Planning and Environment Act 1987 - City of Greater Bendigo · resulted more from their experience during the 2010 and 2011 floods and earlier floods from the 1970s, where the perception

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C221

Bendigo Urban Flood Controls

Front page

21 November 2016

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to section 25 of the Act

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C221

Bendigo Urban Flood Controls

21 November 2016

Chris Harty, Chair Greg Sharpley, Member

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C221 Panel Report 21 November 2016

Contents Page

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

1.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Flooding in the Bendigo urban area ........................................................................ 2 1.3 Proposed Overlays and Local Floodplain Development Plan .................................. 5 1.4 Panel process ........................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Issues dealt with in this Report ............................................................................... 8

2 Strategic planning context .......................................................................................... 9

2.1 Planning and Environment Act 1987 ....................................................................... 9 2.2 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 13 2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................. 15 2.5 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 16 2.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 16

3 Technical basis and mapping of the Amendment ...................................................... 17

3.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 17 3.2 Submissions and evidence .................................................................................... 17 3.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 19 3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 21

4 Site specific issues ..................................................................................................... 22

4.1 The issues .............................................................................................................. 22 4.2 Hydraulic modelling details ................................................................................... 22 4.3 Existing and approved development ..................................................................... 23 4.4 Removal of the ESO1 ............................................................................................. 26 4.5 Kangaroo Flat ......................................................................................................... 27 4.6 Junortoun / Strathfieldsaye ................................................................................... 28 4.7 Central Bendigo ..................................................................................................... 29 4.8 Epsom/Huntly ........................................................................................................ 29 4.9 Back Creek ............................................................................................................. 32 4.10 Agreed mapping changes ...................................................................................... 33 4.11 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 33

5 Other matters ........................................................................................................... 35

5.1 The issues .............................................................................................................. 35 5.2 Land values and insurance .................................................................................... 35 5.3 Amendment drafting ............................................................................................. 38 5.4 Waterway maintenance ........................................................................................ 40 5.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 40


Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment

Appendix B Parties to the Panel Hearing

Appendix C Document list

Appendix D Agreed changes to mapping for the LSIO and SBO

List of Tables Page Table 1 Comparison of permit exemptions between LSIO1 and LSIO2 ............................... 6

List of Figures Page

Figure 1 Overall application of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Special Building Overlay .......................................................................................... 3

Figure 2 The catchments affected by the Bendigo Urban Flood Study ................................ 4


List of Abbreviations

AEP Annual Exceedance Probability

AHD Australian Height Datum

ARI Average Recurrence Interval

BLFDP Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan

CMA Catchment Management Authority

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

ESO Environmental Significance Overlay

FO Floodway Overlay

FZ Farming Zone

LFDP Local Floodplain Development Plan

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

LSIO Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NCCMA North Central Catchment Management Authority

SBO Special Building Overlay

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

UFZ Urban Floodway Zone

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Overview

Amendment Summary

The Amendment Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C221

Common name Bendigo Urban Flood Controls

Brief description Incorporate the findings of the Bendigo Urban Flood Study by amending policy at Clause 21.02‐3 for Key Issues under Environment and Clause 21.08 for Environment, the schedules to the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Special Building Overlay and their coverage, and including the ‘Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan’ as an incorporated document.

Subject site Areas within the urban environs of Bendigo

Planning Authority Greater Bendigo City Council

Authorisation A03301 on 12 April 2016

Exhibition 19 May to 30 June 2016

Submissions Number of Submissions: 53 Opposed: 49.

A list of submitters is included in Appendix A

Panel Process

The Panel Chris Harty, Chair and Greg Sharpley

Directions Hearing Bendigo, 28 September 2016

Panel Hearing Bendigo, 18 to 20 October 2016

Site Inspections Unaccompanied, 26 October 2016

Date of this Report 21 November 2016


Executive Summary

(i) Summary

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C221 seeks to implement the planning outcomes of the Bendigo Urban Flood Study, November 2013 by making changes to local policy and applying the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Special Building Overlay over approximately 5,700 properties identified as liable to flooding in the Bendigo area. The Amendment also seeks to include the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan, May 2016 as an incorporated document.

The Land Subject to Inundation Overlay is proposed to be amended to introduce two new schedules addressing areas subject to flooding up to 350mm (Schedule 1) and deeper than 350mm (Schedule 2) and to retain the existing schedule (renamed Schedule 3). The Special Building Overlay is proposed to be introduced, with two schedules addressing areas subject to flooding from poor urban drainage (Schedule 1) and areas in the Epsom / Huntly area at risk of flooding from the Bendigo Creek levee (Schedule 2). The Land Subject to Inundation Overlay Schedules 1 and 2 and the Special Building Overlay Schedule 2 contain permit exemptions for certain types of minor works, small, new and replacement buildings and extensions to existing buildings.

Amendment C221 was prepared by Greater Bendigo City Council as Planning Authority and supported by the North Central Catchment Management Authority and was placed on public exhibition between 19 May and 30 June 2016, attracting 53 submissions of which 49 were opposed or sought changes to the proposed Amendment.

Key issues raised in submissions related to:

Inaccuracies in the flood modelling and mapping

Extent of coverage of the overlays

Land devaluation and insurance difficulties attributed to the application of flood controls.

The need for Amendment C221 was generally not disputed, given the flood events that affected various parts of the Greater Bendigo area in 2010 and 2011. The main concerns of submitters was the accuracy of the flood modelling, the extent of coverage of flood mapping and impacts on land values and flood insurance.

The Panel considers the technical evidence provided in relation to the preparation of the flood modelling and extent of overlay coverage supports the application of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Special Building Overlay. In particular, the Panel notes that the flood modelling methodology and mapped outputs have all been subject to expert independent peer review. No technical evidence was provided disputing the accuracy of the flood modelling, but rather questioning the extent of flood mapping given previous approvals for flood mitigation works as part of proposed or approved developments. It appears to the Panel that submitters’ concerns in relation to the extent of the overlays resulted more from their experience during the 2010 and 2011 floods and earlier floods from the 1970s, where the perception was that, generally the extent of flooding does not match that mapped under the Amendment. This is a misconception given the mapping is


based on the State policy benchmark of a 1 in 100 year flood event which would be a much larger event than what has been witnessed in living memory.

The Panel concludes:

Amendment C221 is strategically justified and supports State policy for floodplain management by identifying areas liable to flood risk hazard based on a 1 in 100 year probability.

The flood modelling undertaken to support Amendment C221 was based on accurate ground levels and data, calibration and modelling and is appropriate to inform the application of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Special Building Overlay.

The form and content of the proposed changes to local policy, overlay schedules and the incorporated document Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan are generally consistent with relevant Ministerial Guidelines and Planning Practice Notes, and are appropriate for managing development that warrants assessment with respect to effects on and from flood processes and environmental values and hazards associated with flood processes.

The structure of the overlay schedules and the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan are appropriate and offer a useful guide to the controls for practitioners and decision makers.

The post exhibition changes to the mapping of the overlays in response to submissions are supported.

(ii) Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C221 be adopted as exhibited subject to the following:

Amend Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and 1.Schedule 2 of the Special Building Overlay to include the following additional permit requirement:

Buildings and works on land subject to an existing planning permit, restriction or agreement

if land has been developed in accordance with a planning permit, restriction or Section 173 agreement requiring its ground surface level to be finished at least 300mm above the 100 year ARI flood level; and

survey plans confirm that the ground surface level has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of a planning permit, restriction or subdivision; and

any buildings and works do not lower the ground surface level or result in a finished floor level for a dwelling that is below 300mm above the 100 year ARI flood level.

Amend Schedule 1 of the Special Building Overlay Clause 1.0 Permit requirements 2.to replace the words “No exemptions specified” with the following:

A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works as follows:






Review the flood mapping and application of the Land Subject to Inundation 3.Overlay and/or the Special Building Overlay for land at 105 Trotting Terrace, Junortoun to include only those areas affected by flooding from the unnamed tributary of Splitters Creek.

Review the base modelling of the BMT WBM model against the Water Technology 4.model to identify if there are any discrepancies, which warrant a revision of the flooding overlays in the Epsom/Huntly area.

Adopt the changes shown in the maps in Appendix D to the coverage of the Land 5.Subject to Inundation Overlay and the Special Building Overlay.

Amend Schedule 1 of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Schedule 2 of 6.the Special Building Overlay under “New or replacement buildings” to include the following additional permit requirement:

A relocatable building associated with a caravan park where floor levels are at least 300mm above the 1% AEP Flood level.

Replace the fifth dot point under “Other buildings and works” in Schedules 1 and 7.2 of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay to read:

A curtain style fence for a tennis court if constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan 2016.

Amend Section 5.1 of the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan 2016 by 8.introducing the following dot point under “Subdivisions in the Low Density Residential Zone or Rural Living Zone”:

All new lots and new road reserves are set back a minimum of 30 metres from any waterway.

Update the Section 8 Flood Risk Guide map of the Bendigo Local Floodplain 9.Development Plan 2016 in accordance with the changes agreed to by Council and shown in Appendix D to the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Special Building Overlay mapping.


Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 The Amendment

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C221 (the Amendment) proposes to implement the findings of the Bendigo Urban Flood Study, November 2013 prepared by Water Technology Pty Ltd. The Amendment proposes to apply flooding controls to properties across the Bendigo urban area that have been identified to be located in active flow paths, to ensure that flooding is considered in development proposals. The Amendment proposes to apply either the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) or the Special Building Overlay (SBO). It also proposes to exempt planning permit requirements when certain conditions are met, and introduce guidelines for various forms of development within flood prone areas through the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan.

The Amendment applies to approximately 5,700 properties in total across the Bendigo urban area. These properties are located in the catchment of the Bendigo Creek and parts of the Myers Creek and Axe Creek / Campaspe River catchments. The properties affected are located in the following areas:

Maiden Gully, Sailors Gully and Eaglehawk (Myers Creek catchment).

Big Hill, Kangaroo Flat, Golden Square, Bendigo, Spring Gully, Kennington, East Bendigo, White Hills, Ascot, Epsom, Huntly, Huntly North and Bagshot (Bendigo Creek Catchment).

Strathfieldsaye, Emu Creek, Axe Creek and Junortoun (Axe Creek / Campaspe River Catchment).

The Amendment proposes to:

Rezone land at 16 Rosemundy Road, Epsom, from Urban Floodway Zone (UFZ) to the Farming Zone (FZ) and amend zone map 15 accordingly

Insert the following new overlay maps – 14LSIO, 21LSIO, 26LSIO, 8SBO, 12SBO, 14SBO, 15SBO, 16SBO, 18SBO, 19SBO, 22SBO, 23SBO and 26SBO

Delete the following overlay maps – 19ESO and 20ESO

Amend the following overlay maps – 18ESO, 22ESO, 23ESO, 24ESO, 26ESO, 31ESO, 1LSIO, 5LSIO, 6LSIO, 8LSIO, 9LSIO, 12LSIO, 13LSIO, 15LSIO, 16LSIO, 17LSIO, 18LSIO, 19LSIO, 20LSIO, 22LSIO, 23LSIO, 24LSIO, 25LSIO, 28LSIO, 30LSIO, 31LSIO, 33LSIO, 39LSIO, 44LSIO and 45LSIO

Amend Clause 21.02 – Key Issues and Influences and Clause 21.08 ‐ Environment of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) to refer to the importance of flood management and planning

Amend Clause 21.10 – Reference Documents of the MSS to include the Bendigo Urban Flood Study 2013 as a reference document in the planning scheme

Delete the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 – Watercourse Protection (ESO1) from approximately 1200 properties that are located within 100 metres of waterways that are constructed channels or non‐designated waterways

Amend the Schedule to Clause 44.04 ‐ Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and insert new Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to identify different types of flooding and permit exemptions


Page 2

Delete the LSIO from all land in the study area, approximately 2000 properties

Apply the LSIO Schedule 1 – Flooding from Waterways (Depths up to and including 350mm) to approximately 4,031 properties that experience flooding up to 350mm depth

Apply the LSIO Schedule 2 – Flooding from Waterways (Depths greater than 350mm) to approximately 1,583 properties that experience flooding greater than 350mm depth

Replace the LSIO with LSIO Schedule 3 in the rural areas outside urban Bendigo (this is a change to the schedule number only)

Insert Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay to identify land that is liable to inundation from overland flows from the urban drainage system and insert Schedules 1 and 2 to identify particular types of overland flow

Apply the SBO Schedule 1 – Urban Drainage Management Area to approximately 392 properties throughout the municipality

Apply the SBO Schedule 2 – Bendigo Creek Levee Management Area to approximately 327 properties protected by the Bendigo Creek earthen levee

Amend the Schedule to Clause 61.03 ‐ What does this scheme consist of? to update the list of maps in the planning scheme

Amend the Schedule to Clause 81.01 ‐ Table of Documents Incorporated in this Scheme to include the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan, May 2016 as an incorporated document in the planning scheme.

Figure 1 shows the proposed coverage of the LSIO and SBO. They trigger the requirement for a planning permit for buildings, works and subdivision on land affected by flooding. The Amendment proposes modified schedules to the LSIO and SBO that provide exemptions to a number of those permit requirements for buildings and works. Both overlays rely on the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan, which is proposed to be included as an incorporated document, and form part of the decision‐making framework of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

1.2 Flooding in the Bendigo urban area

Most of urban Bendigo drains into the Bendigo Creek via numerous tributaries. Bendigo Creek flows north from Kangaroo Flat through the Bendigo CBD and on to Huntly. The urban areas of Strathfieldsaye, Junortoun and Maiden Gully are also included in the Amendment. Maiden Gully drains into Myers Creek and Strathfieldsaye and Junortoun drain into Axe Creek (refer to Figure 2).

Urban development in Bendigo began in the 1850s following the discovery of gold. In the absence of sound land use planning strategies, this development has progressively obstructed floodplain land, diminishing its ability to convey, store and drain floodwater. Bendigo Creek itself has been substantially modified by deepening, widening and lining, creating a constructed drain for much of its length through Bendigo.

There is a history of flooding in Bendigo Creek associated with high intensity short duration storm events due to a combination of intense thunderstorms and relatively small catchment areas.


Page 3

Figure 1 Overall application of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Special Building Overlay


Page 4

Figure 2 The catchments affected by the Bendigo Urban Flood Study


Page 5

1.3 Proposed Overlays and Local Floodplain Development Plan

The LSIO currently applies to urban areas across the municipality and was primarily derived from a 1984 flood investigation prepared by the former State Rivers and Water Supply Commission. The application of the LSIO is now viewed by Council and the North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA) as being out of date and inaccurate. The Amendment proposes to replace the current LSIO with an expansion of coverage based on the Bendigo Urban Flood Study.

Council advised that there is currently no distinction in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme between the two main causes of flooding, mainstream flooding and stormwater flooding, nor in the type of mainstream flooding. Hence, the Amendment proposes to apply an expanded and more sophisticated coverage of the LSIO through the use of two new schedules, and to introduce the SBO with two schedules.

1.3.1 Overlay selection

Apart from addressing the types of flooding, Council submitted it had taken into consideration the various planning tools available under the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) used by planning authorities to identify and manage flooding. The selection of overlays under the Amendment has also been guided by Planning Practice Note 12 – Applying the Flood Provisions in Planning Schemes – A guide for councils, June 2015 (Planning Practice Note 12).

Council advised that:

In choosing the planning scheme tools, extensive consideration was given to:

the purpose and operation of each overlay;

the experience of the NCCMA in working with the overlay in different municipalities;

the findings of recent planning panels;

the experience of other municipalities that have developed, or are developing, new flooding provisions;

the development of the Local Floodplain Development Plan that gives more detailed guidance for development;

other relevant technical guidance prepared by authorities or governments; and

the relevant flood characteristics for all areas within the catchment, including flood depth, velocity, frequency, duration of flood, flood warning, and rate of rise.

The LSIO identifies land affected by mainstream flooding. This occurs when there is a large amount of run‐off and water overflows the banks of waterways on to adjacent low‐lying land. The new Schedule 1 to the LSIO generally denotes the edge of the floodplain where flooding is shallower and slower moving; where depth is less than or equal to 0.35 metres and where the depth times velocity is less than 0.4m2/s during the 1 per cent AEP design flood event. The new Schedule 2 to the LSIO is the higher hazard portion of the floodplain, where deeper and faster flowing floodwater can be expected; where the depth of flooding has been modelled at greater than 0.35 metres and where the depth times velocity exceeds


Page 6

0.4m2/s during the 1 per cent AEP design flood event. It will generally be more difficult to comply with development performance criteria in areas affected by the LSIO2 due to a greater risk to life and property.

The schedules to the LSIO provide opportunities for further planning permit exemptions. The differences with permit exemptions between the proposed schedules are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 Comparison of permit exemptions between LSIO1 and LSIO2

LSIO1 permit exemptions LSIO2 permit exemptions

Works less than 50mm change to existing surface levels

Works that don’t change existing surface levels

An extension to a dwelling with a gross floor area not greater than 40 square metres, provided flor level not less than existing

An extension to a dwelling with a gross floor area not greater than 20 square metres, provided flor level not less than existing

Extension to an outbuilding or new outbuilding if floor level 150mm above 1% AEP

No exemption for outbuildings

A replacement dwelling with no size limitations if built 300mm above the 1% AEP

A replacement dwelling no bigger than previous than 20 square metres if built 300mm above the 1% AEP

An agricultural shed used for storage/workshop with no permanent openings with a floor area not greater than 200 square metres

No exemptions for agricultural sheds

A replacement fence built out of the same materials

No exemption for replacement fence

A pergola, deck water tank or carport A pergola, deck water tank or carport with unclosed foundations

A sportsground, racecourse or recreation area with no permanent raised grandstand

No exemption for a sportsground, racecourse or recreation area with no permanent raised grandstand

A sign which is 350mm above the natural surface level

A sign which is 350mm above the 1% AEP flood level

Earthworks associated with a dam where no imported fill, not constructed on a waterway, not bigger than 3 megalitres and no embankment

No exemption for earthworks

The SBO is proposed to be introduced to identify urban areas where land is affected by overland flows that are caused by a lack of capacity in the piped drainage system and where no provision has been made for overland flows. Council advised that the model generated by the Bendigo Urban Flood Study found that this issue affected approximately half of all properties in Bendigo, so a series of criteria was applied to refine the extent of the SBO to apply to only critical locations. The criteria included:

Where development could affect neighbouring property owners


Page 7

A catchment area greater than 40 hectares

Where the City cannot reasonably eliminate the flooding problem through its capital works program

Where the combination of depth and velocity of flooding would pose a safety risk to residents.

The new Schedule 1 to the SBO denotes land that is affected by overland flows from the urban drainage system during the 1 per cent AEP design flood event. The new Schedule 2 to the SBO denotes land that is protected by the earthen levees along Bendigo Creek. The levees are at risk of breaching as they were constructed many years ago, often by landholders and not to modern engineering standards. This land also experiences drainage problems and overland flows due to its very low lying nature.

The Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy 2016 identifies councils as being responsible for urban levees. Council advised that it is currently undertaking a study into the potential mitigation options for flooding in the lower Bendigo Creek catchment in Epsom/Huntly, including works required to bring the levee up to current standards. It is envisaged that when this study is finalised, and the works implemented, that the SBO2, and possibly some LSIO, can be considered for removal in a future planning scheme amendment.

The SBO2 schedule also includes permit exemptions for certain types of identified works, buildings and extensions to existing buildings.

1.3.2 Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan

The Amendment also introduces the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan as an incorporated document to guide decision making. The local floodplain development plan sets out performance‐based criteria for the assessment of planning permit applications on all land affected by the LSIO and SBO. Performance criteria are included for subdivision, buildings, commercial and residential development, fences, earthworks and water tanks.

1.3.3 ESO1

The Amendment also affects areas where the ESO1 currently applies. The ESO1 seeks to manage water quality, protect creeks from erosion, ensure development does not occur on land liable to flooding, and protect habitat. Applications received under this overlay are referred to the NCCMA. The Amendment proposes to remove the ESO1 from land that adjoins fully constructed channels or pipes, or non‐designated waterways under the Water Act 1989. These ‘constructed waterways’ offer little environmental value and the ESO1 in these urban locations has largely been operating as a flooding control mechanism and not as an environmental control. Applying the LSIO under the Amendment in these areas means the ESO control becomes redundant.

1.4 Panel process

The Amendment was prepared by Greater Bendigo City Council as Planning Authority. The Amendment was authorised by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) on 12 April 2016.


Page 8

The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 19 May and 30 June 2016, with 52 submissions received, of which four (4) were in support and 48 were opposed to the Amendment.

At its meeting of 10 August 2016, Council resolved to refer 42 submissions to a Panel.1 As a result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 25 August 2016, comprising Chris Harty (Chair) and Greg Sharpley.

A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 28 September 2016. The Panel then met in Bendigo on 18, 19 and 20 October 2016 to hear submissions about the Amendment. Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Appendix B. Following the Panel Hearing, the Panel undertook an unaccompanied inspection of the Bendigo area on 26 October 2016.

1.5 Issues dealt with in this Report

The Panel considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, as well as further submissions, evidence and other material presented to it during the Hearing, and observations from site visits. The 49 submissions originally objecting (including the 41 submissions that now remaining unresolved) to the Amendment focussed primarily on site‐specific concerns. The issues that emerge from consideration of the objecting submissions include:

Inaccuracies in the flood mapping

Land devaluation and insurance difficulties attributed to the application of flood controls.

The Panel has reviewed a large volume of material. The Panel has been selective in referring to the more relevant or determinative material in this report. All submissions and materials have been considered by the Panel, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the report.

This report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Strategic planning context

Technical basis and mapping of the Amendment

Site specific issues

Other matters including: - land values and insurance - Amendment drafting and - waterway maintenance.

1 At the time the submissions were considered by Council, of the 48 submissions requesting a change, 6 were

considered accommodated with changes made to the Amendment, and 42 were referred. Since the Council meeting another submission has been received requesting a change, 4 submissions have been resolved through changes to the Amendment and 2 that were considered resolved are no longer, leaving 41 unresolved for consideration by the Panel.


Page 9

2 Strategic planning context

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

The Panel has reviewed Council’s response and the policy context of the Amendment, and has made a brief appraisal of the relevant overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.

2.1 Planning and Environment Act 1987

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) provides for the establishment of planning schemes in Victoria to regulate land use and development. Section 6(2)(e) of the Act enables planning schemes to regulate or prohibit any use or development in hazardous areas, or areas likely to become hazardous. Flooding is a land management hazard and planning schemes contain State planning policy for floodplain management (as one of a number of environmental risks), requiring that flood risk be considered in the preparation and amendment of planning schemes and in land use decision making.

2.2 Policy framework

(i) State Planning Policy Framework

The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) provides the broad framework for floodplain management policy and provisions in the planning scheme. It provides guidance on how land affected by flooding should be treated in planning schemes and in planning decisions. Flood risk must be considered when decisions are made about the use and development of land. The level of flood risk should be reflected in the type of flood provisions that have been applied to the land.

Council and the Panel considers that the Amendment is supported by the following clauses in the SPPF:

Clause 10.02 ‐ Goal where the application of up to date and accurate flood controls integrates economic, social and environmental objectives in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable forms of development.

Clause 11 ‐ Settlement, which provides for planning to recognise and contribute where practical towards health and safety. Under Clause 11.02‐1 ‐ Supply of urban land the strategy recognises that planning for urban growth should consider the limits of land capability and natural hazards and environmental quality. Council considers implementation of the Bendigo Urban Flood Study will enable improved planning of urban areas by identifying limitations due to natural hazards and environmental sensitivity due to flooding.

Clause 11.02‐3 – Structure Planning seeks to facilitate orderly development of an area. The Amendment will have a broad impact across Bendigo’s urban areas, and provide valuable information to ensure effective planning and management of land uses and development.

Under Clause 11.05‐4 ‐ Regional planning strategies and principles the strategy under climate change, natural hazards and community safety seeks to respond to the impacts of natural hazards by:


Page 10

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 flood.

Identifying areas liable to flooding under the Amendment provides a response to natural hazards and community safety through enabling the siting and design of new development from flood hazards.

Clause 13 ‐ Environmental Risks provides 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.

Clause 13.02 ‐ Floodplains and Clause 13.02‐1 – Floodplain Management contains a number of objectives and strategies that support the Amendment. This is evident through the Amendment identifying flood hazards to life, property and infrastructure and flood risk in planning scheme maps, and avoiding development that may adversely affect flood flows and storage. The objective of the policy is:

To assist 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. Floodplain areas of environmental significance or of importance to river

health.

The policy includes the following strategies:

Identify land affected by flooding, including floodway areas, as verified by the relevant floodplain management authority, in planning scheme maps. Land affected by flooding is land inundate by the 1 in 100 year flood event or as determined by the floodplain management authority.

Avoid intensifying the impacts of flooding through inappropriately located uses and developments.

Other strategies refer to particular uses, including emergency and community facilities, and uses which involve the storage or disposal of hazardous materials.

The policy also refers to the Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy as a policy guideline to be considered where relevant.

Clause 14.02‐2 ‐ Water Quality helps prevent incompatible development in the floodplain, which may lead to poor water quality.

Having considered the relevant clauses of the SPPF, the Panel concludes that the Amendment supports and implements the relevant aspects of State policy. The Amendment provides clear mapping for the coverage of the LSIO and SBO. These overlays regulate development in those areas identified as liable to flooding and allow the planning permit


Page 11

application process to assess the potential effects of what is proposed on the environment and the potential effects of the environment on what is proposed. The Amendment establishes a process where flood risks can be assessed and development designed and sited to minimise detrimental impacts.

Clause 19.03‐3 – Stormwater seeks to reduce the impact of stormwater on catchments through a range of strategies, including reductions in run‐off and peak flows. Implementation of the SBO will assist in the management of stormwater to enhance flood protection.

(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework

The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), comprising both the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policies, can contain policies that provide the local context for identifying issues and setting objectives and strategies to address them. The Planning Scheme currently contains brief reference to flooding. It is noted that the Amendment proposes to update the MSS at Clauses 21.02 and 21.08 to identify that land affected by flooding responds to flood risks and recognises the Bendigo Urban Flood Study.

Council submitted that the Amendment supports the following policies in the LPPF:

Clause 21.05‐8 – Managing risk identifies that the Greater Bendigo area is a unique landscape that has some environmental risks that need to be considered when planning for growth. The policy identifies that the precautionary principle should be used when making land use planning decisions. The policy objective includes managing development in areas of risk from flooding. Strategies supporting this objective include adopting a three step approach based on the precautionary principle to manage risk from flooding by directing development into low risk locations, carefully considering development in medium risk locations and avoiding development in high risk locations.

Clause 21.08 – Environment aims to maintain and enhance ground and surface water quality, reduce pollution of watercourses and protect the values of forested land and waterways by minimising urban drainage discharge and discouraging development that affects water quality.

Clause 21.08‐4 – Implementation, identifies the need for revised flood mapping and the need to provide design and development guidelines for land use and development in and near floodplains.

The Amendment responds to the above policies through the identification of areas at risk from flooding and ensuring new development is appropriately managed through the planning permit application process.

Having considered the relevant clauses of the LPPF, the Panel concludes that the Amendment supports and implements the relevant local policy directions of the planning scheme. Management of flood risks and informed assessment of development in flood liable areas is promoted by the local suite of planning policies and are supported by the Amendment.


Page 12

(iii) Other planning strategies or policies used in formulating the Amendment

Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy

The Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy, 2016 (the Strategy) is listed as a policy guideline under Clause 13.02‐1 and the latest version was released by the State Government in 2016. It provides statewide policy direction for managing floodplains and minimising flood risks in cities, towns, regional areas and rural communities, including guidance on riverine flooding, flash flooding and coastal flooding.

The Strategy includes in Policy 13a that:

The 1% Annual Exceedance Probability flood will remain the design flood event for the land use planning and building system in Victoria. 2

One of the policy foundations of the Strategy includes avoiding or minimising future flood risks and endorsing land use planning controls to manage the potential growth in flood risk. In this regard, the Strategy promotes the expansion of the land use planning system to cover areas in the 1 per cent AEP.3

One of the actions in the Strategy is for greater State government assistance with councils and CMAs regarding preparing consistent floodplain development standards and statewide floodplain development guidelines. The Strategy recognises value in ensuring appropriate planning controls are applied consistently across the State.

Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan

The Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan, May 2014 is listed as a policy guideline under Clause 11.12 and recognises flooding as a challenge to settlements and urban growth in the region. The Regional Growth Plan aims to encourage growth away from flood prone land (Principles 1 and 6). It also identifies as a land use action, the need for accurate flood mapping and planning provisions to be developed in the City of Greater Bendigo. The Amendment facilitates this action and assists achieving the objective to facilitate the growth of Bendigo as the regional city in the Loddon Mallee South Region.

Bendigo Urban Flood Study

The Bendigo Urban Flood Study, November 2013 (the Study) was the primary report identified by Council relevant to the Amendment.

The Panel notes the Study and the summary provided in the expert evidence of Mr Warwick Bishop, civil engineer and flood modelling expert from Water Technology Pty Ltd on behalf of Council. The Study is further discussed later in the report in terms of how it supports the technical basis of the LSIO and SBO mapping.

2 Page 40. 3 For simplicity and clarity, the 1 per cent AEP is referred to as the 1 in 100 year event in this report.


Page 13

2.3 Planning scheme provisions

(i) Zones

The Amendment proposes to rezone one parcel of land located at 16 Rosemundy Road, Epsom from the UFZ to the FZ. The land is a 1.3 hectare site bordered by land in the General Residential Zone (GRZ) to the west and the FZ to the east. It is the only parcel of land currently in the UFZ. This zone is no longer considered appropriate for the site in the context of proposed new LSIO1 and LSIO2 that is proposed to apply to the site. The FZ is considered to be the most appropriate zone for the site given its location adjoining Bendigo Creek and limited development potential.

(ii) Overlays

The Amendment proposes to amend the application of Clause 44.04 – Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) and to introduce, and apply Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay (SBO) to flood affected land across the Bendigo urban area. The LSIO currently includes a single schedule with limited permit exemptions, whilst the SBO is currently not in the planning scheme.

The LSIO includes the following purposes:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

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.

To 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.

To reflect any declaration under Division 4 of Part 10 of the Water Act, 1989 where a declaration has been made.

To 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).

To ensure that development maintains or improves river and wetland health, waterway protection and flood plain health.

As described earlier, the LSIO identifies land affected by mainstream flooding with the Amendment introducing two new schedules to address shallow and deep flooding.

The SBO includes the following purposes:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.


Page 14

To identify land in urban areas liable to inundation by overland flows from the urban drainage system as determined by, or in consultation with, the floodplain management authority.

To 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.

To 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).

The SBO has been used to identify urban areas where land is affected by overland flows that are cause by a lack of capacity in the piped drainage system and where no provision has been made for overland flows.

The schedules to both overlays exempt various works, extensions and new buildings from the need for planning approval. Both trigger the need for planning permit applications for buildings, works and subdivision and both require an application to be consistent with any local floodplain development plan incorporated into the planning scheme.

The appropriateness of overlay selection

In response to a Panel direction regarding why the Floodway Overlay (FO) had not been selected for application under the Amendment, Council advised that the more restrictive FO was not chosen in lieu of using the proposed LSIO2 primarily because of the nature of deeper flooding experienced in Bendigo. Generally, such flooding is not excessively fast, is of a relatively short duration, and development can be assessed using a performance based approach through the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan and supported by the modelling that has been undertaken.

Although the FO is usually applied in circumstances where flooding may be deep and floodwaters fast flowing, the situation in Bendigo was considered different by Council and the NCCMA due to the urban character of the areas affected by the Amendment. Mapping by the NCCMA found that there were pockets of land which could be subdivided and developed, which if included in the FO would unduly restrict development that could be considered, particularly against the local floodplain development plan. Mapping also found that the areas prone to fast moving and deeper flooding were generally on Crown Land or within waterway reserves where they have been heavily modified, and that some areas were already substantially developed. These factors would make the application of the FO illogical and difficult to explain and implement.

Council also indicated that extensive research into what other councils and CMAs have done across the State determined that there is no consistent approach or requirements, and there is flexibility to choose the tools that work for the local situation.

Planning Practice Note 12 provides sufficient discretion to use two schedules to the LSIO to denote the full range of flooding risks identified under the Bendigo Urban Flood Study 2013. Planning Practice Note 12 states that in general, areas covered by the LSIO have a lower flood risk than UFZ or FO areas. Table 1 of Planning Practice Note 12 also indicates that the


Page 15

LSIO may be used in areas that cover the total extent of land subject to inundation, including the higher risk floodway component.

The Panel considers that the provisions of the LSIO and SBO will adequately manage the relevant flood risks and enable appropriate consideration of development proposals. The use of multiple schedules in both overlays will ensure that the areas of greatest flood risk are formally identified in the planning scheme, together with development exemptions and performance criteria that are commensurate with the level of flood risk.

(iii) General provisions

Clause 62 – Uses, Buildings, Works, Subdivisions and Demolition not requiring a permit, Clause 62.02 – Buildings and works is relevant because it includes certain buildings and works that are exempt from the need for a planning permit. Some of the listed buildings and works under Clause 62.02‐2 – Buildings and works not requiring a permit unless specifically required by the planning scheme have been included under the LSIO and SBO as requiring a permit.4 The schedules to the overlays can also be used to re‐exempt such buildings and works from the need for a permit if deemed unnecessary by the planning authority.

Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines requires the responsible authority, when assessing a permit application, to consider, amongst other matters, the degree of flood risk associated with the location of the land and the use, development or management of the land to minimise flood risk.

Clause 66 – Referral and Notice Provisions under Referrals describes how applications listed under relevant sub‐clauses must be referred to the person or body specified as a referral authority in accordance with Section 55 of the Act. It also indicates that a referral does not apply if in the opinion of the responsible authority, the proposal satisfies requirements or conditions previously agreed in writing between the responsible authority and the referral authority. Similarly, a referral may not be necessary if the referral authority has considered the proposal for which the application is made within the past three months, and has stated in writing that it does not object to the granting of the permit for the proposal. The issue of referrals is addressed in the proposed local floodplain development plan.

2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

(i) Ministerial Directions

Council submitted that the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of the following Ministerial Directions:

Ministerial Direction No 11 ‐ Strategic Assessment of Amendments

The Amendment is consistent with Ministerial Direction 11 (Strategic Assessment of Amendments) and Planning Practice Note 46 (Strategic Assessment Guidelines).

4 Refer to clauses 44.04‐1 and 44.05‐1.


Page 16

The Form and Content of Planning Schemes (s7(5))

The Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act.

(ii) Planning Practice Notes

Council submitted that the Amendment uses the most appropriate VPP tools and is consistent with Planning Practice Note 11 ‐ Applying for a Planning Permit under the Flood Provisions (August 2015) and Planning Practice Note 12 ‐ Applying the Flood Provisions in Planning Schemes (June 2015).

In particular, the Practice Notes identify the LSIO and SBO as the appropriate tools to apply in circumstances where relatively shallow overland flows occur in urban areas during rainfall events of an intensity which exceeds the capacity of the established drainage infrastructure.

2.5 Discussion

The Amendment is supported by State and local planning policy. It is consistent with the directions from the Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy. Planning Practice Notes 11 and 12 support the use of the LSIO and SBO. The selection of the overlays is considered suited to the local flooding conditions experienced in Bendigo. Schedules to the overlays have been drafted to limit unnecessary planning permit applications, and are supported by the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan to assist in the preparation and assessment of planning permit applications.

An important element with the overlays is that they do not affect land use and do not prohibit development, but do require that development requiring a permit is assessed to determine if such development would impact on, or be impacted by, flood processes.

The Panel considers the Amendment is necessary to implement the policy regime under the planning scheme and has appropriately demonstrated strategic justification.

2.6 Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the SPPF and LPPF, and is consistent with the relevant Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes. The Amendment is well founded and strategically justified, and the Amendment should proceed subject to addressing the more specific issues raised in submissions as discussed in the following chapters.


Page 17

3 Technical basis and mapping of the Amendment

3.1 The issue

Are the proposed flood controls for Bendigo based on data and flood modelling and mapping that has an appropriate level of accuracy and rigour?

3.2 Submissions and evidence

Ms Camille White, Floodplain Manager for the NCCMA provided the Panel with background to the flood modelling which had been commissioned by the NCCMA in collaboration with Greater Bendigo City Council.

She advised that the flood study covered an area similar in size to greater Melbourne and when commenced was one of the largest flood models prepared in Victoria. This has resulted in difficulties identifying appropriate storms to use in calibration, as different levels of rainfall were experienced in different parts of the catchment. The final model represents the worst flooding that is likely to occur in each area of the catchments, at the same time, which would be an impossibility, as no 1 in 100 year storm could uniformly cover the entire catchment.

She advised that as Bendigo is surrounded by State forests there is considerable pressure on infill development, which occurs frequently in flood prone areas. She noted that there are no high quality studies or mapping. Previous modelling of the Bendigo Creek was undertaken in 1994, but without calibration.

The existing LSIO is a carryover from the old format scheme and has not been updated. The Bendigo Urban Flood Study was one of the flood studies where an independent peer review process had not yet commenced on a regular basis. As a result the independent peer review commenced part way through the study’s process.

Ms White advised that the NCCMA had thoroughly reviewed the results from approximately 50,000 properties and was confident that the modelling correctly identifies properties as being affected by flooding, but there may be variation in the depth of flooding. She further advised that due to the confidence the NCCMA has in the flood mapping, it has been prepared to place the mapping on NCCMA’s website as a property search engine entitled “Flood Eye”. This search facility allows the general public to interrogate the modelling in relation to a particular address to identify if the property is subject to flooding and to what depth.

Ms Emma Bryant, Amendments and Heritage Coordinator, Statutory Planning on behalf of Council advised that representatives of Council and the NCCMA had met with many of the initial submitters to review site specific issues. In several cases the extent of flood mapping had been revised and in some cases the objection withdrawn.

Mr Bishop gave evidence to the Panel in relation to the modelling. He advised that the terrain data (LiDAR) was specifically undertaken for the flood modelling study in 2009/10 and was of very high quality. He did acknowledge that, particularly at the early stages of the modelling, the hydrological information was lacking due to the large number of hydraulic structures such as pipes and culverts throughout the urban areas of Bendigo. He also


Page 18

acknowledged that calibration data was less than ideal, as rainfall is not uniform over the whole of the catchment in any one storm due to the large size of the catchment. Further issues were encountered due to the lack of local rainfall gauges and stormwater gauging stations and consistent records.

Mr Bishop advised that a paucity of gauging information frequently occurs when modelling river catchments is undertaken. As a result, hydrologists and hydraulic modellers have developed a variety of tools to assist in developing appropriately accurate models.

The adopted methodology considered the catchment in two parts. The first was the “spine” or main creek and tributaries which utilised a traditional rainfall and run‐off model, and then a “Rain on Grid” method was used to model discrete inflow and rainfall over each area. He advised that this approach has been used successfully elsewhere over the last five years for similar flood modelling studies.

Mr Bishop advised that was not common to include fences, houses and the like in a study of this size due to practicality issues. Modelling uses assumptions to account for broad impacts, which give a good representation of the flood flow impacts. He advised that the impact of fences and other buildings would be used in much more detailed modelling, such as for an individual development. He also advised that it was neither feasible nor appropriate to try and include all pipes within the modelling, due to the size of the model but also due to the fact that the stormwater pipe system is designed for a 1 in 10 year storm event and not a 1 in 100 year storm event. In his opinion, for a 1 in 100 year storm the hydraulic capacity of the standard stormwater pipe system becomes insignificant. Mr Bishop stated that the accuracy of the modelling is suitable for use in the planning scheme and notes that it would be expected to be upgraded in the future as individual developments occur and software and data management further improves.

Several submitters5 raised concerns in relation to the potential impact on the modelling due to the effect of subdivisions, buildings and other works, which had occurred since the LiDAR data had been captured and the modelling commenced.6

Mr Gavan Conroy (Submitter 18) presented several instances where he considered there to be inaccuracies related to the modelling information available on the Flood Eye portal of the NCCMA website. As an example he quoted the St Killian’s Church, which is a landmark site within Bendigo and has not been flooded in living memory. He notes that the flood height on Flood Eye for a 1 in 10 year storm is higher than from 1 in 100 year storm. It was his opinion that this and other examples demonstrated considerable inaccuracy in the modelling, which should result in the Panel rejecting the proposed flood mapping.

Ms Andrea Metcalfe (Submitter 38) and supported by Mr Ralph Conboy both raised concerns that the modelling had not considered the residents’ experiences during major rainfall events in the Ascot area. It was their contention that a storm in January 2011 resulted in considerably higher flooding than the storm which occurred in February 2011. However, the January 2011 storm was not considered during the calibration or modelling. They therefore consider that the modelling underrepresents the 1 in 100 year flood in the Epsom area.

5 Submitters 2, 28, 36 and 40. 6 LiDAR data was dated 2009.


Page 19

Mr Gerard Gilfedder, Town Planner on behalf of Bendigo Properties (Submitter 36), Mr Bruce Beasley (Submitter 2), Mr Ron Bergmeier Chairman of the Epsom/Huntly Drainage Committee (Submitter 28) and others raised concerns in relation to the accuracy of the mapping due to a number of mitigation options being identified in the flood study but not modelled. In general terms they requested that the mitigation options be modelled and included in the planning scheme.

Mr Bergmeier advised the Panel that the Committee was formed at the commencement of drainage studies in the area and has been working with Council throughout the process. He advised that additional studies undertaken by BMT WBM and commissioned by Council have identified discrepancies in the flood modelling in the Epsom Huntley area. He acknowledged the lack of data and options for further revision of the flood mapping but confirmed that the Committee remains concerned in relation to the accuracy of the modelling in different rain events. It is the Committee’s opinion that Council should spend more money to improve the accuracy of the modelling.

3.3 Discussion

The Panel queried Mr Bishop in relation to the level of independent peer review undertaken, as his witness statement stated that the study method was peer reviewed by an independent panel of technical experts appointed by DELWP, but not the results nor the calibration. He advised that the modelling outcomes were thoroughly reviewed by both in‐house experts and the NCCMA.

This evidence was contradicted by Ms White, who provided the Panel with a copy of the Traffic Light Report of the final report, prepared by the Independent Peer Reviewers, after Mr Bishop had completed giving his evidence. When queried in relation to this Ms White advised that the Traffic Light Report had been forwarded to Water Technology and the NCCMA assumed that all relevant comments were incorporated into the modelling and final report, despite the Panel noting that the response column in the Traffic Light Report has not been completed by Water Technology.

Whilst the Panel has some reservations in relation to whether the Independent Peer Review panel’s comments were all incorporated in the final report, the Panel is satisfied that the modelling has been checked by Water Technology and in many instances verified by the NCCMA as part of their site inspections undertaken in conjunction with Council. The Panel has noted some instances where further review and modelling could assist in better refining the overlays, but is of the opinion that these instances are not sufficiently significant to warrant the Amendment not proceeding or being delayed until additional modelling is undertaken.

Regarding the application of overlays based on modelled mapping of flood extent and its associated accuracy, the Panel notes that the level of accuracy is commensurate with cost‐benefit. Greater accuracy can be achieved with finer scale modelling, however, the cost and time involved in conducting such work may not be commensurate with the benefits that accrue for an area that is urban in character.


Page 20

The Panel notes the commentary provided in the Final Report New Format Planning Schemes on the introduction of flooding controls:7

In the panels’ view, if accurate flood mapping has not been completed by DNRE, the relevant floodplain management authority should determine what land is potentially or likely to be affected by flooding and that land should be included in a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay. It does not matter that the boundaries may not be accurate at the time the overlay is applied. The Land Subject to Inundation Overlay only requires that a permit be obtained for buildings and works. It does not prohibit either use or development. The time to examine the evidence in detail about where the flood levels lie in fact is at the time a permit application is made.

The same approach needs to be adopted even when flood levels have been verified by DNRE but individual landowners dispute their accuracy. Panels usually do not have the resources to examine in detail competing arguments about where the flood levels lie on an individual property when there is a lack of agreement about this. At the amendment stage it is usually irrelevant. It is a matter more appropriately sorted out at the time any permit may be applied for.

The panels recognise that in those very flat parts of Victoria prone to flooding, the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay may cover huge areas of a municipality. Minimal variations in height will make a substantive difference to whether the land floods or not. In those circumstances, landowners may well be reluctant to see the whole or substantial portions of their properties covered by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay if they believe that in fact their land does not flood. However, it needs to be recognised that the overlay is not the last word. Its application will not alter the fact of whether the land floods or not. Rather, it indicates that flooding is a problem in the area and needs to be carefully considered when making any planning or other land management decisions concerning the property.

The Panel considers the above comments are relevant to this matter and considers the accuracy of the extent of coverage of the LSIO and SBO is somewhat secondary to the following:

Identification of flood risk on a parcel of land. This is based on the benchmark established in State policy under Clause 13.02‐1 for 1 in 100 year flood extents to be mapped.

Introducing a permit process for forms of development that Council and the NCCMA would want to consider and through which the key impacts of the proposed development both from and on flood processes can be appropriately assessed and determined.

Both Mr Bishop and Ms White advised that there are always limitations on the availability and quality of data when undertaking storm modelling, particularly when considering an

7 Compiled by Helen Gibson, Chief Panel Member, Planning Panels Victoria, April 1999 at page 64.


Page 21

urban area as large as Bendigo. While they acknowledged that there may be areas where further refinement of the mapping could be considered, both stated that based on their experience the flood mapping as presented is at an appropriate level of accuracy for use within the planning scheme. The Panel was presented with several instances where either additional modelling was undertaken or reviewed by the NCCMA and Council to refine individual sites subsequent to completion of the modelling. Ms White advised that site inspections had been undertaken with individual owners at approximately 700 sites, which resulted in recommended changes to the flood mapping presented to the Panel for 16 sites. Having undertaken site inspections at 16 locations and driven extensively around the catchment to gain an understanding of submitters’ concerns, the Panel is also of the opinion that the flood mapping as proposed, including recommended modifications presented at the hearing, are suitable for adoption for the planning scheme.

While the accuracy of the Flood Eye portal does not form part of the Panel’s considerations, it was noted that issues relating to its mapping accuracy had been raised in various submissions, prompting the Panel to seek comment from the NCCMA. Ms White’s response was that Flood Eye had only recently been established and currently is only accurate in relation to the 1 in 100 year storm. She advised that additional modelling is being undertaken by Water Technology to establish lesser flood levels. In relation to the St Killian’s Church example she advised that as the flood modelling abuts one corner of the site Flood Eye automatically lists the whole property as being impacted. It does not mean that the whole property will be underwater – only that flooding may be an issue and should be investigated further.

Both Ms Bryant and Ms White in their respective rights of reply submitted that a number of mitigation options had been identified and some are currently being investigated. Further, it would not be appropriate to hold up the planning review until the mitigation options have been both modelled and implemented, as this could be a number of years away. It was their opinion that the Amendment should proceed and that following resolution of the mitigation options, it may be necessary to amend the planning scheme at some future date via a separate amendment process.

Based on the expert evidence provided and the testing of that evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the data, methodology, calibration, independent review and flood mapping undertaken for the Bendigo Urban Flood Study is of a level of accuracy which is more than sufficient to identify properties which are likely to be flood affected in a 1 in 100 year flood event. The Panel is therefore supportive of the proposed application of the extent of the LSIO and SBO under the Amendment.

Panel notes that the inclusion of these overlays on a property does not preclude development, but is used to identify that flooding may be an issue for any development on that land and therefore requires further investigation via the planning permit process.

3.4 Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the hydraulic modelling and mapping for the 1 in 100 year storm event, which was used in the preparation of the LSIO and SBO maps, is of a suitable level of accuracy to be used for planning purposes.


Page 22

4 Site specific issues

4.1 The issues

A number of submitters raised concerns regarding the flood modelling and mapping affecting their particular properties and the level of accuracy of such mapping. General issues relating to the lack of detail with hydraulic modelling were raised, as well the effects of the Amendment on existing and approved development. Submitters raised issues regarding the future of the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (that seeks to protect waterways) given the changes arising from approved developments, and queried the necessity of retaining the overlay.

Based on the submissions received and the Panel’s site inspections, different regions of the various catchments affected by the Amendment have been identified as having similar issues. As a result, the Panel has addressed particular issues as they relate to different areas of the various catchments. This is not to say that the same issues don’t occur in other areas but rather that there was more of an emphasis on these issues in these areas, or that the issues raised were applicable across other parts of the catchment areas.

4.2 Hydraulic modelling details

4.2.1 Submissions and evidence

Ms Andrea Tomkinson (Submitter 40) on behalf of the Northern Chapter of the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) raised a concern in relation to the accuracy of the hydraulic modelling for having not included existing buildings, fences and the like. She noted that in some cases the deepest flooding is shown where there are existing dwellings. She contended that if the mapping is not 100 per cent accurate, the policy should recognise situations where more detailed or up‐to‐date information should be taken into consideration.

Ms White advised that due to the size of the model it would be impossible to map all buildings, fences and the like. This was also confirmed by Mr Bishop, who reiterated that physical features such as fences, individual dwellings and sheds that may influence overland flood flow behaviour are not explicitly modelled and that such detail, at an individual property level, is not feasible to be included given current data and modelling capabilities.

He advised that it is accepted industry practice to adopt hydraulic model parameters that allow the model to best represent the terrain, structures and vegetation present. This means that whilst local flow details around individual buildings, for example, may not be accurately represented, the overall pattern of floodplain inundation is reproduced with some confidence. Ms White further advised that the purpose of the mapping and the Amendment is to identify land that is liable to flooding so that development can be planned for accordingly. She noted that detailed modelling can be provided when development applications are prepared, which may result in changes to the coverage of the overlay in future.


Page 23

4.2.2 Discussion

The Panel accepts that the Council and the NCCMA have made all reasonable endeavours in relation to the accuracy of the modelling given the constraints of the size and the amount of data available. As previously stated in Section 3.3, the benefit of the LSIO and SBO are to identify properties that are liable to flooding and to put in place a permit trigger and process through which further detailed assessment of flood risk can be undertaken against the form of proposed development. If a proposed development can appropriately mitigate flood risk and gain approval, then the necessity of the overlays may alter. Ms Bryant also advised that Council undertakes regular reviews of the planning scheme, which can include correcting amendments that can include changes to the coverage of the overlays. The Panel is reassured by these processes.

4.2.3 Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the nature of the hydraulic modelling is fit for purpose in the application of the LSIO and SBO to ensure flood risk is appropriately taken into consideration through the planning permit process, which includes referral to the NCCMA.

4.3 Existing and approved development


The Panel heard submissions primarily from Mr Gilfedder (Submitter 36) and Mr Lou Garita (Submitter 30) relating to the impact of proposed flooding overlays on several developments that included subdivisions. The key issue related to the development of subdivisions within the catchment for which a planning permit has already been issued but may now be affected by the LSIO and SBO. Submitters were seeking removal of the overlays in areas which had either been developed or were proposed to be developed as part of approved developments including subdivisions.

Mr Gilfedder submitted that the proposed application of the LSIO1 under the Amendment to a 29.61 hectare industrial site beside the Bendigo Airport in East Bendigo would be an onerous constraint on the development of the site. The industrial site has the benefit of an existing Planning Permit No DS/763/2010 issued on 9 March 2011 for a staged subdivision with a ten year expiry. Preparation of plans for the development of the industrial subdivision has included consideration and design for flooding. This includes floodway treatments within the road design of the development to convey and manage floodwater flows. Application of the extent of the LSIO1 proposed under the Amendment would not reflect the ultimate development outcome of the existing planning permit, and the site’s true flood risk.

Mr Gilfedder’s submission was supported by evidence from Mr Thomas Zahle, civil engineer from Spiire, who reiterated that the application of the new LSIO1 overlay would extend through the middle of the site based on the existing site conditions and not the ultimate site conditions that had been approved, that would contain the 1 in 100 year flows and manage flood risk. Mr Zahle considered the imposition of the proposed LSIO1 would be an unrealistic impediment to both the future viability of industrial development and land sales. This is due to the longer lead time for industrial development and the lengthier time period within which the overlay would act as a constraint compared to when on‐site flood


Page 24

mitigation works are undertaken for each progressive stage of the industrial subdivision. This time lag would be reflected by the slowness involved with adjusting or removing the overlay under future amendments to the planning scheme.

The imposition of the LSIO would act as a constraint with future staged development of the subdivision and through triggering unnecessary permits and becoming ‘out of sync’ with development as it progressed in each future stage of development.

Mr Gilfedder considered that the LSIO1 should be contained to the flood channel and road reserves designed for flood mitigation as part of the engineering plans prepared for the industrial subdivision. Mr Gilfedder stated that this change to the Amendment would:

Accurately reflect the ultimate development outcome for the site and how the 1 in 100 year flood would be managed

Better reflect the proposed development works that would allow for the appropriate passage and management of stormwater and manage any significant rise in flood level or flow velocity

Integrate with the development of the land that would only occur in accordance with the approved development plan so there is no increased flooding risk to property in the interim period until the works are completed.

In the event that the reduction in the coverage of the proposed LSIO1 was not accepted, Mr Gilfedder suggested an alternative position, with reference to the status of existing planning permits being reflected in the Schedule to the LSIO by way of a permit exemption for building and works. He advised this issue was recognised in the processes for Ballarat Planning Scheme Amendment C178 relating the Burrumbeet Creek flood controls where it was considered that applying the overlay was contrary to approved planning permits that had appropriately addressed flooding matters.

In that instance it was considered that an exemption be included to ensure that permitted developments do not require additional planning approvals under the LSIO for building and works.

He included the following suggested wording:

Permit requirement

A permit is not required for the following:

If land has been developed in accordance with a planning permit, restriction or section 173 agreement requiring its ground surface level to be finished at least 300m above the designated 1% AEP flood level; and,

Survey plans confirm that the ground surface level has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the planning permit, restriction or section 173 agreement; and,

Any buildings and works do not lower the ground surface level or result in a finished floor level for a dwelling that is below 300m above the designated 1% AEP flood level.

Similarly, Mr Garita submitted that applying the overlays where future development has been the subject of extensive and detailed planning that includes consideration of flood risk should avoid creating excessive and unnecessary permit requirements. He recognised that


Page 25

removal of the LSIO prior to the granting of development approvals would be difficult, however he sought that adjustment to the extent of the overlays should be processed in a timely manner and not be held up with lengthy planning scheme amendment processes that become costly for landowners, developers and the community.

The NCCMA were not supportive of removing the overlays from sites where existing approved development had been factored into the flood mapping. Regarding development that has been approved but not completed, the response from Ms White was that where works are yet to be undertaken, removal of the overlays is not supported because there is no surety as to when the works will occur or whether they may be changed in the future.

Council also appeared somewhat reluctant to extend permit exemptions and considered that, if anything, they would primarily benefit larger subdivision proposals. Difficulties with amendment processes are acknowledged, but Council does undertake regular reviews of its planning scheme and prepares correction amendments every two or so years, which can update anomalies and take into account on‐ground changes that make the extent of overlay coverage out of date.

4.3.2 Discussion

The Panel acknowledges the concerns expressed in submissions from Mr Gilfedder and Mr Garita. However, it agrees with the NCCMA’s views that changes can occur between what might be approved and what actually is built, which can be problematic with respect to issues such as flood risk. In response to questions from Ms White, Mr Zahle admitted that drainage works had not been completed for the industrial subdivision in East Bendigo apart from Stage 1, and that without the LSIO1 other lots could be developed without referral to the NCCMA for review of flood risk. Mr Zahle also acknowledged that the landowner/developer could either commit to developing all required flood mitigation and drainage works upfront, or accept the extent of the LSIO1 mapping until such works are fully completed. For these reasons, the Panel does not support removal or changes to the extent of the LSIO or SBO for areas where development might be proposed but has not been approved and where development has been approved but not completed.

The Panel does see merit in recognising areas where development has been approved and completed in the overlay schedules. In this regard, the Panel considers the LSIO and SBO schedules would benefit from an additional permit exemption for development that has been completed in accordance with an existing planning approval. Modifying the exhibited LSIO and SBO schedules to include an exemption for development where flood mitigation/onsite water management works have been proposed or completed appears a sensible response. The modification would be to exempt buildings and works on land subject to an existing planning permit, restriction or agreement pursuant to section 173 of the Act. It would ensure permitted developments that have already addressed flood concerns are not unnecessarily required to apply for additional planning permits.

4.3.3 Conclusion

The Panel concludes that removal of the overlays entirely from development sites is not appropriate, given the risk of alterations to proposals, but does see merit in providing scope for approved development to be exempted under the overlays.


Page 26

4.4 Removal of the ESO1

4.4.1 Submissions

The ESO1 seeks to protect waterways in the Bendigo area and has been used in part as a de‐facto control for flood risk management purposes. The application of the LSIO under the Amendment replaces the flood risk management role performed by the ESO1. The intention is to remove the ESO1 from land within the Bendigo area that is adjacent to fully constructed channels or pipes, or non‐designated waterways that have little biodiversity value. The overlay is only proposed to be removed from areas where it is located in urban situations of low environmental values where it has largely been operating as a flooding control and not as an environmental control.

Arguing along similar lines, Mr Gilfedder presented on behalf of Arbor Estates Pty Ltd for land in Jobs Gully Road, Jackass Flat (Submitter 21) and MG Estates Pty Ltd for land in Edwards Road, Maiden Gully (Submitter 22) that waterways within their respective proposed residential developments should have the ESO1 removed. He reasoned this was due to the waterways running through both these sites being proposed to be re‐constructed / rehabilitated as part of the overall development works for each estate. Mr Gilfedder suggested the approved works associated with both waterways effectively alter their respective environmental values and given they form part of the developed open space networks of both residential estates, they would be located within an urban environment with little environmental and biodiversity value. The approved works for each respective waterway are supported by planning permits, master plans, landscape plans and vegetation precinct plans.

Both Council and NCCMA do not support additional changes to the ESO1 apart from those proposed under the Amendment. The NCCMA submitted that a comprehensive review of the ESO1 has not been undertaken and that such an exercise is outside the scope of the Amendment. Council and the NCCMA, however have recognised that the ESO1 could be further reviewed, both the mapping and the planning scheme provisions, however this was not considered within the scope of this current Amendment.

4.4.2 Discussion

Ms White’s submission referred to the fact that discussions had been held with Goulburn Murray Water who are a determining referral authority under the ESO1 and who had agreed that on the basis of the following criteria, removal of the ESO1 could be pursued under the Amendment:

There is no designated waterway

The waterway is a concrete lined channel with no environmental values.

Goulburn Murray Water also indicated that it wanted to be involved in a more comprehensive review if the overlay was proposed to be removed from other areas. Accordingly, the NCCMA does not support further changes to the ESO1 without a comprehensive review that involves all stakeholders including Goulburn Murray Water.

The Panel agrees with Council and the NCCMA in this regard. It notes that the purpose of the redevelopment of the waterways in these residential estates seeks to improve their environmental condition and to perform a role as a natural open space environment for the


Page 27

benefit of both residential estate developments. Accordingly, they are not concrete lined sections of waterway and hence have remnant environmental value that would continue to benefit from the ESO1.

In addition, the waterway through the MG Estates site and affected by the ESO1 runs wholly through that site and any removal of the overlay from that site would effectively create a gap in the lineal extent of coverage of the overlay.

Similar issues are present with the Arbor Estates site, although the ESO1 coverage is at the end of its lineal extent, which would not be as problematic in terms of creating any gaps in the coverage of the overlay if it was removed.

However, the purpose of this Amendment is flood risk management and control and the changes proposed to the ESO1 are confined in terms of the criteria used to determine any changes to its coverage, which are not evident with Submitters 21 or 22.

4.4.3 Conclusion

Given the above and the concerns of Council and the NCCMA, the removal of the ESO1 from the MG Estates and Arbor Estates land would be a poor planning outcome. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that no additional changes to the ESO1 should be made other than that proposed in the Amendment.

4.5 Kangaroo Flat

4.5.1 Submissions

The topography of the Kangaroo Flat area typically comprises the Bendigo Creek running in a broad valley parallel to the Calder Highway (High Street through the central area of Kangaroo Flat) approximately 200 metres apart, through typical residential and some commercial forms of development. The 1 in 100 year flood modelling typically identifies the immediate vicinity of the creek as fast flowing with more extensive shallow inundation primarily to the east between the creek and the Calder Highway.

Submitter concerns centred generally around the extent of flooding modelled, including in relation to the impact of the recently upgraded Wesley Street Bridge, which crosses the creek. Also of concern was the accuracy of the modelling as demonstrated by the multiple disclaimers and references to issues associated with poor quality data in the Water Technology report. Submitters disagreed with the Water Technology statement that the omission of smaller diameter stormwater pipes would have limited effect on flooding.

Ms White advised that Water Technology undertook additional modelling in relation to the Wesley Street Bridge, which identified no impact on downstream water levels and limited impact on upstream water levels. It was acknowledged that there are inaccuracies in the modelling due to the limited availability of relevant data.

Mr and Mrs Daniel and Megan Kreutzer (Submitter 12) raised a specific concern in relation to the impact of a neighbouring property being covered with fill and the likely impact of this on their property during floods.

Ms White advised that the fill is unauthorised and that Council and the NCCMA are working with the current landowner to resolve the issue. The developer of the adjacent property has


Page 28

engaged the services of a consultant to determine whether the fill can remain. However, detailed development plans have yet to be provided and the landowner has not applied for a planning permit to either remove or retain the fill. Ms White advised that there is potential for the proposed LSIO to require an amendment in the event that the fill is allowed to remain on the adjacent property.

4.5.2 Discussion

The Panel accepts the contention from both Water Technology and the NCCMA that it would be extremely rare for any flood modelling project to have all relevant data available for an area as large as the Bendigo Creek catchment. The Panel notes the evidence of Mr Bishop that stormwater reticulation pipes are generally designed for a 1 in 10 year storm event and not a 1 in 100 year storm event, where the capacity of the stormwater reticulation is relatively insignificant compared to the overall extent of overland flows. Having inspected the general area the Panel accepts that there may be inaccuracies in the flood levels but is generally satisfied that the overall extent of flooding appears reasonable. As further development is undertaken in this area the opportunity exists for further refinement of the extent of the overlay in the planning scheme.

Regarding Mr and Mrs Kreutzer, as the resolution of the issue of fill on adjoining land is still outstanding, the Panel has identified that the proposed LSIO should remain until such time as a planning permit application is submitted which identifies the impact on flood flows on land in the vicinity of the proposed development.

4.5.3 Conclusion

The Panel concludes that flood modelling in Kangaroo Flat is based on the State policy benchmark for flood risk management and appropriately supports the application of the overlays under the Amendment.

4.6 Junortoun / Strathfieldsaye

4.6.1 Submissions

Junortoun and Strathfieldsaye are situated to the east of Bendigo in the Axe Creek catchment. They have been included in the modelling as they are considered part of the urban area of Bendigo.

Several submitters (Mr Leigh Osborne (Submitter 16), Ms Karyn Broad (Submitter 20), Ms Joyce Beaumont (Submitter 24), Mr Tony Knox (Submitters 44 and 45) and Mr Don Koch (Submitter 53)) from this area disagreed with the extent of the proposed overlay based on their experience over some years of living on their property and not experiencing flooding.

Ms White advised that there had been a number of other submissions from this area requesting a revision of the LSIO, following which the NCCMA and Council conducted a review resulting in the extent of the LSIO either being reduced or removed. With the exception of Mr Koch’s property, Ms White advised that in relation to the submitters mentioned above the NCCMA and Council were unable to recommend further modification of the LSIO based on the modelling results and following their site inspections. In relation to Mr Koch’s property, Ms White indicated that following further review the NCCMA recommends that the LSIO be amended to only include those areas affected by flooding


Page 29

from the tributary of Splitters Creek. She provided the Panel with an aerial photomap depicting the proposed draft area to be amended but advised that further refinement is required.

4.6.2 Discussion and conclusion

Having inspected several of these properties the Panel accepts the submission by the NCCMA that the extent of LSIO should remain as proposed, with the exception of Mr Koch’s’ property. For Mr Koch, the Panel considers that further investigation should be undertaken to better ascertain the extent of the application of the LSIO and/or SBO.

4.7 Central Bendigo

4.7.1 Submissions

Within central Bendigo, the Bendigo Creek is confined within a large brick lined channel which receives stormwater from the surrounding pipe drainage system as well is from land further upstream.

Mr and Mrs Kevin and Margaret McDonald (Submitter 47) queried the accuracy of the modelling based on their experience living in the area and the apparent difference in elevations between the creek and their property.

Ms White advised that the McDonalds’ property is existing flood prone land under the current planning scheme and that the recent modelling has better defined flooding in the area. However as the modelling indicates that the property will be flood prone during a 1 in 100 year flood the overlay should remain on the property.

4.7.2 Discussion and conclusion

The Panel agrees with the NCCMA’s response in relation to Submitter 47. The area is currently identified as liable to flooding and the Amendment proposes to maintain this recognition based on the State policy benchmark. The Panel concludes no further change is necessary.

4.8 Epsom/Huntly


The Epsom/Huntly area lies to the north of Bendigo on the comparatively flat plains to the east of the Bendigo Creek. Much of the area is protected by levee banks that were constructed in the 1920’s along the Bendigo Creek in order to contain flood flows from inundating the agricultural land to the east. During flood flows the water level in the creek is higher than the surrounding land. Council and the NCCMA have proposed to adopt the SBO2 to identify land which would be inundated in the event of a breach of the levee banks.

Several submitters (Mr Lindsay Sargeant (Submitter 19), Mr Charles Cornish (Submitter 31), Mr Robert Scheuffele (Submitter 34) and Mr Thomas Byrne (Submitter 48)) queried the need for the overlay. They considered that the overlay was unnecessary, on the basis that the levees had been in place for many years and had not breached, or that in the event of flood flows their properties would either not be affected or be affected to a lesser extent than


Page 30

shown in the overlay mapping. Submitters advised of no flooding in the past and highlighted failures by Council in the provision of adequate drainage infrastructure.

Concerns in relation to flooding in this area were comprehensively addressed by the Epsom Huntley Drainage Committee (EHDC) represented by Mr Bergmeier. The EHDC membership comprises many of the landholders in the area and raised issues related to potential mitigation works, the peer review analysis of the flood modelling, the effect of development since the capture of LiDAR data, the accuracy of the base data and the effects of climate change on flood modelling outputs.

Potential Flood Mitigation Options

The EHDC had received funding from the State Government and the Council to fund a flood mitigation options study by BMT WBM. Mr Bergmeier advised that early base modelling information indicated differences between the modelling by the two specialist consultants. These discrepancies raised concerns with the EHDC in relation to the accuracy of the modelling undertaken by Water Technology. The Panel was advised by Council that this work is ongoing and currently the report is with Council for comment and to resolve some technical issues prior to release. Ms White advised that Mr Bishop has acknowledged that there may be some differences between the two models, however in his opinion there will be no major changes to the area that is affected by the Amendment. Mr Bergmeier requested that the Panel obtain a copy of the BMT WBM report to assist in decision‐making. Council’s response was that the report is not yet publicly available.

Peer review analysis

The EHDC had raised concerns over the peer review of the outputs of the Water Technology final report. Mr Bishop’s written expert evidence stated:

The method adopted for the study was peer reviewed and the study results were internally reviewed by Water Technology as the project progressed. Council and CMA also reviewed the study outputs at various stages. The outputs from the study are of a quality and standard consistent with best practice in floodplain mapping.

The EHDC raised concerns in relation to the final report being reviewed internally by Water Technology and by Council and the NCCMA. Also raising concern was Mr Bishop’s response to the Panel that the methodology had been externally peer reviewed, but not the final report. The EHDC questioned the accuracy of the Bendigo Urban Flood Study, given it had not been peer reviewed in accordance with best practice and noting that the accuracy of the flood study had recently been called into question at a VCAT hearing.8

Recent development

Subsequent to the LiDAR capture in 2009 new development has altered the landscape and flow paths, which could impact on the flood mapping. Mr Bergmeier advised that the EHDC provided video evidence to Council relating to flooding issues, which in its opinion have not been accurately represented in the flood modelling. In particular, he noted the potential for

8 Ethan Property Group v Greater Bendigo CC [2014] VCAT 824.


Page 31

water to flow out of the creek rather than into the creek via drainage pipes during high flows, and questioned whether this has been modelled.

Mr Bishop in his expert evidence addressed the concerns of the EHDC stating that where Council had identified erroneous data due to modification of the topography, the model had been adjusted accordingly. However, he pointed out that for a study of this scale there will be cases where terrain data is out of date compared to current conditions.

Accuracy of base data

The EHDC submitted that the accuracy of the base data is not of a standard suitable to enable the preparation of the flood mapping and subsequent flooding overlays for the planning scheme.

Mr Bishop acknowledged the limitations of available historical data but advised that this is a common problem with such flood studies and the best approach is to adopt a best practice approach and review the results as additional information becomes available.

Climate change

The future effects of climate change have not been considered in the modelling. The EHDC considers that climate change may make extreme events more frequent and intense. The EHDC considers that climate change should have been addressed in accordance with Clause 11.05‐4 of the SPPF.

Mr Bishop stated that consideration of climate change was not within the scope of the project but noted that while the recurrence interval for storms may become shorter due to climate change it could be useful to consider a 1 in 200 year storm to understand what the effects of climate change may be.

4.8.2 Discussion

As noted elsewhere, the Panel accepts that there are inaccuracies associated with the modelling of such a large area and in particular in this area where there is a paucity of rainfall and gauging information. However given the extended period over which the EHDC has been raising concerns in relation to the modelling accuracy, the Panel considers that there is merit in undertaking an early review of the flooding overlays in this area. To this end the Panel considers that based on a technical review of the base modelling prepared by the two consultants, Council and the NCCMA should consider undertaking further refinement of the overlays in the Epsom Huntley area and if necessary undertake a further amendment to the planning scheme. As the BMT WBM report has yet to be finalised the Panel does not consider it appropriate for it to review the report.

As noted in Section 3.3 above the Panel notes the apparent inconsistencies between the submission of Ms White of the NCCMA and Mr Bishop in relation to whether the final report was externally peer reviewed and all concerns addressed. While the Panel would be more reassured had both Mr Bishop and Ms White confirmed that an external peer review had been undertaken of all aspects of the final report, the Panel is satisfied that given the timing of the introduction of the peer review system, all reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the modelling. Accordingly, the Panel considers the mapping for the proposed Amendment is satisfactory.


Page 32

Panel acknowledges that no flood modelling can be completely up‐to‐date, however the Panel is satisfied that the accuracy of the Bendigo Creek flood modelling is suitable as the basis for the application of the overlays. The Panel notes that future development in this area will provide opportunities for further refinement of the overlays.

State policy relating to inland flooding influenced by climate change is currently vague. The State policy benchmark for flood liability is based on the 1 in 100 year flood event. Predicted effects from climate change include more intense and possibly more frequent storm events which may result in flash flooding events becoming more common. The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment is soundly based given the current State planning policy directions in the planning scheme. Addressing climate change may or may not increase the extent of coverage of the overlays or trigger the need for a review of the type of planning tools required to address the changed nature of future flooding events and processes. Given this uncertainty, the Panel is not in a position to comment. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Amendment is satisfactory and, until such time as State policy provides clearer guidance, the application of the LSIO and SBO as proposed is considered appropriate.

The EHDC advised that the Panel process had provided an opportunity for positive community consultation, which in their opinion had been lacking in the past. They considered they have a much better understanding of the magnitude of the issues associated with the flood study, but have formed an opinion that the flood study should not be adopted this stage as they believe the necessary data has not been captured.

The Panel appreciates the level of practical detail provided by the EHDC on behalf of many landowners in the area. It is acknowledged that there are gaps in the data and questions in relation to the accuracy of modelling compared actual flooding experienced in the area. However the application and use of overlays such as the LSIO and SBO are designed to identify those areas where additional consideration needs to be given to development within a floodplain.

4.8.3 Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the approach taken to flood mapping was based on the best available information, and is appropriate and should be adopted.

4.9 Back Creek


Back Creek is a tributary to the Bendigo Creek, which runs parallel to the east of the Bendigo Creek prior to their confluence to the north of Epsom. The Back Creek is an ungauged catchment, which resulted in a requirement to adopt industry best practice to produce the estimates of flooding.

Ms Metcalfe supported by Mr Conboy raised concerns that the modelling underrepresents the 1 in 100 year flood based on their experience during major flooding events which occurred in January and February 2011. They noted that the modelling had considered the February 2011 flood but not the January 2011 flood, and provided photos in support of their contention that the January flooding level was higher than February. Ms Metcalfe also raised concerns that the modelling had not included the culverts under Taylor Street, thus


Page 33

further reducing the predicted flood levels downstream. They advised that despite having previously raised these issues with the NCCMA and Council, the modelling had not been updated to address their concerns.

Mr Bishop’s evidence stated that the January 2011 flood was not as large in Bendigo as the February 2011 flood, which was the reason it was not chosen as a calibration event. However, the anecdotal evidence provided by residents was considered where possible. He advised that the method adopted for the study was peer reviewed and the adopted design flow verified by an independent panel of technical experts. He was therefore confident the study results for this catchment are appropriate.

In relation to the culverts at Taylor Street, Mr Bishop advised that they were subsequently added to the hydraulic model, however the results show that whilst these culverts have an impact on smaller flood events, they had limited downstream impact in the 1 in 100 year storm event. He also noted that in major storm events there is a likelihood of culvert blockage based on a high level of vegetation cover in waterways upstream, and therefore in his opinion the original mapping results are considered appropriate for risk management purposes.

4.9.2 Discussion

While acknowledging the difficulties associated with the lack of gauging stations and local rainfall records, the Panel accepts that the modelling as presented is the best available and should be adopted for this area. The Panel also acknowledges that the anecdotal evidence and photographs provided by Ms Metcalfe highlight the need for further refinement of the planning scheme as better data becomes available, particularly as it indicates the potential for an increase in the area affected by flooding.

4.9.3 Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the Amendment is appropriate, but that Council and the NCCMA are encouraged to regularly review the flood modelling and mapping and make adjustments as necessary over time, as further information becomes available.

4.10 Agreed mapping changes

During the Hearing, Council and the NCCMA advised that following exhibition of the Amendment, active engagement with submitters has occurred to review the Amendment mapping based on submissions received. Ms Bryant and Ms White advised the Panel that agreed changes had been reached with a number of submitters regarding adjustment of the mapped coverage of the LSIO and SBO. Both Ms Bryant and Ms White tabled a series of correspondence and maps showing agreed changes to the LSIO and SBO mapping between what was exhibited and what has been agreed to be changed.

The Panel notes these changes and considers that they are acceptable and should be adopted as changes to the Amendment. The mapped changes are included in Appendix D of this report.

4.11 Recommendations

The Panel makes the following recommendations:


Page 34

Amend Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and 1.Schedule 2 of the Special Building Overlay to include the following additional permit requirement:





Amend Schedule 1 of the Special Building Overlay to replace under Clause 1.0 2.Permit requirements the words “No exemptions specified” with the following:

A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works as follows: Buildings and works on land subject to an existing planning permit, restriction or agreement




Review the flood mapping and application of the Land Subject to Inundation 3.Overlay and/or the Special Building Overlay for land at 105 Trotting Terrace, Junortoun to include only those areas affected by flooding from the unnamed tributary of Splitters Creek.

Review the base modelling of the BMT WBM model against the Water Technology 4.model to identify if there are any discrepancies, which warrant a revision of the flooding overlays in the Epsom/Huntly area.

Adopt the changes shown in the maps in Appendix D to the coverage of the Land 5.Subject to Inundation Overlay and the Special Building Overlay.


Page 35

5 Other matters

5.1 The issues

Expansion of the LSIO and introduction of the SBO has generated social and economic concerns regarding loss of land values and challenges with flood insurance through either increased premiums or inability to obtain cover for flooding.

Drafting issues have been identified with respect to permit exemptions in the proposed schedules regarding setbacks from waterways, approved developments, building size thresholds, relocatable dwellings and fencing associated with tennis courts.

Flood mitigation through waterway maintenance has also been highlighted where the lack of maintenance has had an effect on flood extent and risk.

5.2 Land values and insurance

(i) Submissions and evidence

A number of submitters expressed concerns that the disclosure of the flood prone nature of their properties will have a detrimental impact on property values and result in increased insurance premiums or inability to obtain insurance cover for flood.9

Ms Tomkinson best summed up these concerns regarding land values and insurance impacts. She summarised correspondence dated 18 October 2016 from Mr Michael Easton, Director of McCormick Harris Insurance, a local insurance provider who stated that once the flood mapping from the Amendment is provided to the insurance industry, this information would join the range of inputs on which insurance advice, and premiums, are provided. She submitted that Mr Easton’s advice is that this information has the potential to cause concerns to existing property owners and any new developments. It may see the customer faced with very high premiums for the cover or having only a select few insurers willing to offer flood cover, or even fewer offering the customer the ability to elect not to have flood cover at all. These constraints were considered by the submitter to lead to potential for an uninsured financial loss.

Ms Tomkinson also submitted the disclosure of property at potential risk of flooding due to the application of the LSIO or SBO could impact on the sale and sale price of such property. She considered that the lack of focus in advising affected property owners in relation to this issue as part of the Amendment process meant that many property owners may not be aware of the implications of the overlays until such time as they decide to sell or propose to undertake some form of development of their land.

Council’s response to these issues was that the mapping and Amendment seeks to identify land that is liable to flooding to facilitate orderly planning and appropriate assessment of proposed development. Flooding constraints should not be ignored just because they may affect land values and insurance premiums.

9 Submitters 24, 32, 34, 40, 42 and 47.


Page 36

Council considered that insurance premiums often can fall once flood studies are completed and are used by the insurance industry. This is due to the risk of the unknown having been reduced. High premiums are often because the insurer is uncertain of what the flooding risk will be and whether the land can be safely developed. Once the risk is quantified in a study and the land is developed according to that risk, then insurance premiums are likely to be reduced.

Land values will mostly be affected where flooding is significant and development has not been undertaken in accordance with the known risk of flooding.

The NCCMA considered that properties that are liable to flooding but have a development that specifically responds to flood risk are likely to have lower insurance costs. Ms White advised that insurance information was provided in the information bulletin sent to every household and on the Amendment web page, including links to further information. Additional printed material was also available at the drop in sessions.

The NCCMA submitted that more information provides more informed outcomes and that provision of high quality flood data will help insurers to price risk appropriately and accordingly improve the level of service to the community.

The evidence of Mr Bishop was that:

Good floodplain management requires the identification of properties that are potentially subject to significant flood risk through planning overlays. Any potential impact on land value and insurance premiums is not a consideration in appropriately identifying and managing flood risk to life and property.

He reiterated the point that the more accurate information provided on flood risk, the better insurers can define risks, allowing them to take a less conservative approach to insurance cover.

Mr and Mrs McDonald indicated that their insurance premium had risen considerably. However, Ms White advised that the NCCMA had not yet provided the results of the Bendigo Urban Flood Study to the insurance industry. Hence, the Panel understands that any recent increases in insurance premiums are not the result of the current Amendment or flood mapping.

(ii) Discussion

The Panel notes that the Amendment seeks to apply the LSIO and SBO on the basis of mapping derived from an analysis of flood risk based on the State policy benchmark of a 1 in 100 year flood event. This is a major flood event and one that the Panel, and probably most parties, acknowledge has not yet occurred in Bendigo. The flood mapping and application of the overlays reflects the risk from flooding on properties that would be affected by such a large flood event.

As the Panel has discussed earlier, the coverage of the overlays is a reflection of flood risk on a property and not necessarily an accurate depiction of where floodwaters may specifically reach, or whether and to what extent a particular parcel of land might be affected. Accordingly, the overlays trigger the need for a planning permit, which is the process where finer scale assessment can occur.


Page 37

The Panel reflects on the Final Report on the New Format Planning Schemes (1999) which expressed the view that it is not the application of an overlay which makes land prone to flooding. The flood prone nature of some land is an existing fact. The overlay is simply a mechanism for identifying, for strategic and statutory planning purposes, the flooding characteristics of that land.

This is borne out in the evidence of Mr Bishop that:

Whilst there will be areas where the flood mapping can be improved, it is necessary to provide flood overlays as a means of triggering the referral process. This allows for the assessment of whether flood‐related planning conditions are necessary at a particular site. This is part of the orderly planning process that minimises risk for individual land owners and for the community more generally.

With respect to land values, the Panel notes the commentary of the Panel in Amendment C50 to the Moreland Planning Scheme, which sought to introduce the SBO:

… The value of any property is determined by the complex interplay of many different factors such as overall economic conditions, public economic policies, location, streetscape and amenity, and it is difficult to assign what effect, if any, the identification of land as liable to overland flows may have on the value of a property.

The comments of the Panel in Amendment C18 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme are also noted:

….Panels have consistently found that there is no justification for setting aside of any SBO amendment on the basis of requests for compensation, loss of property value and possible increase in insurance premiums.

The Panel considers the LSIO, the SBO and the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan are in effect a suite of planning tools that:

Are a depiction of a flooding event that has been ascertained through recognised assessment processes and in essence reflects an existing situation

Outlines the processes and procedures for dealing with development applications for land within the overlay limits and is an approach supported by both Planning Practice Notes 11 and 12

Are directed towards meeting the responsibilities of Council as a planning authority as required under Section 6(2)(e) of the Act and the broad range of policies that exist in regard to flooding and water policy statements found in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

(iii) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that issues relating to impacts on land values and insurance from the application of the LSIO and SBO over a property are not relevant when considering the introduction of the proposed Amendment. The Panel also accepts that all reasonable efforts have been made in regards to informing the public affected by this Amendment.


Page 38

5.3 Amendment drafting

(i) Submissions and evidence

Council submitted that it has considered post exhibition changes to the drafting of the overlay schedules and the local floodplain development plan in response to submissions.

Goulburn‐Murray Water (Submitter 46) supported the Amendment particularly with regards to waterway setbacks for development. They suggested the performance criteria for major residential subdivisions in Section 5.1 of the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan relating to all new lots and new road reserves being set back a minimum of 30 metres from any waterway should be extended to all subdivision applications. This includes those within residential, Low Density Residential and Rural Living zones regardless of lot numbers. Goulburn‐Murray Water considered the change would better protect surface water and groundwater infrastructure, flows and quality from development.

Council’s response, together with the NCCMA, was that the suggested change would be acceptable in the Low Density Residential and Rural Living zones, but not in other residential areas where it was considered difficult to achieve due to smaller average lot sizes which would not have the capacity to achieve a 30 metre setback.

Council advised that in conjunction with agreed changes to the coverage of the LSIO and SBO maps shown in Appendix D, the Flood Risk Map in Section 8 of the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan would also require updating.

Regarding the LSIO Schedule 1 and SBO Schedule 2, the Gold Nugget Tourist Park (Submitter 39) submitted that the installation or relocation of Unregistrable Movable Dwellings (UMDs) should be exempt from requiring a planning permit. It was submitted that these types of structures are currently regulated under the Residential Tenancies (Caravan Parks and Movable Dwellings Registration and Standards) Regulations 2010 and do not require additional regulation imposed under the proposed LSIO and SBO.

Council supports the requested change and that an additional exemption in LSIO1 and SBO2 be included under new or replacement buildings for:


The NCCMA also supported Council and submitted that it would be unlikely to oppose installation of a UMD in an established caravan park but would recommend that, wherever practicable the finished floor level of the UMD be constructed a minimum of 300mm above the 1 per cent AEP flood level.

Ms Tomkinson’s submission sought to amend the overlay schedules to remove building area threshold limits from the permit exemptions. She contended that as the hydraulic modelling for the Bendigo Urban Flood Study had not factored in existing structures such as buildings, fences, trees and the like, there was no reason to limit permit exemptions for existing buildings to minimum or maximum floor areas and for the provisions to control the size of buildings.


Page 39

Mr Bishop’s evidence in this regard was that the hydraulic modelling for the Bendigo Urban Flood Study was consistent with other urban flood mapping studies. As mentioned in Section 4.2 features such as fences, dwellings and other buildings that may influence overland flood flow behaviour are not explicitly modelled and that individual property details are not feasible to be included given current data and modelling capabilities.

Accepted industry practice is to adopt hydraulic model parameters that allow the model to best represent the terrain, structures and vegetation present, allowing the overall pattern of floodplain inundation to be reasonably reproduced.

He stated that at an individual lot level there could be refinement to enhance the resolution of flood analysis as part of a specific planning application. However, no further details or analysis is required for the proposed overlays to be adopted.

(ii) Discussion

The Panel accepts Council’s position with respect to changes to the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan. The inclusion of the performance criteria for a 30 metre waterway setback in the Low Density Residential Zone and the Rural Living Zone, as apart from other residential zones, is acceptable given the larger areas of land under development and the greater scope for achieving such setbacks. Council’s reluctance to extend the setback in residentially zoned areas for non‐major residential subdivisions appears to be based on the land area quantum. The Panel considers this acceptable and is aware that, irrespective of what the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan indicates, State policy under Clause 14.02‐1 – Catchment planning and management includes the strategy for retaining natural drainage corridors with vegetated buffer zones at least 30 metres wide along each side of a waterway. This aims to maintain drainage function, stream habitat, wildlife corridors and landscape values. It also seeks to minimise erosion reduce pollution. Such a policy would remain a consideration with respect to any planning permit application as a matter of course.

Changes to the LSIO1 and SBO2 to address UMDs is also considered acceptable and appropriate and would ensure that such structures in established caravan parks are not unnecessarily caught up in red tape.

The Panel does not consider the overlay schedules require amendment to remove building area threshold limits based on the assumptions built in to the hydraulic modelling. These types of permit exemptions have been used with some consistency in other planning schemes. The limitations on the permit exemptions for building size provides a level of caution particularly with respect to providing an opportunity, through the permit process, to assess the location of buildings and works with respect to any effects they may have on flood processes with regards to other properties and on the floodplain storage capacity itself.

A matter identified by the Panel was the permit exemption under the LSIO1 and LSIO2 for a tennis court at existing surface level with curtain fencing if constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan for earthworks. Given the permit requirements for tennis courts under Clause 52.21 – Private Tennis Court it


Page 40

would appear sensible to re‐focus the exemption on the type of fencing rather than for the tennis court itself. Council agreed with this suggestion.

(iii) Conclusion

The Panel concludes that minor drafting changes to both the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan and the overlay schedules be incorporated as part of the Amendment.

5.4 Waterway maintenance

(i) Submissions

Concerns regarding waterway maintenance and how the lack of maintenance affected flood behaviour and extent were raised by submitters.10

The NCCMA’s response was that the presence of macrophyte vegetation such as Common Reeds (Phragmites australis) and Cumbungi or Bullrush (Typha spp.) are often assumed to choke waterways and limit floodwater flows. This is a misconception because these types of macrophyte plants are usually flattened in large flood events and have little impact on floodwater conveyance. These wetland/riparian vegetation communities offer environmental value with respect to filtering pollutants and providing stream stabilisation by protecting the bed and banks of the waterways.

(ii) Discussion and conclusion

The Panel agrees with the NCCMA’s response and acknowledges that waterway maintenance is important in terms of maintaining environmental health and function of waterways. Keeping them clear of obstruction from rubbish debris and exotic vegetation assists in waterway health. However, macrophyte vegetation does not impede floodwater flows in large flood events and their retention facilitates the continued environmental function of waterways.

5.5 Recommendations

The Panel makes the following recommendations:

Amend Schedule 1 of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Schedule 2 of 6.the Special Building Overlay under “New or replacement buildings” to include the following additional permit requirement:


Replace the fifth dot point under “Other buildings and works” in Schedules 1 and 7.2 of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay to read:

A curtain style fence for a tennis court if constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan 2016.

10 For example, Submitters 1, 10, 49 and 52.


Page 41

Amend Section 5.1 of the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan 2016 by 8.introducing the following dot point under “Subdivisions in the Low Density Residential Zone or Rural Living Zone”:

All new lots and new road reserves are set back a minimum of 30 metres from any waterway.

Update the Section 8 Flood Risk Guide map of the Bendigo Local Floodplain 9.Development Plan 2016 in accordance with the changes agreed to by Council and shown in Appendix D to the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Special Building Overlay mapping.


Page 42

Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment

No. Submitter

1 Clive & Bev Arnold

2 B L & D E Beasley

3 P F Comer

4 A V Egan

5 L G Morrison

6 C F Pavletich

7 P G & M L Holmes

8 J R & N I Tate

9 VicRoads – Northern Region

10 N E Punton

11 J A Lock

12 M J & D R Kreutzer

13 Environment Protection Authority

14 P J Young

15 M E & N J Bruhn

16 L E Osborne

17 S L Murtagh & A P Fuller

18 G M Conroy on behalf of Matty High Pty Ltd

19 L N & H Sargeant

20 K J Broad

21 Currie & Brown on behalf of Arbor Estates Pty Ltd

22 Currie & Brown on behalf of MG Estates Pty Ltd

23 Coliban Water

24 J E Beaumont

25 N T & C A Wilson

26 D J & R J Ruedin

27 D J & R J Ruedin

28 Epsom Huntly Drainage Committee

29 G J Power

30 QOD Property Group

31 C A Cornish


Page 43

32 H T & W D Hall

33 R Lewis

34 R W Scheuffele

35 P J Trewartha

36 Currie & Brown on behalf of Bendigo Properties Pty Ltd

37 R Kumar

38 A M Metcalf

39 Gold Nugget Tourist Park

40 UDIA Northern Chapter

41 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

42 Total Property Developments

43 A H Knox

44 A H Knox

45 A H Knox

46 Goulburn‐Murray Water

47 K A & M E McDonald

48 T J Byrne

49 W J Kane

50 Country Fire Authority

51 Lorient No 30 Pty Ltd

52 L J Lubeck

53 D Koch


Page 44

Appendix B Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by

Greater Bendigo City Council Ms Emma Bryant, Amendments and Heritage Coordinator, Statutory Planning who called the following expert witness:

‐ Mr Warwick Bishop, Civil Engineer and Flood Modeller from Water Technology Pty Ltd

North Central Catchment Management Authority

Ms Camille White, Floodplain Manager

Bendigo Properties Pty Ltd Mr Gerard Gilfedder, Town Planner from Currie & Brown (Australia) Pty Ltd who called the following expert witness:

‐ Mr Thomas Zahle, Civil Engineer and hydrology engineering from Spiire

Arbor Estates Pty Ltd Mr Gerard Gilfedder, Town Planner from Currie & Brown (Australia) Pty Ltd

MG Estates Pty Ltd Mr Gerard Gilfedder, Town Planner from Currie & Brown (Australia) Pty Ltd

Mr Don Koch

Matty High Pty Ltd Mr Gavan Conroy

QOD Property Group Pty Ltd Mr Lou Garita

Mr Lindsay Sargeant

Bruce L and Dianne E Beasley Mr Bruce Beasley

Ms Karyn Broad

Joyce Beaumont Mr Craig Beaumont

Mrs Megan & Mr Daniel Kreutzer

UDIA Northern Chapter Ms Andrea Tomkinson, Town Planner and Chair, Northern Chapter UDIA (VIC)

Ms Andrea Metcalf

Mr Kevin & Mrs Margaret McDonald

Epsom Huntly Drainage Committee Mr Ron Bergmeier

Harold & Wanda Hall Mr Harold Hall


Page 45

Appendix C Document list

No. Description Presented by

Tuesday 18 October 2016

C1 Submission by Greater Bendigo City Council Emma Bryant

C2 Folder of documents ‐ Greater Bendigo City Council “ “

C3 Planning Practice Note 12 – Applying Flood Provisions In PS’s “ “

C4 Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan – March 2014 “ “

N5 North Central CMA submission Camille White

N6 2 plans ‐ 183 Maiden Gully Road, Maiden Gully “ “

N7 2 plans ‐ 165 Sullivans Road, Strathfieldsaye “ “

N8 2 plans ‐ 31 Orchard Drive, Strathfieldsaye “ “

N9 2 plans ‐ 5659 Calder Highway, Big Hill “ “

N10 2 plans ‐ 23 Grantham Terrace, Kangaroo Flat “ “

N11 2 plans ‐ 3 Page Court, Kangaroo Flat “ “

N12 LiDAR map of 126 – 128 High Street, Kangaroo Flat “ “

N13 2 plans ‐ 244 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully “ “

N14 2 plans ‐ 277 Howard Street, Jackass Flat “ “

N15 2 plans ‐ 50 Leans Road, Huntly “ “

N16 8 plans – 21 Plumridge Street, White Hills. 9, 10 and 11 Carrington Close, White Hills. 11A Arrawalli Avenue, Ascot. and 340A High Street, Kangaroo Flat

“ “

N17 2 plans ‐ 746 McIvor Highway, Junortoun “ “

K18 Submission by Don Koch [Submitter 53] Don Koch

CO19 Submission by Gavan Conroy [Submitter 18] Gavan Conroy

Wednesday 19 October 2016

C20 Correspondence regarding agreed changes between Council and land owners

Emma Bryant

CB21 Submission for Bendigo Properties P/L Gerard Gilfedder

CB22 Submission for Arbor Estates “ “

CB23 Jackass Flat Vegetation Precinct Plan 2009 “ “

CB24 A3 Plan of Phase 2 for Evergreen Waters v3 “ “

CB25 Planning permit AM/904/2011/1A for Evergreen Waters “ “

CB26 A4 Evergreen Waters Staging plan v3 “ “

CB27 A3 Canterbury landscape concept plan 6/6/16 “ “


Page 46


CB28 Submission for MG Estates “ “

CB29 Native Vegetation Precinct plan 244 Edwards Road June 2014 “ “

CB30 A3 plan Birchgrove revision H “ “

CB31 2 x A3 plans Open space schematic and landscaping Aug 2015 Rev A

“ “

CB32 A3 master plan Forest Park “ “

CB33 A3 Design response – double sided “ “

G34 Submission for Loma Estate P/L Lou Garita

B35 Submission by Bruce Beasley Bruce Beasley

KB36 Submission by Karen Broad Karen Broad

Thursday 20 October 2016

N37 Submission site plans with contours Camille White

C38 4 A4 aerial photos with contours 50 Bakers Lane and 628 Strathfieldsaye Road

Emma Bryant

T39 Submission by UDIA Andrea Tomkinson

T40 A3 plan of 367 Napier Street, White Hills Emma Bryant

M41 Submission by Andrea Metcalf Andrea Metcalf

M42 Copy of NCCMA information sheet 29/11/2011 “ “

M43 Copy of Submission to VCAT P2692/13 “ “

M44 Appendix 3 from VCAT submission “ “






M50 Statement from Ralph Conboy “ “

MD51 Statement from Kevin & Margaret McDonald Kevin & Margaret McDonald

H52 Statement from Epsom Huntly Drainage Committee Ron Bergmeier

H53 2 copies of Flood Eye reports dated 25 August 2016 for 343 Midland Highway and Wallenjoe Road

“ “

H54 2 copies of Flood Eye report dated 19 October 2016 for 343 Midland Highway and Wallenjoe Road

“ “

H55 Submission by Max Turner Max Turner


Page 47


HA56 Submission by Harold Hall Harold Hall

C57 2 additional agreed mapped changes for Submitter 42 for 58 Victoria Street, Eaglehawk

Amanda Bryant

M58 Copy of VCAT decision 824 of 10 July 2014 Andrea Metcalf


Page 48

Appendix D Agreed changes to mapping for the LSIO and SBO


Page 49


Page 50


Page 51


Page 52


Page 53


Page 54


Page 55


Page 56


Page 57


Page 58


Page 59


Page 60


Page 61


Page 62


Page 63


Page 64


Page 65


Page 66


Page 67


Page 68


Page 69


Page 70


Page 71


Page 72


Page 73


Page 74


Page 75


Page 76


Page 77


Page 78


Page 79


Page 80