Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82 Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

18 November 2014

Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82 Land Subject to Inundation Overlay 18 November 2014

Trevor McCullough, Chair Mandy Elliott, Member

Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Contents

Page Executive Summary ...... iv 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 The Amendment ...... 1 1.2 Process ...... 1 1.3 Further Directions ...... 2 2 The Proposal ...... 3 2.1 Background ...... 3 2.2 The Proposed Overlay ...... 3 2.3 Council Position Paper ...... 5 2.4 Issues dealt with in this Report ...... 6 3 Strategic Planning Context ...... 8 3.1 Policy framework ...... 8 3.2 Planning scheme provisions ...... 11 3.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ...... 12 3.4 Strategic Assessment ...... 13 4 Mapping and the Scientific Basis for the Amendment ...... 14 4.1 Planning for Climate Change ...... 14 4.2 Planning for 0.8m Sea Level Rise by 2100 or 0.2m by 2040 for Urban Infill Development ...... 17 4.3 Mapping of the LSIO ...... 21 4.4 Is the LSIO the Most Appropriate Tool? ...... 30 4.5 Filled Land ...... 31 4.6 Land with Access Issues During Flooding ...... 32 4.7 Allowing for Reservoir Discharge ...... 34 5 General Issues ...... 35 5.1 Social and Economic Implications ...... 35 5.2 Coastal Protection Works ...... 36 5.3 Timing of the Amendment ...... 38 5.4 Other Issues Raised in Submissions ...... 39 6 Site Specific Issues ...... 41 6.1 McCrae Property Inverloch‐Kongwak Road, Wattlebank ...... 41 6.2 Heslops Road, Wonthaggi North ...... 44 7 The Form and Content of the Amendment ...... 46 7.1 The Schedule to the LSIO ...... 46 7.2 Wording of the Local Policy ...... 49

Page i Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Appendix A List of Submitters Appendix B Document List Appendix C Panel Preferred LSIO Schedule

List of Tables

Page Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing ...... 2

List of Figures

Page Figure 1 Floodplain management authority boundaries ...... 4 Figure 2 The exhibited LSIO ...... 5 Figure 3 Proposed Amendment C82 Map of Powlett River showing previously exhibited LSIO extents and revised mapping ...... 28 Figure 4 LSIO changes on the McRae property ...... 42 Figure 5 Minor amendment to LSIO proposed at Wattlebank ...... 43 Figure 6 Proposed changes to mapping Heslops Road, North Wonthaggi ...... 45

Page ii Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

List of Abbreviations

AEP Annual Exceedance Probability AHD Australian Height Datum ARI Average Recurrence Interval BOM Bureau of Meteorology CHVA Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation DEM Digital Elevation Model DEPI Department of Environment and Primary Industries DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development (now DTPLI) DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LCHA Local Coastal Hazard Assessment LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework LSIO Land Subject to Inundation Overlay MSS Municipal Strategic Statement MW Melbourne Water SPPF State Planning Policy Framework VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal VCID Victorian Coastal Inundation Dataset VPP Victoria Planning Provisions WGCMA West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority

Page iii Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Executive Summary

(i) Summary Amendment C82 to the Bass Coast Planning Scheme proposes to apply a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) to areas affected by riverine flooding of the Powlett and Bass Rivers and other waterways; and areas at risk of inundation from predicted coastal inundation in the future. The Amendment deletes the current LSIO that applies to some of these areas and applies a new overlay based on more recent mapping. The joint Proponents for the Amendment are Bass Coast Shire Council, Melbourne Water and the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority. The Amendment introduces a new schedule to the LSIO that sets out permit requirements, application requirements and referral arrangements; and makes a number of minor changes to the Local Policy designed to reinforce appropriate consideration of flood and coastal inundation, and environmental hazards generally, in assessing proposed development. The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 13 March 2014 and 2 May 2014, with 141 submissions received, including 23 late submissions. Council was unable to resolve all issues raised in submissions and requested the Minister for Planning appoint an independent panel to consider submissions and make recommendations in respect to the Amendment. The Panel consisted of Trevor McCullough (Chair) and Mandy Elliott. The Panel conducted Public Hearings in Wonthaggi on 7 to 10 October 2014. The main issues raised in submissions related to:  Mapping issues in relation to planning for sea level rise;  Mapping of specific locations that have been filled since mapping was completed;  Challenges to the methodology employed and the accuracy of datasets;  Inclusion in the LSIO of land not directly predicted to flood but included due to expected access impacts;  Site specific mapping submissions and proposed corrections;  Objection to the LSIO schedule requirement for a Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment;  Requested changes to the LSIO schedule to allow permit exemptions for certain works;  Concerns about potential impacts on property values and insurance premiums;  Requests for Council to carry out further coastal protection works;  Requests that the Proponents wait for direction from the State government, particularly regarding the finalisation of the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment and the Victorian Coastal Strategy; and  Concern that the Amendment does not take into account the future dredging of Western Port Bay. The Panel has considered all submissions and presentations made to it and concluded that the methodology and datasets used by the Proponents are adequate and suitable for the purpose. The Panel also concludes that the LSIO should allow for the potential impacts of climate change, specifically by planning for the effects of 0.2m sea level rise by 2040 in urban

Page iv Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

infill areas within town boundaries and 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 in all other areas, consistent with State policy. The Panel acknowledges the inherent inaccuracies in some of the methodologies adopted by the Proponents in obtaining topographic data (generally using LiDAR mapping) and modelling predicted flood levels, specifically using the ‘bathtub model’ for predicted coastal inundation. The Panel is nevertheless satisfied that the type of information and level of accuracy is satisfactory and appropriate for the strategic purpose of creating a trigger for planning permits as is proposed by this Amendment. The Panel believes that the Proponents have applied the best available data to mapping the boundaries of the LSIO, including applying ground truthing, use of photographic evidence and applying local knowledge to refine boundaries and correct errors. The Panel applauds the Proponents for the lengths that they have gone to in order to address site specific issues raised by submitters in order to achieve the most accurate mapping possible. The Panel notes that, over time, further, more accurate data will likely become available. Further information such as: the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment; the impacts of any dredging of Western Port Bay; and more detailed modelling of coastal inundation and riverine flooding, may all become available over the coming years. If and when it does, the Proponents should revisit the planning controls accordingly. The Panel has accepted the changes to the proposed LSIO as adopted by Bass Coast Shire Council at its 16 July 2014 Council meeting and as shown in Post Exhibition LSIO Mapping tabled at the Hearing, subject to: changing the boundaries to correspond to a sea level rise of 0.2m by 2040 in urban infill areas; and applying other changes to the LSIO and the LSIO schedule as set to in the following recommendations.

(ii) Recommendations Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends: Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82 be adopted as exhibited, subject to the following changes: 1. Apply LSIO boundaries in urban infill areas that correspond to sea level rise of 0.2m by 2040 as shown in revised Post Exhibition LSIO Mapping tabled at the Hearing. 2. Apply LSIO boundaries in greenfield areas (outside township boundaries) that correspond to sea level rise of 0.8m by 2100 as shown in revised Post Exhibition LSIO Mapping tabled at the Hearing. 3. Make further amendments to the LSIO as required when further, more detailed modelling information becomes available. 4. Amend the LSIO mapping for Powlett River to reflect the recent work undertaken by West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority that considered the 2012 Powlett River flood extent. 5. Amend the LSIO as appropriate to remove properties identified on endorsed and constructed engineering plans as being filled and no longer at risk of flooding. 6. Remove elevated ‘islands’ and ‘access land’ affected by coastal inundation (which are not likely to be directly subject to coastal inundation, but were included in the

Page v Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

exhibited version of the Amendment for access reasons) from the LSIO as shown in revised Post Exhibition LSIO Mapping tabled at the Hearing. 7. Review the LSIO applying to the Bass River area once modelling of the impact of the Candowie Reservoir discharge is available. 8. Delete the elevated ‘island’ of land on the McRae property on Inverloch‐Kongwak Road, Wattlebank from the LSIO as shown in Figure 4 of this report. 9. Amend the LSIO mapping west of Inverloch‐Kongwak Road, Wattlebank as shown in Figure 5 of this report. 10. Amend the LSIO in the vicinity of Heslops Road, North Wonthaggi as shown in Figure 6 of this report 11. Amend the proposed LSIO Schedule as shown in the Panel Preferred Version at Appendix C of this report. 12. Changes to Clause 21.10 – Local Areas should incorporate the changes made to Clause 21.10‐1 made as part of Amendment C124, gazetted in April 2014.

Page vi Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

1 Introduction 1.1 The Amendment Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82 (the Amendment) was prepared by the Bass Coast Shire Council as Planning Authority. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to make the following changes to the Planning Scheme:  Clause 21.02 Profile of the Bass Coast Shire is amended so that reference to sea level rise is consistent with State policy. That is, planning for sea level rise of at least 0.8m by 2100.  Clause 21.03 Key Issues is amended to include riverine flooding and coastal inundation as environmental hazards.  Clause 21.04 Vision is amended so that an appropriate response to environmental hazards is listed as a vision for the environment.  Clause 21.05 Settlement is amended to include a new objective which seeks to discourage inappropriate development in areas where an environmental hazard has been identified.  Clause 21.07 Environment is amended to include a reference to strongly discouraging development that affects the natural flow path of waterways.  Clause 21.10 Local Areas is amended so that settlements that are affected by the LSIO include strategies for planning for an appropriate response to environmental hazards and that development is responsive to identified flood and coastal inundation risks identified in the LSIO.  Clause 44.04 Land Subject to Inundation Overlay – the Schedule to the Overlay and Schedule 2 to the Overlay are deleted. They are replaced with one Schedule to the Overlay that addresses all areas that will be affected by the LSIO mapping. The Amendment applies to land throughout the Bass Coast Shire that has been identified as being affected by riverine flooding, or predicted coastal inundation. 1.2 Process The Amendment was prepared at the request of Melbourne Water and West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA) and was authorised by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) on 11 October 2013 (Authorisation no A022648). The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 13 March 2014 and 2 May 2014, with 141 submissions received, including 23 late submissions. The submitters are listed in Appendix A. At its meeting of 16 July 2014, Council considered a Position Paper which responded to submissions raised and resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel. A Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 12 June 2014 and comprised Trevor McCullough (Chair) and Mandy Elliott. A directions hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 19 August 2014, and a public panel hearing was held at the offices of Bass Coast Shire (Wonthaggi Town Hall) on 7 to 10

Page 1 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

October 2014 to hear submissions in respect of the Amendment. Those who presented to the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing Submitter Represented by Bass Coast Shire Council, Ms Tamara Brezzi of Norton Rose Fulbright and calling West Gippsland Catchment expert evidence from: Management Authority (WGCMA) - Dr Andrew McCowan from Water Technology on water and flooding and Melbourne Water (MW) Ms Natalie Gray Representing 81 parties (most who made separate submissions) and calling expert evidence from: - Dr David Provis oceanographer Preserve Western Port Action Group Represented by Mr Jeffrey Nottle Ms Bonnie Baird and Mr Dugald Baird Calling Mr Dugald Baird as an expert witness in drainage and flood mitigation Mr Adrian Mitchell Mr Michael Haldon Mr Maurice Schinkel Mr Ian Hitchings Mr David and Ms Marie Trigg Dr Michael Janson Mr Paul Axon Mr Guy Wilson‐Brown Mr Ken Blackman Mr Len and Mr Des McRae Mr Alan Clarke Ms Sarah Myhill Mr David Buckingham Mr David Davies 1.3 Further Directions During the course of the Hearing some errors were identified in the LSIO mapping in the vicinity of Heslops Road, North Wonthaggi. The Panel directed that the Proponents notify the affected landowners of the subsequent proposed change to the LSIO and be given the opportunity to make a submission to the Panel. This notification occurred on 21 October 2014, with landowners given 14 days to make a submission. Representatives of the WGCMA subsequently spoke directly to several affected landowners and made some further minor changes to the mapping. These changes are discussed in Section 6.2 of this report. No further written submissions were received.

Page 2 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

2 The Proposal 2.1 Background The Amendment seeks to apply the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) to areas throughout the Bass Coast Shire affected by riverine flooding, as well as areas that have been identified as being affected by coastal inundation as a result of predicted future sea level rise. Riverine flood extents are based on the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability, or ‘one in one hundred year’ flood extents. This is consistent with how the LSIO is applied across the State. It is also the basis for identifying flood affected areas under the Water Act 1989 and for setting minimum building floor levels under the Building Act 1993. Coastal inundation extents have been mapped using State adopted sea level rise climate projections and the Future Coasts Victorian Coastal Inundation dataset prepared by the former Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), now the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI). The mapping shows predicted coastal inundation as well as the combined impacts of wind, waves, storm surge and tides. The Amendment makes a number of other changes to the planning scheme which complement the introduction of the overlay and update local policies around climate change to be consistent with the State policy. Bass Coast Shire Council commenced catchment flood mapping for the areas around the Powlett River and Inverloch in 2008, following a request from WGCMA. In 2009 coastal areas and further riverine flooding around the Bass River were added, following requests from DPCD to include coastal hazards and the impacts of climate change, and requests from Melbourne Water to include the Bass River area. In August 2013, Council resolved to seek authorisation for Amendment C82, including Powlett River, Bass River and all areas along the coast affected by the Future Coasts Victorian Coastal Inundation dataset. The Amendment was subsequently exhibited in its current form in March 2014. 2.2 The Proposed Overlay The Amendment proposes to apply the LSIO to areas affected by riverine flooding from the Powlett and Bass Rivers and other waterways and areas at risk of inundation from predicted coastal inundation in the future. The Amendment deletes the current LSIO that applies to some of these areas and applies a new overlay based on more recent mapping. The Amendment introduces a new Schedule to the LSIO that sets out permit requirements, application requirements and referral arrangements. The relevant floodplain management authorities are Melbourne Water and WGCMA which are responsible for the areas as shown in Figure 1.

Page 3 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Figure 1 Floodplain management authority boundaries

The proposed application of the LSIO (as exhibited) is shown at a very small scale in Figure 2. The Amendment proposes the application of the LSIO at a detailed scale with the boundaries of the overlay able to be read at a property specific level. The Amendment applies the LSIO to parts of 61 of the 71 Bass Coast Shire planning maps, and removes the LSIO entirely from one map. The mapping methodology for the LSIO is discussed in Chapter 4.

Page 4 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Figure 2 The exhibited LSIO

2.3 Council Position Paper In response to submissions received, Council prepared a Position Paper which summarised the key issues raised in the 141 submissions received, and proposed a response to each issue which was subsequently adopted by Council at its 16 July 2014 meeting. The Position Paper summarised the issues raised under the following headings: Mapping issues Issue 1.1: Concerns about the scientific background behind the mapping (in particular, the coastal inundation mapping), the integrity of the data and the probability of such an event occurring. Issue 1.2: Objection to planning for 0.8m sea level rise by the year 2100. Issue 1.3: Objection to the overlay in residential development sites where the ground level has been elevated using fill, or where a planning permit stipulates that the area must be filled. Issue 1.4: Access issues and the inclusion of areas which are not predicted to flood or be affected by predicted coastal inundation. Issue 1.5: Objection to the exhibited Powlett River mapping and proposal from WGCMA to amend the mapping. Issue 1.6: Consideration of reservoir discharges.

Page 5 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Ordinance Issues Issue 2.1: Objection to the proposed provisions of the Amendment. In particular, objection to the requirement for a Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment for developments below 5m AHD in coastal areas. Issue 2.2: Objection to planning for the year 2100 when a building may have a shorter life than 85 years. Issue 2.3: The provisions of the Schedule should be amended so that the permit exemptions for urban areas also apply to rural areas. Issue 2.4: Need for exemptions for Water Authorities to undertake general maintenance on water supply infrastructure. Issue 2.5: Concern regarding whether all Earthworks required a permit. Issue 2.6: Concern about the requirement for a permit for boardwalks. General issues Issue 3.1: Concerns about the social and economic implications on affected landowners, in particular the impact on property values and insurance premiums and the ability to obtain insurance. Issue 3.2: Questions concerning what protection works will be undertaken by Council and or State government, particularly coastal protection works in the Waterline areas and Cowes/Silverleaves area. Objection on the grounds that engineered solutions can eliminate the need for the overlay. Issue 3.3: Requests that Council wait for direction from the State government, particularly regarding the finalisation of the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment and the Victorian Coastal Strategy. Issue 3.4: Concern that the flooding in the Silverleaves area is caused by inadequate drainage. Issue 3.5: Objections to the amendment based on a perceived lack of information provided and community consultation. Issue 3.6: Concern that the amendment does not take into account the future dredging of Western Port Bay. Issue 3.7: Criticism that Council did not release the coastal inundation information earlier. 2.4 Issues dealt with in this Report Submissions included reference to a wide range of general and site specific issues. Because of the high number of submissions the Panel has necessarily had to structure its report around general themes. All written submissions and presentations to the Hearing have been reviewed by the Panel and have helped to inform its conclusions. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites.

Page 6 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

This report has adopted the following heading structure that responds to the issues raised in the Council Position Paper, and adds a number of other issues that arose during the Hearing:  Strategic Planning Context  Mapping and Scientific Basis for the Amendment - Planning for Climate Change - Planning for 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 or 0.2m by 2040 for urban infill development - Mapping of the LSIO - Is the LSIO the Most Appropriate Tool - Filled Land - Land with Access Issues During Flooding - Allowing for Reservoir Discharge  General Issues - Social and Economic Implications - Coastal Protection Works - Timing of the Amendment - Other Issues Raised in Submissions  Site Specific Issues - McRae Property - Heslops Road  The Form and Content of the Amendment - The Schedule to the LSIO - Wording of the Local Policy

Page 7 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

3 Strategic Planning Context

Council, as the Planning Authority, provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report. The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the relevant policy, controls and other relevant planning strategies. 3.1 Policy framework 3.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework The Proponents submitted that the Amendment is supported by the following SPPF clauses:

(i) Coastal Inundation Clause 13.01‐1 Coastal inundation and erosion Objective: To plan for and manage the potential coastal impacts of climate change. Proponents’ response: Amendment C82 plans for the potential impacts of climate change by identifying areas that may be affected by coastal inundation. The Amendment manages this issue by incorporating a planning permit trigger for new developments in the affected areas. This will help to ensure that new development is responsive to the inundation risk and that the relevant Floodplain Management Authority is provided with an opportunity to comment on the proposed development. Strategy: In planning for possible sea level rise, an increase of 0.2 metres over current 1 in 100 year flood levels by 2040 may be used for new development in close proximity to existing development (urban infill). Proponents’ response: This strategy is relevant for the consideration of development applications received. Consideration of 2040 and 2100 flood levels is embedded in the process for assessing development applications in relation to sea level rise carried out by both WGCMA (Guidelines for Coastal Catchment Management Authorities, Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2012) and Melbourne Water (Planning for Sea Level Rise, Melbourne Water, 2012). Strategy: Plan for possible sea level rise of 0.8 metres by 2100, and allow for the combined effects of tides, storm surges, coastal processes and local conditions such as topography and geology when assessing risks and coastal impacts associated with climate change. Proponents’ Response: This strategy forms the policy basis for the coastal inundation mapping for Amendment C82. The mapping identifies the potential inundation extents up to the year 2100, using the Victorian Future Coasts Inundation Dataset (VCID), which maps 0.82m sea level rise plus the 1 in 100 year storm event. The Amendment will trigger the need for planning permits for developments which have the potential to be adversely affected by predicted long term coastal inundation impacts. The reference to “0.8m by 2100” was not removed when the

Page 8 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

strategy for “0.2m by 2040” was included in the State Planning Policy Framework through Amendment VC94 in 2012, so both strategies remain relevant. Strategy: Consider the risks associated with climate change in planning and management decision making processes. Proponents’ Response: The Amendment proposes permit triggers for new developments in areas that have been identified as being at risk from the impacts of climate change. By identifying the risk, Council will be able to consider the risks and make decisions based on informed advice from relevant Floodplain Management Authority. Strategy: For new green field development outside of town boundaries, plan for not less than 0.8 metre sea level rise by 2100. The application of the overlay is consistent with this strategy. Strategy: Ensure that land subject to coastal hazards are identified and appropriately managed to ensure that future development is not at risk. Proponents’ Response: The application of the overlay implements this by requiring assessment through a planning permit application. Strategy: Ensure that development or protective works seeking to respond to coastal hazard risks avoids detrimental impacts on coastal processes. Proponents’ Response: The application of the overlay will ensure that developments are designed to avoid these impacts. Strategy: Avoid development in identified coastal hazard areas susceptible to inundation (both river and coastal), erosion, landslip/landslide, acid sulfate soils, bushfire and geotechnical risk. Proponents’ Response: The application of the overlay allows this to be considered through permit applications.

(ii) Riverine Flooding Clause 11 Settlement Clause 11.05‐4 Regional Planning Strategies and principles Strategies: Climate change, natural hazards and community safety Respond to the impacts of climate change and natural hazards and promote community safety by:  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.  Developing adaptation response strategies for existing settlements in hazardous and high risk areas to accommodate change over time.  Encouraging reduced energy and water consumption through environmentally sustainable subdivision and building design.

Page 9 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

 Encouraging a form and density of settlements that support sustainable transport to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Clause 13.02 Floodplains Clause 13.02‐1 Floodplain management Objective ‐ 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. 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. 3.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework The Proponents submitted that the Amendment supports the following local planning objectives:

(i) Coastal Inundation Clause 21.07‐4 Climate Change Objective 3 ‐ discourage development in areas that may be affected by climate change Proponents’ response: The Amendment will identify areas affected by current and predicted coastal inundation extents and seeks to encourage an appropriate response to the risk at a development application stage. Strategies: Strategy 3.1 Determine the effects of sea level rise and storm surges and prepare and implement strategies to address any potential issues. Strategy 3.2 Increase the Council and the community’s knowledge and understanding of the effects of climate change in the municipality. Proponent’s response: The amendment seeks to map predicted sea level rise for planning purposes which in turn will increase Council’s and the community’s knowledge and understanding of the predicted impacts of predicted coastal inundation as a result of a changing climate in Bass Coast.

Page 10 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

(ii) Riverine Flooding Clause 21.07‐3 Environmental Hazards Flooding and Salinity Objective 3 ‐ to restrict and control development on land prone to flooding and salinity. Strategies Strategy 3.1 Ensure that the areas prone to flooding are planned and managed in a way which reduces the vulnerability of uses to flooding and prevents inappropriate works and developments. Strategy 3.2 Discourage development on land prone to flooding and salinity and ensure that development does not increase the risk of an environmental hazard. Proponents’ Response: The amendment implements the strategies which seek to identifying areas affected by flooding. The amendment will ensure that the objectives and strategies of these clauses will be a consideration when new developments are being considered in the affected areas. 3.2 Planning scheme provisions

(i) Zones The Amendment applies or amends overlays over differently zoned areas, but makes no change to the application of any zone.

(ii) Overlays The Amendment proposes to apply or amend the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) across the Bass Coast Shire. The application of the LSIO and its appropriateness as a planning tool are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. The LSIO includes the following purposes relevant to the Amendment:  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 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.

Page 11 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

(iii) Other planning strategies The Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 (recently updated 2014) was referred to by a number of submitters and drawn on by the Proponents in supporting the rationale for the Amendment. The recently released Victorian Coastal Strategy (Sept 2014) states that the current Victorian benchmarks are:  To plan for sea level rise of not less than 0.8m by 2100 and  To plan for sea level rise of not less than 0.2m by 2040 for urban infill areas. A Local Coastal Hazard Assessment for Western Port is being prepared which is reported to include detailed modelling of inundation. The results should be available within a number of months.

(iv) VCAT Decisions The Proponent provided the Panel with a summary of recent VCAT decisions relating to the application of planning controls in coastal areas subject to inundation. The decisions highlight the consideration of climate change in the planning process and the way in which the 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 or 0.2m sea level rise by 2040 in infill areas has been applied. 3.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes Planning Practice Note 12 – Applying the Flood Provisions in Planning Schemes applies to the Amendment, particularly with regard to how the LSIO should be defined and applied. Ministerial Direction 13 – Managing coastal hazards and the coastal impact of climate change and Planning Practice Note 53 – Managing coastal hazards and the coastal impacts of climate change apply to areas subject to coastal inundation. Ministerial Direction 13 includes the following requirement: In preparing an amendment which would have the effect of rezoning non‐urban land for urban use or development, a planning authority must include in the explanatory report how the proposed amendment:  Is consistent with the policies, objectives and strategies for coastal Victoria as outlined in Clause 15.08 of the State Planning Policy Framework.  Addresses the current and future risks and impacts associated with projected sea level rise and the individual and/or combined effects of storm surges, tides, river flooding and coastal erosion.  Is based on an evaluation of the potential risks and presents an outcome that seeks to avoid or minimise exposing future development to projected coastal hazards.  Ensures that new development will be located, designed and protected from potential coastal hazards to the extent practicable and how future management arrangements will ensure ongoing risk minimisation.  Considers the views of the relevant floodplain manager and the Department of Sustainability and Environment. The Amendment has been prepared having regard to Ministerial Direction No 11 – Strategic Assessment of Amendments and Planning Practice Note 46 – Strategic Assessment

Page 12 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Guidelines. The Amendment process accords with the requirements of Ministerial Direction No 15 – The Planning Scheme Amendment Process. 3.4 Strategic Assessment The Proponents submit that ‘it is simply not possible to assert that no regard should be had to climate change. To do so would be contrary to both State and Local policy’. The Proponents submit that the Amendment is consistent with the existing SPPF and LPPF, VCAT’s consideration of the impact of climate change and its interpretation of the State policy. The Proponents further submitted that: In the absence of a planning control that triggers the need for consideration of riverine flooding and predicted coastal inundation, Council does not currently have a mechanism to consider new developments through a formal planning process, nor an opportunity to consider the views of the referral authorities. Similarly, Melbourne Water and the WGCMA do not currently have an opportunity to exercise their function as the relevant floodplain management authority in these areas. The Proponents rely on the evidence of Dr McCowan, which concludes that the Amendment can be supported. Dr McCowan concluded that, subject to some qualifications, the LSIO has been correctly and appropriately applied based on the best available data, and that the Amendment ought to be supported. Dr McCowan’s evidence is discussed further in Chapter 4. The Panel is satisfied that a planning mechanism is justified to trigger consideration of riverine flooding and coastal inundation in the planning permit process. The appropriateness of the LSIO to create this mechanism is discussed in Chapter 4. The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment is broadly strategically justified, complies with the relevant State and local planning policies and complies with the relevant Ministerial Directions and Planning Practice Notes, subject to the further discussion of the issues raised in submissions contained in the following Chapters.

Page 13 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

4 Mapping and the Scientific Basis for the Amendment 4.1 Planning for Climate Change

(i) The Issue The Proponents have prepared Amendment C82 to apply the LSIO to reflect current data regarding the combined impacts of riverine flooding and coastal inundation from predicted sea level rise. Inclusion of this information in the planning scheme is intended to allow landowners and developers immediate access to the necessary information about riverine flooding and sea level rise in the early stages of the development process. The first issue for the Panel to consider is whether the Proponents should be planning for climate change. Issues relating to the accuracy of datasets and mapping used are discussed in sections 4.2 and 4.3.

(ii) Evidence and Submissions The Proponents provided background to climate change planning within Victoria that commenced in a formal sense with the introduction of Amendment VC52 in 2008, and further strengthened policy support via Amendment VC94 in 2012. Both Amendments provide State government policy support and recognition of the importance of considering coastal hazards and the effects of climate change (Clause 13.01). Bass Coast Shire’s LPPF also incorporates this recognition in clause 21.07. Amendment VC94 introduced new strategies in clause 13.01‐1 – Coastal inundation and erosion in 2012 that, while maintaining the long term commitment to plan for 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 for greenfield development, established a requirement to consider 0.2m sea level rise by 2040 in the short term for infill development in established areas. Specifically, clause 13.01‐1 Coastal inundation and erosion states: Objective To plan for and manage the potential coastal impacts of climate change. Strategies In planning for possible sea level rise, an increase of 0.2 metres over current 1 in 100 year flood levels by 2040 may be used for new development in close proximity to existing development (urban infill). Plan for possible sea level rise of 0.8 metres by 2100, and allow for the combined effects of tides, storm surges, coastal processes and local conditions such as topography and geology when assessing risks and coastal impacts associated with climate change. Consider the risks associated with climate change in planning and management decision‐making processes.

Page 14 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

For new greenfield development outside of town boundaries, plan for not less than 0.8 metre sea level rise by 2100. Ensure that land subject to coastal hazards are identified and appropriately managed to ensure that future development is not at risk. Ensure that development or protective works seeking to respond to coastal hazard risks avoids detrimental impacts on coastal processes. Avoid development in identified coastal hazard areas susceptible to inundation (both river and coastal), erosion, landslip/landslide, acid sulfate soils, bushfire and geotechnical risk. Policy guidelines Planning must consider as relevant:  The Victorian Coastal Strategy (Victorian Coastal Council, 2008).  Any relevant coastal action plan or management plan approved under the Coastal Management Act 1995 or National Parks Act 1975.  Any relevant Land Conservation Council recommendations. The Proponents submitted that, in meeting the objectives of Clause 13.01‐1 Coastal Inundation and Erosion, the Amendment plans for the potential impacts of climate change by identifying areas that may be affected by coastal inundation. They further submitted that it manages this issue by incorporating a planning permit trigger for new developments in the affected areas. This ensures new development is responsive to the inundation risk and that the relevant floodplain management authority (WGCMA or Melbourne Water) is provided with an opportunity to comment on the proposed development. Dr Janson provided an opposing view that the Amendment is flawed because it is based upon the premise that Councils ‘must respond to inundation by the sea to mitigate damage to new buildings, rather than Councils preventing inundation by the sea to protect existing assets, vegetation, economic benefits of the community and the well being of society’. Dr Janson submits that planning for climate change is about being proactive in planning and implementing preventative strategies and structures. He drew the Panel to the example of the concrete wall built approximately 75 years ago in front of Cowes beach and ‘at least 20 timber groins extending 50 metres into the sea at right angles to the beach, and a 2 metre high timber sea wall for 150m along the beach in front of the Uringah Court Estate’. The issue of preventative coastal protection measures is discussed further in section 5.2 in this report. Mr Axon submitted that the Amendment is premature and is incomplete in planning for climate change as it ignores science, modern risk assessment standards and does not represent the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) measured changes of the sea level in the vicinity of Stony Point and Cowes.

Page 15 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

(iii) Discussion The Panel notes that the Explanatory report for VC94 states that ‘the amendment is required to implement State policy to better plan for and manage potential coastal impacts of climate change by providing flexibility and greater certainty for coastal planning, with particular regards to infill development within existing urban areas’. The 0.2m sea level rise by 2040 introduced a ‘short term benchmark to be used for new development within existing urban areas (infill development), while further information becomes available….The existing requirement to plan for not less than 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 will continue to apply for greenfield development outside existing town boundaries’. The Panel understands that VC94, as implemented by State Government, was a response to the recommendations of the Coastal Climate Change Advisory Committee (2010) which made recommendations on how Victoria’s planning system could best support State Government policy for managing the coastal impacts of climate change. The recently released Victorian Coastal Strategy (Sept 2014) states that the current Victorian benchmarks are:  To plan for sea level rise of not less than 0.8m by 2100 and  To plan for sea level rise of not less than 0.2m by 2040 for urban infill areas. Whilst there were submissions that question the validity of datasets, mapping and requirements that are proposed as part of the Amendment (discussed further below), submitters (with the exception of very few) generally did not question the need to plan for climate change, or more specifically related to this Amendment, plan for sea level rise. The question is whether, as Dr Janson proposed in his submission to Panel, Amendment C82 is a good response to the State policy requirement to plan for climate change and sea level rise. In its written submission, the WGCMA make their position on climate change planning quite clear by stating: We continue to strongly support the inclusion in the proposed LSIO of areas that are likely to be inundated from coastal storm surge up to the year 2100. In line with Government policy, we believe that we need to plan for a future that includes higher sea levels and more vigorous coastal storm surge. In particular, as a community, we need to have control over what is allowed to be developed in low‐lying coastal areas, to minimise the amount of the damage, trauma and dislocation that may occur in the future. The application of the LSIO will ensure that development can be assessed against the known risk and, if necessary, that conditions can be applied to ensure safe and sustainable use of these properties.

(iv) Conclusions The Panel is not required to provide any statement on whether or not governments should be planning for climate change, or make statements about the state of scientific data and scientific papers within the global community about climate change. The Panel must consider State and local policy on the matter and how it relates to the Amendment before it. The Panel concludes that there has been consistent State policy support for State and local governments to plan for climate change since 2008 with the introduction of VC52. Such

Page 16 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

policy support has been further strengthened and defined by VC94 and the revision of the Victorian Coastal Strategy (2014). The Panel agrees with the Proponents that, in this context, they are required to plan for the predicted effects of climate change. 4.2 Planning for 0.8m Sea Level Rise by 2100 or 0.2m by 2040 for Urban Infill Development

(i) The Issue The issue is what is the appropriate sea level rise to plan for in urban infill areas? A number of the submissions submitted that Amendment C82 coastal inundation mapping should be based on a sea level rise scenario of 0.2m by the year 2040 in urban infill areas, rather than 0.8m by the year 2100. The Proponents specifically sought advice on this question from the Panel and provided mapping of both 0.2m by 2040 and 0.8m by 2100 scenarios in revised mapping tabled at the Hearing.

(ii) Evidence and Submissions Council’s Position Paper (July 2014) explained that the 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 forms the basis for the overlay mapping in the Amendment. The three strategies within the SPPF (Clause 13.01‐1) which Council relied upon are as follows: Plan for possible sea level rise of 0.8m by 2100, and allow for the combined effects of tides, storm surges, coastal processes and local conditions such as topography and geology when assessing risks and coastal impacts associated with climate change. In planning for possible sea level rise an increase of 0.2 metres over current 1 in 100 year flood levels by 2040 may be used for new development in close proximity to existing development (urban infill). For new greenfield development outside of town boundaries, plan for not less than 0.8 metre sea level rise by 2100. Ms Brezzi, representing the Proponents, submitted that the Proponents interpreted the wording of the State policy as meaning planning for sea level rise should be addressed on two levels:  Apply the 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 at a strategic planning level to all areas at the time of applying planning scheme amendments; and  Apply the 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 to green field areas and 0.2m sea level rise by 2040 to urban infill areas at a statutory planning level i.e. in assessing individual planning applications. Ms Brezzi submitted that this was supported by the explanatory report for Amendment VC94 which states under the heading ‘What the amendment does’:

Page 17 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

The amendment introduces new strategies in clause 13.01‐1 Coastal inundation and erosion that, while maintaining the long term commitment to plan for 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 for greenfield development, establish a requirement to consider 0.2m sea level rise by 2040 in the short term for infill development in established areas. She submitted that Planning Practice Note 53 lends weight to the interpretation in that it states that: In planning for possible sea level rise, an increase of 0.2 metres over current 1 in 100 year flood levels by 2040 may be used for new development in close proximity to existing development (urban infill). This policy applies to development proposals in existing settlements and urban zoned areas. Ms Brezzi submitted that the words ‘applies to development proposals’ in the second point imply that the policy applies at the permit assessment stage. The Proponents noted that consideration of 2040, 2070 and 2100 flood levels is embedded in the process for assessing development applications in relation to sea level rise by both Melbourne Water and WGCMA as set out in the Guidelines for Coastal Catchment Management Authorities (DSE 2012) and Planning for Sea Level Rise (Melbourne Water 2012). Dr McCowan, expert witness for the Proponents, gave evidence that, in its fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided revised sea level rise projections ranging from 0.26 to 0.82m by the end of the 21st Century (2081 to 2100). Based on these results, revised planning allowances for sea level rise along the Victorian coast were developed by Hunter (2014). Dr McCowan stated that the work of Hunter (2014) is referenced in the latest Victorian Coastal Strategy (2014). It is Dr McCowan’s evidence that ‘the Victorian planning benchmarks for sea level rise of 0.8m by 2100 and 0.2m by 2040 for urban infill areas are consistent with the latest findings of the IPCC (2013), and of Hunter (2014)’. Dr Provis, expert witness for East Cowes/Silverleaves C82 Action Group, does not make specific comment on whether the 0.2m by 2040 or 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 ought to be adopted, however he did question the sea level rise data calculated for the Silverleaves area. He questioned what elevation levels have been used to define the LSIO mapping and submitted that there seems to be discrepancy between the State Coastal Inundation dataset and the LiDAR topography for the Silverleaves area and Melbourne Water’s levels, which add 0.2m for wave action to give levels of 2.5m AHD for 2040 and 3.1m AHD for 2100. Dr Provis raised issues with the data used and the timeframe from when it is calculated (discussed further in section 4.3 below). In contrast, Mr Schinkel considered that a sea level rise of 1.1 metres is more applicable to climate change planning and follows what he believes to be State and Federal policy. Mr Schinkel took the Panel to the Gippsland Regional Growth Plan which states, at page 14, ‘A sea level rise of 0.5‐1.1 metres is possible by 2100’.

Page 18 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

26 submissions raised issues with the use of planning for a 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 in the Amendment mapping and argued that it should be based upon a sea level rise of 0.2m by 2040 for all areas. Submitters’ reasons for preferring the 0.2m sea level rise for all areas included the requirement for a LVHA, property values may decrease, resale value of properties, increases to house and contents insurance and possible restrictions on building and/or extension to existing properties. Mr Mitchell (submission 22) submitted that the Council has rushed the Amendment C82 LSIO mapping through without proper assessment of the accuracy of the mapping, which if the 0.8m is applied to all areas, could mean a ‘considerable financial burden for a group of ratepayers that are tied to the inaccuracy’. The Proponents provided alternative mapping of the LSIO area that would apply if 0.2m by 2040 was adopted in urban infill areas. The Panel notes that, if adopted, this would mean that a large number of properties, mainly in Silverleaves, would no longer be covered by the LSIO.

(iii) Discussion As discussed in Section 4.1 above, Amendment VC94 was introduced in 2012 with the intention of providing flexibility in planning for coastal climate change for proposed developments within ‘infill’ areas by introducing a requirement to consider a 0.2m sea level rise by 2040 in the short term for infill development in established areas. The Panel notes the interpretation of the wording of clause 13.01‐1 and the Amendment VC94 explanatory report adopted by the Proponent, but does not agree with the conclusion drawn. The Panel believes that the meaning of clause 13.01‐1 is clear as described in the explanatory report for VC94, which states, under the heading ‘How does the amendment address the environmental effects and any social and economic effects?’: Amendment VC94 provides flexibility and certainty on planning for coastal climate change by introducing a short term benchmark to be used for new development within existing urban areas (infill development) while further information becomes available and this strategic adaptation planning work can be undertaken by Councils, departments and agencies. The existing requirement to plan for not less than 0.8 metre sea level rise by 2100 will continue to apply for greenfield developments outside existing town boundaries (Panel emphasis). The Reasons for Decision to use the Ministerial Powers of Intervention for Amendment VC94 provide some further similar guidance by stating: The clause [13.01] ensures that decision making considers the risks associated with climate change with a long term probable sea level rise benchmark of not less than 0.8 metres by 2100. Amendment VC94 will provide flexibility and certainty on planning for coastal climate change for urban infill development while further information becomes available and this strategic adaptation planning work can be undertaken by Councils, departments and agencies. The existing long term requirement to plan for not less than 0.8 metre sea level rise by 2100 will continue to apply for greenfield developments outside existing town boundaries.

Page 19 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

The Panel’s interpretation of these explanatory words is that strategic planning for urban infill areas should apply a 0.2m sea level rise by 2040 ‘while further information becomes available and this strategic adaptation planning work can be undertaken by Councils, departments and agencies’. In other words, where predicted coastal inundation has not been subjected to more detailed dynamic modelling, 0.2m by 2040 should apply to urban infill areas. The Panel is of the view that, in the case of Amendment C82, the ‘bathtub’ modelling used by the Proponents does not provide an adequate level of accuracy in determining likely 2100 flood levels, and therefore applying these relatively conservative levels at a strategic planning level would apply an unnecessarily onerous control on land in the overlay. The Panel believes it is precisely this outcome that the changes to clause 13.01‐ 1 applied by Amendment VC94 were designed to prevent. The Panel believes that it is reasonable to interpret that, in circumstances where more detailed modelling has been done; 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 may be able to applied in urban infill areas at a strategic planning level. The explanatory note for Amendment VC94 seems to imply that this is retained as a longer term aspiration. There is no evidence, in the Panel’s view, to support the ‘two level approach’ proposed by the Proponents. Neither Practice Note 53 nor the explanatory report for Amendment VC94 make any explicit distinction between strategic and statutory planning. The Panel acknowledges Ms Brezzi’s point that the words ‘applies to development proposals’ in the Practice Note 53 could be read to imply that the policy applies at the permit assessment stage, but it could also be read more broadly. The Panel notes that the Panel for Amendment C54 to the Moyne Planning Scheme accepted the use of a 0.2m sea level rise by 2040 as appropriate at the strategic level for applying the LSIO and Floodway Overlay in urban infill areas in Port Fairy. That Amendment was adopted by Moyne Council in July 2014 and is currently with DTPLI for approval. The Panel understands from submissions that a Local Coastal Hazard Assessment for Western Port is being prepared which is reported to include detailed modelling of inundation. The results of such a localised assessment may be useful in determining more accurate coastal inundation scenarios for the areas of Western Port, if indeed it includes hydrological modelling. When asked to what extent will this work be able to provide updated data for the LSIO, Dr McCowan replied that the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment looks at coastal hazards rather than coastal inundation and has used wave modelling. In Dr McCowan’s opinion, it will not provide much difference in results between the modelling for the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment and the datasets used in the mapping for the LSIO. It was put to the Panel that the results should be available within a number of months, however the floodplain managers and DEPI could not confirm this.

(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes that the use of a 0.2m sea level rise for areas of urban infill (such as the Silverleaves area) is appropriate and in line with State policy on planning for climate change. It may be that these levels will need to be adjusted once the results of the Local Coastal Hazard Assessment for Western Port are made available, and in the future, if and when

Page 20 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

more detailed dynamic modelling of the impacts of sea level rise and flooding have been completed, planning for 0.8m sea level rise may be appropriate in urban infill areas. All other areas should continue to plan for not less than 0.8 metre sea level rise by 2100 (i.e. greenfield developments outside existing town boundaries).

(v) Recommendations The Panel makes the following recommendations in relation to the application of the LSIO boundaries for the Amendment: 1. Apply LSIO boundaries in urban infill areas that correspond to sea level rise of 0.2m by 2040 as shown in revised Post Exhibition LSIO Mapping tabled at the Hearing. 2. Apply LSIO boundaries in greenfield areas (outside township boundaries) that correspond to sea level rise of 0.8m by 2100 as shown in revised Post Exhibition LSIO Mapping tabled at the Hearing. 3. Make further amendments to the LSIO as required when further, more detailed modelling information becomes available. 4.3 Mapping of the LSIO This section discusses whether the methodologies and datasets behind the mapping of the LSIO are appropriate for the purpose to which they have been applied. 4.3.1 Mapping Methodologies

(i) Background The Amendment seeks to map the predicted impacts of coastal and riverine flood inundation as a result of a changing climate in Bass Coast. The LSIO mapping is a combination of the Floodplain Management Authorities 1 in 100 year flood event data and the State Government’s Future Coasts Inundation Dataset provided to Council by DEPI. The methodology used by the Proponents in mapping of the LSIO includes using the 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 from the Victorian Future Coasts Inundation Dataset (VCID). The VCID maps the combined effects of 0.82m sea level rise plus the 1 in 100 year storm event which also considers tides and storm surge. There were 89 submissions received on the Amendment that in some way questioned the accuracy of the mapping, particularly the coastal inundation mapping and the probability of such an event occurring. The VCID was developed as part of the Victorian Government’s Future Coasts Program. The purpose of this data set was to provide a consistent State‐wide assessment of the potential physical impacts of sea level rise associated with climate change. The Proponents provided an explanation of the mapping processes undertaken by Melbourne Water and the WGCMA. Melbourne Water uses a general application methodology and the WGCMA is a more site specific modelling methodology. Consideration

Page 21 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

of 2040, 2070 and 2100 flood levels are embedded in the process for assessing development applications in relation to sea level rise by both Melbourne Water and the WGCMA.

(ii) Melbourne Water The Melbourne Water methodology (provided to Panel as part of the Proponents submission and titled ‘Flood Modelling Methodologies’) states that, in general, producing reliable flood maps involves four stages. These stages are:  The production of topographic information;  An estimation of the magnitude of flows along drainage lines (hydrologic analysis);  Estimation of flood depths;  Flow velocities (hydraulic analysis); and  Delineation of flood extent and determination of proprieties subject to flood inundation. Melbourne Water also provided a report titled Bass River Flood Mapping Project (2009). This mapping project used LiDAR contour information to create a fine scale Triangulated Irregular Network (used within a GIS software package) to define the existing overland flow path.

(iii) WGCMA The methodology used for mapping by the WGCMA for C82 involved a combination of:  Base flood mapping from the DEPI Victorian Flood Database;  Refinement of this Victorian Flood Database mapping through an extensive ground‐truthing exercise over a number of days in the field;  Use of previous data from the 2008 Desalination Plant EES to specify a Year 2100 inundation level of 5.46m AHD. LiDAR data was then used to map the extent that an inundation level of 5.46m AHD would cause downstream of the Bass Highway;  Subsequent to the above activities, the Bass Coast Shire added access‐affected properties to the proposed flood overlay; and  Further aerial photography from a major flood event (Powlett River) in June 2012 was discovered during exhibition of C82. This data from the aerial photograph taken during the flood event was used to directly delineate an appropriate LSIO. WGCMA suggest that in some ways, this type of analysis can be considered to be better than computer‐based flood modelling because it better reflects actual on‐ground flooding. The revised mapping for Powlett River is further discussed in section 4.3.3.

(iv) Discussion The Proponents submitted that Water Technology undertook independent validation of the LSIO mapping along the main affected sections of the coastline and found that, in all cases Dr McCowan looked at, the LSIO extents provide the best currently available estimates of the land in these sections. Dr Provis noted in his expert witness statement that riverine flooding has been studied for many years and the phenomena and behaviour are well understood. However, he stated

Page 22 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

that coastal inundation is not as well studied and understood in Victoria. The Panel agrees and acknowledges that there are limitations in the use of the Victorian Coastal Inundation Dataset and discusses these matters further in section 4.3.2. Dr McCowan, however, does consider that the Future Coasts DEM to be a high‐accuracy data set suitable for assessing local scale coastal inundation and that the 100 year ARI storm tide elevations projected by 2100 are appropriate for considering the potential effects of coastal inundation by 2100.

(v) Conclusion Notwithstanding some of the issues associated with the datasets discussed below in section 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, the Panel is satisfied that the use of a combination of the Floodplain Management Authorities 1 in 100 year flood event data (collected by the methodologies outlined above) and the State Government’s Future Coasts Inundation Dataset provided to Council by DEPI, provides a sound basis for generating the LSIO maps. 4.3.2 Adequacy of Datasets – Coastal Inundation

(i) The Issue The issue is whether the mapping data used to determine the boundaries of the LSIO is appropriate. Mapping prepared to inform the coastal inundation component of Amendment C82 was based upon the DEPI Future Coasts Victorian Coastal Inundation dataset. Many submitters questioned the scientific background behind the mapping, the integrity of the data, the probability of such an event occurring and whether it was appropriate for determining coastal inundation extents.

(ii) Evidence and Submissions Use of Future Coasts Victorian Coastal Inundation Dataset The Future Coasts website describes the VCID as ‘a high level assessment of the potential risks from sea level rise and storm surge at a state‐wide to regional scale for four different time periods (2009, 2040, 2070 and 2100).’ It also stated that ‘the dataset is intended to be used at a regional scale to assist strategic planning and risk management and it can be used to inform statewide and regional adaptation plans, statewide and regional risk management, strategic land use planning, Regional Growth Plans, Regional Catchment Management Strategies and Coastal Action Plans’. In regard to submitter concerns that the VCID is not intended to be used to inform decisions about individual properties or other structures, the Proponents highlighted that the key point in this instance is that the overlay will be used as a planning permit trigger only. The provisions of the LSIO state that the following must be provided with all development applications where a planning permit is required by the overlay: Elevation plans showing natural ground level, (any proposed) ground level and the floor levels of any proposed buildings in relation to Australian Height Datum, taken by or under direction and supervision of a licensed surveyor.

Page 23 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

The Proponents submitted that this means that detailed survey data will be required as part of development applications that are triggered by the overlay provision. Dr McCowan, in his expert evidence, stated that the Future Coasts Program has used a three stage process to identify land that will be affected by coastal inundation as a result of sea level rise. This process consisted of:  Aerial survey of the Victorian coastline to provide the topographic input to the process (LiDAR);  Modelling of projected extreme storm and tide conditions to provide the coastal water levels.  Mapping of the land affected by the projected extreme storm tide conditions. Dr McCowan concluded that the Future Coasts dataset is suitable for assessing local‐scale coastal inundation, that the 100 year ARI storm tide elevations projected for 2100 are appropriate for considering the potential effects of coastal inundation and that the modelling carried out by CSIRO (which informed the Future Coasts dataset) provides the best storm tide levels currently available for assessing the likely extents of coastal inundation in Bass Coast Shire. Topographic datasets/LiDAR The topographic survey data that was used to derive the VCID was based on the Future Coasts coastal digital elevation model (DEM). This DEM was derived from a high‐accuracy state‐wide airborne LiDAR (aerial laser scanning) survey. The Future Coasts Mapping shows that there are extensive low‐lying areas with ground surface elevations less than 3.0m (shaded blue) in areas including: east of Jam Jerrup, the south coast of Pioneer Bay, the Bass River estuary, Newhaven, Rhyll Inlet to Cowes, the Powlett River Estuary and Inverloch to Mahers Landing. The Proponents submitted that using LiDAR is appropriate for strategic planning purposes. LiDAR is light direction and ranging (like ‘radar’, or radio direction and ranging, but using infrared laser light pulses instead of radio pulses). The Proponents submitted that the use of LiDAR to map predicted inundation extent is a common approach in both regional and metropolitan Planning Scheme Amendments for flooding when survey information is not available, and cited recent flood amendments that have relied on LiDAR mapping which include Casey C143 and Wellington C33. Mr Baird disagreed with the Proponents and suggested that LiDAR does not provide a flood extent or establish flood levels; it simply forms a topographic map. Ms Myhill (Submission 114) also raised concerns with the use of the DEM data and the accuracy of applying it to the scale of the mapping in C82. Ms Myhill cited a conclusion in a peer review paper of the Future Coasts Program that suggests that the use of the DEM is limited to a scale of approximately 1:100,000 to reflect the limitation in the modelling analysis and the catchment to regional scale. The Panel were not provided with this peer review paper. Dr McCowan considered that the Future Coasts Coastal DEM to be a high‐accuracy survey data set suitable for assessing local‐scale coastal inundation, such as that proposed for C82 LSIO mapping.

Page 24 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Modelling of projected extreme storm and tide conditions Dr McCowan explained that extreme sea levels along the coast are a function of the ‘astronomical tide (due to the movement of the moon and the sun), storm surge (due to wind forcing and atmospheric pressure gradients), wave set‐up (due to the effects of wave breaking at the coast) and wave run‐up (caused by the surge associated with individual waves as they rush up the shoreline). The combination of the astronomical tide and storm surge is referred to as storm tide. The effects of wave set‐up and wave run‐up are highly dependent on the local topography of the coastline and are frequently, although not always, considered independently of the storm tide. The extreme coastal sea levels used to derive the VCID were based on numerical modelling carried out by CSIRO. This modelling was carried out using a 1 km x 1 km grid along the open coast and a 100m x 100m grid within Western Port.’ In conclusion, Dr McCowan considered that the 100 year ARI storm tide elevations projected for 2100 are appropriate for considering the potential effects of coastal inundation by 2100 and that the modelling carried out by CSIRO provides the best storm tide levels currently available for assessing coastal inundation effects along the Bass Coast Shire coastline. Dr Provis was not as supportive of the dataset being used in preparing the LSIO mapping. Dr Provis suggested that the VCID is not suitable for this type of assessment because of the issues of ‘accuracy of the topography, the level of knowledge included in the water levels and the use of the ‘bathtub’ type modelling where the only criterion for definition of the flood boundary is elevation. There is no consideration of flow paths, whether water can reach to location from the sea or not (e.g existence of coastal protection structures), or the dynamic effects related to time it takes for water to flow into the location and how long the ocean level is high enough to create such flows.’ Dr Provis provided a quote from the product description of the Victorian Coastal Inundation dataset that states: The impact of this assumption in the bathtub method is that the extent of inundation predicted can be significantly over estimated where the hydrodynamic conveyance is limited by confined entrances to embayments or estuaries, channels, culverts, bridges and or shallow overland flowpaths. Dr McCowan gave evidence that the bathtub approach is relatively simple and easy to implement. However, he did cite a number of potential short‐comings. These include that the bathtub modelling is static which can over‐estimate the extent of inundation in situations where there is insufficient time for the shoreward propagation of the storm tide to reach its full extent before the tide starts to flow out again; the bathtub approach cannot identify areas of low‐lying land that are not hydraulically connected to the sea. Overall, Dr McCowan considered that the VCID provides the best currently available data for assessing the likely extents of coastal inundation in Bass Coast Shire. Mapping Dr Provis had concerns with the use of the LSIO mapping as a tool for planning for climate change and expressed that the ‘LSIO concentrates on the tides and storm surges, specifically omits coastal processes and does not properly account for the topography as the proposed

Page 25 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

extent is based on “bathtub” modelling and not dynamic modelling which accounts for the flow over the topography between the ocean and the site in question and the timing of this flow. This is especially relevant to East Cowes and Silverleaves where inundation requires water to flow via Rhyll Inlet over a considerable distance of shallow water to reach the settlement area and this will be controlled by the duration of the high tide. The LSIO thus does not meet the needs of advising the community, including property owners, of their exposure to potential impacts of climate change’. Many of the submissions that raised issues with the mapping submitted that the data was inaccurate (use of LiDAR and incorrect levels used for the 1 in 100 flood levels) and that Council should be applying the 0.2m sea level rise for infill areas within town boundaries and not the 0.8m sea level rise.

(iii) Discussion The Proponents have prepared Amendment C82 to apply the LSIO to reflect current data regarding the impacts of riverine flooding and coastal inundation effects from predicted sea level rise. Inclusion of this information in the planning scheme allows landowners and developers immediate access to the necessary information about riverine flooding and sea level rise in the early stages of the development process. The use of the Victorian Coastal Inundation Dataset has some issues associated with it as put to the Panel by both expert witnesses. These issues include time and scale of datasets; bathtub approach being static, and interpretation of this data into LSIO mapping as part of the Amendment. The Proponents submitted that the LSIO mapping has been prepared using the best available datasets at the time and the Panel agrees that this is the case. The Panel were not presented with information about any further detailed datasets or analysis that are currently available to apply to the LSIO mapping for coastal inundation. If further data and information becomes available (such as the results of the Local Coastal Hazard Assessment for Western Port), the mapping should be updated to reflect the more accurate local conditions. The Panel notes that the Council’s response to this matter in their Position Paper (July 2014) is that the Council ’will consider amending the mapping to reflect any evidence based changes to the coastal inundation extents in the Western Port area’.

(iv) Conclusions The Panel considers that, although there are some issues with the accuracy of datasets used, the mapping for the LSIO has been prepared using the best available data at the time. This may mean that it will not always be considered the most accurate and that the ‘experts’ may not agree on all the data used and how it has been used in preparing the mapping for the LSIO as part of Amendment C82. The Panel, however, concludes that in the absence of any more relevant and localised modelling and data, the Council has used the best data available to it. In fact, the Proponents have used VCID, which is the dataset that State policy specifies ought to be used

Page 26 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

in planning for climate change at ‘a regional scale to assist strategic planning and risk management and it can be used to inform …. strategic land use planning’1. 4.3.3 Adequacy of Datasets – Riverine Flooding

(i) The Issue The issue is whether the mapping data used to determine the boundaries of the LSIO for riverine flooding is appropriate.

(ii) Evidence and Submissions The Proponents submitted that it is important to note that there is a difference between riverine flooding and coastal inundation. Riverine flooding can be long‐lasting and cause severe disruption to residents cut off by flood water. There were five submissions that raised issues regarding the mapping around Powlett River. The exhibition of Amendment C82 provided an opportunity for local input and a review of the WGCMA’s mapping of the 1 in 100 year flood extents for Powlett River. As stated in section 4.3.2, the Proponents submitted that the use of LiDAR to map predicted inundation extent is a common approach in both regional and metropolitan Planning Scheme Amendments for flooding when survey information is not available. For riverine areas, the Future Coasts mapping showed that there are extensive low‐lying areas with ground surface elevations of less than 3.0m around the Bass and Powlett River estuaries. Dr McCowan considered that the use of LiDAR and the Future Coasts Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for riverine mapping was suitable for assessing local scale inundation. Mr Baird disagreed with Dr McCowan and stated ‘LiDAR does not produce a flood extent or establish flood levels, it simply forms a topographic map’. Mr Baird took the Panel to Casey C143 and Wellington C33 in which these amendments not only included data using LiDAR mapping but the assessments that informed the mapping for these amendments undertook more extensive modelling including flood depths and velocities along drainage lines and hydrological studies. As outlined in their written submission, the WGCMA provided much of the flood mapping that formed the basis of the Amendment (riverine inundation). Since exhibition of the Amendment, the WGCMA became aware of aerial flood photography from a major flood on the Powlett River in June 2012 that the floodplain management agency believed should be the foundation of the new flood mapping for C82. This data showed that it was the largest flood on the Powlett River since records commenced in 1979, meaning that it could be adopted as the basis of a new LSIO as it was determined by the WGCMA to represent a 1 in 100 year event, based on the rainfall data. The WGCMA utilised information from the consultation phase to come up with refined 1 in 100 year flood extents. The WGCMA remapped the Powlett River floodplain using the 2012 aerial flood photography and, ’in general, it showed that the exhibited flood mapping was good, but a little too conservative in some areas’.

1 Future Coasts website description of VCID.

Page 27 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

The Proponents provided post exhibition LSIO mapping that incorporates these revisions to relevant submitters prior to the Panel Hearing. Mr Baird submitted that the overall issues with the Amendment are inaccurate planning, research, mapping/modelling and ineffective community consultation. He said that very little consultation had occurred with landholders during the formation of the LSIO for the Powlett River flood area and that instead, emphasis had been placed on desktop assessment, with little regard for local knowledge of on‐ground issues. It is Mr Baird’s evidence that the overall methodology and processes used in C82 ‘is primitive in comparison to today’s standards and practices in flood modelling’. Mr Baird believes that the approach undertaken by the Proponents in this instance is inadequate because it does not include a hydrological and hydraulic model. In response, the Proponents outlined in their submission where ‘ground truthing’ had occurred by WGCMA carrying out field surveys to spot check areas of interest. This ground truthing involved WGCMA officers driving and mapping the expected 1% AEP (Annual Exceedance Probability) floodplain, using experience and judgement, and taking into account the size and nature of the catchment and the waterway. Dr McCowan gave evidence that the Powlett River and Bass River mapping has used the standard flooding methodology utilised by Melbourne Water and WGCMA.

Figure 3 Proposed Amendment C82 Map of Powlett River showing previously exhibited LSIO extents and revised mapping

The Proponent stated to Panel that it is their position to amend the Powlett River mapping so that the extents reflect the recent work undertaken by the WGCMA.

Page 28 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

(iii) Discussion The Panel notes that it is reported in the Council minutes of 21 August 2013 that Council has worked with the WGCMA during the preparation of the Amendment to map areas affected by riverine flooding and ensure that the mapping included impacts of sea level rise and the combined effects of tides, storm surges, coastal processes and local conditions. Melbourne Water approached the Council and requested that Bass River also be included in the Amendment during this time. The Proponents stated in the Amendment documentation (Information Sheet) that the catchment flood extents are based on a 1 in 100 Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) flood event, which means a 1% chance of that flood level occurring in a given year. This is how flood extents are currently mapped and how the LSIO is generally applied. The Proponents say it is also the basis for identifying flood affected areas under the Water Act 1989 and for setting minimum building floor levels under the Building Act 1993. As with the coastal inundation mapping discussed above, the use of the Victorian Coastal Inundation Dataset has some issues associated with it as put to the Panel by both expert witnesses. These issues include time and scale of datasets; bathtub approach being static, and interpretation of this data into LSIO mapping as part of the Amendment. However, in the case of the riverine flood mapping for Powlett River, the approach undertaken for the LSIO mapping utilised LiDAR and the DEM dataset, other studies, the 2012 aerial photograph of a flood event as well as ground‐truthing by WGCMA officers. The outcome of the further work and assessment by the WGCMA for the Powlett River demonstrates the importance of using the best available data at the time.

(iv) Conclusions The Panel is satisfied that the methodology and subsequent mapping provided for the revised LSIO for Powlett River is satisfactory and that the Proponents have demonstrated that a thorough analysis has occurred using additional information post exhibition. The Panel also considers that for the riverine mapping of Bass River, the approach undertaken by the Floodplain Management Authorities in this instance follows a similar approach undertaken throughout the State for riverine flooding, and concludes that although this is not as detailed an analysis as was undertaken for Powlett River, it is satisfactory.

(v) Recommendation The Panel makes the following recommendation: 4. Amend the LSIO mapping for Powlett River to reflect the recent work undertaken by West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority that considered the 2012 Powlett River flood extent.

Page 29 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

4.4 Is the LSIO the Most Appropriate Tool?

(i) The Issue Is the LSIO the best planning tool to use for coastal and riverine inundation mapping?

(ii) Evidence and Submissions Dr Provis gave evidence that there is a need to delineate between riverine flooding and coastal inundation. He notes that the present policy of the Council appears to be to apply the same methods, tools and understanding to the planning response for both phenomena and by doing this, it ignores a number of significant differences in the physical processes between coastal and riverine flooding. He submitted that these differences are:  The issue of stationarity. For planning purposes, riverine flooding is treated as a stationary process, that is, from a statistical point of view, the natural processes are not changing in time.  The duration of flooding or inundation. Dr Provis explained to the Panel that riverine flooding may last for many hours, even days or weeks. The water level rises and recedes relatively slowly in most cases. On the other hand, coastal inundation is caused by the combination of the astronomical tide and storm surge and the duration will be controlled by the astronomical tide and the timing of high tide. Thus the water level will be within 0.15 m of its peak level for a time unlikely to exceed three hours. It is Dr Provis’ evidence, in relation to whether the LSIO is the appropriate tool in planning for climate change, that: the non‐stationarity of coastal inundation means that land which is subject to the LSIO may not be subject to inundation at present, or indeed for many years to come. Thus the risk of inundation is a future risk, not applicable at the present day. This risk would be better dealt with by means of a separate overlay, for example a ‘Coastal Management Overlay’. The Proponent’s expert witness, Dr McCowan, did not provide an opinion on whether the LSIO is the right planning tool, however he does did state that he is satisfied that the LSIO extents presented in the Amendment provide the best currently available estimates of the land along the Bass Coast Shire coastline that will be affected by coastal inundation as a result of sea level rise projections through to 2100. Mr Baird, expert witness for Mrs Baird, said in his statement to the Panel that ‘creating the LSIO based primarily on desktop assessment without a hydrological model and a hydraulic model is inaccurate and fraught with risk and potential liability issues’. Mr Baird’s expert witness statement relates to rural inundation, in particular, riverine flooding from the Powlett River in the Wattle Bank and Wonthaggi area. Mr Baird also stated that: ’when identifying flood prone areas it is essential that detailed modelling based on science is developed and this information becomes a key input into calculating flood levels, flow patterns and water behaviour. This information forms a clear and justifiable base line and allows for future modifications as more in‐depth data becomes available’.

Page 30 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

(iii) Discussion In regard to Dr Provis’ proposed ‘Coastal Management Overlay’, the Panel clarified at the Hearing that it was not in a position to assess the merits of any other potential planning tools that may be relevant for the protection of coastal or riverine inundation, other than the one it has before it. Submissions that raised issues with the implementation of a LSIO as a climate change planning tool did not offer other planning mechanisms, but rather they suggested more coastal and engineering solutions be implemented instead of a planning tool in the form of an overlay over their properties to mitigate against sea level rise. Submissions also insisted that implementation of the LSIO at this point in time is premature. The issue of coastal engineering solutions is discussed in section 5.2.

(iv) Conclusion The Panel is satisfied that in the absence of any other tool available, the LSIO is the most appropriate tool to use for planning for climate change within a strategic land use planning context. The timing of the Amendment is discussed in section 5.3. 4.5 Filled Land

(i) The Issue The issue is that in some areas, ground levels have been ‘filled’ to meet relevant Floodplain Management Authority (WGCMA and Melbourne Water) requirements and some submitters have requested that the mapping in these areas be corrected to show the extent of the proposed LSIO.

(ii) Evidence and Submissions There were 25 submissions that raised issues relating to residential development sites where the ground level has been elevated using fill, or where a planning permit states that the area must be filled. These submissions expressed concerns that the Council had not considered these filled areas on their land when preparing the LSIO mapping as part of the amendment. The Proponents clarified to the Panel in submissions that the topographical information that was used to determine the coastal inundation extents of the mapping was collected between 2006 and 2009 as part of the Future Coasts Program. Since that time, a number of new development sites have been ‘filled’ to meet minimum ground level requirements, as determined by the relevant Floodplain Management Authority. The Proponents noted that the Surf Beach Estate, Inverloch and the Shearwater Estate, Cowes East are such examples. The engineering plans submitted for these areas show that the newly constructed ground levels are generally above the levels that include them into the overlay. The Proponents suggest that this information can be incorporated into the contour information in Councils GIS program to ‘auto‐correct’ the ground layers and the extent of the overlay. Two submissions also provided proposed plans for the following:  Woolamai House Estate, Cape Woolamai  Waterdale Estate, Dalyston

Page 31 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Given that the above areas have not been constructed, there are no endorsed plans that show the finished ground levels. The Proponents submitted that these sites can be reassessed in the future. The Proponents adopted a position that where endorsed and constructed engineering plans have been submitted, the information will be used to correct the extent of the proposed LSIO and that the overlay should not be amended based on ‘proposed’ plans as there is a risk that the works may not be undertaken.

(iii) Discussion and Conclusions The Proponents amended the LSIO maps post exhibition to remove the LSIO from properties that were identified by way of endorsed plans as being elevated. The Panel agrees with the Councils approach of not amending the LSIO maps based on ‘proposed’ plans for development, as there is a risk that the works may not be undertaken and agrees with the comment made by the Casey C143 Panel which said ‘to adjust the boundary of the LSIO to reflect proposed future changes to the landform is in our opinion fraught with risks and liability issues’.

(iv) Recommendation The Panel recommends: 5. Amend the LSIO as appropriate to remove properties identified on endorsed and constructed engineering plans as being filled and no longer at risk of flooding. 4.6 Land with Access Issues During Flooding

(i) The Issue As exhibited, the Amendment applies the LSIO to small ‘islands’ of land that are not directly affected by the original mapping of the LSIO but are surrounded by flooded land in a 1 in 100 year flood event or are only accessible via land affected by the LSIO. The issue is whether it is appropriate to include these ‘islands’ in the LSIO.

(ii) Evidence and Submissions Eleven submitters raised some form of objection to the ‘islands’ being included in the LSIO. The general thrust of these submissions was that the application of the LSIO to such areas is an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on such properties that are not directly affected by flood waters. The Proponents submitted that it is appropriate to include the ‘islands’ in the LSIO as development on this land may be economically affected if access is to be cut for a prolonged period and there are safety concerns if emergency vehicle access is denied for a prolonged period. The Proponents submitted that this approach is consistent with Clause 13 of the State Planning Policy Framework which states:

Page 32 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Planning should adopt a best practice environmental and risk management approach which aims to avoid or minimise environmental…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. The Proponents however noted the differences in the nature of flooding of riverine areas compared to coastal inundation: Riverine flooding can be long‐lasting and cause severe disruption to residents “cut off” by floodwater. However, in relation to coastal inundation, the timing of inundation can be restricted to that of the time taken for a high tide to subside. In Bass Coast, a high tide can last for as little as half an hour after which it will begin to recede. Therefore, in relation to elevated ‘islands’ and ‘access land’ which is predicted to be subject to coastal inundation (as opposed to riverine flooding), the Proponents agreed that the proposed LSIO should be removed. The amended mapping showing these sites removed was tabled at the Hearing.

(iii) Discussion The Panel agrees that ‘islands’ and ‘access land’ isolated by riverine flooding should be treated differently to areas affected by coastal inundation. As the period of ‘isolation’ caused by coastal inundation is likely to be short, the Panel agrees that ‘islands’ and ‘access land’ in coastal inundation areas should be excluded from the LSIO. The Panel notes that this will remove the LSIO from over 400 properties in coastal areas. As the duration of impact on areas affected by riverine flooding can be much longer, and potentially some days, the Panel agrees that, as a general policy, ‘islands’ and ‘access land’ in these areas should be retained in the LSIO. The Panel accepts, however, that there may be some exceptions to this general policy if it can be demonstrated that vehicle access is still possible to such properties, albeit via land affected by floodwaters. An example of one such site is discussed in Chapter 6 in relation to the McRae property. In these instances the Panel agrees with the Proponents’ proposition that the determining factor in such cases should be whether emergency vehicle access is continuously available.

(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes that elevated ‘islands’ and ‘access land’ which is predicted to be subject to coastal inundation (as opposed to riverine flooding) should be removed from the LSIO as proposed by the Proponents.

(v) Recommendation The Panel makes the following recommendation: 6. Remove elevated ‘islands’ and ‘access land’ affected by coastal inundation (which are not likely to be directly subject to coastal inundation, but were included in the exhibited version of the Amendment for access reasons) from the LSIO as shown in revised Post Exhibition LSIO Mapping tabled at the Hearing.

Page 33 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

4.7 Allowing for Reservoir Discharge

(i) The Issue Are changes required to the LSIO to take into account the affect of additional river flows from reservoir discharge?

(ii) Evidence and Submissions Western Port Water submitted that water discharge from Candowie Reservoir could affect downstream river flood levels in Bass River in the event that water is required to be discharged to ensure safe dam operation. The Proponents advised that Western Port Water have done some modelling work but it has not been finalised and could not be included in the modelling done by Melbourne Water to include in the Amendment.

(iii) Discussion and Conclusion The Panel accepts that the water discharge from Candowie Reservoir may affect flood levels in the Bass River, and ideally should be included in the mapping. The Panel agrees that Melbourne Water and Council should review the mapping once modelling of the impact of the reservoir discharge is available and make any necessary changes to the LSIO in a future amendment.

(iv) Recommendation The Panel recommends: 7. Review the LSIO applying to the Bass River area once modelling of the impact of the Candowie Reservoir discharge is available.

Page 34 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

5 General Issues 5.1 Social and Economic Implications

(i) The Issue The Issue is how have any social and economic impacts of the Amendment been accounted for.

(ii) Submissions Approximately 75 of the submissions to the Amendment submitted in some way that the application of an overlay would have a negative impact on property values or would be costly in terms of increased insurance premiums. The majority of submissions that raised these issues did not raise them as their primary concerns. Most questioned the need to apply an overlay at all given that, in most cases, they had not experienced flooding on their properties. These submitters concluded that the proposed overlay was therefore an unnecessary burden. Some submissions appeared to wrongly assume that no development would be permitted on their property, therefore concluding that their property would be less attractive to prospective purchasers, and therefore have a lower value. The Proponents submitted that the Amendment would have a net positive economic and social benefit by avoiding losses resulting from flooding. They noted that significant losses can accrue for the community in terms of costs of repairing damage to private and public property, disruption to services and personal hardship if development is not properly planned to minimise the impact of flooding. The Proponents submitted that there are many factors that impact on the value of properties, and as a result it is not possible to speculate what impact any planning control might have. They added that it had been a misunderstanding by some submitters that the proposed planning controls were a prohibition on development rather than simply a permit trigger. The Proponents claimed, although no evidence was presented to the Panel, that Insurance Council of Australia research had indicated that actual flooding has much more of an impact on property values than the application of a planning control. The Proponents concluded that there is a net community benefit of disclosing and planning for potential impacts of flooding that outweighs any potential negative impacts. Mr and Mrs Trigg and Mr Hitchings (Submission 60) raised concerns about the additional impost placed on basic farming operations that may contribute to lessening the viability of farming in some areas. They submitted that it was unreasonable to require permits for works such as fencing and farm tracks. The Proponents submitted that a number of exemptions have been included in the proposed provisions, for example to remove the need to apply for permits for minor works such as small extensions, outbuildings and works associated with agriculture, in order to lessen the burden on landowners seeking to improve their properties.

Page 35 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

(iii) Discussion The Panel noted in the directions hearing that the impact on property values and insurance premiums are not generally entertained as valid planning issues, but the Panel nevertheless invited submitters to make submissions or produce evidence to support claims that these factors are significant and should be considered. Whilst a number of the submitters who presented to the Hearing mentioned these issues, no evidence was presented to substantiate claims that property values or insurance premiums would indeed be affected by the Amendment. The Panel agrees that some submitters seemed to misunderstand the Amendment as applying a prohibition on development, and they may have therefore drawn wrong conclusions. Notwithstanding the lack of hard evidence, the Panel accepts that it is possible that there may be some minor impacts on property values, particularly if potential purchasers don’t fully understand the intent of the overlay controls. The Panel is unable to make any assessment of the potential impact on insurance premiums based on the information presented to it. On balance, the Panel believes that the responsibility that the Council and floodplain management authorities have to identify properties at risk from flooding and implement an appropriate planning response outweighs any potential negative social or economic impacts. The Panel agrees that the exemptions proposed in the LSIO schedule assist by appropriately removing overly onerous requirements on smaller scale buildings and works.

(iv) Conclusions The Panel concludes that the Amendment has a net community benefit. 5.2 Coastal Protection Works

(i) The Issue The issue of provision of protection works by Council and/or State Government, particularly coastal protection works, in the Waterline areas and Cowes/Silverleaves area, was an issue for a number of submitters who expressed their concerns that if these protection works were carried out, the need for the overlay would be obsolete.

(ii) Evidence and Submissions In its submissions to the Panel, Council provided a summary of its existing coastal protection works, which include a system of boulder ramparts and timber walls at the Cowes and Silverleaves Foreshores and boulder ramparts and concrete walls at the Grantville Foreshore. Council noted that many of the groynes [a coastal protection measure] between Cowes and Silverleaves had deteriorated and DEPI had removed some of them due to safety concerns. Council is currently working with DEPI to obtain funding to rebuild some of the removed groynes. Council is also working with the State government on the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment (yet to be released).

Page 36 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

It is Proponent’s submission to the Panel that the two matters of the LSIO and provision of coastal and engineering protection works are two separate matters, however they noted that they are parallel processes. Dr McCowan did not provide an opinion as to whether the implementation of engineering and/or coastal protection works would negate the need for the LSIO, however in his expert witness statement, Dr McCowan (in response to the issues raised in submissions on this matter), noted that: The main cause of the projected inundation in the Silverleaves area is not from breaching of the fore‐dune, but from storm tides propagating westward in from the Rhyll Inlet. The storm tide inundation for 2100 is based on the currently existing topography and does not include the effects of coastal recession with sea level rise. Given that there are existing erosion issues along the Silverleaves foreshore, and that these existing issues are likely to be exacerbated by sea level rise, it is my opinion that some form coastal protection works will be required to maintain the existing coastline in this area. Construction of shore protection works along the Silverleaves foreshore and of levee banks around the edges of the Rhyll Inlet could be used to mitigate the effects of sea level rise at some time in the future. The extents of the LSIO could be reconsidered at that time. In his written submission, Mr Massin (Submission 43) suggested that Amendment C82 is ’treating the Symptoms and not the Cause. The real issue as it relates to the area north of Lynnes Road [St Clair] is one of river flow and drainage. Rather than place a widespread LSIO over many square kilometres to the detriment of owners and Council alike, a far better solution is to simply make modifications to the rivers’ banks and surrounding ground to afford a flow of water, which in turn would reduce the potential for flooding along various points in the river’. A number of submissions from the Silverleaves area raised issues considering erosion and the need for coastal protection measures to be in place, rather than the Council’s implementation the LSIO. Mr Janson provided a detailed background to the erosion issues of Cowes and Silverleaves during his presentation to the Panel and suggested that Council put in place protection measures now to prevent inundation to protect the natural and built environment, rather than responding to the threat of sea level rise in the future by LSIO mapping. Mr Buckingham provided the Panel with a number of photographs of the effects of storm damage and coastal erosion at Silverleaves.

(iii) Discussion and Conclusions The Panel notes the position of the Council that coastal protection and engineering works are outside of the scope of the Amendment. The Panel notes, however, that such works are also required to protect the coast and assets against sea level rise and inundation and flooding events.

Page 37 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Such works should be prioritised in areas that Council considers to be ‘hot spots’, such as the area between Cowes and Silverleaves that Council referred to in its submission. The Panel has not considered these matters. 5.3 Timing of the Amendment

(i) The Issue Twenty seven submitters want the Council to wait for direction from the State Government, particularly regarding the finalisation of the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment and the Victorian Coastal Strategy before progressing with Amendment C82.

(ii) Evidence and Submissions The Proponents stated that the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment is the next phase of the Future Coasts Program, initiated by the Victorian Government. The project is expected to improve understanding of the impacts of coastal hazards including sea level rise and storm surge on the Victorian coast through detailed mapping, data and information. Western Port is one of four locations across the State which was chosen for a local assessments based on vulnerability to coastal hazards. The project will produce the following:  Assimilation of data ‐ A database will be compiled of all existing data and reports relevant to Western Port and gaps in the existing information will be identified. A historical aerial photo project will also compile aerial images into a time−lapse sequence to illustrate changes to the coastline.  Assessment of Coastal Hazards ‐ The assessment will produce a comprehensive technical report and highly detailed datasets of the coastal hazards of Western Port. The assessment will include but not be limited to, modelling of sea level rise scenarios (eg. 0.2m, 0.4m) and storm surge. Dr Provis, for the Silverleaves Action Group, stated in his exert witness statement that the Amendment is premature and that any planning overlay should await the release of the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment. The Assessment, he submitted is intended to include detailed modelling of water levels and dynamic modelling of inundation, and that the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment should remove the need for Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessments (discussed in section 7.1.1). Dr Provis also stated that if the LSIO is the correct planning instrument to be used, ‘it should at least use the best possible data to define the areas affected’. Some submitters speculated that the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment may deliver detailed coastal hazard information that may supersede the current Future Coasts mapping that has been used to inform the coastal inundation extents for Amendment C82. They argued that the Proponents should incorporate this information into the Amendment when it is available. The Proponents could not provide a timeframe for when the project will be completed and the data available. DEPI also did not provide any advice on this matter in their submission.

Page 38 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

The Proponents submitted that it is also important to note that the project will only provide more information for Western Port, not the entire coastline of Bass Coast Shire Council.

(iii) Discussion and Conclusions The LSIO mapping has been prepared using the best available data at the time of preparation with some exceptions for riverine mapping (Powlett River) where further modelling and ground truthing has occurred post exhibition, and the mapping adjusted to reflect this. In regard to the Victorian Coastal Strategy, a revised document was released in September 2014 (post exhibition and just prior to the hearings). The revised Victorian Coastal Strategy is consistent with the previous Strategy and State and local policies in that it provides for:  To plan for sea level rise of not less than 0.8m by 2100 and  To plan for sea level rise of not less than 0.2m by 2040 for urban infill areas. The Panel understands the intent of VC94 is that when further data becomes available through strategic work undertaken by the State government or local Council (such as the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment), this may be reflected in changes to current mapping and the Panel encourages the Council to undertake this analysis and possible changes once the Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment is made available. The Panel has made a recommendation under section 4.2 in relation to adjustments to mapping when further information becomes available. 5.4 Other Issues Raised in Submissions

(i) Drainage in Silverleaves Sixteen submitters raised issues in submissions regarding poor drainage in the Silverleaves area. They submitted that Council should concentrate on improved drainage and flood mitigation works rather than placing planning restrictions on future development. Council informed the Panel that it is currently undertaking a drainage and flood mitigation assessment of the Silverleaves area which will include developing design options for storm water drainage and storage. The Panel is of the view that any future drainage or inundation protection works are outside the scope of the current Amendment. The definition of the overlay boundary needs to be based on the best available current information. If any future inundation protection or drainage work reduces risk or alters the mapping of flood levels, changes may be required to the overlay boundary in a future Amendment. It is not appropriate for the Panel to speculate on any future impacts in the current Amendment.

(ii) Consultation and Availability of Information A total of 17 submissions raised concerns about the lack of consultation or lack of available information in the Amendment. Some submitters were not aware of the proposed Amendment or the extent of changes proposed until late in the process. Others raised concerns about difficulty in accessing information relating to their properties.

Page 39 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Some submitters also raised more specific concerns relating to the availability of coastal inundation data. The Proponents provided the Panel with an overview of the process of consultation undertaken, which included mail notification to all affected properties, information sessions and further one on one sessions with individual submitters as required. The Panel notes the difficulties in communicating the details of an amendment that affects such a large number of properties. Given the scope of the Amendment, it is not surprising that not all landowners were fully informed. The Panel is comfortable that the Proponents have gone well beyond the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in communicating the details of the Amendment to affected parties and has made every effort to make detailed information available to all those who made a reasonable effort to seek it out.

(iii) Dredging of Western Port Bay A submission from the Port of Hastings Development Authority states that ‘any potential impact on sea level rise and changed tidal movements will be assessed as part of detailed hydrodynamic modelling which will commence this year.’ Mr Schinkel raised concerns that the hydrodynamic modelling being undertaken by the Port of Hastings Development Authority has not been released. The Proponents’ response to this submission was that the concerns of submitters in relation to the future of Western Port Bay are noted and Council will continue to advocate for more information regarding the proposed Port of Hastings development to be provided to the community. The Proponents adopt a position that the Amendment cannot allow for the impacts of any future dredging of Western Port Bay, as they are unknown at this time. The Panel agrees with the Proponents that Amendment C82 cannot allow for the impacts of any proposed future dredging of Western Port Bay, as both the details of the project and any potential impacts are unknown at this point in time.

Page 40 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

6 Site Specific Issues

The following sections discuss a number of site specific issues not otherwise covered or not covered in detail in the preceding Chapters. 6.1 McCrae Property Inverloch‐Kongwak Road, Wattlebank

(i) The issues The issue is whether the land identified as potentially cut off by flood waters should be included in the LSIO. The Amendment as exhibited shows land expected to be inaccessible during a flood event included in the LSIO. This includes an elevated area on the McRae property that contains a dwelling, dairy and sheds indicated as a green ‘island’ in Figure 3.

(ii) Submissions The Proponents submitted that the elevated ‘island’ had been included in the exhibited LSIO because access to the land via Inverloch‐Kongwak Road would be cut for some time in the event of a 1 in 100 year flood event. Mr Des and Mr Len McRae (Submission 53) submitted that, whilst Inverloch‐Kongwak Road was covered by water in a 1 in 100 year flood event, the water was not deep and was slow flowing. They submitted that vehicle access is still possible in these circumstances and the elevated ‘island’ is therefore accessible and should be excluded from the LSIO. They cited aerial photography and a ground level photo of the road taken during the 2012 flood event as evidence that vehicle access is possible. They submitted that the water over the road was approximately 150mm deep or less for a distance of no more than 80m. A photo submitted to the Hearing shows a vehicle on the road at the time of the flood event. The Proponents were initially reluctant to remove the elevated island from the LSIO on the basis that the land, like other riverine flooded areas, could be cut of for several hours, and up to several days in a 1 in 100 year flood event. The general issue of access to land cut off by flood waters is discussed in Section 4.6. The Proponents have taken a different approach to coastal inundation compared to riverine flooding for the reasons discussed in Section 4.6. During the course of the Hearing, and based on the information presented by the McRae’s, the Proponents accepted that the island could be removed from the LSIO on the basis that, even though the Inverloch‐Kongwak Road would be covered by water, access to the land would still be possible for emergency vehicles. In reaching this decision they accepted the McRae’s submission that the water over the road would be shallow and slow moving. The Proponents submitted proposed revised mapping of the LSIO as shown in Figure 4 (i.e. with the green areas removed from the LSIO).

Page 41 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Figure 4 LSIO changes on the McRae property

Also in response to the McRae’s submission, WGCMA submitted that an error in the mapping should be corrected on a small area of land west of Inverloch‐Kongwak Road, Wattlebank as shown in Figure 5 below.

Page 42 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Figure 5 Minor amendment to LSIO proposed at Wattlebank

(iii) Discussion and Conclusions The Panel accepts that there is good reason to treat islands of land cut off by riverine flood waters in the way proposed by the Proponents. As discussed in Section 4.6, the Panel agrees with the general policy that if access is not possible for a prolonged period of time, then the land should be included in the overlay. The Panel agrees, however, that the proposed change to the LSIO on the McRae property is a sensible interpretation of this policy and accepts that the elevated ‘island’ should be excluded from the LSIO as proposed, on the basis that the land is still accessible by road in the event of a 1 in 100 year flood event. The changes proposed as shown in Figures 4 and 5 are supported.

(iv) Recommendation The Panel recommends as follows in relation to the McRae property: 8. Delete the elevated ‘island’ of land on the McRae property on Inverloch‐Kongwak Road, Wattlebank from the LSIO as shown in Figure 4 of this report. 9. Amend the LSIO mapping west of Inverloch‐Kongwak Road, Wattlebank as shown in Figure 5 of this report.

Page 43 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

6.2 Heslops Road, Wonthaggi North

(i) The issues One submission raised concerns with the accuracy of mapping in vicinity of Heslops Road, Wonthaggi North.

(ii) Evidence and Submissions Mr and Ms Baird (Submission 88) submitted (amongst other things) that the accuracy of the data used for the LSIO mapping was questionable. Ms Baird called evidence from Mr Dugald Baird in relation to this, and Mr Baird used a section of Heslops Road, Wonthaggi North as an example of one area where water had clearly been observed across the road during a flood event and yet it was not mapped within the LSIO. He presented photographs and newspaper reports to support his evidence. In response, the Proponents acknowledged that the mapping was in error in this location and agreed that the LSIO should be changed. On the basis that, at least in this location, the need to modify the LSIO was agreed by the parties, the Panel directed that affected property owners be notified of the proposed change and be given the opportunity to make a submission to the Panel. This was done on 21 October 2014, with landowners given 14 days to make a submission. Representatives of the WGCMA subsequently spoke directly to several affected landowners and made further minor changes to the mapping as shown in Figure 6. No further written submissions were received in response to the further notification. The Panel understands that Mr and Mrs Baird maintain their concerns about other areas of LSIO and their broad opposition to the Amendment.

Page 44 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Figure 6 Proposed changes to mapping Heslops Road, North Wonthaggi

(iii) Discussion and Conclusions The Panel understands that the proposed change to the LSIO in the vicinity of Heslops Road, North Wonthaggi does not address the broader concerns raised by Mr and Mrs Baird. Nevertheless, the error identified by Mr Baird should, in the Panel’s opinion be corrected. The further notification process has given affected landowners the opportunity to comment on the correction and this has resulted in a more accurate LSIO. The Panel therefore supports the proposed change to the LSIO as shown in Figure 6.

(iv) Recommendation The Panel makes the following recommendation: 10. Amend the LSIO in the vicinity of Heslops Road, North Wonthaggi as shown in Figure 6 of this report

Page 45 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

7 The Form and Content of the Amendment 7.1 The Schedule to the LSIO 7.1.1 Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment

(i) The Issue The issue is what, if any, requirement for a Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (CHVA) should be included in the LSIO Schedule.

(ii) Evidence and Submissions 34 submissions raised objection to the requirement in the exhibited schedule to the LSIO for a CHVA to be prepared: An application to construct a building or construct or carry out works for land below 5m AHD must be accompanied by a coastal hazard vulnerability assessment. Submitters objected on the basis that the CHVA is a relatively expensive report to be required for small scale developments. They also noted that, in many cases broader assessments have been carried out by the relevant catchment management authority (or others) and a site specific assessment could add nothing of value to the broader work. The Proponents gave further consideration of these issues, along with reviewing existing controls and the impact of Local Coastal Hazard Assessments (LCHA) (where they exist) and concluded that the provisions of the Schedule should be amended to:  Exempt some application types from the need for a CHVA; and  Provide that once the LCHA is released, a CHVA is not required if the information is already included in a published LCHA. In discussion at the Hearing it was acknowledged that the requirement for a CHVA should more appropriately be discretionary with the capacity for the Responsible Authority or relevant floodplain management authority to waive the need for a report if not considered essential to the consideration of a permit application. The Proponents further proposed that, in relation to application types, the revised LSIO should only require a CHVA for applications where there is a proposed increased intensity of use, development or earthworks, being: (a) Subdivision; (b) Accommodation (including Dwelling, Residential building, Residential village, Retirement village, Camping and caravan park, Corrective institution, Dependent person's unit, Group accommodation, Host farm); and (c) Earthworks involving the receipt, importation, stockpiling or placement of more than 100 cubic metres of fill (see also Issue 2.5). The following revised clause was proposed for inclusion in the LSIO schedule:

Page 46 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Coastal Development For land below 5m AHD, the Responsible Authority or relevant floodplain management authority may require that a coastal hazard vulnerability assessment or similar statement be prepared to accompany the following planning permit application types:  Subdivision  Accommodation (including Dwelling, Residential building, Residential village, Retirement village, Camping and caravan park, Corrective institution, Dependent persons unit, Group accommodation, Host farm)  Earthworks involving the receipt, importation, stockpiling or placement of more than 100 cubic metres of fill. This requirement does not apply where the information has been previously published in a regional Local Coastal Hazard Assessment.

(iii) Discussion and Conclusion The Panel agrees that a CHVA may be appropriate in certain circumstances and the capacity to require an assessment in such circumstances should be retained in the LSIO schedule. The Panel also agrees that, as exhibited, the LSIO schedule requirement was unnecessarily onerous and the requirement should be modified to introduce discretion and appropriate exemptions. The Panel agrees that the proposed modified form of the requirement for a CHVA in the LSIO schedule is appropriate. The modified wording has been included in the Panel Preferred LSIO schedule in Appendix C. 7.1.2 Permit Exemptions in Rural Areas

(i) The Issue Attendees at the consultation sessions held as part of the exhibition process identified that exemptions provided for the proposed Schedule to the LSIO to apply to ‘Urban Areas’ should apply to all areas.

(ii) Submissions The Proponents accepted that permit exemptions for small extensions, non‐habitable buildings, outbuildings and the like that were proposed in the exhibited version of the LSIO Schedule should apply equally to non‐urban areas. The Proponents subsequently proposed to amend the sub heading in the clause to read ‘All areas’ rather than ‘Urban areas (all areas not within the Framing Zone, Rural Activity Zone, Rural living Zone and Rural Conservation Zone)’.

(iii) Discussion and Conclusion The Panel accepts the change proposed by the Proponents and this is reflected in the Panel Preferred LSIO schedule in Appendix C.

Page 47 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

7.1.3 Permit Exemptions for Water Corporations

(i) The Issue South Gippsland Water and Western Port Water submitted that they should be able to maintain, upgrade or replace infrastructure without a planning permit requirement triggered by the LSIO. The Proponents agreed with the submissions and proposed that the wording of the LSIO schedule be amended to include an exemption for Water Corporations to maintain, upgrade and replace infrastructure related to water supply. This was changed at the Hearing to delete ‘upgrade’ on the basis that a permit trigger should still apply for upgrade works to ensure the impacts of potential flooding are taken into account. There were no objections to this proposed change.

(ii) Discussion and Conclusion The Panel accepts the change proposed by the Proponents and this is reflected in the Panel Preferred LSIO Schedule in Appendix C. 7.1.4 Earthworks

(i) The Issue The issue is what, if any, exemptions should be made in the LSIO Schedule for earthworks.

(ii) Submissions Attendees at the consultation sessions held as part of the exhibition process submitted that it was unreasonable to require a permit for minor earthworks associated with farming and other rural activities. Council agreed that earthworks (involving the receipt, importation, stockpiling or placement of less than 100 cubic metres of fill) ought to be exempt from the requirement for a permit and proposed that the Schedule to the LSIO be amended accordingly. There were no objections to this proposed change.

(iii) Discussion and Conclusion The Panel accepts the change proposed by the Proponents and this is reflected in the Panel Preferred LSIO Schedule in Appendix C. 7.1.5 Panel Preferred LSIO Schedule

(i) The Issue The Panel has considered the various versions of the LSIO schedule presented and recommends the adoption of the version shown in Appendix C which includes the changes discussed above as well as a number of minor drafting changes to ensure consistency with other recommendations.

Page 48 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

(ii) Recommendation The Panel makes the following recommendation with respect to the proposed LSIO Schedule: 11. Amend the proposed LSIO Schedule as shown in the Panel Preferred Version at Appendix C of this report. 7.2 Wording of the Local Policy

(i) The Issue Are their further consequential changes required to the local policy?

(ii) Discussion The changes proposed to the local policy in the Amendment can generally be characterised as minor wording changes designed to reinforce appropriate consideration of flood and coastal inundation, and environmental hazards generally, in assessing proposed development. Whilst a number of submitters broadly opposed the Amendment, there were no substantive submissions in relation to specific proposed changes to the local policy. The Panel has reviewed the proposed changes and agrees that they are supportive of State policy and concludes that they should be supported. The Panel does not believe there are any further changes required from the exhibited version as a consequence of other recommendations of the Panel. The Panel notes that since the exhibition of Amendment C82, Amendment C124 has been gazetted which implemented the Inverloch Design Framework, including substantial changes to the Inverloch section of Clause 21.10 – Local Areas. Council provided the Panel with a modified version of Clauses 21.10‐1 which incorporated changes from both Amendments C124 and C82.

(iii) Recommendation The Panel makes the following recommendation: 12. Changes to Clause 21.10 – Local Areas should incorporate the changes made to Clause 21.10‐1 made as part of Amendment C124, gazetted in April 2014.

Page 49 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Appendix A List of Submitters

No. Submitter Organisation 1 Wilkinson Barbara 2 Stampton Paul South Gippsland Shire Council 3 Thomas NR & CB 4 Lewin John & Pauline 5 Ziino L J & R F 6 Hewett Greg Inverloch Estates P/L 7 Hosemans Danny 8 (2 Scott & Andy Renay parts) Schrape 9 Williams Paul & Wendy 10 Buckingham David 11 Menzies David & Sharon 12 Watters Cam & Vanna 13 Silver Brian & Jenny 14 McInnes Noel 15 Munro Steve 16 Good Robyn 17 Parkinson Peta 18 Jokic Sharon 19 Ferguson Norma 20 Oakley Nicola EPA Victoria 21 Schinkel Maurice 22 Mitchell Adrian 23 Sampson Neville 24 Crestani Natasha 25 Tobin Meryl & Hartley 26 Hunt Barry 27 Colman Vanessa 28 Dhar Michael & Nicole 29 Overton William &

Page 50 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

No. Submitter Organisation Cheryl 30 Earl Shane & Leanne 31 Bowen Pat 32 Temby Peter 33 Harrigan Mark 34 Sokratis Maria 35 Steer Howard & Bev 36 Sharp Ken 37 Blackman Ken 38 Wilson‐Browne Fenella 39 Ross Graeme 40 Janson Dr Michael & Mrs Christine 41 Andrews Tony 42 Hooper Nick Taylors for TDS (Rhyll) 43 Massin Chris 44 Stanley Wayne 45 Smith Robyn & Rev. John 46 Hill Lyn & Graeme 47 Grant Deborah 48 Clarke Alan & Patricia 49 Dayson George & Mary 50 Peake Brenda 51 Davies David 52 Lerk John & Diana 53 Duffy Mary Beveridge Williams for McRae 54 Alexander Jim & Elaine 55 Coghlan Caroline & Michael 56 Nicol Noel 57 Paul Peter & Glenyce 58 Brennan John Dept of Environment & Primary Industries

Page 51 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

No. Submitter Organisation 59 Robinson Owen 60 Trigg & Ian Hitchins David 61 Brennan Nick & Linda 62 Groves Geoff & Aleta 63 McDonald Ken 64 Axon Paul 65 Price Greg Alex Scott & Staff 66 Wight Adam 67 Stubbings Doreen 68 Hennessey Robert 69 Bennett Jeff Bennett for Puyol & Chibber 70 Sim Graham & Joan 71 Powell Brian & Edna 72 Bardwell Matt & Dawn 73 Nottle Jeff Preserve Western Port Action Group 74 Davie Steve 75 Boreham Kaye & John 76 Strachan Judith 77 Pell Janice South Gippsland Water 78 Bond Jeffrey & Patricia Bond 79 Guy & Barbara Dr Richard Hoban 80 Bonner Lee & Linda 81 Lacco Brett & Julie 82 Fuentes Julie 83 Malinin Anna 84 Scholes Joanne & Frank 85 Papadofrangakis E & C 86 Kidd Neville 87 Armstrong David & Gillian 88 Baird Dugald & Bonnie

Page 52 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

No. Submitter Organisation 89 Wilson‐Browne Guy 90 Ebstein Rosalind On behalf of Geoffrey William Church McCutcheon Brown & Deborah 91 Oswin Anne 92 O'Garey Jane & Kendall 93 McKenzie Nance 94 Heppell Paul & Ann‐ Maree 95 Laydon Peter Phillip Island Golf Course 96 Reid Graham & Geoff 97 Taylor Jonathan 98 McDonnell Norm 99 Marr Garry & Leeanne 100 Bennett Jeff Bennett for Rohan Walker 101 Bennett Jeff Bennett for van der Zwet 102 Lyons Ron & June 103 O'Brien Steve & Margie 104 Kirkhope Sandy 105 Church Vanessa 106 Orchard Keith & Judith 107 Zoanetti Tony 108 Duffy Mary Beveridge Williams for Bowler 109 Major Steve & Sue 110 Purnell Andrew & Sue 111 van der Zwet Carly On behalf of Burleigh Flowers P/L 112 Kelsall Chris, Angela & Kim 113 Gray Natalie 114 Myhill Sarah 115 Moed Geoff 116 McNicol Ros

Page 53 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

No. Submitter Organisation 117 Reid J & A 118 Collins Bernard Bev Wills for San Remo Ranch 119 Anonymous Anonymous n/a 120 Frawley Michael 121 Kell Glenn Planning Central for Carley Nicholls 122 Halden Michael 123 Cooke Michael 124 Johnstone Chris Jardine Johnstone for Russo 125 Spencer Patricia 126 Matthews John & Sally 127 Smith Daryl & Jan 128 Cox Anne 129 Scrase David & Gillian 130 Jansson John 131 Booth Vivienne 132 Allum Geoffrey Western Port Water 133 Bishop Christine 134 Lewis Joy 135 Gilmour Wayne West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority 136 Doyle Michael Beaumont Investments P/L 137 McPhee Martin Country Fire Authority 138 Lean Mike Port of Hastings Development Authority 139 Kilborn Ross Central Coast Board 140 McGrath Peter 141 Cleeland Harry

Page 54 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Appendix B Document List

Document Date Description Presented by No. 1 7‐10‐14 Bass Coast Shire, West Gippsland CMA and Ms Tamara Brezzi of Melbourne Water (‘the proponents’) Norton Rose Fulbright, Submissions representing the proponents 2 8‐10‐14 VPP Amendment VC94 Explanatory Report Ms Tamara Brezzi of Norton Rose Fulbright 3 8‐10‐14 Amendment VC94 Reasons for Decision to Use Ms Tamara Brezzi of Power of Intervention Norton Rose Fulbright 4 8‐10‐14 Mr A Mitchell Submissions Mr A Mitchell

5 8‐10‐14 Mr M Schinkel Submissions Mr M Schinkel

6 8‐10‐14 Extract – Port of Hastings Development Mr M Schinkel Authority Annual Report 2012/13 7 8‐10‐14 Extracts – Coastal Climate Change Advisory Mr M Schinkel Committee Final Report Vol 1 8 8‐10‐14 Mr D and L McRae Submissions Mr D and L McRae

9 8‐10‐14 Mr I Hitchings Submissions Mr I Hitchings

10 8‐10‐14 Mr D Trigg and Ms M Trigg Submissions Mr D Trigg and Ms M Trigg 11 8‐10‐14 Dr M Janson Submissions Dr M Janson

12 8‐10‐14 Extract from Eric Bird report – Figure 10: Dr M Janson Geomorphology of the north coast of Phillip Island east from Erehwon Point. 13 8‐10‐14 Drawing No. 24858 (date 1987) proposed Dr M Janson rock wall at Cowes – Coghlan Road 14 8‐10‐14 Letter (12 Oct 2004) from Mr D Holloway to Dr M Janson Mr P Smith (Bass Coast Shire) and Letter of response. 15 8‐10‐14 ‘The Age’ article, Sept 6 2014 Dr M Janson

16 8‐10‐14 Extract from Bass Coast Shire 2014/15 budget Dr M Janson

17 8‐10‐14 Mr P Axon and Ms J Axon Submissions Mr P Axon

Page 55 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Document Date Description Presented by No. 18 9‐10‐14 VPP Amendment VC94 Explanatory Report Mr G Wilson‐Brown

19 9‐10‐14 BOM data, Stony Point Mr G Wilson‐Brown

20 9‐10‐14 Ms B Baird and Mr D Baird Presentation Ms B Baird

21 9‐10‐14 Map of Ms B Baird and Mr D Baird property Ms B Baird

22 9‐10‐14 Mr K Blackman Submissions Mr K Blackman

23 9‐10‐14 Preserve Western Port Action Group Mr J Nottle Presentation 24 9‐10‐14 Western Port Bay Plan (date unknown) Mr J Nottle

25 9‐10‐14 Ms S Myhill Submissions Ms S Myhill

26 10‐10‐14 Dr Provis Presentation Ms N Gray, representing 69 parties 27 10‐10‐14 Ms N Gray Submissions Ms N Gray

28 10‐10‐14 Mr D Buckingham photographs Mr D Buckingham

29 10‐10‐14 Melbourne Water Guidelines for Sea Level Ms Tamara Brezzi of Rise Norton Rose Fulbright 30 10‐10‐14 Practice Note 12 (Nov 2012) Applying the Ms Tamara Brezzi of flood provisions in planning schemes Norton Rose Fulbright 31 10‐10‐14 Extracts from Wellington Amendment C33 Ms Tamara Brezzi of Flood Overlays Panel Report (Jan 2011) Norton Rose Fulbright 32 10‐10‐14 Revised Schedule to the Land Subject to Ms Tamara Brezzi of Inundation Overlay Norton Rose Fulbright 33 10‐10‐14 LIDAR map ‐ Baird’s property Ms Tamara Brezzi of Norton Rose Fulbright 34 10‐10‐14 Extract from DEPI website – Victorian Coastal Ms Tamara Brezzi of Inundation Dataset Norton Rose Fulbright 35 10‐10‐14 Proponent Closing Submissions – summary of Ms Tamara Brezzi of recommendations Norton Rose Fulbright

Page 56 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Appendix C Panel Preferred LSIO Schedule

The Panel preferred version of the LSIO Schedule attached shows tracked changes from the exhibition version.

Page 57 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

BASS COAST PLANNING SCHE.:\lE

SCHEDULE TO THE LAND SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OVERLAY

Shown on \he planning schemc map a$ LSIO.

111e n1ap 011 page 3 of t/Jis scl1edul.! ilkntifies tlte odn1i11istru1b·f! 01'i!as cf th~ 1wo jloodplub1 ntanagen1e111 autl1orities in Bass Coast Shiro.

1.0 Permit requirement _,_JlO_ e_ l~un1I J-\rr-.:.s (1111 nrf'a.!I '"ithin Otc' F11rn1i11g Zonl', l~urt1I .Activity 1..c>nC_ '. _Rur.d Living Zonr a nd J~ur-al Cons;c:i n intlon Zc> nt) J\ pennit is not required to constnict a building or comtru<..'1 or carry out \\•orks associated with lhc us..: of land for agriculture and r1tutullt1Fl!,iRi.htrliRg\'tt1cuhurc nwlud1ng. \Vorb assoclated wilh vine or ho111cutcuml trellises or watenng systems. \Vorb a-<1.... oci 1ucdwnh a Ps!amtt..!l!h less than 3000 cubK: mttn:s ca1)8city. \\'here no fill is imported to the silt' and where no ~m"'1nkment 1s propossd above ~tura l ground level. \V1ndm1lls and solar units.

QulhlJild1ngs less th!Ul JOI) "JOO re metres gross Ooor or.., including A pump shcd.

Agricultural and {hrm buil din~ \\~ th a min1m un1 of one \Vall fully and permanendy open. such 88 hay sheds. cattleyard~ oovercd horse stables or yurds. Buildfrtgs or ,,·orks ln accordance \Vith 8 W'hOIC fa ml pf On prepared lO the S9liSl°3cliOn or the rC$pon$1bJc $Ulhority

All urr:t~ t'rli nr1 ;~ 11t11 (1111 u1 e11ar H9l within Uu 1\1nnieg ZYAli'; ·Rw.1 ol Ailti.. Uy :&enP1 R~11tt1I T_,i,.iltig 6ane. u1td Rt1r:.1I Ge rt!UF ·~1tit:1R 6011e)

A permit 1s not required to construct R bwlduig or construct or carry out works for MY of the following: An ¢.'<-tension to an e.xisting, d\\'elling. pro\'kled the proposed floor level is at or above the: highest poin1 of the existing noor level and the gross noor area of the •xtension does not e.xcecd 20 squan: metres. A non-habitable building (other than a building associated with the use of land for industry or for a public or c

An e.xt~nsion to a oon.hnbitable building (other th..-m a bu1lding ass.ocinted \Vith th!! use of land for industry or for a public or comn1crcial ae1ivity),. provided that the noor levels arc above the applicablbe levels set y the rc]c\•ant Ooodplajn n1anagcmcnt authority. Outbuilding:s and \Vorks normal to an exi..-;ting dwelling. otht'!r than a deck or verandah. incllKling landscaping. R pergola, driveway~ carpon. in-grolU"ld S\\fimming pool and associated fenc ing,, 00.rbeques and \Yalcr tank. A deck or verandah as.socimed with an existlng d\\'elling \\

A footpath. bicycle path or ~dwnlk, provided that they are COn>truCtcd at ground le\•el. An devoted boardwalk, provided that the ne1v surfaco levels arc above thc applicable levels set by the rclev811l floodplain nlanugemcnt authority.

An upper storey ~xtension to an c.xisting building \vathin I.he existing building footprint

An open buildi~ with no \Valls. A replacc.mcnl f1.l'ncc of the same malcnoJ as the existing fence, 1n the. sarnc loc:allon A tennis coun or other sports ground at natumJ SfOWtd le.vtl.

LA,1) SUBJECT TO lNUNl)ATION OVEIU.AY - SCHr.ouu; I PAOE I 0 1'3

Page 58 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

flASS COAST PL ANNINO SCIIBMG

A radio mast.. lclccommWllcalions to\\·cr, Mlcnna. po\vcr pole or light pole. A non-domestic disabled ncx:ess ramp. An outdoor advenas1ng. s1gnlsU11ciure, provided that it does 1'10t niter now·s or floodplaut storage caPQclty.

_• _ Enl'th\VOrkS ASSOC:ittted With the COnstruccion ol' A dam, ptt')\lided no fill is imponed 10 the Site and no embankmerlt is proposed above g.row'ld level

' e··rmu a er! F?' Hirr-l fa r\\lcirk~ carped 0111 b\• a \Yntl'r Corpomli('IOIO I<> n1 njmqin: ~ and replrtep infmstruclure rc1nttXt to \\'Jllcr ~upp l\'

f!arth\\•Orks associated With Lhe t~CCIPL 1moormtton. stockp1JiM or nlacen1ent o( J ~ thnn 100 cubic: me Ires af fill

Nole: Con1act th~ nllt'·anrj]qodp/ain n1anag,n1e111

2.0 Application requirement

Unless agreed in wriling by the rcle,·aJl1 floodplain management .n_Authorhy. an :1pplieation to construct a building or construct Ot carry ou1 \VOrL::s niust be acoompanic:d by four St:tS of plnns., dra'''" to scaJe, which sho\v: A localion plan Jfflw ft t? sialit. shov1ing the boundaries and dimensions of the sit.c-. surrounding uses Md the layout or existing and proposed buildings and \vorks. lllevntion plans showing natural ground level ground le,.el nnd the Ooor le\'els of any proposed buildings 1n relation to Austrnhan Height Datum. taken by or under direction and supervision of a licensed surveyor. t\ detailed site plan with 0.5m con.tour intervals sho\ving the: layout of existing and proposed buildings and ,,·orb. watcrcou:r.>es and access roads, taken by or under the direction or a licensed land surveyor:

The I in 100 year Dood level from the relcrn nt lloodplain management Authority The l1ood le,1el inf<.»mation mu."1 not be great.er lhan six month.,. old. CcHls'tUI lltvtlopnu.'nt •'1llow; Comping and qin!)'an park Corrcc1jy,; 1nsllllU100 J)coondi;nt ncrsnns unjl Group sccgn1modntion. Host fiwnl Eanhworb in\•ol\•jno the r«¢ipL jmnoantjon. stocL:piliog or plaocmem o(more thon 100 cubic metres nf fill

Th1.!t r

LM'O SUBJECT TO l1"UNDATION 0VERLA Y - ScllEDULE I PAGE20F 3

Page 59 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

BASS COAST PLANNl~'G SCHEME

~·Elevation plans sho\ving naturnl grourd le.\•cl, ground level nnd the floor levels of any proposed buildings in re.huion to both Aus:Lralian HcighL Otuum and the highe~ r('_cOfded coastal inundation event as nom iootcd by the relevant floodplain n1nl\llgcment Authority. taken by or under the dircccion and supcn•ision or a lic-:nsed land swve}'Of_.:

• A detailed site pJa.n wnh 0.5m oonlours shOWJJlg the layout or CX!S:Ung and proposed bwldtng.s and 'vorks, \vatcrcourscs, aocess roods, \\'atcr courses, vegetation and alJ infrastructure that may be affected by Ooo¢supported by .scienLilic or numeric annly:sis;

• A set or coastal hazard maps for the sediment compartment for the planning, peri~ presenl day, 2040. 2070 and 21\lO showing the geographic extent of the coos1al hazards in relation to dlC sit..r, An outline prep:lrcd by a suit.ably qunlilit.-d pc®n to the satisfaction of the rcsponl\ihfe nuthority suui.ng actions or measures requtred, if any, to lh~ ~iting and design or Lhe buildings or "'arks. or in association \Vith the use and occupation of all aspects or the proposaJ in order (O reduce the risk to individuals, property, infrastructure and the environmc.nt over I.he predicted life of the buildings or \vorks. These actions nlay inc:ludc the consideration or adapta1ion options $UC.has planned rclr1:al, setback~ accomn1odat1on or changc:s lhroug.h noor heights. site and land forming and drainag< works.

3.0 Referral of Applications

An applicat·ion to construct a building or construct or carry out \\'otk.1. or an application to amend a pen111t., does not n:quitt rcferml to the ttlevana. floodplain management authority if the application:

• Is accompanied by lhe relevant floodplain managcmcnl authority's \1,-Ti1ten appro\1Bl. \Vhich must be gm.rued not more than three months prior to lodging \Vith the responsible authori ty~ and which m"'t qoote the reference nwnb<:r of the plan and o

LANDSUBJF.CTTO I NUNDAno NO VERLAY - Sc!tEou LE I PAGB3 OF 3

Page 60 of 61 Bass Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C82  Panel Report  18 November 2014

Page 61 of 61