Expert Opinion - Flooding Issues Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Expert Opinion - Flooding Issues Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme City of Greater Bendigo October 2016 Project Name Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Report Prepared for City of Greater Bendigo Instructed By Emma Bryant, City of Greater Bendigo Report Author Warwick Bishop Document Number 1957-01R01v01c.docx Report Date 10 October 2016 15 Business Park Drive Notting Hill VIC 3168 Telephone (03) 8526 0800 Fax (03) 9558 9365 ACN 093 377 283 ABN 60 093 377 283 01R01v01.docx - 1957 City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 2 CONTENTS 1 REPORT AUTHOR 5 2 STATEMENT OF EXPERTISE 5 3 REPORT CONTRIBUTOR 5 4 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT 6 5 BASIS OF THIS REPORT 6 6 INTRODUCTION 7 7 BENDIGO URBAN FLOOD STUDY 7 8 SUBMISSIONS 8 8.1 General Comments Regarding Submissions 8 8.2 Response to specific Submissions 8 8.2.1 Submission 18 – 126-128 High Street, Kangaroo Flat 9 8.2.2 Submission 19 – Huntly (Multiple Locations) 10 8.2.3 Submission 28 - Epsom-Huntly Drainage Committee 16 8.2.4 Submission 31 – 89 Sargeants Road, Epsom 17 8.2.5 Submission 45 Strickland Street, Ascot 18 8.2.6 Submission 40 - UDIA Northern Chapter 19 9 CONCLUSIONS 22 10 DECLARATION 22 APPENDICES Appendix A Submissions Responded to by Water Technology LIST OF FIGURES Figure 8-1 126 – 128 High Street, Kangaroo Flat 10 Figure 8-2 Modelled levee breach locations 11 Figure 8-3 Levee Failure Scenario Mapping 12 Figure 8-3 Cross Section downstream of Sargeants Road 13 Figure 8-4 Submission 19 – Attachment B 13 Figure 8-5 Leans Rd Crossing of Bendigo Creek 14 Figure 8-6 Lot Adjacent to 119 Steins Road, Huntly 15 Figure 8-7 43 Brights Lane, Huntly 15 Figure 8-8 89 Sargeants Road, Epsom 18 Figure 8-9 45 Strickland Street, Ascot 19 01R01v01.docx - 1957 City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 3 LIST OF TABLES Table 8-1 Summary of Submissions I have reviewed in Detail 8 01R01v01.docx - 1957 City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 4 1 REPORT AUTHOR Warwick Bishop Senior Principal Engineer, Director Water Technology Pty Ltd 15 Business Park Drive Notting Hill, VIC 3168 Qualifications: B.E. (Hons), University of Melbourne, 1993 MEngSci, Monash University, 2000 Affiliations: Charter Member, Institution of Engineers, Australia Chair, Engineers Australia, Victorian Water Engineering Branch Committee Member, International Association for Hydraulic Research Member, Australian Water Association Member, River Basin Management Society Member, Stormwater Victoria Experience I am a Director of Water Technology and have over 20 years’ experience in hydrologic and hydraulic investigations, specialising in the development and application of rural and urban hydrodynamic models and their application to flooding, drainage, water quality, sediment transport and environmental values. I also have extensive experience in coastal and estuary modelling including wave, current, oil spill and coastal vulnerability investigations. I have worked extensively in the Murray Darling Basin, principally on environmental hydraulic investigations for the Living Murray Program. I was recently involved in the revision of Australian Rainfall and Runoff, with particular focus on the application of 2D hydraulic models to flooding in urban and rural areas. In 2011 I worked in the Flood Intelligence Unit of SES during the January floods and have provided advice to Catchment Management Authorities over the subsequent period. 2 STATEMENT OF EXPERTISE With my qualifications and experience, I believe that I am well qualified to provide an expert opinion regarding flooding issues related to Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. 3 REPORT CONTRIBUTOR Michael Boulter Project Engineer Water Technology Pty Ltd 01R01v01.docx - 1957 City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 5 15 Business Park Drive Notting Hill, VIC 3168 Qualifications: Bachelor of Engineering (Civil, hons), Bachelor of Science (Chemistry), The University of Western Australia 2008 Affiliations: Member, Engineers Australia Area of Expertise: Key areas of expertise relevant to this report are summarised below. Assessment of urban flooding including hydrologic and hydraulic modelling Urban waterway design and management Application of GIS Scope of contribution: Michael undertook data analysis and figure preparation under my supervision. 4 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT In relation to Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, I have been requested to: Prepare evidence in relation flooding issues raised in submissions to the Panel that is addressing the Amendment. Focus on specific submissions as instructed by Council. 5 BASIS OF THIS REPORT This report is based on: Bendigo Urban Flood Study, Water Technology 2014 Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme ARR Project 15 2D modelling guidelines report, Engineers Australia Infrastructure Design Manual (IDM), Local Government Infrastructure Design Association (September 2016) 01R01v01.docx - 1957 City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 6 6 INTRODUCTION Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme has been prepared by the City of Greater Bendigo (CoGB) with the support of the North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA), which is the responsible floodplain authority for the Bendigo Region. The amendment implements the flood modelling outputs of the Bendigo Urban Flood Study (2013) in the form of flood-related overlays that facilitate the identification of land in flood-prone areas and allow for appropriate conditions to be applied to development to manage flood risks. The raw modelling outputs from the flood study have been adapted by the Council and CMA to provide mapping layers that delineate areas subject to potential flood risk. As a general comment, it is always the case that a risk mapping exercise such as a flood study is subject to uncertainties. Whilst best practices are typically applied to define the design flood extents and depths that are mapped, the results will never be perfect. In order to deal with uncertainty, it is common practice in risk management to take a conservative or cautious approach. In the design of structures this is often termed the “safety factor”. In flood risk management this is typically accounted for through applied freeboard. This is the height that a building or levee is built above the design flood level. This additional height partly takes into account the uncertainty in determining design flood levels and extents, as well as the risk of a greater than design-magnitude flood occurring, or other factors such wave action and climate change. In be able to apply appropriate flood risk management it is necessary to identify all flood-prone land within the floodplain. Once flood-prone areas are identified, individual site conditions can be assessed and appropriate conditions placed on development such as heights or location of works. The amendment seeks to apply the best available flood information to the planning scheme so that flood risks can be appropriately managed. 7 BENDIGO URBAN FLOOD STUDY Water Technology completed the Bendigo Urban Flood Study in 2013, which is the basis for the proposed planning scheme amendment. This study involved detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling for Bendigo’s urban areas and outskirts, including Bendigo Creek and its major tributaries and overland flow paths. Flood mapping of the Bendigo Creek Catchment was achieved through a significant and detailed flood investigation that utilised industry best practice. Prior to the modelling being undertaken, the study method was peer reviewed to ensure the approach was valid. Additionally, the hydrological modelling was reviewed by an independent panel of technical experts appointed by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE, now Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, DELWP). This was considered particularly important, given hydrological models can be a significant source of uncertainty for studies of this scale. Whilst this was a thoroughly reviewed, technically comprehensive study, there are several limitations to the study outputs, as acknowledged in the report. Some of these limitations are summarised as follows: The 2D model grid size used was 3 m for urban areas and 5 m for semi-urban areas. This resulted in some sub-grid scale hydraulic features not being able to be resolved. Using a finer grid was not practical, given the size of the study area and the timeframes in which the study needed to be delivered. The grid sizes adopted are typical for urban flood mapping studies and appropriate for the purposes of the investigation. 01R01v01.docx - 1957 City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 7 A great deal of effort was put in to ensuring all significant hydraulic structures were represented within the model. However, given the scale of the model, it is inevitable that some features may have been missed, or have been reconfigured since the information was collected. In such cases, localised flooding details may not be ideally represented, however the overall flood regime would not be impacted. The available calibration data was of low quality with gauge records not matching with anecdotal information and regional comparisons to nearby gauges. To compensate for