Contact LSFOAG

What We know So Far

Wellington Shire Council - Fact sheet and FAQs for coastal communities

What We know

  • The State Government, via the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA), provides the mapping and direction to Councils on all planning permits (including new residential builds) in flood-prone areas.
  • In October 2021, the state government changed its planning rules, but WGCMA continued using an older flood risk measure (based on a 0.2-metre sea level rise) until early 2024.
  • In February 2024, WGCMA updated its approach to match the state government’s policy, which considers a sea level rise of 0.8 metres. This is also when the community and Council found out about the changes.
  • Now, new developments in residential coastal areas of Wellington need to meet this higher sea level rise standard, in line with both WGCMA and state planning rules.
  • Council advised the WGCMA that the sudden introduction of a new flood overlay across coastal communities would cause significant community concern, especially for property owners with vacant residential land who want to build.
  • About Track Ten – Track Ten has three culverts that help water flow between the roadsides and keep the lake’s water levels balanced. The road’s surface is about 0.8 meters above the Australian Height Datum (AHD). During major floods, like the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood at 1.9 meters AHD, Track Ten gets easily overtopped, allowing a lot of water to flow westward. Future predictions for the year 2100 indicate even higher flood levels, reaching 2.7 meters AHD. Reviews with the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority confirm that Track Ten does not affect Loch Sport’s flood levels.

What we don't know

  • Council wasn’t officially told that WGCMA would start using 2100 sea level estimates (0.8 metres).
  • The State Government’s five-year climate strategy also doesn’t use these estimates, so we are not sure why WGCMA made the change.
  • We don’t yet know the full financial impact on landowners, but it could affect things like property valuation, superannuation, future plans for children, or insurance which is a worrying sign for our residents.

What We Are Doing

  • In August 2024, Council sent letters to approximately 300 affected property owners in coastal towns to inform them about future potential impacts. This was done in collaboration with the WGCMA, who acknowledged the lack of communication back in February of the same year.
  • Council advised the WGCMA that we would continue to approve all single-home applications despite the WGCMA changing its approach (recommending refusal). The WGCMA could challenge Council on this approach in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and would no doubt win such a challenge, but at this stage they have advised they will not challenge single home applications at VCAT. We do not know how long they will adhere to this position, but we hope it may be at least 12 months.
  • Council will continue this approach (approving single dwellings on a lot) until any legal challenge or different advice is received from the WGCMA or State Government.
  • All properties in Victoria, including those in Wellington Shire Council, are valued by the Valuer-General Victoria. It is a common misconception, but Councils have nothing to do with the valuations applied to properties. When the new flood maps were received, Wellington Shire wrote to the Valuer General, asking about the possible impact on property valuations. Their response can be made available, but it essentially says there is not enough sales data or understanding of the longer term outcome for them to consider an adjustment at this point in time.
  • Ratepayers can contact the Valuer-General themselves to ask about their individual properties, or advocate for change that they would like to see.

What's Next

 

  • West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA) will keep offering advice when asked, stating that they “refuse development.” This is done without opposing Council as we approve these applications. We hope this will continue until a flood mapping planning scheme amendment is completed. This amendment will allow the WGCMA to approve single dwellings on a single lot. Council has started this process with the WGCMA and has applied for funding to carry out this work.
  • In summary, Council is continuing to approve single-home applications, including any relevant conditions. So if you have a block, you can build. 
  • Planning applications will continue to be supported by the WGCMA for a limited time while longer-term options and implications are being assessed (as above).
  • We welcome community input and are available to discuss this issue with the community – however the overall decision making is State Government driven via the WGCMA.
  • It’s still early days – we are led by the WGCMA and are waiting for further advice before making any next steps.

The preceding remarks from the WSC do not accommodate individuals who wish to sell their property or have no plans for construction within the subsequent twelve months.

Loch Sport Flood Overlay Action Group

Fact or Fiction ?

Resoruce -https://coastalrisk.com.au/viewer

We Are not alone

Kensington

Lara

Residents invited to have their say.

!!! Not Loch Sport !!!

Council Can say No

City of Melbourne invites community to have their say.
Council says no to Lara Flood Overlay – 
Council abandons Lara Flood Overlay

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.