Agenda of Council Meeting

Georges River Council – Council Meeting Monday, 6 June 2016

6. Council Reports

Item : CCL012-16 Alterations to the Interim General Manager's Delegations

Author : Manager Governance, Ms C Bush

Recommendation

1. THAT any previous delegations to the Interim General Manager be revoked.

2. THAT the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) Charter and Guidelines 2016 and the Policy for the Determination of Development Applications be amended to align with the revised functions of the Georges River IHAP as outlined in the body of the report.

3. THAT the Interim General Manager, or the person who acts in that position be delegated; all of the functions, powers, duties and authorities of the Council that it may lawfully delegate under the Local Government Act 1993, any other Act, regulation, instrument, rule or the like (including any functions, powers, duties and authorities delegated to the Council by any authority, body, person or the like) other than those functions prescribed in section 377(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 as functions which may not be delegated and subject to those restrictions outlined in paragraph 7 of this report and Attachment 1 - Interim General Manager’s Delegation (Instrument of Delegation).

4. THAT the restrictions of the Interim General Manager outlined in paragraph 7 of the report as detailed in Appendix 1 – Interim General Manager’s Delegation (Instrument of Delegation), be delegated to IHAP.

Executive Summary

· To align proposed delegations from Council to the Interim General Manager and the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel.

· Due to the establishment of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) it was necessary to review the current delegations.

· As a result of the review it is proposed to simplify the current method of prescribing the delegations and revoke the previous delegations to the Interim General Manager.

· It is also proposed to amend the range of matters that can be attended to by the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) and align the recently adopted Charter and Guidelines for the Policy for Determining of Development Applications with that revision.

Background

1. At its Extraordinary meeting on 19 May 2016, it was resolved (Min No. 3/2016):

“That the delegations to the Interim General Manager pursuant to s377 of the Local Government Act 1993 attached to the report be approved.”

2. These delegations have subsequently been reviewed including the requirement to add new delegations due to the establishment of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP).

3. As a result of the review it is proposed to simplify the current method of prescribing the delegations. Currently each delegation to the Interim General Manager is specified individually. Alternatively it is proposed that the Interim General Manager be granted, or to the person who acts in that position, all of the functions, powers, duties and authorities of the Council that it may lawfully delegate under the Local Government Act 1993, any other Act, regulation, instrument, rule or the like (including any functions, powers, duties and authorities delegated to the Council by any authority, body, person or the like) except those functions prescribed in section 377(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 as functions which may not be delegated being as follows:

(a) the appointment of a general manager;

(b) the making of a rate;

(d) the making of a charge;

(e) the fixing of a fee;

(f) the borrowing of money;

(g) the voting of money for expenditure on its works, services or operations;

(h) the compulsory acquisition, purchase, sale, exchange or surrender of any land or other property (but not including the sale of items of plant or equipment);

(i) the acceptance of tenders which are required under this Act to be invited by the council;

(j) the adoption of an operational plan under section 405;

(k) the adoption of a financial statement included in an annual financial report;

(l) a decision to classify or reclassify public land under Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 6;

(m) the fixing of an amount or rate for the carrying out by the council of work on private land;

(n) the decision to carry out work on private land for an amount that is less than the amount or rate fixed by the council for the carrying out of any such work;

(o) the review of a determination made by the council, and not by a delegate of the council, of an application for approval or an application that may be reviewed under section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ;

(p) the power of the council to authorise the use of reasonable force for the

purpose of gaining entry to premises under section 194;

(q) a decision under section 356 to contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons;

(r) a decision under section 234 to grant leave of absence to the holder of a civic office;

(s) the making of an application, or the giving of a notice, to the Governor or Minister;

(t) this power of delegation;

(u) any function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be exercised by resolution of the council.

4. Part (2) of Section 377 provides Council with the ability via Council resolution to sub-delegate to the General Manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any function delegated to the council by the Department Chief Executive except as provided by the instrument of delegation to the Council.

5. Section 378 of the Local Government Act provides the General Manager with the ability to sub-delegate a function delegated to the General Manager by the Council to any person or body (including another employee of the Council), other than this power of delegation.

6. In addition to these delegations, at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 19 May 2016, it was resolved as follows (Min No. 6/2016):

“a) That an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) be established for the Georges River Council.

b) That the Charter and Guidelines for the Georges River Council IHAP annexed to the report be adopted.

c) That the Interim General Manager, in consultation with the Administrator appoint the four (4) Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) members and to seek expressions of interest for the pool of five (5) community representatives.

d) That the former Kogarah City Council Policy – Determination of Development Applications be amended to include reference to the new Georges River Council, Hurstville Local Environmental Plans, Development Control Plans and the operation of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel, as outlined in the body of the report, and that the amended Policy be adopted.”

7. Accordingly it is necessary to delegate to the IHAP the determination of certain Development Applications and Planning Proposals in accordance with the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Charter and Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Guidelines. On review of the previously adopted Charter and Guidelines it is proposed that there be a clarification of the range of matters that must be referred to the IHAP with removal of a provision that related to minor variations to building setbacks. The amended range of matters that are proposed to be referred to IHAP is detailed below:

1 Functions of the Georges River Council Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel

The functions of the Georges River Council Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) are to:

(a) determine development applications and modification of consent applications that are within the delegations of those functions to the IHAP from the Council;

(b) consider all Planning Proposals and make recommendations as to whether the matter should proceed (excepting matters related to the classification or reclassification of public land);

(c) provide an independent and open forum for interested persons and the community to make submissions relevant to the applications before IHAP;

(d) provide increased transparency for the determination of significant development applications made to the Council; and

(e) achieve good urban design and development outcomes consistent with the relevant legislation and planning controls.

4 Matters that must be referred to the IHAP

· Any Planning Proposal received from a proponent or initiated by Council (excepting matters related to the classification or reclassification of public land)

· Any matter where the applicant or owner is the Council or a member of staff; or

· A variation (clause 4.6 of the LEP or where a development standard does not apply in the LEP, a numeric variation to a DCP) is submitted for consideration and involves a variation to both the height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) controls of greater than 10%; or

· Where objections have been received that are considered valid and that cannot be resolved through the imposition of appropriate conditions, or there is a significant level of community objection, or

· The application involves the demolition of a heritage item, contributory item within a Heritage Conservation Area or invokes the heritage incentives provisions within an LEP; or

· Development applications accompanied by planning agreements; or

· Any application which the Director of Planning and Environmental Services (or equivalent) considers should be considered and determined by the IHAP.

8. A review of the delegations of the Interim General Manager has been undertaken and the proposed Interim General Manager’s Delegation (Instrument of Delegation) is attached (refer Attachment 1). These proposed delegations are consistent with both Sections 377 and 378 of the Act.

Operational Plan Budget

No budget impact for this report.

APPENDICES

Appendix View1	Interim GM Delegation (Instrument of Delegation)
Appendix View2	Draft Charter - IHAP - Amended 27052016
Appendix View3	Policy for Determination of DA - 270516

Georges River Council – Council Meeting Monday, 6 June 2016

Item : CCL020-16 Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy

Author : General Counsel, Ms J Ware and Executive Planner, Ms N Stores

Recommendation

THAT Council endorse the draft Georges River Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) Policy for public exhibition for 28 days.

THAT the matter be reported back to Council following the exhibition process.

THAT current VPA negotiations by Georges River Council officers be conducted generally in accordance with the draft VPA Policy until such time as the Policy is adopted by Council.

Executive Summary

The former Hurstville and Kogarah City Councils had adopted Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) policies in, respectively, 2006 and 2008. Following amalgamation, changes to the economic situation within the Council’s LGA, and in an effort to make the VPA negotiation process more transparent and accountable, it was considered timely to prepare an updated VPA Policy that is reflective of the current financial and commercial drivers as well as the infrastructure and community needs within the amalgamated Council area. A draft VPA policy has been prepared and is attached to this report for consideration.

Background

Introduction

Changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) in 2005 introduced a regime of voluntary planning agreements that involve a mechanism to enable consent authorities and proponents on planning proposals or development applications to negotiate development contributions towards a public purpose. Both the former Councils adopted VPA policies consistent with the EPA Act and Department of Planning Guidelines. The Councils adopted these policies in, respectively, 2006 (Hurstville City Council Policy on Planning Agreements) and 2008 (Kogarah City Council Policy on Planning Agreements).

The purpose of VPAs is to capture contributions for items of material public benefit that would not otherwise be captured through section 94 contributions. Unlike s94, there is no nexus required between the contribution and the proposed development. VPAs may be in addition to, or in lieu of, s94 contributions. Relevantly to Council, they are a useful tool to fund local infrastructure that may otherwise be problematic for Council to fund.

Following the adoption of the existing VPA policies, there have been changes to the planning controls that apply within the Council’s LGA. In addition, work is underway to review and update the s94 plans that apply to the LGA. Both former Councils had received recent VPA proposals from proponents. Accordingly, having regard to all these factors, it was considered timely to review the existing policies and to consolidate with current industry best practice.

Review of existing VPA policies

A review has been undertaken of the existing policies with the assistance of a land economist firm, SGS Economics and Henry Davis York, one of the legal firms appointed to Council’s legal services panel. Council officers involved in the review were Ms J Ware, General Counsel and Ms N Stores, Executive Strategic Planner within Council’s Strategic Planning team.

It was found that a consolidated policy needed to provide:

1. A transparent guide/methodology on how the value of VPA contributions will be assessed. The existing policies provided no such mechanism;

2. A clear negotiation process between Council and proponents;

3. Guidance to proponents on the public benefits sought by Council under VPAs; and

4. Greater transparency and accountability to all stakeholders, particularly the community, as to the public benefits being provided through the VPA process.

Proposed mechanism: Land Value Capture

Following consideration, it was recommended that the most appropriate mechanism to assist in determining the value of VPA contributions within Council’s LGA is through land value capture (LVC). This is a mechanism used to capture, for the community’s benefit, some of the uplift in the land value as a result of changes in the zoning and/or increase in the planning controls relating to the particular site. The uplift in land value is an unearned increment by the developers.

LVC seeks to determine and then share a proportion of the uplift in land value between developers and the community. The formula proposed is:

Contribution/ Residual land value of site Residual land value of site

Public benefit = under the Planning Proposal/DA - under existing LEP & DCP

value

________________________________________________________________

The LVC is proposed to provide a guide for the value of the contributions for a VPA. This value could be converted into works-in-kind, land dedications or monetary contributions.

The proportion of the uplift which should be shared has not been formally established. Some metropolitan councils with this mechanism use 50% of the uplift, while in the ACT (with the Lease Variation Charge based on the same principles), the mechanism typically captures 75% of the uplift for public works and infrastructure. Having regard to the market and economic factors within the Georges River LGA, SGS Economics has recommended 50%.

Whilst the LVC method has been incorporated into the Draft Policy, as the overriding principle of planning agreements is to give flexibility for negotiation between proponents and planning authorities, there may well be some sites or proposals where LVC is not the appropriate mechanism. Accordingly, provision is made within the draft Policy for Council to consider other methods of determining the value of contributions when negotiating with developers.

Draft VPA Policy

The draft VPA policy:

1. Includes the concept of value capture as a mechanism to assist in assessing the value of VPA offers. The draft policy provides that Council will determine appropriate contributions by applying either land value capture or use an alternative mechanism which Council considers appropriate;

2. Provides a revised structure of the existing policies, including additional provisions for probity, assessment and application of funds;

3. Provides a clear framework for negotiation of VPAs between Council staff and proponents;

4. Provides an appendix for Council’s key priorities of public benefit to be included. This will include traffic and road infrastructure works throughout the LGA. It is noted that some of this work is encapsulated within the Hurstville City Centre TMAP and will be capable of being transferred into the draft policy in a timely manner;

5. Differentiates between how Council determines what an appropriate contribution should be for a DA/Planning Proposal (including value capture), versus how Council will calculate the value of contributions (such as works in kind) being offered in a VPA.

Conclusion

It is considered that the draft VPA policy properly responds to pressures within the Council LGA, provides appropriate transparency and accountability to assist in the negotiation process between Council and proponents and will clearly establish Council’s funding priorities for the allocation of contributions collected under VPAs.

In all of the circumstances, it is recommended that the draft VPA Policy be endorsed for public exhibition.

Operational Plan Budget

Within budget allocation.

APPENDICES

Appendix View1

Final Draft VPA

Georges River Council – Council Meeting Monday, 6 June 2016

Item : CCL021-16 Georges River Council - Overland Flood Study for Hurstville Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards

Author : Director - Service Delivery, Mr L O’Connor

Recommendation

1. THAT Council endorse the Georges River Council - Overland Flow Flood Study 2015 for Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards.

2. THAT Council delegate authority to the Interim General Manager to undertake editorial amendments to the final Report and Maps of the Overland Flow Flood Study to reflect the recently formed Georges River Council.

3. THAT Council adopt the following flood development standards as Council Policy:

a. an overflow flood development standard to be equivalent to the 1% AEP (Annual Exceedance Probability) or 1 in 100 year storm event

b. overland flow free-board levels of 500mm for habitable and 300mm for non-habitable buildings and

c. an overland flow flood "cut off" level of 150mm.

4. THAT Council endorse the inclusion of the required legal notation on the Section 149(5) Planning Certificates.

5. THAT Council prepare a Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan for the City in accordance with the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual.

6. THAT Council allocate matching funding of approximately $70,000, in support of a grant application to the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage for the preparation of a Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan for the City.

7. THAT Council make available to the public the flood modelling data for the purpose of preparing development applications and amend its Fees and Charges 2016/17 to accommodate the cost associated with this service.

8. THAT Council give public notice in the local paper and on its website of the decision to endorse the Georges River Council - Overland Flow Flood Study 2015 for Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards.

Executive Summary

In 2015 the former Hurstville City Council undertook a detailed overland flow flood study for the former Hurstville Local Government Area (LGA). This is the first step of preparing a Floodplain Risk Management Plan. The key objective of a Floodplain Risk Management Plan is to reduce the impact of flooding and flood liability on individual owners and occupiers of flood prone properties, and to reduce potential private and public losses resulting from floods, utilising ecologically positive flood mitigation measures.

The Overland Flow Flood Study presents the findings of an investigation into overland flow within the former Hurstville LGA as a first step in preparing a Floodplain Risk Management Plan. Former Hurstville LGA covers Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards of recently formed Georges River Council.

This report provides details of the public exhibition of the draft study and recommends that Council proceed with the endorsement of the Georges River Overland Flow Flood Study for Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards, and proceed to the next steps in Floodplain Management, which is the preparation of the Hurstville Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.

Background

Former Hurstville City Council undertook a detailed overland flow flood study for the former Hurstville LGA. Former Hurstville LGA covers Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards of recently formed Georges River Council. The study presents the findings of an investigation into overland flow within the former Hurstville LGA as a first step in preparing a Floodplain Risk Management Plan. A time line of events related to this project is listed below.

21 November 2012	Council resolved to prepare a Floodplain Risk Management Plan
20 March 2013	Council resolved to establish a Floodplain Risk Management Committee
8 November 2013	NSW Office of Environment and Heritage grant application successful.
10 December 2013	1st Meeting of the Hurstville Floodplain Risk Management Committee (the Flood Committee)
11 February 2014	2nd Meeting of the Flood Committee - Endorsed Hurstville LGA Overland Flow Flood Study Brief
24 February 2014	Council endorsed the Hurstville LGA Overland Flow Flood Study Brief
7 May 2014	Council resolved to award the tender for the Hurstville LGA Overland Flow Flood Study to SMEC Australia Pty Ltd
13 May 2014	3rd Meeting of the Flood Committee – Status Update presentation by SMEC Draft Hurstville LGA Overland Flow Flood Study commenced.
23 September 2014	4th Meeting of the Flood Committee – Status Update by SMEC
2 December 2014	5th Meeting of the Flood Committee – Status Update by SMEC
10 February 2015	6th Meeting of the Flood Committee – Status Update by SMEC – Stage 4 & Community Consultation
11 February 2015	Councillor Workshop – Stage 4 and Community Consultation
18 March 2015	Council resolved to endorse draft Hurstville LGA Overland Flow Flood Study for exhibition
23 March 2015	Public Exhibition of draft Hurstville LGA Overland Flow Flood Study and associated maps
15 May 2015	Conclusion of the Public Exhibition of the draft Hurstville LGA Overland Flow Flood Study and associated maps.
9 June 2015	7th Meeting of Flood Committee – Final update presentation by SMEC – Public exhibition findings.
15 July 2015	Final Study tabled at a Council Meeting and Council resolved to defer finalising the Hurstville Local Government Area (LGA) Overland Flow Study to discuss the outcomes of the study at a Councillor Workshop.
12 August 2015	Councillor Workshop – Presented the public exhibition findings & comments, final flood maps and flood development standards such as storm events & freeboard used in other neighbouring councils.
16 September 2015	Final Study tabled at a Council Meeting and Council resolved to defer finalising the Hurstville Local Government Area (LGA) Overland Flow Study to explore the number of properties affected by flooding if the cut-off depth for preparation of maps is increased to 300mm.
7 October 2015	Amended Final Study tabled at a Council Meeting and Council resolved to defer the matter for further consideration and workshop
21 November 2015	Matter discussed at Councillor Strategic Workshop
9 December 2015	Final Study tabled at a Council Meeting and Council resolved to defer the matter for further consideration.

Floodplain Risk Management Committee

The formation of a Floodplain Risk Management Committee is the first formal step in the process of preparing a Floodplain Risk Management Plan in accordance with the NSW State Government’s Floodplain Development Manual (see Appendix). The Committee is advisory in nature as overall responsibility lies with the Council.

The principal objective of the Committee is to assist Council in the development and implementation of its floodplain risk management program by providing “a forum for, the discussion of technical, social, economic and ecological issues and for the distillation of possibly differing viewpoints on these issues” (Floodplain Development Manual, page 7, 2005).

On 20 March 2013 Council resolved to establish a Floodplain Risk Management Committee and appoint a Councillor to chair the committee.

Accordingly, on 10 December, 2013 Council’s Floodplain Risk Management Committee held its first meeting and gave consideration to a range of matters including progress on a draft brief with the view to progress to open tender in early 2014.

The Committee comprised the following membership:

· Councillors:

o Former Mayor of Hurstville Con Hindi (Chairperson),

o Former Deputy Mayor of Hurstville Michelle Stevens,

o Former Councillor Vince Badalati,

o Former Councillor Rita Kastanias.

· Community Representative (Hurstville LGA) - Erin Sellers

· NSW State Emergency Services Representative

· Council staff or their nominee

o Director Planning and Development

o Director Service Delivery

o Manager Infrastructure Planning

o Manager Strategic Planning

o Team Leader Subdivision and Development

o Drainage Engineer

o Development Engineer

· Other NSW State Departments: NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Sydney Water, Railcorp, Georges River Combined Councils Committee (GRCCC), NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

There have been seven meetings of the Committee since its inception.

Details of Public Exhibition

The draft Hurstville LGA Overland Flow Flood Study was placed on public exhibition from Monday 23 March 2015 to Friday 15 May 2015. The draft study and associated maps were available for viewing in hard copy at the Council Administration Building and Hurstville Library. The draft plan and maps were also available electronically on Council’s website. A total of three (3) advertisements were placed in the St George Leader newspaper on Thursday 26 March 2015, Thursday 16 April 2015 and Thursday 23 April 2015. Individual letters were delivered to all the owners and residents of properties affected by the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event comprising approximately 6,000 properties.

As an additional service Council’s flood study consultants SMEC Australia, were available between the hours of 11am and 1pm in Council’s Customer Service Centre, MacMahon Street, Hurstville, each Monday, Wednesday and Friday during the exhibition period, commencing from 30 March 2015.

During the exhibition period Council’s Flood Study website received more than 7,200 web views with more than 1,750 unique users accessed the site. Additionally, about 120 phone enquiries and 144 face to face enquiries were received during this period.

Submissions Received

Council received a total of 136 written submissions from the local community. More than 50% of the residents who made submissions expressed concerns regarding the study stating that though their properties were identified in exhibited flood maps, their properties had never experienced any flooding in the past, amongst other issues. This was not un-expected given the exhibited maps included mapping for the PMF (maximum flood) event. This is a theoretical flood event and most of the properties in this area may never experience flooding.

The other maps exhibited include 1% AEP or 1 in 100 year storm event (which has a probability of 1% of occurring in any given year), 5% AEP or 1 in 20 year storm event, and 20% AEP or 1 in 5 year storm event. Typically, flood levels for the 1%AEP or 1 in 100 year storm event are used when designing buildings with flood affected properties.

Other issues raised by the residents who made submissions are:

· Perceived drop in property value;

· Potential increase in insurance premiums;

· Lack of Council drainage facilities; and

· Lack of maintenance of existing drainage facilities.

A summary of the submissions received are presented on the bar chart below.

Changes to draft Study from Submissions

A number of submissions provided detailed information about local flooding and drainage conditions across the LGA. In general submissions stated that the extent of flooding depicted in the draft flood maps appeared to be exaggerated relative to the residents’ experience with recent floods, most notably the 2012 and 2014 storm events.

The consultants have used the information provided by community to verify the draft flood maps. The aim of this exercise was to ensure that the areas that were identified by respondents as being historically impacted by flooding were reflected in the mapping. Furthermore, submissions from long term residents indicating that a particular area was not flood affected were reviewed by the consultants to determine if the flood mapping was correct. In this respect, the consultants have developed detailed hydraulic models for local sub-catchments to interrogate the concerns raised by the submissions.

The results of the hydraulic models developed for local sub-catchments have demonstrated that the outcomes of the LGA wide modelling and local sub-catchment modelling are similar and accurate.

The areas identified by the community as having not experienced flooding were understandably those impacted only during very large events (e.g. PMF and 1:100yr flood events). During smaller flood events, the majority of the properties were not inundated, coinciding with community observations. It should be noted that no recorded very large flood events such as PMF (Probable Maximum Flood) or 1:100 floods have occurred within Hurstville LGA; thus any community member will not have experienced large storm events.

Accordingly, the modelling was considered correct and no major amendments to the draft flood maps were required. Nevertheless, in some areas isolated ‘puddles’ were identified in the mapping. In such instances, these areas were reviewed and removed from the final mapping if they were not part of the continuous overland flow. Additionally, the maps were also updated to reflect the findings of the results of the local sub-catchment modelling undertaken following public submissions.

Overall the final flood maps indicate a good correlation with community observations and drainage behaviour.

The draft Hurstville LGA Overland Flow Flood Study has had a number of small amendments made as identified above as a result of the public exhibition and the final version can be viewed in Appendix 1 of this report.

Final Draft FORMER Hurstville LGA Overland Flow Flood Study

In summary the primary objectives of the study were:

· Define the flood behaviour under historical (where available) and existing floodplain conditions in the study area;

· Address the possible future variations in flood behaviour due to climate change;

· Produce flood information that includes:

o Flood levels and extents, velocities and flows for the PMF, 1%, 2%, 10% and 20% AEP events

o Hydraulic categories for the 1% AEP and PMF events

o Provisional and Preliminary true hazard categories for the 1% AEP and PMF events

o Flood emergency response classification of communities for the PMF, 1%, 2%, 10% and 20% AEP events

o Preliminary residential flood planning level and flood planning area (based upon 1% AEP plus a freeboard)

o Flood levels and extents due to climate change tidal inundation extents (where relevant) for existing conditions and for conditions incorporating sea level rise planning projections adopted by the Council (where relevant)

o the sensitivity of flood behaviour to changes in flood producing rainfall events due to climate change

· Collect compile and review all available data such as survey, aerial photography and satellite imagery

· Investigate the mainstream, local overland flow and tidal inundation flooding regimes

· Discussion with Council on the relevant freeboard to be adopted based on sensitivity runs

· Assessment of the flood planning level extent to be discussed with Council for steep and flat terrain.

· Investigate the overland flow flooding and the capacity of existing major stormwater infrastructure.

The study area is bounded by formers Hurstville LGA boundary with the former City of Canterbury to the north, Rockdale to the east, former Kogarah Council and the Georges River to the south and Salt Pan Creek to the west. The study area covers approximately 22.8 square kilometres and comprises a mixture of business, residential and recreational areas with a population of just under 80,000 residents.

The study area lies within the Lower Georges River and Cooks River catchments and is divided by a main east west ridge line that drains the sub-catchments to the Lower Georges and Cooks river catchments. There are also a number of sub-catchments outside of the LGA that drain into both catchments that were considered as part of this study.

The Study involved:

· Data Collection

· Preliminary Community Consultation

· Study Methodology

· Design Flood Modelling

· Sensitivity Testing

· Draft Study Recommendations

The draft Study and maps are viewable as an appendix to this report.

It is recommended that the Georges River Council - Overland Flow Flood Study for Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards and associated maps be endorsed by Council.

Key Issues

1. Adoption of Flood Development Standards

The Draft Study identifies properties affected by overland flow, the capacity of Council's storm water pipe system and contains data and mapping for a number of overland flow events. In order to better manage the impact of these events and protect residents and properties a combination of overland flow development controls, upgrades to Council's stormwater management infrastructure system and new infrastructure measures will be required.

Key flood development standards that required to be considered are ‘design storm event’, ‘cut-off depth’ for flood mapping and free-board levels for new developments.

Flood development standards used in some of the neighbouring Councils are listed below:

Council	Design Event	Cut-Off Depth	Freeboard
Council	Design Event	Cut-Off Depth	Habitable (Residential)	Non-habitable (Commercial, garages etc)
Former Kogarah City Council	1% AEP	100mm to 200mm	500mm	-
Rockdale City Council	1% AEP	200mm	Vary depending on the location
Former Canterbury City Council	1% AEP	Not yet decided	500mm	100mm
Former Marrickville City Council	1% AEP	150mm	300mm	300mm
Former Bankstown City Council	1% AEP	150mm	500mm	-
Sutherland Council	1% AEP	150mm	500mm	Vary, flood study required
Botany Bay City Council	1% AEP	150mm	300mm	300mm
Recommended controls for Georges River Council	1% AEP (100yr storm event)	150mm	500mm	300mm

As detailed above it is recommended:

· The adoption of the 1%AEP or 1 in 100 year storm event as the design storm-event for assessment of overland flow requirements for new developments. This standard is widely accepted as the appropriate measure for overland flow development controls.

· The adoption of an overland flow ‘cut off depth’ of 150mm as outlined in the table below by the consultant. Accordingly, overland flow depths below 150mm will not be considered as flood affected areas.

· The adoption of overland flow free-board levels for habitable and non-habitable buildings as 500mm and 300mm respectively.

The consultants have undertaken a detailed assessment of the number of properties affected during a 1 in 100 year storm event with cut-off depths of 100mm, 150mm, 200mm, 250mm and 300mm. Additionally, consultants have also assessed the number of properties affected by puddles less than 10 square metres and shallow (less than 300mm deep) stagnated water puddles. The results of this assessment are presented in the table below.

Cut-off Depth (mm)	Scenario 1- Properties affected by overland flow (fully or partially)		Scenario 2 – Scenario 1 with non-threatening puddle areas <10 SQ METRES REMOVED		Scenario 3 – Scenario 2 with non-moving puddle areas < 0.3 METRES REMOVED
Cut-off Depth (mm)	Number of Impacted Properties	% of Total Lots	Number of Impacted Properties	% of Total Lots	Number of Impacted Properties	% of Total Lots
100	16,052	70%	9,767	43%	6,249	27%
150	9,933	43%	6,316	28%	5,587	24%
200	7,148	31%	4,849	21%	5,191	23%
250	5,386	24%	3,877	17%	3,227	14%
300	4,408	19%	3,231	14%	2,839	12%

Following a Council direction, the consultants produced mapping for a cut-off depth of 200mm under Scenario 3 for public exhibition.

2. Section 149 Certificates

In accordance with Clause 7A Flood Related Development Controls in Schedule 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, a notation is only required on Section 149(2) planning certificates if Council has flood related development controls. The Peakhurst, Mortdale and Hurstville Wards of the Georges River LGA currently do not have any flood related development controls and therefore there is no statutory requirement for notification on Section 149 (2) or (5) Planning Certificates of the draft Study. These controls will not be finalised until a Planning Proposal is prepared to include a Flood Planning clause and map into the Hurstville LEP 2012.

The Blakehurst and Kogarah Bay Wards of the Georges River LGA have undertaken a number of flood studies on a catchment basis, and have included a Flood Planning clause in the Kogarah LEP 2012 (Clause 6.3), with the conversion of Kogarah LEP 1998 to the Standard Instrument LEP. Prior to this time, the Council did not have any flood planning requirements in the LEP. This clause contains controls relating to flood prone land, and applies to land shown as “Flood planning area” on the Flood Planning Map, as well as other land at or below the flood planning level. The area identified on the Flood Planning Map shows the probable maximum flood area. The inclusion of the information on the Flood Planning Map allows Council to differentiate whether the flood affectation is as a result of “overland flow” or “mainstream flooding”. As a consequence of these flood studies, the Blakehurst and Kogarah Bay Wards of the Georges River LGA provide a range of specific answers on the Section 149 (2) or (5) Planning Certificates as to whether land is subject to flooding or flood related development controls.

However a Section 149(5) Planning Certificate allows a Council to provide advice on various other issues. The Peakhurst, Mortdale and Hurstville Wards of the Georges River LGA currently does not provide any advice on flood related issues. Legal advice was obtained by the Peakhurst, Mortdale and Hurstville Wards of the Georges River LGA in relation to the inclusion of a notation on Council’s Section 149(5) Certificates. In summary, the legal advice recommends that it is in Council’s best interest that the Study be notified on section 149(5) certificates.

Should Council adopt the draft Study, it is recommended that the Peakhurst, Mortdale and Hurstville Wards of the Georges River LGA include a notation on the Section 149(5) Planning Certificates generally as identified below:

“At its meeting on 6 June 2016, the Georges River Council resolved to endorse the Georges River Council - Overland Flow Flood Study for Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards. The primary objective of the study was to define the flood behaviour under historical and existing floodplain conditions in the Peakhurst, Mortdale and Hurstville Wards of the Georges River LGA while addressing possible future variations in flood behaviour due to climate change and provide information for its management. A copy of the Study is available to view on Council’s website http://www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au.”

The purpose of this advisory note would be to inform prospective land owners that the Georges River Council has undertaken an Overland Flow Flood Study, which applies to land in the Peakhurst, Mortdale and Hurstville Wards of the Georges River LGA.

3. Use of Overland Flow Data

During the course of this work a number of requests have been received from developers to make use of the modelling data prepared by Council’s consultants. Given this data was prepared solely for Council’s study purposes and not adopted by Council, no access was permitted. However upon adoption by Council, it is considered that there would be advantages in providing access to the overland flow modelling data as this would ensure use of a consistent data set to be updated over time, by developers. In this regard should Council agree upon adoption of the study an addition will be made to Council’s Fees and Charges for access to the modelling data.

4. Next Steps: Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan

The process for preparing floodplain risk management plan is set out in the NSW Floodplain Development Manual and is presented diagrammatically in Appendix 2 of this report. The first steps involved the establishment of a Floodplain Risk Management Committee, data collection and flood study. This report establishes that Council has completed this phase of the work

The next step in floodplain risk management involves the preparation of the Floodplain Risk Management Study. Following this, the Floodplain Risk Management Plan would be prepared and identify implementations works to be carried out over several years depending upon their nature and extent.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Funding for this work has been provided in Council’s Budget for 2013-14 and 2014-15. This was supplemented by a grant from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

The cost of this project was $230,106. This expenditure comprises $76,702 contributed by Council and $153,404 paid by Office of Environment and Heritage.

The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage has accepted the Study and commented, in part that:

“The Office of Environment and Heritage has reviewed the outcomes from the project and found them to be excellent”.

Following an invitation from the Office of Environment and Heritage, Council has lodged an application for funding for the next stage of the study, preparation of a Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan for the study area. Grants from this source are made available on a two for one basis.

The estimated cost of for the preparation of the Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan will be in the range of $150,000 to $200,000. Accordingly, Council's contribution will be approximately $70,000 for this stage provided grant funding is secured.

View Appendices for Draft Hurstville LGA Overland Flow Flood Study