Planning for stronger, more resilient floodplains

Planning Institute of ( Division) 19 March 2012

Presentation Outline Project Context Commission of Inquiry Initial Observations from Final Report Part 1 Update Floodplain mapping progress Planning scheme implementation progress Part 2 Overview Flood investigation guidance Planning evaluation and land use strategies Planning scheme provisions Flood investigation case study – St George Consultation National Work Snapshot Discussion

The journey so far... Commission of Inquiry Report

Interim report – 1 August 2011

Final report – 16 March 2012

177 Recommendations across 17 chapters including the following of relevance:-

Chapter 2 Floodplain management Chapter 3 Planning framework Chapter 4 State planning instruments Chapter 5 Local planning instruments Chapter 7 Development and flood considerations Chapter 8 Development assessment in practice Chapter 9 Building controls Chapter 10 Essential services Chapter 11 Buy-backs and land swaps

CoI summary as it relates to Authority • The (Authority’s planning scheme) review conclusions lead the Commission to find that there is, in Queensland, a wholly inadequate level of flood mapping • Not all parts of Queensland need a comprehensive flood study - It is not feasible, nor is it necessary, for sophisticated flood mapping to be completed on a state-wide basis • It is not best practice to conduct a flood study for an urban area alone or even for a LGA - A flood study should be completed over a whole catchment • All levels of government would benefit from access to guidelines. Several relevant guidelines already exist including the Authority’s Part 1 and Part 2 guidelines. • QG should draft model flood planning controls, using a similar format and structure to that in the QPP. • Existence and maintenance of a repository of data • QG consider allowing councils to amend a planning scheme by way of the minor amendment process. • The Commission commends the consistent approach to floodplain management proposed by the Authority. • The Commission acknowledges the extensive work that has gone into the interim floodplain maps. Planning for stronger, more resilient floodplains

Scope: • Two part Guideline – Part 1 – Interim measures – Part 2 – Long term solutions • Continue to promote the improvement of floodplain mapping around the state • Guide the preparation of new flood investigations, relative to Councils’ need and resourcing capabilities. • Provide a comprehensive suite of land use transition strategies and development controls for inclusion in new planning schemes An Integrated Approach across a range of disciplines - Project focuses on Land Use Planning

QldRA Project Overview

Planning for stronger, more resilient floodplains assists Councils to ensure that floodplain management is addressed through land use planning.

• Part 1 – Interim measures to support floodplain management in existing planning schemes - an information toolkit including mapping identifying an interim floodplain assessment overlay and interim floodplain management controls.

• Part 2 – Measures to support floodplain management in future planning schemes - consistent floodplain Improving floodplain management controls and regulation across Queensland within new planning schemes prepared under the management through Sustainable Planning Act 2009. the land use planning process... Policy Context

• SPP 1/03 review • QRA work informs but does not replace SPP 1/03 review • Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry • QRA work considers & complements CoI recommendations • SPP 3/11: Coastal Protection & SPP 4/11: Wetlands Protection • Supports policy outcomes in coastal & wetlands areas • Use of Guideline in planning scheme reviews (existing & future) • For voluntary adoption by Councils • May be used to inform State agency reviews of schemes

PART 1 – Interim Solution TOOLKIT Draft Toolkit released on 17 September 2011 for consultation GUIDELINE Toolkit includes: Part 1

• Guideline • Interim Floodplain Assessment Overlay Mapping • Model Development Controls

Final version released on 23 January 2012 following consultation period

Mapping Controls

EXAMPLE Mapping - Bushfire

Mapping produced by QFRS across the State for each Local Government Area.

State wide model of potential bushfire risk areas to be used for planning – default state- wide mechanism

Based of three variables:- • Slope (fire burns quicker on greater slopes) • Aspect (Exposure of direct sunlight on vegetation) • Vegetation • Remnant Vegetation, Pre-clear Vegetation, Tropical Savannahs and Tree Survey data where available

SUMMARY – Dawson River Sub-basin

10m Contours LandSat Gauging Heights

Pre-cleared Stream Orders Aerial for towns vegetation 5 – 9 Alluvial Soils & Pre-Clear Vegetation Layer 2011 Flood Event – Satellite Imagery over Alluvial Soils & Pre-Clear Vegetation Layer Contours from the 1 second DEM (Best available elevation data) Interim Floodplain Overlay Assessment determined by DERM cartographers from all inputs Flood Mapping – Needs to be fit for purpose

Not all parts of Qld need a comprehensive flood study. CoI Final Report, March 2012, pg 54 State-wide mapping • 129 Sub-basins across Queensland • 116 sub-basins have been mapped to date • In total 99.2% of the State has been assessed for floodplains • 26.6% identified within the IFAO • 8,847 map pages produced to date (A3 @1:50,000 scale) • Over 450,000km2 identified as part of Interim Floodplain Assessment Overlay from these 116 river sub-basins • Using more than 35 experienced cartographers • Largest mapping exercise across the country in a long time Working with DERM, the QldRA has • 116 sub-basins completed in under over a matter of months, created seven months maps covering most of Queensland. CoI Final Report, March 2012, pg 67 The 11 sub-basins currently not mapped are: • Hinchinbrook Island • Whitsunday Island • Curtis Island • Fraser Island • Maroochy River • Caboolture River • North Pine River • South Pine River • Stradbroke Islands • • Misc. Other Islands

Two sub-basins underway: Mornington Island and Torres Strait Islands are currently being mapped.

The 5 sub-basins which were partly mapped: • River (excluded LGA's of Brisbane and Ipswich) • Bremer River (only mapped in Scenic Rim LGA) • (only mapped in Scenic Rim LGA) • Albert River (only mapped in Scenic Rim LGA) The interim floodplain maps are a • Coomera & Nerang Rivers (only mapped in Scenic level above not having any flood Rim LGA) mapping at all.

CoI Final Report, March 2012, pg 66 Model development controls • Mapping is only one piece of the puzzle - need development controls to support mapping • Development on land in potential flood area is subject to development controls e.g. Regulating filling and elevation of floor levels • The right development controls and mapping will allow better built form outcomes with respect to flood • Acceptable Outcomes can be tailored to local circumstances

Part 1 – Built Form Outcomes...

Resilient Queenslander... Mitchell, January 2012 Building back better... Condamine, late 2011

Slab on ground construction... St George, January 2012 Part 1 – Case Study Central Highlands

Emerald – experienced significant flooded in 2008 (previously highest) and even higher in Dec 2010

Council administers four planning scheme (pre- amalgamation)

No flood mapping or provisions existed in planning schemes

Some local information collated post events

Council able to utilise the IFAO mapping and locally verify to prepare flood hazard overlay

All four existing planning schemes amended through a streamlined amendment process – less than one month Part 1 – Implementation Progress

• Actively working with other Councils to amend their schemes ie. Banana Shire, Balonne Shire, Somerset Regional, Burdekin Shire, Scenic Rim Regional • Others utilising floodplain mapping for future planning scheme - Part 2 work • All indigenous schemes to utilise the mapping

The interim floodplain maps can be incorporated into a planning scheme process by way of the minor scheme amendment process. CoI Final Report, March 2012, pg 128 Where are we now? Part 2 – Understanding • Management of floodplains is adhoc and piecemeal – Need to promote whole of sub-basin approach through Regional Planning Committees • Conventional floodplain management practice promotes comprehensive approach to flood mapping and risk management – Costly, complex and may be more than required in lower growth/regional areas – Flexible, fit-for-purpose approach is more appropriate • Availability of appropriate data – Contours, DEM & Aerial Imagery through Hazard: The natural event LiDAR capture program Risk: Responding to the hazard • Flood Risk = Consequence x Likelihood – Current practice focuses on likelihood rather than consequence, e.g. 1% AEP • Planners give limited consideration to consequence – Need to change the way we plan in floodplains

Understanding Consequence

Key Messages in Part 2 • Promote fit-for-purpose approach to floodplain management • A Whole-of-sub basin approach – administered through Regional Planning Committees • Different levels of flood investigations are appropriate relative to a Council’s circumstances • Improve planners’ understanding of flood, particularly consequence, using a planning evaluation • Develop considered land use strategies for floodplains - do not sterilise all flood risk areas • Use QPP planning schemes to deliver planning outcomes (particularly the strategic framework) Part 2 – Long term solution Measures to support floodplain management in future planning schemes 1. Flood Investigation Guidance . Needs to be outcome driven rather than via process or methodology . Needs to be economic . Fit for purpose approach

2. Planning Evaluation and Land Use Strategies . Range of planning responses relative to Council circumstances . Avoid sterilising flood prone land . Understand and respond to existing realities of Queensland’s cities and towns

3. Queensland Planning Provisions . Standardised approach in Qld for all new planning schemes . Detailed guidance for local government on how to consider flood . Focus on strategic framework, zoning and codes

Flood Investigation Guidance

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 As per Part 1 Guideline Mid-level Investigation Comprehensive Flood Study

Locally Verified QldRA mapping Standard Data Inputs Detailed Data Inputs + + + Flood Level Flood Frequency Analysis Computer Modelling investigations = = = Basic Hazard Mapping, incl. Detailed Information, incl. Hazard Areas of Inundation + Local flood height & velocity + AEPs Mapping + AEPs levels

• Local Governments select the combination of flood investigations appropriate for their circumstances

Sub-basin wide approach Flood studies should, ideally, be commissioned for whole catchments. Brisbane River Sub-basin CoI Final Report, March 2012, pg 56

• Allows application of multiple floodplain investigation techniques across the sub-basin

• Level 3 investigations are appropriate where: • Large populations & growth pressures exist • Significant mitigation works are present (e.g. Fernvale/Lowood)

• Level 2 investigations may be sufficient for towns such as Esk, , & Linville Flood Investigation Guidance cont. • Recent advances in availability of data – Excellent contour information (0.25m) for many Queensland towns through LiDAR capture programmes currently underway – DERM IQQM model can provide streamflow data for long period of record across most Qld sub-basins – DERM velocity information available at gauging stations – via Doppler or manual capture of 2010/2011 events, and other historic events – Councils records of historic/recent flood information • Data availability makes Level 2 flood investigation possible in many areas Previously best available 10m contours Now provides 0.25m Inland towns project has seen 80 towns captured Working with DERM/ EMQ of use of data Councils may choose to use the QldRA’s maps of the 201/2011 flood [to regulate development]. CoI Final Report, March 2012, pg 66 Flood Investigation Level 2

Key Elements for a Level 2 • LiDAR captured - contours • DERM water data or Council flood information • Generally for populations under 5000 • Assigns an AEP per flood occurrence + high & low hazard map for selected flood(s) • Tailored to land use planning purposes • Considers probability + consequence • Can be prepared in-house (no consultant/computer modelling required) • Local verification critical • Can use planning evaluation to develop land It is not feasible, nor is it necessary, use strategies and planning scheme responses for sophisticated flood mapping to • Flood Investigation Level 2 has been prepared be completed on a state-wide basis. for Taroom CoI Final Report, March 2012, pg 67 Level 2 Investigations completed to date

St George Surat Taroom Kilkivan

Mareeba Black River Quilpie Planning Evaluation & Land Use Strategies • Investigate relationship between flood hazard areas & land use through a planning evaluation • Planning evaluation identifies areas of low, medium and high risk • Opportunity to ‘front-load’ considerations of flood through zoning, not just DA process – greater certainty • Develop planning responses to each area of risk – Maintain the status quo – Adapt existing areas – Retreat from specific existing urban areas – Expand into suitable new urban areas – Maintain agricultural and rural landscape values

Planning Evaluation – Checklist & Template Checklist 1 What is the nature of the hazard in the floodplain and where does it occur? 2 Where are existing settlements, infrastructure or other places of key social or economic Exposure importance located within each hazard area? 3 Are the existing development commitments in the hazard areas? 4 Do these exposed places include vulnerable persons, or is the hazard (such as flood depth or velocity) when it occurs so great that living in the area is of significant concern? Vulnerability 5 Is the area served by appropriate emergency management procedures? 6 Is the built form resilient to the hazard? 7 What is the community’s attitude to the hazard – are they resilient or vulnerable? 8 Is there an overriding economic or social need to continue living and working in this area? Tolerability 9 Are there existing or proposed structural controls for the area that will reduce the hazard? 10 What are the community’s expectations regarding immunity and protection? Example Land Use Responses • High risk – Generally Intolerable – Land use strategy: Retreat from specific urban areas – Transition Strategy: Actively limit future development through planning scheme and/or non scheme measure (e.g. Land swap program) – Scheme response: Strategic framework to discourage most/all uses in this area & designate Limited Development (Constrained Land) Zone for the high risk area • Medium risk – Tolerable – Land use strategy: Adapt existing areas – Transition Strategy: Discourage sensitive uses (e.g. child care or aged care facility) but permit most uses so as to not sterilise land – Scheme response: Strategic framework to discourage susceptible uses & use “Flood Constrained Precinct” within zonings that discourage sensitive uses and use overlay code for built form controls • Low risk – Generally Acceptable – Land use strategy: Adapt existing areas – Transition Strategy: Implement built form improvements – Scheme response: Few land use restrictions & use overlay code to ensure that built form responds to the low risk (i.e. Elevation)

Planning Scheme Provisions • Translate land use strategies into planning scheme provisions – Focus on strategic framework – Zone Codes & Precincts – Limited Development & Residential Choice (Flood Constrained Precinct) – Overlay Code

Summary of Key Deliverables

• Flood Investigation Guidance – 3 levels of flood investigation – Step by step guide to Level 2 investigation – Indicative Terms of Reference for Level 3 • Planning Evaluation Checklist & Template • Indicative Land Use Transition Strategies • QPP-compliant Planning Scheme Provisions – Using real Banana Shire draft planning scheme – Strategic Framework Provisions – Zone Codes – Enhanced Overlay Code Case Study – St George

• LiDAR captured and validated in December 2011 provides contours to 0.25m, previously 10m • 2011 Floodlines captured including aerial imagery • DERM and BoM Gauge in town with records back to 1916 • BoM determines flooding for St George – Minor 4.0m – Moderate 5.0m – Major 6.0m – Town affected at 12.1m – Bridge affected at 10.6m • Previous highest recorded flood March 2010 13.39m • 5 February 2012 new highest recorded at 13.95m.

Steps 1 & 2 – Flood Frequency Analysis & Velocity Information

• Compute AEP for all floods using basic formulae (Log Pearson III method) • Select flood to investigate (usually highest recorded) • Flood selected for St George was the then highest recorded, which approximated a 1% AEP event • Velocity data for that event also obtained obtain velocity data for that flood (DERM) – Doppler data was available

Flow Flow Gauge Height Monte Carlo 90% Probability Limits AEP estimate (ML/day) (cumecs) (m) (cumecs) 10% 154964 1794 10.71 1554 2087 5% 197045 2281 11.66 1957 2745 2% 249693 2890 12.68 2404 3743 1% 287008 3322 >13.0 2672 4590 0.5% 322047 3727 >13.0 2887 5509 0.2% 364838 4223 >13.0 3105 6824 0.1% 394578 4567 >13.0 3233 7895 Step 3 – Mapping Data

• LiDAR contour information obtained (0.25m contours) & mapped • Including aerial imagery of 2011 flood line, points of interest & cadastre

DERM Gauge Location Step 4 – Initial Identification of Flood Hazard • Land use zones of existing planning scheme overlaid with flood information • Also mapped 0.5m line below flood height – for initial low hazard zone (flood depth > 0.5m) • All low depth hazard areas also low velocity areas – from velocity information

Step 5 – High & Low Flood Hazard Map, subject to local verification • Local verification gives additional information on key local characteristics • E.g. Sunwater irrigation channel acts as levee for southern part of town Undertake planning evaluation

• Focus on hazard areas – western side of town • Approach tailored to circumstances • Analysis results in levels of risk for land use purposes – low, medium and high • Council may consider existing residential properties in west of town at ‘high’ risk – retreat from these areas • Council may consider other properties closer to centre of town as ‘low’ or ‘medium’ risk – adapt these areas to the risk

Image – Lyndon Mechielson (AP) Develop planning scheme responses & implement non-scheme planning measures

Council may wish to consider: – Back zoning high risk residential and rural residential parcels to Open Space Zone or other restricted zone such as Limited Development or Sport & Recreation – Creating flood-constrained precincts in areas at medium risk, to avoid placing susceptible uses in harm’s way – Adding overlay to manage built form outcomes in low & medium risk areas – Non-scheme measures such as building controls, voluntary purchase or land swap programmes to complement the land use transition

Undertake Planning Evaluation – Kilkivan

• Identify hazard areas • Consider existing settlement pattern • Properties at northern edge of town appear at higher risk than centre of town – showgrounds & rural residential properties • Council may also need to consider land uses in eastern side of town adjacent the watercourse • Historic development pattern respects Wide Bay Creek • Focus future growth away from flood risk

Develop planning scheme responses & implement non-scheme planning measures

• Add overlay code to manage built form outcomes in areas of concern • Council may also need to consider land uses in northern & eastern side of town adjacent the watercourses • Focus future land use zoning (particularly rural residential and residential zoning) away from Wide Bay Creek • Implement non-scheme measures (such as building controls) to complement land use approach PART 2 – Consultation • Released state-wide for targeted consultation • 37 Council, 3 industry and 9 State agency briefings were undertaken • 15 submissions received: – 8 Local Councils – 4 State agencies – 3 Industry groups • Key matters raised: – Support for body of work – Release of work prior to Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry – Future roles and responsibilities of stakeholders – Consideration of climate change

PART 2 – Finalisation

Key refinements to consider: – Clarifying terminology – Clarify planning evaluation process – Consider approach to flood in regional planning instruments – Consider findings of the COI report

Where to from here?

• Project to date has provoked discussion related to roles & responsibilities, data availability & sharing, funding & Council liability, amongst others • Range of non-land use matters that must be addressed in order to be effective • CoI report deals with these matters in detail • Key matters include:

Funding – arrangements & process Legislation – statutory framework Organisation – roles/responsibilities Operations – capacity building Data – sharing & availability Strategy – policy & planning Where to from here? Con’td.

• Roles and Responsibilities • Regional Planning Committees as the primary floodplain management entity • Strong correlation between sub-basins and RPC boundaries • Sub-basin wide approach can be achieved • Local and State government working together

It is advisable...that consideration be given to flooding when preparing or revising a regional plan. CoI Final Report, March 2012, pg 109 Where to from here? Con’td.

TSPP 2/11 • CoI report recommends change to TSPP to ensure IFAO mapping is not used as permanent solution in both existing and new planning schemes • TSPP established to support minor amendment process & to front load considerations of flood • IFAO was developed as interim, subject to local refinement & is part of the identified hierarchy of flood maps • Floodplain mapping is a journey, with further refinement and ongoing understanding required • Central Highlands have adopted into four existing schemes whilst undertaking detailed flood studies which will inform new planning schemes • Due to expire in November 2012 Emergency Response – St George

• Recent flooding in St George was highest ever, greater than 2010 event • The Authority was requested to prepare flood inundation scenarios for range of flood peaks • The Level 2 flood investigation assisted the State Disaster Management Committee in announcing evacuations to areas of the town Images – Lyndon Mechielson (AP) • This work was performed initially from a planning perspective and became beneficial for emergency management to illustrate scenarios • A low cost task to undertake in a short amount of time with a high level of significance

St George – 2012 event comparison

High correlation within town and north of gauging stations – accurate model of actual event St George – 2012 event comparison

Less correlation in rural areas south of town & gauging stations – due to flood slope assumptions & influence of levees NOT JUST AN ISSUE IN QUEENSLAND ...BUT A NATIONAL ISSUE National Strategy for Disaster Resilience COAG endorsed the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, which is a review of Australia’s approach in dealing with natural disasters – mitigation to guard against disasters, response during a disaster event, and post-disaster relief and recovery.

The strategy aims to take action in:

– Leading change and coordinating effort – Understanding risks – Communicating with and educating people about risks – Partnering with those who effect change – Empowering individuals and communities to exercise choice and take responsibility – Reducing risks in the built environment – Supporting capabilities for disaster resilience

National Strategy for Disaster Resilience cont’d

• The Implementation Plan version 1.3 released in September 2011 identified 7 strategic priorities including Strategic Priority 6: Reducing risks in the built environment:

- Task 6.1 requires that an action plan to work in partnership with the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), Standards Australia (SA), planning officials at all levels of government and across other relevant public and private organisations to influence and effect land-use planning and building codes so that they integrate consideration of priority hazards.

- Task 6.2 requires that options are explored for routine disclosure of priority hazards on the transfer of real property and report back to COAG with a proposed way forward by the end of 2011.

Council of Australian Project Governance Government (COAG)

First Ministers

Land Use Planning and Building Codes Standing Council on Police and Taskforce (LUPBCT) Emergency Management (SCPEM) Co-Chairs - Brendan Nelson (Qld) and Peter Allen (Vic) Relevant Emergency Management Ministers

• Established working groups within each Australian jurisdiction (including the National Emergency Commonwealth) undertook workshops Management Committee (NEMC) between 17 and 30 January 2012. Attorney General and Directors General • The workshops attracted a total of 105 attendees from a vast range of backgrounds, Risk Assessment, Measurement including land use planning, building, and Mitigation Sub-Committee emergency management and Local Government (RAMMS) associations. Jurisdictional Project Managers

• Dialogue is continuing with the established jurisdictional working groups. Land Use Planning and Building

Code Taskforce (LUPBCT) Co-Chairs – Queensland and Victoria

Why are we doing this? By 2025 … I am contributing to a stronger, more resilient Australia by being informed and prepared for the natural hazards that may affect where I live, work and play

Cyclone Tracey (‘74) Cyclone Yasi (‘11)

Newcastle Earthquake (’89) Black Saturday (’10) Brisbane Floods (’11) WA Bushfires (’11) Project Progress

Current Gap Vision Roadmap State Analysis

Endorsed Draft

 Workshops with every State & Territory across Australia across multiple jurisdictions, including: planning & development, emergency management, local government, Australian Building Codes Board, Standards Australia & Geoscience Australia  In depth analysis of existing legislative & policy frameworks  Integrated nationwide roadmap for planning, building & emergency management Initial Observations In relation to technology, the Gap Analysis has found:-

• No consistency in approach to hazard mapping or controls • Lack of available baseline data • Where data exists difficulty in utilising for cross purposes ie. emergency management and land use planning sectors • Custodianship (including maintenance) of data is inconsistent between jurisdictions • Liability and indemnity

Achieving the Vision Primary focus Integrated legislation • Integrating relevant planning, building and emergency management functions Process enhancements • Efficient and technically robust review of DA’s and new/amended planning instruments Comprehensive data and mapping • Consistent all hazard mapping and risk methodology and ‘fit for purpose’ mapping

Secondary focus Governance partnerships • Collaboration between all tiers of government, research and tertiary institutions Lifelong education and training • Lifelong learning opportunities from school through to ongoing professional development (inc. PIA initiative) Specific focus Collaborative vendor disclosure • Nationally consistent framework for disclosure of hazard information Consistency between Commonwealth, ACT and NSW • Achieving consistent cross-boundary arrangements The Way Forward...

• Now is the time to break the mould – change will be generational • Promote a whole-of-sub basin approach • Focus on consequence of the hazard • Not about sterilising land – tailor land use & built form to the flood risk • Promote better built form outcomes • Fit for purpose guidance for flood investigations • Improve data quality and accessibility • Front load planning schemes • Reduce emphasis on the DA stage

Improving floodplain management through the land use planning process