03 to update the changes to overlay maps within the planning

scheme; and

• Amends Clause 81.01 to introduce an Incorporated Document, the Port Fairy Local

Floodplain Development Plan 2013 into the planning scheme.


Page 6 of 37

2.2 Background to the proposal

2.2.1 Port Fairy Regional Flood Study 2008

Water Technology prepared the Port Fairy Regional Flood Study (Flood Study) in 2008.

Commissioned by Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority (GHCMA) it was

undertaken using a risk based approach, emphasising uncertainties and consequences of a

range of factors including rainfall intensity and sea level conditions. The influence of climate

change was also considered.

The objectives of the Study were to:

• Determine flood levels, extents, velocities and depths of the Moyne River, Murray

Brook and Reedy Creek within the study area for a range of events including the 1%

AEP and probable maximum flood events;

• Prepare digital and hard copy floodplain maps for the 1% AEP flood events showing the

floodplain and flooding events;

• Provide an assessment of flood damages;

• Prepare a review of Moyne Shire Planning Scheme current LSIO for Port Fairy and

recommendations regarding study outcomes;

• Consider and prepare approximate costings of possible flood mitigation and/or flood

risk reduction measures; and

• Produce the relevant datasets.

At the time of the Flood Study, there was limited information regarding predicted sea level

rise. Since 2008, the Victoria Coastal Strategy (VCS 2008) has provided a framework for

including sea level rise in long term planning.

An Addendum to the Flood Study was undertaken in 2010 which included sea level rise and

storm surge information. In addition to the 0.8 metre sea level rise to 2100 recommended

by the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008, a higher 1.2 metre sea level rise was investigated.

2.2.2 The Port Fairy Sea Level Rise Monitoring Project

The Port Fairy Sea Level Rise Monitoring Project, December 2012 provided an update using

additional data from 2008 to 2012. Subsequently the model was extended to include a Sea

Level Rise (SLR) of 0.2 metres due to changes in Clause 13 in the SPPF which apply a 0.2

metre sea level rise in urban infill areas to 2040 and a 0.8 metre sea level rise in greenfield

areas to 2100. These overlays were created in the previous Port Fairy Regional Flood Study

and have been used in the preparation of the Port Fairy Floodplain Management Plan –

Stage 1.

The Panel notes that the 2012 report… does not see the benefit of using the scenario with 0.2

metres sea level rise for the overlays as this does not changes the extent of the overlay

significantly and this will not change the number of landholders affected by the planning

scheme amendment or the number of development referrals.

Mr Bishop, who appeared as an expert witness and author of the Study explained that:

Two minimum benchmark flood levels are provided. The first minimum

benchmark flood level relates to emergency and community facilities and

greenfield development, and recommends applying the 1% AEP catchment flow


Page 7 of 37

with storm surge and 0.8 metre of sea level rise. The second minimum

benchmark flood level is for all other development in existing urban areas

including new and replacement dwellings and other individual buildings outside

of urban areas, and recommends applying the 1% AEP catchment flow with storm

surge.

With regard to the 2012 ‘Guidelines for Coastal Catchment Management

Authorities: assessing development in relation to sea level rise’………The referral

authority (GHCMA) can set a minimum flood level. Typically a freeboard or

margin of safety is applied on top of the design flood level for inaccuracies in

flood estimation, local effects such as turbulence and wind wave action. A

freeboard of 0.3 metre is typically applied for floodplains, however in some cases

up to 0.6 metre is applied. The guidelines recommend that where development is

assessed against the 1% AEP catchment flow with storm surge event, an

additional freeboard allowance of 0.2 metre above the normal freeboard

allowance should be included as a planning condition to allow for uncertainty in

the potential impact of sea level rise.2

The Panel acknowledges the technical position presented by Mr Bishop however based on a

review of the position presented by Council we are persuaded that the LSIO and FO mapping

proposed should be adopted. We consider that it takes account both the detailed modelling

undertaken by water technology and complies with the DSE Guidelines for Coastal

Catchment Management Authorities: Assessing Development in Relation to Sea Level Rise.

This aspect is discussed further in Chapter 3.

The Port Fairy Regional Flood Study includes the following stages:

Stage 1

• An Amendment to the planning scheme to introduce new land use planning controls

based on the results of the 2008 Port Fairy Flood Study, primarily through the

application of the FO and the LSIO; and

• The preparation of flood information to include within the Municipal Flood Emergency

Management Plan, which is part of the Municipal Emergency Management Plan.

Stage 2

• Investigate and detail structural mitigation works;

• Establish flood emergency measures; and

• Commence a planning scheme Amendment to introduce new land use planning

controls associated with coastal erosion and ocean inundation, which will be informed

by the Port Fairy Coastal Hazard Assessment.

2.3 Issues dealt with in this report

The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during

the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been

assisted by the information provided to it as well as its inspections of specific sites.

2 Expert evidence, page 17.


Page 8 of 37

Matters raised in submissions included:

• The flood access hazard on the developable primary dune adjacent to Griffith Street

(GHCMA submission);

• Changes to local policy (GHCMA submission);

• Proposed overlays overestimate the effect of flooding;

• Proposed overlays do not accurately reflect actual ground levels;

• Clarification of whether specific areas can be filled and exemptions for specific

buildings and works;

• Availability of flood level information during exhibition of the Amendment;

• Land should be rezoned from Farming Zone to a residential zone to allow for

residential subdivision;

• The filling of Reedy Creek is increasing the flooding of nearby residential areas; and

• Mitigation works should be undertaken to reduce flood risk.

This report deals with the issues under the following headings:

• Strategic Planning Context;

• Proposed Statutory Framework;

• Flood modelling and shape of overlays;

• Mitigation options;

• Managing flood access hazard; and

• Other matters.


Page 9 of 37

3 Strategic Planning Context

Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the

Explanatory Report.

The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of

the relevant zone and overlay controls and other planning strategies.

3.1 Policy framework

Section 6(e) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 enables planning schemes to

regulate or prohibit any use or development in hazardous areas, or areas likely to become

hazardous.

3.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework

Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by the following clauses in the SPPF:

Clause 11 - Settlement states that planning is to recognise the need for, and as far as

practicable contribute towards, health and safety and protection of environmentally

sensitive areas and natural resources.

Clause 11.05-4 under Regional Planning strategies and principles, under the principle

‘Climate Change, natural hazards and community safety’:

Respond to the impacts of climate change, natural hazards and promote community

safety by (with respect to flooding):

• Siting and designing new dwellings, subdivisions and other development to

minimise risk to life, property, the natural environment and community

infrastructure from natural hazards, such as bushfire and flooding.

• Developing adaption response strategies for existing settlements in hazardous

and high risk areas to accommodate change over time.

The Council submitted that the Amendment is consistent with the above provisions by

applying the requirements of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO), Floodway

Overlay (FO) and Local Floodplain Development Plan (LFDP) to proposed buildings, works

and subdivisions in order to assist in protecting life, property and the natural environment.

Clause 13 – Environmental Risks states that Planning should adopt a best practice

environmental management and risk management approach which aims to avoid or

minimise environmental degradation and hazards. Planning should identify and manage the

potential for the environment, and environmental changes, to impact upon the economic,

environmental or social well-being of society.

With regard to Coastal erosion and inundation – the objective is to plan for and manage the

potential coastal impacts of climate change.

In planning for possible sea level rise, an increase of 0.2 metres over current 1 in

100 year flood levels by 2040 may be used for new development in close

proximity to existing development (urban infill). Plan for possible sea level rise of

0.8 metres by 2100, and allow for the combined effects of tides, storm surges,

coastal processes and local conditions such as topography and geology when


Page 10 of 37

assessing risks and coastal impacts associated with climate change. Consider the

risks associated with climate change in planning and management decision

making processes. For new greenfield development outside of town boundaries,

plan for not less than 0.8 metre sea level rise by 2100. Ensure that land subject to

coastal hazards are identified and appropriately managed to ensure that future

development is not at risk.

The objective of Clause 13.02 Floodplains is to assist in the protection of:

• Life, property and community infrastructure from flood hazard;

• The natural flood carrying capacity of rivers, streams and floodways;

• The flood storage function of floodplains and waterways; and

• Floodplain areas of environmental significance or of importance to river health.

Clause 13.02 provides the strategic direction that land affected by flooding, including

floodway areas as verified by the relevant floodplain management authority, is identified in

planning scheme maps. Land affected by flooding is specified as land inundated by the 1 in

100 years (ARI) flood event or as determined by the floodplain management authority.

The Council submitted that the Amendment is consistent with the SPPF as the most current

and best available flood hazard modelling, complied in the 2008 Port Fairy Regional Flood

Study and the 2010/2012 Addendum Reports on Sea Level Rise Modelling and verified by the

floodplain management authority (GHCMA), was used to identify land that would be

inundated by a 1 in 100 year (ARI) flood event and translated in the Moyne Planning Scheme

maps.

With regard to sea level rise, the Council submitted that the Amendment is consistent with

the SPPF as the additional flood modelling that was prepared in the 2010/2012 Addendum

Reports on Sea Level Rise has been calibrated with the 2008 Regional Flood Study data by

Water Technology and the GHCMA to determine the extent of the LSIO and FO for Port

Fairy.

The benchmark of an increase of 0.2 metres sea level rise over current 1 in 100 year flood

levels by 2040 for urban infill development was used because the area covered by the

proposed overlay is considered to be urban infill. While the land is characterised by a mix of

uses including rural residential, farming and the natural environmental features of a

floodplain, it also includes urban zones such as Residential 1 Zone, Mixed Use Zone and the

Low Density Residential Zone. Land within these urban zones is expected to attract the

majority of future development applications for residential infill and in some cases,

subdivision.

The Council submitted that in the absence of a coastal settlement boundary (or town

boundary) for Port Fairy, the area that is covered by the proposed overlays includes mainly

urban zoned land so the benchmark for urban infill should be implemented. Council added

that, for simplicity of application and interpretation of Clause 13, the single benchmark for

‘urban infill’ should be used in Port Fairy, rather than a combination of flood modelling

showing a sea level rise of 0.8m for ‘greenfield’ and a sea level rise of 0.2 for ‘urban infill’.


Page 11 of 37

Clause 14 Natural Resource Management states that planning is to assist in the conservation

and wise use of natural resources including energy, water, land, stone and minerals to

support environmental quality and sustainable development.

The objective of Clause 14.02-1 Catchment planning and management is to assist the

protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, ground

water and the marine environment.

The objective of Clause 14.02-2 Water quality is to protect water quality with the most

relevant strategies including:

• Protect reservoirs, water mains and local storage facilities from potential

contamination;

• Ensure that land use activities potentially discharging contaminated runoff or wastes to

waterways are sited and managed to minimise such discharges and to protect the

quality of surface water and ground water resources, rivers, streams, wetlands,

estuaries and marine environments.

• Discourage incompatible land use activities in areas subject to flooding, severe soil

degradation, groundwater salinity or geotechnical hazards where the land cannot be

sustainably managed to ensure minimum impact on downstream water quality or flow

volumes.

3.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

(i) Municipal Strategic Statement

Council submitted that the Amendment supports the following local planning objectives:

Clause 21.05 – Settlement and Housing

The objectives of this policy are:

• To ensure that new development in Port Fairy respects built form and/or the coastal

and riverine location of the area, including existing character, the integrity of the dune

formations, and maintenance of floodplains.

• To identify flood prone land and ensure that new development is compatible with flood

hazards.

Clause 21.06 Environment

The objective of this policy is:

• To maintain the integrity of existing urban floodways and to identify new floodway

areas outside the urban areas.

A strategy to achieve this objective is to:

• Minimise development (including construction of roads) within prominent areas such as

hillsides, promontories, ridgelines and in fragile, unstable flood prone areas to lessen

their impacts.


Page 12 of 37

(ii) Local Planning Policy

Clause 22.01-2 Urban Floodway Local Policy


• To identify potential flood hazards and provide a sound basis for the future

development and use of land thought to be liable to be at risk of flooding.

Clause 22.01-3 Port Fairy (Environmental)


• More appropriate measures against natural hazards should be implemented

through flood control provisions including building and fencing controls.

The Amendment is consistent with the LPPF in that it delivers on the issue of flood

identification and management of development in this regard.

3.2 Planning scheme provisions

3.2.1 Overlays

(i) Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

The Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) at Clause 44.04 applies to mainstream

flooding in both rural and urban areas. The purpose of the LSIO is to:

• Identify land in a flood storage or flood fringe area affected by the 1 in 100 year flood

or any other area determined by the floodplain management authority.

• Ensure that development maintains the free passage and temporary storage of

floodwaters, minimises flood damage, is compatible with the flood hazard and local

drainage conditions and will not cause any significant rise in flood level or flow

velocity.

• Reflect any declaration under Division 4 of Part 10 of the Water Act 1989 where a

declaration has been made.

• Protect water quality in accordance with the provisions of relevant State Environment

Protection Policies, particularly in accordance with Clauses 33 and 35 of the State

Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria).

• Ensure that development maintains or improves river and wetland health, waterway

protection and flood plain health.

Under the LSIO a planning permit is required for building and works, except for particular

mitigation and utility works, and open style fencing. The schedule exempts minor works

from a permit such as a pump shed, an agricultural shed with open sides, a mast, an antenna

and power pole. Any planning application is required to be referred to the Glenelg Hopkins

Catchment Management Authority (GHCMA) as the relevant floodplain management

authority.


Page 13 of 37

(ii) Floodway Overlay

The purpose of the Floodway Overlay (FO) is to:

• Identify waterways, major floodpaths, drainage depressions and high hazard areas

which have the greatest risk and frequency of being affected by flooding.

• Ensure that any development maintains the free passage and temporary storage of

floodwater, minimises flood damage and is compatible with flood hazard, local

drainage conditions and the minimisation of soil erosion, sedimentation and silting.

• Reflect any declarations under Division 4 of Part 10 of the Water Act 1989 if a

declaration has been made.

• Protect water quality and waterways as natural resources in accordance with the

provisions of relevant State Environment Protection Policies, and particularly in

accordance with Clauses 33 and 35 of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters

of Victoria).

• Ensure that development maintains or improves river and wetland health, waterway

protection and flood plain health.

A permit is required for subdivision, buildings and works except for certain flood mitigation

and utility works and open fencing. A schedule provides exemptions for minor works such as

upper storey extensions to an existing building within the existing building footprint. A

planning application is required to be referred to the GHCMA, as the relevant floodplain

management authority.

3.2.2 Particular and general provisions

(i) General provisions

Clause 81 refers to Incorporated Documents that are incorporated into the planning scheme.

A list of Incorporated Documents is included in Schedule to Clause 81.01.

3.3 Other planning strategies

3.3.1 The Port Fairy Regional Flood Study and Sea Level Rise Modelling

Study

Descriptions of these studies are included in Chapter 2 of this report.

3.3.2 Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan

The Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan 2013 (draft) provides a 30 year vision for the

region and a land use planning framework to guide future sustainable growth. Although it is

in draft form, it is a seriously entertained proposal and provides a regional context for Port

Fairy and the issue of floodplain management in the region.

The Amendment is consistent with the following objective of the Growth Plan:

12.3 Natural hazards and risks

The risks presented to land use planning from flooding hazards must be

considered in strategic and localised planning decisions. Land use planning

decisions should be based on the best quality information on flooding hazards to


Page 14 of 37

minimise risk to life, property, community infrastructure and environmental

assets.

The Council considered that the Amendment achieves the above objective by updating the

Moyne Planning Scheme with the latest and most accurate flood modelling that has been

completed for Port Fairy. Moreover, the proposed planning controls and policy will ensure

that land use planning decisions are based on the latest technology and data on flood

modelling and take into account the effects of sea level rise.

3.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

3.4.1 Practice Note 12: Applying the flood provisions in planning schemes

Practice Note 12 provides guidance about applying the flood provisions in planning schemes

including the preparation of policy, identifying land affected by flooding, preparing a local

floodplain development plan and the application and operation of the flood provisions,

including the preparation of schedules.

In terms of the type of zone or overlay to apply, the nature of the flood risk and the type of

flood information available will determine how and to what extent the flood provisions are

applied in the planning scheme. The flood zone and overlay provisions ensure that the use

and development of land subject to inundation is made compatible with the level of flood

risk through the planning permit process.

The Practice Note identifies that in preparing a local floodplain development plan this

enables the council and local floodplain management authority to include specific local

requirements in the planning scheme. Its purpose is to provide a set of requirements and

guidelines for development in a particular area and to simplify and streamline the

consideration of planning permit applications.

The Practice Notes explains that Council usually prepares a local floodplain development

plan in consultation with the floodplain management authority and once the plan has been

adopted, the planning scheme should be amended to include it as an incorporated

document. In preparing a local floodplain development plan, the council and floodplain

management authority should consider what objectives they are trying to achieve in

managing the floodplain area and how the plan can best achieve those objectives. The plan

should be carefully drafted as the planning scheme requires that any planning permit

application must be consistent with it. If the plan is too prescriptive it may restrict

development unnecessarily.

The Practice Note identifies freeboard floor levels 0.3 to 0.6 metres above flood level should

be used for developments where flood controls apply.

The Panel understands that the GHCMA applies 0.6 metres (factoring in coastal inundation).


Page 15 of 37

3.4.2 Practice Note 53: Managing coastal hazards and coastal impacts of

climate change

Practice Note 53 provides guidance around how coastal hazards should be approached. The

Practice Note identifies that the frequency, extent and magnitude of coastal and river

inundation is likely to be altered by climate change over time and through the combined

interactions with sea level rise, tide ranges, storm surges and other coastal processes.

VCS 2008 sets out the policy and strategic direction for responding to coastal hazard risks in

the context of climate change. VCS 2008 identifies the need to plan for sea-level rise of not

less than 0.8 metres by 2100, and allow for the combined effects of tides, storm surges,

coastal processes and local conditions such as topography and geology when assessing risks

and impacts associated with climate change.

Ministerial Direction No 13 Managing coastal hazards and the coastal impacts of climate

change also applies. As part of the planning scheme amendment process, a council must:

Consider the current and future risks and impacts associated with projected sea

level rise evaluate the potential risks and present an outcome to avoid or

minimise exposing future development to projected coastal hazards consider the

views of the relevant floodplain manager and the Department of Sustainability

and Environment (DSE).

The State Planning Policy Framework specifies: In planning for possible sea level

rise, an increase of 0.2 metres over current 1 in 100 year flood levels by 2040 may

be used for new development in close proximity to existing development (urban

infill). This policy applies to development proposals in existing settlements and

urban zoned areas.

3.4.3 Planning Practice Note 13: Incorporated and Reference Documents

Planning Practice Note 13 identifies that at the local level, planning authorities may wish to

incorporate their own documents which can, for example, include development guidelines,

incorporated plans or restructure plans.

The Practice Note explains that one of the benefits of incorporating documents into the

planning scheme is that the document carries the same weight as other parts of the scheme.

Being part of the planning scheme, the planning authority can only change an incorporated

document by a planning scheme amendment.

The Practice Note recommends where possible, the best approach is to extract the specific

planning policy or decision requirements from a document and include them in the scheme

as local planning policy or decision guidelines rather than incorporating the document. This

is particularly useful when only parts of the document are relevant or where the document

is not written in a way that expresses specific requirements for planning decisions.

A document must be incorporated if the document will be used to guide the exercise of

discretion by the responsible authority. If a document is incorporated into a planning

scheme, its content or strategic basis is less likely to be capable of challenge when using it to

make a planning decision. The decision-maker or VCAT is entitled to presume that the


Page 16 of 37

strategic basis for the document was considered at the time of its incorporation into the

planning scheme and to give it due weight.

The Council submitted that it considered that the Port Fairy Local Floodplain Development

Plan (LFDP) should be included in the Scheme as an incorporated document as it will serve as

an essential component of the responsible authority’s exercise of discretion and decision

making over future development and subdivision applications on land covered by the FO and

LSIO.

3.4.4 Planning Practice Note 4 – Writing a Municipal Strategic Statement

Practice Note 4 provides guidance around how a Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)

should be written. Of particular relevance to the Amendment is the use of the policy

guidelines or the exercise of discretion guidance in the MSS. The Practice Note advises that

zones and overlays provide councils with the ability to specify decision guidelines and

application requirements and where available, this information should be contained in a

zone and overlay rather than in the MSS. However, if there is no ability to set this

information out in the zones and overlays, then it can be set out in policy. The Practice Note

provides the opportunity for councils to make statements explaining how a responsible

authority will exercise its discretion.

Policy guidelines can set out criteria or performance measures for assessing applications.

The criteria or performance measures should set out how the objectives can be met and

should flow logically from the policy objective.

3.5 Strategic Assessment

The Panel concludes that the Amendment is generally supported by, and implements, the

relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and is consistent with

Planning Practice Notes.

Overall the Panel considers that the Amendment makes proper use of the VPP to deliver

measures in the planning scheme to consider flood issues and the use of the LSIO, FO and

their respective schedules are appropriate and consistent with the findings of the flood

studies.

Considering sea level rise, the Panel accepts that, even though some of the land in the

Amendment is zoned Rural Living and Farming, given most of the land covered by the flood

study is in an urban zone, the ‘urban infill’ benchmark should be applied. This is because the

area of rural zoned land is in the general vicinity and on the periphery of the township. The

application of one level would provide a straight forward application of policy and floor

levels and a more consistent approach to development within this fairly confined area. The

use of the ‘urban infill’ benchmark of 0.2 metres is appropriate and consistent with State

policy.

The Panel also accepts that the Local Floodplain Development Plan is appropriately included

as an Incorporated Document as it will facilitate day to day decision making regarding

development in the floodplain and its use is consistent with the relevant practice note.

The Panel does have some concerns regarding the drafting of elements of the LPPF which is

discussed in Chapters 4 and 7 of this report.


Page 17 of 37

4 Proposed Statutory Framework

4.1 The Issue

The Amendment proposes to include policy direction for flooding in Port Fairy within Clause

21.06 under ‘Environment’ with a specific section on Floodplain Management, as well as

retain specific policy directions regarding flooding for Port Fairy in Clause 21.09 ‘Local Areas’.

The proposed Local Floodplain Development Plan (LFDP) establishes development guidelines

under the heading ‘performance criteria’ for land covered by the Land Subject to Inundation

Overlay (LSIO) and FO (Floodway Overlay) for development including new buildings and

works, extensions to existing buildings, fences, earthwork, chemical storage and subdivision.

4.2 Evidence and submissions

The Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority (GHCMA) submitted that, given

floodplain management in Moyne Shire is an issue of major significance, it warrants specific

attention in the local policy through including a single Floodplain Management clause. While

they support the inclusion of floodplain management objectives and strategies across three

separate policies (Clause 21.01 Settlement and Housing, 21.06 – Environment and Clause

21.09 Local Areas), a single floodplain management clause should also be included.

The Council did not provide a specific response in its submission to the Panel on this matter,

nor was this matter resolved at the Council meeting considering submissions prior to the

hearing.

With regard to the LFDP, the Panel asked the Council to provide a rationale of the use of the

LFDP as an incorporated document as opposed to using a local planning policy, having regard

to the relevant practice notes.

The Council submitted that the purpose of the LFDP is to ‘provide a set of requirements and

guidelines for development in a particular area’ and ‘address local circumstances and records

local flooding information’. It will serve as an essential component of the Council’s exercise

of discretion and decision making over future development and subdivision applications on

land covered by the FO and the LSIO.

The Council submitted that the LFPD provides the necessary statutory weight for the

responsible authority to base decisions on rather than relying on the Floodplain

Management Strategy of Clause 21.06. The LFDP adds a high level of transparency to the

planning system in the way that decisions are made under the FO and LSIO. The Council

submitted that ‘it is not appropriate for the level of detail contained in the LFDP which is

aimed at both assisting applicants prepare a planning permit application and assisting the

responsible authority in exercising discretion, to be contained in the LFFP [sic]. Local policy is

aimed at providing broad, overarching, and guiding principles rather than outlining detailed

planning requirements.’


Page 18 of 37

4.3 Discussion

4.3.1 Municipal Strategic Statement

The Planning Practice Note 12 Applying Flood Provisions in Planning Schemes advises that if

flooding is a planning issue in a municipality, this should be identified in the Municipal

Strategic Statement (MSS):

The MSS should describe the characteristics of flooding (including the location of

affected areas, flooding impacts and specific issues), the objectives of floodplain

management and strategies, and implementation measures for achieving the

objectives. It should also identify the data source for flooding information. Local

planning policies where additional guidance is needed for decision-making on

planning permit applications in flood affected areas, a local planning policy on

flooding may be warranted. This can be for general application or for specific

areas. The local policy may include locality plans that are linked to policies for

future development of flood-affected areas .…. Alternatively, a local floodplain

development plan can be prepared.

The Panel agrees with the GHCMA that floodplain management in Port Fairy is a significant

issue in considering development. However it is of the view that the approach of the Council

to embed the issue of floodplain management within the ‘Settlement’ and ‘Local Areas’

sections of the MSS, as well as the ‘Environment’ section is an integrated approach to

considering this environmental risk and provides the appropriate context and policy

guidance for this issue. For example, calling up flooding to be considered in Clause 21.09

under ‘Port Fairy’ provides a strategic context of the issue of flooding in the settlement

planning for Port Fairy. In this context, the Panel does not consider that a separate

Floodplain Management clause in the MSS is necessary.

4.3.2 Local Floodplain Development Plan as an Incorporated Document

The role of Clause 22 is to provide clear direction for planning permits where discretionary

decision making is required and in this context the Panel considers that the content and

direction in the LFDP could be effectively translated into a local policy in Clause 22.

However, the LFDP can equally be applied as an Incorporated Document which would

provide the same statutory weight, decision making guidance and clarity around preparing

proposals and making decisions. In this context, the Panel finds that the LFPD as an

incorporated plan is an acceptable approach and will provide effective guidance in decision

making.

4.3.3 Local Policy

The Panel notes that Clause 22.01-2 ‘Urban Floodway Local Policy’ is proposed to be

renamed to ‘Floodplain Management Policy’ and, according to the clause, ‘this policy is the

Floodplain Management Plan for land in and around Port Fairy and Peterborough’.

It is noted that much of the content in Clause 22.01-2 is also included in the MSS and that

the Local Policy does not provide additional guidance around decision making.


Page 19 of 37

The Panel considers that there is a duplication between the existing (renamed) policy and

the new Port Fairy LFDP in that they are both referred to as the ‘Floodplain Management

Plan’.

The Panel recommends that Clause 22.01-2 be deleted entirely as it doubles up on Clauses

21.06 and 21.09 and the LFDP. As the policy also refers to Peterborough, it is recommended

that the aspects of the policy that relate Peterborough should be included in ‘Local Areas’

Clause 21.09-1 for Peterborough. This change would be policy neutral.

4.4 Conclusions

The Amendment provides an effective framework to consider flooding in the development

of Port Fairy and the Panel supports the exhibited changes to the MSS with regard to

flooding in Port Fairy. The Panel also supports the use of the Port Fairy LFDP as an

incorporated document.

However, there is a duplication with the Floodplain Management Plan which applies to Port

Fairy and Peterborough at Clause 22.01-2 and the Port Fairy LFDP and this needs rectifying.

In this context, it is recommended that the Local Policy at Clause 22.01-2 be deleted and

policy neutral changes be made to Clause 21.09 Local Policy ‘Peterborough’ to ensure clarity.

4.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

1. Delete Clause 22.01-2 “Urban Floodway Local Policy”.

2. Amend Clause 21.09-1 to include:

a) In the description of Peterborough add “Flooding is a crucial issue in the

areas of Peterborough adjacent to the Curdies River.”

b) Under Peterborough, include new section titled ‘Flooding’ and include the

following wording (from previous Clause 22.01-2):

• Identify potential flood hazards and provide a sound basis for the

future development and use of land thought to be liable to be at risk

of flooding, and

• All land thought to be liable to flooding will be included within a

Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Floodway Overlay, generally

in accordance with the controls established by the relevant flood

plain authority.

c) Include a new Policy Guidance in Clause 21.09-1 under ‘Exercise of

discretion’ and include the following wording from previous Clause 22.01-2:

• “It is policy that:

In areas subject to Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Floodway

Overlay, it is policy that as a first preference no fill will be allowed.

Fill under a designated building footprint, outside a building footprint

or for a safe and proper access to and from the site will be

discouraged. Written justification to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority must be provided by the applicant for any such

fill, including why other construction techniques cannot be used.


Page 20 of 37

5 Flood modelling and shape of overlays

5.1 The Issue

The Amendment raised queries around the extent of the Land Subject to Inundation (LSIO)

and Floodway Overlay (FO) and the accuracy of the flood study. The Panel reviewed the

various reports prepared in relation to the Port Fairy Regional Flood Study and heard from

Mr Warwick Bishop (hydrology expert and Senior Principal Engineer and Director of Water

Technology), who was intimately involved in the preparation of the various reports which

the Amendment is based on. The Panel notes that the Amendment has addressed recent

government guidelines in relation to storm surge and sea level rise.

It is noted that the consultant undertook additional modelling in relation to potential flood

mitigation options which are to be addressed in Stage 2 of the Port Fairy Regional Flood

Study.


A number of landowner submitters were generally concerned that the proposed LSIO level

did not accurately reflect the topography of their property.

Mr Gray Wilson (Submission 1) presented at the hearing. Mr Wilson was of the opinion that

the proposed flooding overlay overestimates the impact of a major flood and that this

impact would be further reduced if the Reedy Creek drain was returned to its original cross-

section (this matter is further discussed in Chapter 6 of this report). Mr Wilson submitted

that the proposed overlays are not an accurate reflection of actual ground levels and

discrepancies are apparent on the overlays covering his property. Land which is depicted as

FO should instead be mapped LSIO.

The Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority (GHCMA) advised that while the

velocities over much of Mr Wilson’s land would be very low, the depth of water has been

modelled and confirmed from aerial photography to be in excess of half a metre and

therefore the FO has been considered as the appropriate overlay to apply. The GHCMA

noted that if flood mitigation works were to occur as part of Stage 2, and resulted in changes

to the LSIO and FO on Mr Wilson’s property they could be amended at a future date.

Mr Wilson also raised the issue in relation to the potential for extreme floods from the

Moyne River and Belfast Lough to discharge further to the east behind the sand dunes and

then eventually discharge out to the ocean in the Merri River catchment. He advised that he

had been unable to obtain contour information to verify this, and questioned whether this

had been a consideration of the consultant appointed to undertake the regional flood study.

Mr Bishop of Water Technology advised that he had not undertaken detailed investigation of

an overland high level flood discharge to the east. However, based on his experience in

relation to another study undertaken for the Merri River he did not expect there to be an

easterly flow path and if there was its impact on flood levels within the Port Fairy region

would be expected to be minimal.

Submission 4 was concerned that the FO was proposed on his property, but not on his

neighbour’s property to the south. In his opinion there was no significant difference


Page 21 of 37

between the land heights on the two properties and requested that the FO be removed from

his property.

Both Council and the CMA advised that the FO covers a portion of both properties, with the

FO covering a greater proportion of 121 Griffiths Street. A review of the topographic survey

captured as part of the flood study indicates that the property to the south of the

submitter’s land has a mean elevation which is almost 20 cm higher and that is the reason

why the FO covers more of the submitter’s property.

Submission 5 sought confirmation of advice by GHCMA that the mounds on the second stage

of the Whalers Drive subdivision, while within the LSIO, are above the 100 year ARI and that

any dwelling built would need a floor level of 3.15 AHD. The submission sought confirmation

(there would be no impediment to construction except for the 3.15 AHD floor level) for a

planning permit to develop a dwelling on these allotments.

Both Council and the CMA confirmed that provided the floor level was above 3.15 AHD a

planning permit could be issued prior to the construction of a building on the vacant

allotments.

Submission 6 related to the potential to fill the north-west corner of 100 Gipps Street so that

the property would be completely removed from the LSIO.

Council advised that they strongly discourage filling of the flood pain in all areas within the

LSIO and FO unless it can be demonstrated that a balanced cut and fill approach can be

achieved consistent with the CMA guidelines.

The GHCMA responded that as the area covered at 100 Gipps Street is minimal and does not

impact on any existing buildings a formal proposal could be submitted to fill the allotment as

part of a development and would be considered by the GHCMA. They noted however that

on principle filling is generally not supported due to the potential to transfer flood hazard

and reduce flood storage capacity.

5.3 Discussion

The Panel reviewed the various supporting reports associated with the Amendment,

together with the relevant mapping. In addition, the Panel heard from Moyne Shire Council,

the GHCMA and Mr Bishop who undertook the preparation of the key reports, modelling

and mapping that was undertaken in the preparation of the Port Fairy Regional Flood Study

and the associated mapping for the proposed LSIO and FO overlays. Unaccompanied site

inspections were also undertaken in the vicinity of the various submitters’ properties and as

requested by submitters on the day of the hearing.

The Panel was impressed by the extremely thorough and best practice methodology

adopted for the hydrology and hydraulic modelling used to prepare the Amendment. The

Panel is of the opinion that the level of modelling is more exhaustive than that undertaken

for other planning scheme amendments associated with the introduction of flood controls.

The Panel notes that the study was independently peer reviewed providing additional

confidence in its outcomes.


Page 22 of 37

In view of the accuracy of the modelling the Panel is satisfied that the proposed LSIO and FO

has been accurately calculated and depicted and therefore no changes to the Amendment in

relation to mapping or application of the Overlays are recommended.

5.4 Conclusion

The Panel is satisfied that the technical basis of the Amendment is of high quality and is

supported by a rigorous methodology and as such the application of the LSIO and FO as

proposed is justified. In this context, the Panel does not recommend any changes to the

mapping as proposed by the Amendment.


Page 23 of 37

6 Mitigation options

6.1 The Issue

The culvert in the Reedy Creek drain was identified by submitters as contributing to the

flooding of properties within the Port Fairy township. As part of the Port Fairy Regional

Flood Study – Risk Report, Water Technology identified 10 options to reduce flood risk and

consequences at Port Fairy. These included structural and non-structural mitigation

measures. A preliminary assessment of the potential structural measures was included in

the report, including some hydraulic analysis of 3 of the options to provide some

quantification of the flood risk reduction as a consequence of those measures. One of the

options included re-opening the Reedy Creek drain.

The Flood Study identified that further assessment of the options would be undertaken as

part of Stage 2.

6.2 Submissions and evidence

Submission 1 (Mr Gray) and Submission 2 (Mr and Mrs Atkins) both appeared at the hearing

were concerned with the impact of the current Reedy Creek drain on flooding of their

properties. In their opinion much of the flooding to the north-west of the Princes Highway is

the result of a constraint on the capacity of the discharge from Reedy Creek under the

Princes Highway to the Moyne River. It was their contention that when the Reedy Creek was

maintained by the Reedy Creek Drainage Trust in the 1990’s, the area between Albert Road

and the Princes Highway was not subject to inundation and the level of inundation in the

Reedy Creek to the north-west of Albert Road was considerably lower and of much shorter

duration than has been experienced since partial infilling of the outlet of Reedy Creek.

Mr Atkins (Submitter 2) presented at the hearing regarding land in the vicinity of Goldie’s

Lane and Atkins Crescent and expressed concerns regarding impacts of the flood controls on

the western portion of both 1 and 4 Atkins Crescent. Mr Atkins advised that he had

previously been granted a permit to build the land up to the same level as Atkins Crescent,

but has recently been advised that they can no longer undertake the filling of the western

portions of the lots. In addition, the proposed flood controls will place a restriction on

building blocks on his property at Goldies Lane.

Mr Atkins submitted that the Reedy Creek drain is overgrown and more importantly that the

outlet of the drain to the Moyne River is restricted by an undersized culvert constructed,

without permission, in recent years adjacent to the Princes Highway. In his opinion if the

drain was reinstated to its original capacity, there would be no flooding issues between

Albert Road and the highway and flooding to the west of Albert Road would be considerably

reduced.

He further advised that he had spent $300,000 improving the agricultural value of his

farmland and was concerned that the increased flooding was affecting the improvement

work previously undertaken.


Page 24 of 37

In response to the submission, Council advised that planning permission had been previously

granted for an eight lot subdivision at Atkins Crescent, which has been certified and a

Statement of Compliance issued.

With respect to 1 Atkins Crescent, a permit has been issued for the construction of a

dwelling outbuilding and access. The permit conditions prevent the filling or raising of

ground levels within the flood extent of the property.

Council acknowledged that there were no culverts in Goldies Lane or under the rail trail.

There is a building envelope on the western half of 4 Atkins Crescent that prevents the

construction of a building requiring gravity fed sewerage services, due to the slope leading

down to the drain.

The Council submitted that the reinstatement of Reedy Creek drain was identified in the

flood study as one of 10 potential mitigation measures that can provide a quantifiable

reduction in flood risk to Port Fairy. However, the flood mitigation measures proposed to be

addressed in Stage 2 and are not the subject of this Amendment.

Council advised that they have been in discussions with the owner of the land where the

cross-section of the Reedy Creek has been reduced in relation to reinstatement of the

waterway.

6.3 Discussion

The Panel notes that Stage 2 of the Port Fairy Regional Flood Study is proposing to undertake

a more detailed evaluation of mitigation options. The following descriptions are a summary

of the various mitigation options identified within the Risk Report prepared by Water

Technology:

• Gipps Street Bridge augmentation

• Whalers Drive levee

• Harbour improvements

• Second entrance to sea directly from Belfast Lough

• Reedy Creek channel reinstatement

• Rosebrook floodplain storage

• Town levee, south-east

• Filling of the floodplain

• Flood storage in upstream catchment.

Three of the above options were considered to be feasible measures that could potentially

provide quantifiable reductions in flood risk for Port Fairy. The 3 options selected for further

investigation were Gipps Street Bridge, Whalers Drive levee and Osmonds Lane – Reedy

Creek culvert removal.

Osmonds Lane – Reedy Creek culvert removal

This mitigation option involves the reinstatement of the Reedy Creek channel over the

presently piped length from downstream of the Princes Highway to Osmonds Lane.

This was a recurrent submitter option which was also identified by the Panel prior to the

hearing and raised at the hearing by submitters.


Page 25 of 37

Prior to the hearing the Panel requested the Council provide additional emphasis in their

presentations in relation to mitigation measures associated with Reedy Creek. While some

information was included in Mr Bishop’s evidence-in-chief, in the Panel’s opinion the impact

of re-establishing the capacity of the Reedy Creek outfall was not clearly depicted or

explained. After the conclusion of the hearing the GHCMA placed a large scale plan

(referred to in this report as “the GHCMA Map”) on the exhibition table which identified

that, as a result of this mitigation option, much of the land between Albert Road and the

Princes Highway would remain unaffected in a 1 in 100 year flood event.

The Panel notes on page 21 of the Port Fairy Regional Flood Study – Volume 5 – Risk Report

Figure 3-5 a map titled ‘Mitigation Option Osmonds Lane – Reedy Creek Culvert Removal 1%

Flood Comparison’. It would appear that this map provides information on the same matter

as the GHCMA Map in relation to Reedy Creek. However, the GHCMA Map placed on the

table was not formally tabled at the hearing and included a different legend, which clearly

identified land that would not be inundated if the drain were re-established.

As the Port Fairy Regional Flood Study – Volume 5 – Risk Report was provided to the Panel

prior to the hearing and was listed as one of the documents provided by Council to the Panel

at the Directions hearing, the Panel has had regard to this information. Further on page 21

of Mr Bishop’s expert report3 which was given in submission at the Panel hearing he noted

that with regard to this option large sections of land along the low lying depression currently

inundated due to the overtopping of Albert Street would no longer be inundated. This

modelling also showed that opening up the pipe section would reduce the number of

buildings flooded above floor by 2.

A Directions letter was sent on 16 April 2014 to all parties in attendance at the hearing with

regard to this matter and responses were received from the GHCMA clarifying the

relationship between the map tabled at the end of the hearing and similar map included

with in the report. In summary it was presented that the GHCMA Map which was tabled at

the end of the hearing clearly identified a considerably reduced area of inundation. Both Mr

Loorham, for Mr Wilson, and Mr Atkins provided a response that the proposed Amendment

should not proceed until the impact of opening the drain is taken into account.

Furthermore, the Amendment should not proceed until this mitigation option is completed.

In reply, the Council submitted that Practice Note 12 advises that:

The flood provisions do not address the cause of flooding, but the way future land

use and development will be impacted on the flooding problem or be impacted

themselves by the flooding. The cause needs to be dealt with by separate means.

This may include…… flood mitigation measures that may be linked to.….. a flood

management strategy.

Council maintained its position that flood mitigation works such as culvert removal at Reedy

Creek would be addressed as part of Stage 2 of the Flood Study and this is consistent with

the Practice Note. The LSIO proposed by the Amendment is based on present day

conditions. The GHCMA Map is based on a Reedy Creek mitigation option that has been

prepared as a ‘concept only’ and there are ‘no firm plans’ to undertake the works.

3 Floodplain Management Plan Expert Report, March 2014, Water Technology.


Page 26 of 37

The Council stated that the GHCMA Map and the Map in Volume 5 are similar and that the

differences in the presentation are as a result of making the option easier to interpret. The

purpose of the GHCMA Map was to facilitate discussions with submitters.

The Panel notes that all parties agree that the Reedy Creek drain is impacting on the flood

characteristics of Port Fairy. The issues in contention are a) the extent to which the drain is

impacting on the flood characteristics, b) whether mitigation should be undertaken and c) at

what stage should the flood controls be imposed.

The Panel notes that the analysis of this mitigation option in the Flood Study shows that two

properties are predicted to no longer be flooded above floor in a 1% AEP flood and in this

context, the impact of this option on existing housing within Port Fairy is relatively minimal.

However, in view of the apparent area of farmland zoned Rural Living Zone which is

impacted and in particular the land owned by Mr Atkins, it is recommended that the Council

undertake further investigation, particularly in relation to the Whalers Drive levee and

Osmonds Lane/Reedy Creek culvert removal options as part of Stage 2. If considered

appropriate, works could be undertaken and the LSIO and FO amended in the future.

6.4 Conclusions

The Panel notes the issues raised by various submitters in relation to the perceived and

modelled constriction of Reedy Creek on upstream water levels both during low and high

flood events. The Panel was disappointed that this was not dealt with in more detail by the

Council and the GHCMA during the hearing, despite being specifically requested. We note

however that preliminary modelling has been undertaken and is to be further examined in

Stage 2 of the development of the Port Fairy Floodplain Management Plan. The Panel

supports this approach.

While the Panel accepts that opening the drain would reduce the area subject to flooding, it

is of the view that the flood controls need to align with existing conditions and therefore the

Amendment should not be delayed or modified at this stage to account for potential future

works. The Panel is therefore of the opinion that this issue should be more appropriately

addressed in Stage 2 and, if and when mitigation works are undertaken, this should result in

further amendment to the LSIO and FO in a future Amendment.

6.5 Recommendations


3. Following the adoption of Amendment C54, Council promptly undertake Stage 2 of

the Port Fairy Flood to consider the various mitigation options identified in the

supporting reports for Amendment C54 and where appropriate works undertaken

and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Floodway Overlay be revised

accordingly.


Page 27 of 37

7 Managing flood access hazard

7.1 The Issue

There is land in the vicinity of Griffith Street which is zoned Residential and is developable

however the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority (GHCMA) has identified

that access from the properties is potentially hazardous in a 1 in 100 year flood event. The

issue has been raised as to how the planning scheme should deal with properties where

there is potentially hazardous access in the case of a 1 in 100 year flood while the actual

developable property is not subject to flooding.


The GHCMA submitted that there are unique flood risk challenges presented by the

development of the Residential 1 Zone land situated on the primary sand dune adjacent to

Griffiths Street (vulnerable land). Their concerns relate to the potential for occupants of

houses in this area to become isolated. While the properties are above flood level, they

would be unable to be accessed due to flooding over the access road and hence may be

isolated from essential and emergency services for a number of days. They submitted that

the Port Fairy Regional Flood Study demonstrates that, although this land has not been

identified in the 1 in 100 year flood, access is likely to be restricted in such an event. In this

context the GHCMA submitted that “there are valid planning reasons supporting

identification of vulnerable land as being subjected to a flood access hazard within the

planning scheme”.

During the preparation of the Amendment, the GHCMA recommended a second schedule to

the LSIO be drafted in the form of LSIO2 to regulate development intensity on the vulnerable

land. The GHCMA noted that a number of proposed housing developments have been

appealed at VCAT due to issues associated with flooding of the road providing access to

property. The role of the LSIO2 was to have an emphasis on managing flood access hazards,

ability to control subdivision and additional referral requirements. Council did not include

this proposal in the exhibited Amendment.

In their submission to the exhibited Amendment, the GHCMA suggested that additional

emphasis on flood access hazard is warranted by including the following wording in local

policy:

Access to habitable buildings be achieved from flood free areas via roads or other access

ways that are subject to not more than 0.5 metre deep flood water for storm events up to

and including the 1% Average Exceedence Probability standard. Where this cannot be

achieved regard must be had to:

• The number of persons likely to use the development and the likely adverse effects of

the flood access hazard on potential future occupants,

• The potential for measures to avoid or minimise the flood access risk, including

emergency management and prevention plans.

• That the use and development of land for habitable buildings is consistent with flood

access hazards.


Page 28 of 37

At the request of the Panel, Council estimated that approximately 63 out of a total of 179

allotments may have the potential for future infill/subdivision in this area.

The Council submitted that the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure

(DTPLI) advised that “it is not convinced the Building Act or Water Act support the use of a

planning control for land not subject to flooding and as such there could be legal issues with

any provision that comes under the LSIO.” The advice considered that the use of the LSIO for

land not directly impacted by flooding was not appropriate. DTPLI advised that the

application of an LSIO on properties in Griffiths Street that do not flood but will have

restricted access during times of flood is not supported and is inconsistent with the Practice

Note 12 – Applying the Flood Provisions in Planning Schemes.

The Council argued that on the basis of this advice, the Amendment should not include any

reference to the use of the LSIO2 on Griffiths Street and only apply to land identified through

an accepted process as directed in the Practice Note, that is, land designated as floodplain

and subject to inundation in a 1 in 100 year flood event.

The Council further submitted that access and egress constraints for flooding already exists.

Flood warning and mitigation systems as well as individual emergency management plans at

a property level are the most appropriate methods of educating and informing owners and

the community of flood risk rather than apply or limit development that is not otherwise

impacted by flood flows. The Council argued that the Moyne Shire Flood Emergency Plan (a

sub-plan of the Municipal Management Plan) is the appropriate mechanism to deal with the

emergency and essential services response to residents reliant on access/egress from

Griffiths Street who may be isolated due to a major flood of the Moyne River. Furthermore,

modelling undertaken for the flood study identified that there would be a 24 hour window

of opportunity in which residents of Griffiths Street could be notified or evacuated. Council

was therefore satisfied that there was adequate time to contact residents from Griffiths

Street in accordance with the emergency plan, prior to their houses becoming isolated.

Council did not support the use of the LSIO over land which has not been shown to flood and

did not consider that it is a fair or orderly outcome to apply such an overlay or overly restrict

the development potential or density of development in this manner.

Council considered that the Local Floodplain Development Plan (LFDP) which establishes

performance criteria for Special Area A; a designated area that is “totally reliant on Griffith

Street for access/egress during large floods” is sufficient to mitigate flood risk as a result of

buildings and works or subdivision. Dwellings proposed for land that relies on access that

has a 100 year ARI flood depth greater than 0.5 metres may be approved when the risks

associated with loss of road access due to flooding have been mitigated by either structural

or non-structural means.

7.3 Discussion

The Panel notes that area subject to the GHCMA’s concern is not ‘Special Area A’ as

discussed by Council but land further to the east of Griffith Street, fronting Beach Street

which is not prone to flooding but has the same access constraints in the case of a 1 in 100

year flood as the only means of egress is via Griffith Street which will be submerged in a 1 in

100 year flood event.


Page 29 of 37

The majority of lots along this stretch of coast are developed, however given the age of the

buildings stock and size of lots, there is opportunity for some additional dwellings and

subdivision.

The Panel agrees with the Council that this situation already exists for existing dwellings and

that the Emergency Management Plan will need to provide direction to empower residents

to understand their responsibilities under the Plan with regard to timely evacuation. This is

not, however, an ideal sole approach given that the area identified by the GHCMA still has

capacity to develop thus creating the potential to exacerbate the issue.

The Panel understands the limitations of the existing overlay controls that apply to flood

prone land and the serious issue around access arrangements in times of flooding.

The Panel accepts the advice provided by other government agencies in relation to this

issue, but remains concerned that further development and subdivision will occur in this

area, further raising the level of risk for the occupiers of the dwellings and more importantly

the emergency service agencies that may be requested to attend in the event of a large

flood.

In regard to the issue of access to the residential area associated with Griffiths Street during

large floods, the Panel is of the opinion that the requirement in the LFDP provided at Section

6.4 Special Area A does not adequately address the issue identified by the GHCMA. The use

of the LFDP is triggered when a planning permit is sought for development or subdivision of

land within the LSIO or the FO. It is not triggered for development or subdivision outside

these overlays. Therefore, despite future development in this area being subject potentially

hazardous access arrangements in the event of flooding, the LFDP is not able to be applied

to assist guidance in this matter.

(i) Immediate term

As an immediate measure, the Panel supports the implementation of the wording proposed

by the GHCMA via this Amendment. It would provide additional guidance to applicants and

decision makers and should be included within Clause 21.09-3 in ‘Local Areas – Port Fairy’

under Exercise of Discretion.

(ii) Shorter term

The Panel considers that there are currently provisions in the suite of the VPP which are able

to deal with this issue, rather than applying the LSIO or FO. These include:

• Consider using the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to apply density controls where

access is constrained in the event of a 1 in 100 year flood. This could include using the

schedule to apply a minimum subdivision size and/or applying a maximum number of

dwellings on a lot. Although the Neighbourhood Residential Zone applies to land

which has a special neighbourhood character or areas identified for preservation, it

can also be applied to areas where there are environmental constraints. The Panel

considers that this area could be a candidate for applying this zone.

• The Environmental Significance Overlay could be an appropriate tool; its purpose is to

“identify land where development may be affected by environmental constraints” or


Page 30 of 37

alternatively the Design and Development Overlay could be applied where there are

special issues that need to be considered in the development of land.

In light of the tools available the Panel recommends that the Council seriously consider

reviewing the existing zone and overlay provisions in this area.

(iii) Longer term strategic planning

The Panel considers that this should also be addressed at the settlement planning stage. The

Council advised that further strategic planning in the form of developing a Framework Plan

for Port Fairy would be undertaken in the future. It is considered that the designation of

future growth areas within and around the township should be informed by the flood

characteristics of the town as well as access constraints. It is expected that this work would

inform future land use as well as infrastructure planning.

The issue of access hazards in the long term strategic planning for the township should be

highlighted in the MSS. Although this sits in the LFDP under Section 6.1 “Future Planning”,

the primary application of the LFDP is to consider permits triggered under the LSIO and FO

rather than guiding future strategic work. The wording in Section 6.1 should be moved to

Clause 21.09-3 ‘Local Areas - Port Fairy’ under ‘Flooding’.

7.4 Conclusions

The Panel agrees with the Council that the current provisions of the LSIO and FO do not deal

with development on land which is not affected by the 1 in 100 year flood and that the best

way to deal with this issue is at the structure planning stage.

The issue of access hazards in the long term strategic planning for the township should be

highlighted in the MSS. Although this sits in the LFDP under ‘Future Planning’, it should be

included in Clause 21.

As an immediate measure to deal with development in the short term, the Panel supports

the wording proposed by the GHCMA to be included in MSS via the Amendment.

When Council reviews and undertakes its Framework Plan for Port Fairy or as part of

translating the reformed Residential Zones, consideration of alternative provisions for land

with access constraints during a 1 in 100 year flood event, such as an Environmental

Significance Overlay, Design and Development Overlay or applying the Neighbourhood

Residential Zone should be investigated.

7.5 Recommendations


4. Amend Clause 21.09-3 ‘Local Areas’ under Port Fairy – Flooding to include the

following

In future planning such as structure planning or planning scheme amendments,

the risks to the township associated with flooding from the Moyne River should

be considered and seek to ensure the use of the floodplain is not excessively

intensified

and


Page 31 of 37

Future development access needs to be considered to avoid access hazards

associated with flooding.

5. Include a new Policy Guidance in Clause 21.09-1 under Exercise of discretion:

It is policy that:

An application for subdivision or a new dwelling should meet the

following performance measures:

Access to habitable buildings be achieved from flood free areas via roads

or other access ways that are subject to not more than 0.5 metre deep

flood water for storm events up to and including the 1% Average

Exceedence Probability standard. Where this cannot be achieved regard

must be had to:

• The number of persons likely to use the development and the likely

adverse effects of the flood access hazard on potential future

occupants;

• The potential for measures to avoid or minimise the flood access

risk, including emergency management and prevention plans.

• That the use and development of land for habitable buildings is

consistent with flood access hazards.

6. Investigate, through the review of the Port Fairy Framework Plan or through

translating the Reformed Residential Zones, applying the Neighbourhood Residential

Zone to land where there are flood related access hazards with a view of limiting

densities, or alternatively apply the Environmental Significance Overlay or Design

and Development Overlay as appropriate.


Page 32 of 37

8 Other Matters

8.1 Wannon Water

Wannon Water (Submission 8) requested an exemption for the development of new

sewerage pump stations (minor utility installations) in the Floodway Overlay (FO) and the

Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO). To meet Wannon Water’s requirement to

construct, maintain and replace pipes, the submission requested an exemption be included

in the Schedule to the Overlays for ‘the construction, maintenance and replacement of

sewerage and water reticulation works provided they do not alter the topography of the

land’.

Council submitted that a specific exemption is not necessary because the following

exemptions already apply:

• The LSIO schedule contains an exemption for a pump shed;

• The proposed FO contains an exemption for a pump shed with a floor area no larger

than 20 square metres;

• Both overlays state that a planning permit is not required for the following works in

accordance with plans prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority: the

laying of underground sewerage, water and gas mains, oil pipelines, underground

telephone lines and underground power lines provided they do not alter the

topography of the land; and

• Clause 62 states that buildings and works not requiring a planning permit include

‘buildings and works associated with a minor utility installation’.

The Panel agrees with Council’s position and that no further changes are required with

regard to this matter.

8.2 Access to flood information

Submitter 4 submitted that during the exhibition of the Amendment they had sought to

obtain information about the flood study in relation specific flood levels that might apply to

their property. In order to obtain these levels, the submitter stated that he was advised to

contact the GHCMA who told him that he would have to wait 20 days or purchase the

information for a 48 hour turnaround. The submitter considered that this information

should have been made freely available.

While the Panel does not make formal recommendations regarding this matter, it considers

that this information at the planning scheme amendment stage should be freely available to

enable parties to fully understand the consequences of the Amendment for their property.

In this context, the GHCMA and Council ought to reconsider their approach for future flood

amendments.


Page 33 of 37

8.3 Requests to consider rezoning

A number of submissions considered that the Amendment should rectify zone boundaries

and that the Amendment is applying overlays without considering the effects on the zones.

A number of submitters (Submissions 3 and 6) requested that their properties be rezoned

from Farming Zone to Residential 1 Zone.

Submission 3 submitted that their proposed rezoning was put on hold pending further flood

studies and impacts of sea level rise. Submission 1 considered that, if the overlays remain on

his land, there will be little prospect of the land being rezoned to Low Density Residential

Zone.

The Council, in its right of reply acknowledged further strategic work is need in Port Fairy

which will include:

• Implementation of the Future Coasts Port Fairy Coastal Hazard Assessment and its

recommendations regarding coastal erosion and inundation;

• Review of the recommendations of the 2006 Port Fairy Implementation Plan Study;

• Analysis of land supply and demand;

• Review and establishment of a coastal settlement boundary;

• Applying the new residential zones;

• Review the existing planning framework that applies to Port Fairy;

• Investigate opportunities for growth and constraints having regard to infrastructure

capacity, landscape form, flood modellings, coastal climate change, refinement of

heritage precincts and the proposed Port Fairy By-Pass.

Council submitted that the rezoning requests are outside the scope of the Amendment. The

zoning issues are noted and will be considered when Council revises the Port Fairy Planning

Framework.

The Panel agrees with Council that matters of rezoning for different land uses is beyond the

scope of this Amendment and the Panel supports the Council’s approach to undertake this

work in the context of reviewing the Port Fairy Framework Plan in the future.


Page 34 of 37

9 Conclusions and Recommendations

The issue of flooding within Port Fairy has been longstanding and the Panel congratulates

the Council and GHCMA with the preparation of the Port Fairy Regional Flood Study and Seal

Level Rise Modelling Study. It considers that the studies have been undertaken using best

practice methodologies and the implementation of flood controls is based on accurate data.

The Panel has identified changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement to clarify policy and

reduce duplication.

In relation to the area around Griffith Street and Beach Street, identified by the GHCMA as

being subject to potential access hazards in the event of flooding, the Panel strongly

recommends that following this Amendment Council undertake further examination of

available tools within the Victoria Planning Provisions including the potential application of

the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, the Environmental Significance or Design and

Development Overlays as appropriate to address this issue.

On the matter of Reedy Creek, the Panel understands the frustration submitters have with

regard to the preliminary modelling undertaken as part of the Flood Study which shows the

impact of the non-compliant culvert at Reedy Creek. The Panel considers that the flood

controls should be based on existing conditions and hence the Amendment should proceed

as exhibited with regard to flood mapping. However the Panel strongly encourages Council

and the GHCMA to resolve this issue as a high priority as part of Stage 2 of the Flood Study,

having regard to the significant impact that this culvert appears to have on the township’s

development and on individual properties.

For the reasons outlined in this report, the Panel recommends that the Moyne Planning

Scheme Amendment C54 should be adopted subject to the following recommendations:

1. Delete Clause 22.01-2 Urban Floodway Local Policy.

2. Amend Clause 21.09-1 to include:

a) In the description of Peterborough add Flooding is a crucial issue in the areas of

Peterborough adjacent to the Curdies River.

b) Under Peterborough, include new section titled ‘Flooding’ and include the

following wording (from previous Clause 22.01-2) –

• Identify potential flood hazards and provide a sound basis for the future

development and use of land thought to be liable to be at risk of flooding

and

• All land thought to be liable to flooding will be included within a Land

Subject to Inundation Overlay and Floodway Overlay, generally in

accordance with the controls established by the relevant flood plain

authority.

c) Include a new Policy Guidance in Clause 21.09-1 under ‘Exercise of discretion’

and include the following wording from previous Clause 22.01-2:

• It is policy that:

In areas subject to Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Floodway

Overlay, it is policy that as a first preference no fill will be allowed. Fill under


Page 35 of 37

a designated building footprint, outside a building footprint or for a safe and

proper access to and from the site will be discouraged. Written justification

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be provided by the

applicant for any such fill, including why other construction techniques

cannot be used.

3. Following the adoption of Amendment C54, Council promptly undertake Stage 2 of

the Port Fairy Flood Study to consider the various mitigation options identified in the

supporting reports for Amendment C54 and where appropriate works undertaken

and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Floodway Overlay be revised

accordingly.

4. Amend Clause 21.09-3 ‘Local Areas’ under Port Fairy – Flooding to include the

following

In future planning such as structure planning or planning scheme amendments,

the risks to the township associated with flooding from the Moyne River should

be considered and seek to ensure the use of the floodplain is not excessively

intensified

and

Future development access needs to be considered to avoid access hazards

associated with flooding.

5. Include a new Policy Guidance in Clause 21.09-1 under ‘Exercise of discretion’:

It is policy that:

An application for subdivision or a new dwelling should meet the following

performance measures:

Access to habitable buildings be achieved from flood free areas via roads or

other access ways that are subject to not more than 0.5 metre deep flood water

for storm events up to and including the 1% Average Exceedence Probability

standard. Where this cannot be achieved regard must be had to:

• The number of persons likely to use the development and the likely adverse

effects of the flood access hazard on potential future occupants;

• The potential for measures to avoid or minimise the flood access risk,

including emergency management and prevention plans.

• That the use and development of land for habitable buildings is consistent

with flood access hazards.

6. Investigate, through the review of the Port Fairy Framework Plan or through

translating the Reformed Residential Zones, applying the Neighbourhood Residential

Zone to land where there are flood related access hazards with a view of limiting

densities, or alternatively apply the Environmental Significance Overlay or Design

and Development Overlay as appropriate.


Page 36 of 37

Appendix A List of Submitters

No. Submitter

1 Mr Gray Wilson

2 Mr Ken and Mrs Elspeth Atkins

3 Mr Michael Hearn

4 Mr Adrian Crosier

5 Mr John Wright

6 Mr Donald G Pevitt and family

7 Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority

8 Wannon Water

9 Country Fire Authority

10 Department of Environment and Primary Industries


Page 37 of 37

Appendix B List of Documents

No. Name of Document Party

M1 Moyne Shire Council Presentation Moyne Shire Council

WT2 Expert Evidence PowerPoint Presentation Warwick Bishop,

Water Technology

M3 Aerial Photographs with contours and submitter

locations Moyne Shire Council

A4 Reddy Drainage Trust information and

photographs Mr Ken Atkins

W5 Additional submission to Panel (2 documents) Mr Gray Wilson

M6 Moyne Shire Council Right of Reply Moyne Shire Council

M7 Background information including Council

reports, authorisation letters and public notices Moyne Shire Council

Panel Report 4 June 2014 - Department of Sustainability...

Documents

Transcript of Panel Report 4 June 2014 - Department of Sustainability...