Contact LSFOAG

A Call to Review: Challenging the Revised Flood Overlay Guidelines on the Gippsland East Coast

Petition is closed 4,335 Signatures - Thank you to all that signed

Latest Update - 27 July 25 at 9:01 AM

Community Update Saturday 23rd August at the Community Hall from 10.00am until 12.00 noon. Invitations to attend will be extended to the media, Danny O’Brien as the host of the petition, Coastal Ward Councillors, WGCMA, WSC officers and Councillors.

WELLINGTON SHIRE COUNCIL WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT

!!!! Verifiable evidence now indicates that the business community of Loch Sport is impacted by the consequences of this flood overlay decision.!!!!!!

The WGCMA serves as an advisory body. The Wellington Shire Council possess the authorization to discontinue the implementation of the 2.7-meter flood levels, projected for 2100, which were slated for introduction in 2024, citing a lack of substantial supporting data for the underlying flood guidelines.

  • Points of Contention Regarding WGCMA’s Flood Level Revisions

    Upon review of the provided resources and the WGCMA’s decision, several significant points of contention arise:

    • Rate of Change for Inundation Projections: The provided resources do not specify the rate of change for projected inundation sea levels up to the year 2100. This omission is critical for understanding the justification for accelerating long-term projections.
    • Lack of Scientific Basis for Acceleration: It appears the WGCMA has, without presenting scientific evidence or substantive factual basis, unilaterally advanced the sea level rise projection for 2100 to the year 2024. This action lacks clear hydrological or climate science support within the supplied documentation.
    • Contravening Government Provisions: Furthermore, the WGCMA’s approach appears to contravene specific provisions outlined in the Victorian Government’s Coastal Inundation Sea Level Rise Storm Tide 2100 guidelines. 

    Summary of Impact

    This decision by the WGCMA has had a devastating and immediate impact on coastal communities in Eastern Victoria, including Loch Sport, Port Welshpool, and Port Albert. The ramifications extend to property values, development potential, and the overall economic and social viability of these towns. 

    We urge the Council to thoroughly review these points of contention and their broader implications for East Gippsland’s coastal areas.

The Victorian Government, with the support of the WGCMA, has changed the development conditions to the unchanged 2004 Flood Overlay report on the 2100 100-year flood overlay guidelines. Notifications were sent to the impacted Loch Sport residents stating that the WGCMA will not approve new development, business and residential,  on vacant land on the East Coast including Loch Sport.

The Wellington Shire Council (WSC) and the WGCMA, up until several years ago, could choose to assess applications based on the 2040 Australian Height Datum (AHD) of 1.9m climate change scenarios. In October 2021 this option was taken out of the planning scheme by the state government and in February 2024 the WSC can only assess applications against the 2100 AHD 2.9M levels.

Advice regarding this alteration was not formally communicated to the community until November 2024.

The revised flood overlay guidelines have significant implications on a decline in:

  • Healthcare: Reduced funding can lead to the closure of local clinics, making it difficult for residents to access timely medical care. 
  • Education: Schools might face budget cuts, leading to fewer resources, larger class sizes, and potentially the closure of smaller schools. Make the town less attractive to young families.
  • Infrastructure: Roads, bridges, and public transport systems may deteriorate due to a lack of investment in maintenance and upgrades.
  • Emergency Services: Fire departments, police, and ambulance services might struggle with inadequate funding for equipment, training, and staffing, potentially compromising public safety.
  • Social Services: Support for vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, people with disabilities, and low-income families, could be reduced, leading to increased hardship.
  • Reduced Investment: Businesses might be hesitant to invest or relocate to a town with poor infrastructure and limited services.
  • Job Losses: The decline in services and lack of new investment can lead to job losses, further weakening the local economy.
  • Population Decline: As services decline, residents, especially younger generations, may move away in search of better prospects, leading to a shrinking population and an aging demographic. 
  • Struggling Local Businesses: Without local support, infrastructure that supports commerce, existing businesses will struggle to thrive.
  • Potential threat of loan recalls
  • Increase in insurance or no insurance at all
  • Buyer uncertainty
  • Reduced Community Cohesion: A lack of investment in community facilities and services can weaken social bonds and reduce opportunities for community interaction.
  • Increased Social Problems: Economic hardship, reduced social and housing can contribute to a number of social problems.
  • Loss of Identity: As a town declines, it may lose its unique character and sense of identity.
  • Closure of post offices, limiting access to financial and communication services.
  • Difficulties in attracting and retaining doctors, chemists and other healthcare professionals.
  • Deteriorating infrastructure, making transportation and business operations challenging.
  • A decline in local industry

A controversial flood study that “overnight” rendered some landowners unable to build on their blocks in South Warrnambool has been shelved

After a long debate by city councillors on Monday, June 2, 2025, they voted 4-1 to “make clear” that it did not want to proceed with the recommendations in the flood investigation.

 

But just what the implications of that decision, and what that means for those properties owners who haven’t been able to build on their land, was something the council now has to work through.

A motion put by Cr Vicki Jellie went against officers’ recommendations seeking to include the study in a planning scheme amendment.

Chief executive officer Andrew Mason said a planning scheme amendment would have ensured existing and future landowners were aware of the flood potential.

It was also a process, he said, that would have provided a pathway for objectors’ concerns to be tested before an independent planning panel.

 

Decision causes councillors sleepless nights

Cr Jellie said the flood investigation had been a long and arduous task, causing a lot of sleepless nights.

She said councillors were not engineers, scientists or climate change experts and were asked to make a decision now for the next 75 years.

“How can anyone have the insight to do that so far ahead?” she said.

“How do we, with the utmost certainty, know that we can believe this data and supposed science.”

Cr Jellie said some of it had been “undoubtedly an assumption”. “Is the science perfect?,” she asked.

“I’m not to prepared to agree to something that in essence is saying just vote this through and we’ll work out the solutions later. I want clarity.”

 

Call for reliable state government funding

Councillors called for “reliable” state government funding to look at the whole of Warrnambool, including east of Cassidys Bridge, not just South Warrnambool and Dennington. They also want the government to have a dedicated flood mitigation infrastructure fund.

Councillors raised concerns the role of Rutledges cutting had been downplayed and dismissed in the flood study.

“No matter how focused this study is on data and supposed science, there is a huge human element in this entire process that cannot be ignored,” Cr Jellie said.

She said while residents chose to build, live and invest in those areas, “all of a sudden the rules have changed”, leaving many in a “precarious situation”.

“These people are now being asked to bear the brunt of something that is not in their control or in fact may never happen,” she said.

 

“The rules changed overnight.

“A 75-year unknown, uncertain decision will stop progress.”

Cr Jellie said the study should have focused on stopping future inappropriate development of land, and left alone what already existed and was under development.

 

Councillors overloaded with scientific data

Labelling it one of the most difficult decisions facing councillors, Cr Debbie Arnott said they had been bombarded and overloaded with a lot of scientific information that had been difficult to decipher.

Cr Arnott also highlighted using the 1.2-metre sea-level rise and climate change data for the year 2100 in the study. “I don’t know about anyone else, I can’t predict what I am doing next week let alone in 75 years’ time,” she said.

Cr Matt Walsh said he didn’t feel he had the appropriate opportunity to challenge the input values used.

“Making a decision about a flood investigation without the full picture is near impossible,” he said.

Cr Willy Benter – who had delved into the metrics and scenarios in the flood study – said it was “that far out there it’s pretty unbelievable”.

Cr Benter said the study predicted a flood height 0.5 metres higher than the 1946 flood – a one in 500-year flood. “I’m questioning if those metrics are too high for what is going on,” he said. “It’s on the very high extreme side.”

Mayor’s counter view to the decision

Mayor Ben Blain said he felt terrible for landowners and totally understood the concerns of other councillors.

However, he said he had a counter view.

Cr Blain said a planning panel of three independent experts would have tested the flood study to see if the metrics were right, and where the 52 submissions from residents could be worked through.

“But without a planning panel we’re not going to see any change,” he said.

Cr Blain warned not including the study in the planning scheme meant there was the possibility people purchasing blocks now wouldn’t know about potential flood impacts on their land because it won’t be included in the section 32 agreements for sales.

 

He said it would only be when they applied for a building permit and they were denied.

Cr Blain said it would also make it harder to advocate for funding for any mitigation works.

Crs Jellie, Arnott, Benter and Walsh voted to shelve the study while Cr Blain voted against. Cr Richard Ziegeler declared a conflict of interest and did not vote. Cr Billy Edis was absent.

Question: Monday, 26 May 2025

 

1 – What are the significant events in local conditions on the Victorian East Coast that support the WGCMA frequency of updates to the flood level from 2007 to 2024?

 

WGCMA Response

Updates to flood levels aren’t typically based on specific events but are generally done as part of a continual improvement program to provide better information to communities.  Flood levels used for assessing Planning Permit applications also change as government policy changes.  This is particularly relevant to Climate Change as significant policy reform has been done over the last 20 years or so as the science and political response to Climate Change has evolved.

 

WGCMA Response

2 – What actual flood level rises have been recorded to support the CEAH 2004 report and the IPPC predictions?

The 2004 CEAH report and the IPCC climate change predictions are based on recorded data and the latest scientific modelling.  The data relied upon is referenced in the reports.