Contact LSFOAG

Soap Box

I have lived in LS for 45 years. Over this time, I have had the opportunity to buy property adjacent to mine. My plan was to leave this in my will for my children. This revised flood overlay prevents my children from building in the future. Robin Street

Have owned land for 25 Years this year with the plan of retiring in 10 years but building sooner if I can. I have been going to Loch Sport since 1985. This has significantly impacted my future plans. Marina Drive

My mother gifted me land in LS. This was for investment towards my Super. I have no idea my future prospects. Davies Street

I am not directly impacted by the flood overlay, but understand that this will impact the growth of LS in the long term. Geofrey Avenue

I purchased land in 2022. I performed all due diligence, fire risk, flood overly, survey report and , conveyancing. After receiving the WGCMA letter in Aug 24, I called the WGCMA, they will not approve the build. I called the WSC they will approve plans, however a high risk of rejection because the WGCMA will not approve. I have a $130 000 loan and the chance of the bank hearing of the land having a 0 zero value they could call in the loan: Wallaby Street

My property isn’t in the flood zone however I stand with those who are. I first came to Loch Sport in the 70’s when it was a single track to Town and no electricity. Have seen services and utilities grow as population grew. These flood overlays are unrealistic and it will impact US ALL indirectly through property values, insurance and risk of services moving away. Central Avenue

Even after enquiries to relevant authorities I am still required to pay rates on land that cannot be developed. Pay vacant land tax and land tax levies. Pay Gippsland water a quarterly fee for sewage connection that now cannot be connected. This flood overlay has made our land worthless which is devastating as it was an investment for our future. Wallaby Street

My husband and I bought a beautiful holiday home in Loch Sport, with the intention of this being a legacy to our children and grandchildren.  We are extremely concerned established homes will lose property values. Also, we may not be able to buy insurance. Why are we paying very high rates and the council does very little to maintain Loch Sport? This significantly impacts the livelihoods of the residents in the area, not to mention that of local business. Meaning people will have no choice but to leave Loch Sport altogether. In many cases we pay higher council rates than some pay in Melbourne. We would love to see the information they’ve based their new flood overlays on. Wilhelm Street.

To Whom It May Concern
West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority
Wellington Shire Council

I am writing as a concerned resident of Loch Sport who, like many others, is deeply alarmed by the recent implementation of the updated flood overlay affecting our town.
While I understand the intent behind flood mapping and climate preparedness, the sudden and sweeping application of these planning restrictions has cast serious doubt over the future of Loch Sport—not just in terms of development, but in the lives and livelihoods of the people who live here.

This isn’t just a planning issue. It’s a people issue.

Entire families are now living with the uncertainty of whether their homes have retained value. Vacant blocks that were once part of people’s retirement plans or future family builds are now potentially worthless. Young couples who hoped to build and settle in Loch Sport are reconsidering. Investors are pulling out. Trades and service-based workers are seeing work dry up. The social and emotional toll on our community is already visible.

Many residents feel completely shut out of the process—told what is happening rather than consulted. There’s a growing sense of powerlessness, of being written off as a town that doesn’t deserve a future.

Loch Sport is a proud, resilient community. We’re not asking for reckless development—we’re asking for a fair go. For transparency. For a planning process that involves real people, not just projected sea levels. For decisions that consider both environmental risks and the social, economic, and emotional reality of the community you’re regulating.

We need:

  • Clear, consistent communication about what the overlay truly means for current property owners.
  • A public process for review, feedback, and appeals.
  • A commitment to balancing environmental responsibility with community sustainability.
  • A plan for how Loch Sport is expected to move forward—not just what we’re no longer allowed to do.

Our town deserves a future. Our people deserve certainty. And we deserve a seat at the table in shaping what comes next.

Yours sincerely,
Loch Sport Resident

In 45 years as property owners in Loch Sport contributing to roads, electricity and sewerage, rates and now land tax we find our land is now worthless.  Our estimated loss is half a million dollars.

 In 45 years not one drop of flood water has encroached on our land, even in the 2007 floods.  We are puzzled as to why Lake Reeve is classed as MAJOR flood level and the land behind us is MINOR flood level and our land is deemed as MAJOR flood level. 

Unfortunately in the year 2100 when our land is expected to flood – none of the decision makers sitting at their computers making these decisions will be around to be held accountable for all the financial and mental anguish this has caused us. 

How can Wellington Shire justify still charging exorbitant rates?

Yours sincerely,
Loch Sport Resident

Should you wish to express your thoughts on how the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority’s (WGCMA) unsubstantiated decision will impact you personally or Loch Sport, kindly send your communication to info@gippslandfloodoverlay.com.au.

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.