Email - news@themooraboolnews.com.au
News
The Moorabool News – 14 December, 2021 Page 11
Flood overlay report off to Spring St By Lachlan Ellis The contentious C91 Planning Scheme Amendment came before Council once again, at an Ordinary Meeting, with Council accepting a report on the flood overlay plan this time around On October 6, a motion to introduce a flood overlay to the Moorabool Planning Scheme was rejected. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 1 December, C91 appeared again, and concerns were raised over where responsibility for flood recovery would lie if it passed. Prior to Council’s discussions over the Amendment, Kerrie Homan, Melbourne Water’s Service Manager of Flood Risk and Flood Amendments, addressed Council in favour of the Amendment. “Melbourne Water has been working with Council’s strategic planners for a number of years on introducing the flood controls into the Council Planning Scheme, as an overlay. The flood modelling for this amendment has been quality-assured and through a robust review process,” Ms Homan said. “After an extended exhibition period, all the written submissions were reviewed by Melbourne Water, and also reviewed by an independent panel. The panel found that C91 had sound strategic and technical justification.” Cr David Edwards asked does the adoption of C91 diminish the obligations of Melbourne Water to rectify or maintain drainage systems. “No, it doesn’t diminish our responsibility as a referral authority, and/or a drainage authority, or a floodplain management authority, to undertake maintenance, and/or to design mitigation where required for drainage and flooding,” Ms Homan replied. Cr Paul Tatchell then put a question to Council officers, asking for clarification on the ‘partnership’ outlined in the report on C91. “Is the partnership one of responsibility shared by Council, or do we go back to the original statement made, that Melbourne Water is the authority that takes responsibility for if there are any issues in terms of flood drainage, and by implication in this report, it basically is a grey area that says we have a partnership,” Cr Tatchell said. “I think it’s a big call to call Council and Melbourne Water a partnership…ultimately, they’re the governing authority and we can’t override them anyway.” The question was referred to Council’s Senior Strategic Planner, Rod Davison. “Our understanding is that Melbourne Water is responsible for drainage systems larger than 60 hectares in area, and Council would be responsible for the smaller drainage catchments,” Mr Davison said. Cr Tatchell asked “does this protect Council, does it protect the ratepayer, or is this purely just to protect Melbourne Water?” General Manager of Community Assets & Infrastructure, Phil Jeffery, explained that the specified 60-hectare catchment would include “the flow path from the catchment to its discharge point…the river, for example”.
“That includes the floodplain, the rivers breaking their banks, which is Melbourne Water’s responsibility,” Mr Jeffery said. “If C91 is adopted, it doesn’t change Melbourne Water’s responsibilities. They’ve still got responsibilities in terms of management, designs, et cetera.” Executive Manager of Community Planning & Economic Development, Henry Bezuidenhout, added. Cr Tatchell acknowledged that Melbourne Water would take responsibility for future developments if C91 was adopted, but said that not taking responsibility for catchments over 60 hectares built before C91 existed was “the greatest loophole that you could jump through”. Another concern was the potential for litigation, if a property approved in flood overlay was damaged by floods. Cr Berry proposed a joint committee be formed between Council and Melbourne Water representatives, to discuss drainage maintenance issues, and Cr Dudzik moved a related alternate motion. Under Cr Dudzik’s motion, the Planning Panel’s C91 report would be sent to the Planning Minister for approval, with an additional three conditions: Council officers must write to Melbourne Water about a faulty drain in Gosling Street Ballan; they must report back at a future meeting; and also write to Melbourne Water about Cr Berry’s joint committee concept. The motion was seconded by Cr Edwards, and passed with the support of Crs Dudzik, Edwards, Munari, Tatchell, and Ward.
WHAT IS AMENDMENT C91? Amendment C91 would apply two new conditions to certain flood-prone areas of Moorabool. The first is Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO), which applies to land subject to flooding from waterways and open drainage systems. The second is Special Building Overlay (SBO), which is subject to flooding associated with overland flows from urban stormwater drainage. If these overlays are applied, the areas placed under the LSIO or SBO – which are based on Melbourne Water’s flood modelling and flood extent mapping – will require planning permits for proposed subdivisions, buildings and works, with some exceptions for minor works. The intended purpose of this is to show the flood-prone areas on planning scheme maps, make sure buildings do not obstruct the flow and temporary storage of floodwater, and minimise flood damage. Any planning permit applications from LSIO or SBO areas will be referred to Melbourne Water, which will then assessment the applications before providing a referral response and conditions to Council.