- Published on
By Catherine Watson
BASS Coast councillors appealed to the State Government for clarity as they knocked back plans for a two-storey house in Silverleaves because the site is subject to inundation.
Councillors acknowledged the landowner would almost certainly appeal the decision at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal but said they could not support a development on land that would be affected by rising sea levels.
A council officer’s report had recommended the application for 42 Bruce Street be approved. Melbourne Water, which has knocked back other development applications in Bass Coast because they are in Land Subject to Inundation zones, made no objection.
Cr Michael Whelan moved an alternate motion to refuse the permit.
BASS Coast councillors appealed to the State Government for clarity as they knocked back plans for a two-storey house in Silverleaves because the site is subject to inundation.
Councillors acknowledged the landowner would almost certainly appeal the decision at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal but said they could not support a development on land that would be affected by rising sea levels.
A council officer’s report had recommended the application for 42 Bruce Street be approved. Melbourne Water, which has knocked back other development applications in Bass Coast because they are in Land Subject to Inundation zones, made no objection.
Cr Michael Whelan moved an alternate motion to refuse the permit.
“I understand the other blocks have been allowed to develop. Yes they have, but putting more people in harm’s way isn’t a justification.
“I can’t understand Melbourne Water in this matter. They’ve been causing havoc around the place by knocking back proposals in Pioneer Bay and other places and suddenly this one just sails through with them.
“I can’t understand Melbourne Water in this matter. They’ve been causing havoc around the place by knocking back proposals in Pioneer Bay and other places and suddenly this one just sails through with them.
Stark choices on coastal assets
Oct 19, 2022 - From Bass Coast to Bells Beach, coastal councils are struggling to respond to local flood risks and coastal erosion.
Oct 19, 2022 - From Bass Coast to Bells Beach, coastal councils are struggling to respond to local flood risks and coastal erosion.
“I don’t get it. It’s been put to me that the other applications have been very close to the coast in the sense of being subject to erosion. This is right on the Rhyll Inlet, where the inundation will come from. It’s more exposed.”
Cr Whelan said local government was left to deal with the failure of the state and federal governments to develop a policy on development in areas that are subject to hazard.
“Modern planning schemes do not protect people from flood risks. Until we have a policy direction on retreat and stopping further densification of development in hazardous areas then we’re going to continue to have these problems.
“An esteemed colleague said the other day we’re dealing with inundation and coastal erosion one planning application at a time.
“We are here because of a lack of policy direction from the State and the Federal Government. We need leadership here. Local government cannot handle it.”
Cr David Rooks expressed frustration with Melbourne Water’s position.
“With the knowledge we have now in our society we should not be approving applications where we know they’ll be inundated with rising water levels.
Cr Brett Tessari acknowledged the decision would confound the landowners. “They must be looking around shaking their heads. There are houses everywhere and we’re refusing to allow them to build on their block of land and that frustrates me.
“If that was me I’d be dirty. But it doesn’t make any sense to approve a house to be built that’s not possibly be going to be under water; it’s going to be under water.
“That is obviously a flood zone that’s going to go under very, very early in the piece as sea levels rise. Melbourne Water has dropped the ball completely on this one.”
Rochelle Halstead called on the State Government to give direction to ensure the safety of communities.
Cr Les Larke was the sole dissenting voice. “Let the developer, let the buyer, beware.
“The planning scheme and the application is in accordance with responsible authorities including the MMBW. I don’t believe the council should use a big stick and deny an owner in good faith the right to build on this particular block.
Cr Whelan responded: “I don’t think there is Caveat emptor applying in these situations. I think people building in these areas assume government at some stage will step in and bail them out.
“We are facing escalating sea level rise and we need to face up to it. We need to send a signal to the State Government and they need to act.”
The motion to refuse the permit was carried by seven votes to two.
For: Crs Whelan, Rooks, Tessari, Halstead, Geoff Ellis, Leticia Laing and Clare le Serve
Against: Crs Larke, Ron Bauer
Cr Whelan said local government was left to deal with the failure of the state and federal governments to develop a policy on development in areas that are subject to hazard.
“Modern planning schemes do not protect people from flood risks. Until we have a policy direction on retreat and stopping further densification of development in hazardous areas then we’re going to continue to have these problems.
“An esteemed colleague said the other day we’re dealing with inundation and coastal erosion one planning application at a time.
“We are here because of a lack of policy direction from the State and the Federal Government. We need leadership here. Local government cannot handle it.”
Cr David Rooks expressed frustration with Melbourne Water’s position.
“With the knowledge we have now in our society we should not be approving applications where we know they’ll be inundated with rising water levels.
Cr Brett Tessari acknowledged the decision would confound the landowners. “They must be looking around shaking their heads. There are houses everywhere and we’re refusing to allow them to build on their block of land and that frustrates me.
“If that was me I’d be dirty. But it doesn’t make any sense to approve a house to be built that’s not possibly be going to be under water; it’s going to be under water.
“That is obviously a flood zone that’s going to go under very, very early in the piece as sea levels rise. Melbourne Water has dropped the ball completely on this one.”
Rochelle Halstead called on the State Government to give direction to ensure the safety of communities.
Cr Les Larke was the sole dissenting voice. “Let the developer, let the buyer, beware.
“The planning scheme and the application is in accordance with responsible authorities including the MMBW. I don’t believe the council should use a big stick and deny an owner in good faith the right to build on this particular block.
Cr Whelan responded: “I don’t think there is Caveat emptor applying in these situations. I think people building in these areas assume government at some stage will step in and bail them out.
“We are facing escalating sea level rise and we need to face up to it. We need to send a signal to the State Government and they need to act.”
The motion to refuse the permit was carried by seven votes to two.
For: Crs Whelan, Rooks, Tessari, Halstead, Geoff Ellis, Leticia Laing and Clare le Serve
Against: Crs Larke, Ron Bauer
Comments are closed.
You can also hardly blame the council for adopting the stance it has taken.
The DAL Advisory Committee reported to the planning minister on 22 June 2023 yet the public still has not seen the report, let alone see government take the important strategic planning steps needed.
In defence of the state government, it is important to carefully consider significant strategic planning changes and not rush them.
On the other hand interim planning controls have been used in the past to caution decision making (and guide local councils) in locations where approvals may be likely to prejudice a new incoming policy, for example in this case more restrictive planning controls over building in hazardous locations.
The former Hamer government did this to protect the Dandenong Ranges and Yarra Valley in the early 1970s pending a new Statement of Planning Policy.
The tools are there and this seems exactly the situation where they are warranted.