Eight people who live close to the proposed development site at 166 Bowen St in Echuca have now submitted an official VCAT application to object, accompanied by another objection from the North Central Catchment Management Authority.
The application for the development was lodged on September 29 last year and is still in progress.
The development has not yet been approved, however a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit (NOD) has been issued.
The publicly accessible planning documents state the development will comprise 16 residential lots, with an estimated project cost of $4,710,000.
The proposed development site and surrounding houses were inundated with water during last year’s floods, in the area controversially known as the ‘wrong side of the levee’.
The crisis led to the North Central Catchment Management Authority also objecting to the granting of a permit, stating “the proposed development is inappropriate given the significant flood hazard on the property”.
In an objection letter to Campaspe Shire Council, dated December 6 last year, NCCMA stated “development should not transfer flooding problems from one location to another”.
The letter then went on to say it had objected on the basis of six key grounds, in accordance with Section 57 (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
It states:
“1. The proposal is not consistent with council’s key strategic directions relating to environment risks which are to promote land use and development that is resilient to climate change impacts and minimise the impact of bushfire, flooding, soil degradation and storms.
2. The proposal is not consistent with the objective of the Victorian Planning Policy (VPP) Framework, which aims to minimise the impacts of natural hazards and adapt to the impacts of climate change through risk-based planning.
3. The proposal is not consistent with the objective of the VPP Framework which aims to assist the protection of life, property and community infrastructure from flood hazard, including coastal inundation, riverine and overland flows.
4. The proposal is not consistent with the purpose of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay Clause 44.03 which aims to ensure that development maintains the free passage and temporary storage of floodwaters, minimises flood damage, responds to the flood hazard and local drainage conditions and will not cause any significant rise in flood level or flow velocity, as well as minimises the potential flood risk to life, health and safety associated with development.
5. The proposal is not consistent with the decision guidelines in the Victorian Planning Provisions Practice Note 11 'Applying for a Planning Permit Under the Flood Provisions', in that:
— it is likely to result in danger to the life, health and safety of the occupants due to flooding on the site, it relies on low-level access to and from the site, it is likely to increase the burden on emergency services and the risk to emergency personnel, it is likely to increase the amount of flood damage to public or private assets, it is likely to raise flood levels or flow velocities to the detriment of other properties, it is likely to obstruct flood flows or reduce natural flood storage and it is likely to increase the number of buildings located in a flood prone area.
6. The proposal is not consistent with the objectives, and supporting principles and assessment criteria, set out in the Guidelines for Development in Flood Affected Areas (DELWP, 2019), which are to:
— protect human life, health and provide safety from flood hazard;
— minimise flood damage to property and associated infrastructure; and
— maintain free passage and temporary storage of floodwaters.”
The eight people opposing to the development submitted an objection application to VCAT on March 8.
The statement of grounds are quoted below:
“The Notice of Decision to grant a permit and the developer’s planning application does not provide any reference to flood management or set out any requirements on how the development must not divert or impede floodwater.
— Requirement for internal footpath to be built up by at least 1.2-1.3 metres in height. This raises a critical concern about floodwater and stormwater that will subsequently flow onto existing properties surrounding the development.
— Existing stormwater drains on Bowen St are already unable to cope with rain events, especially from an intense downpour.
— The decision to partially seal the existing unsealed road is based on outdated traffic data from 2013. It must be required that the entire length of the existing unsealed road be completely sealed as increased traffic will mean an associated increase in dust being breathed in by residents. An additional 160 vehicle movements per day is not insignificant.
— Traffic safety: the area has changed since the 2013 traffic report, with many children walking and riding to the local school and many locals enjoying the neighbouring bush.
— None of the proposed homes are individually titled and it is unclear why this proposed development was not submitted as a subdivision.”
Nick Dean, who resides on Pakenham St, is one of the people objecting.
He said none of the objectors would be against the development if it was done properly.
“We want it done right and we don’t want all this extra water pushed on to us during the next flooding event,” Mr Dean said.
Fellow objector Frank Cinanni said he was frustrated by council’s claim that it would bitumen the road, but only from Goulburn Rd to the entrance of the development, leaving the remainder of houses with dirt road.
“If you want to put quality homes in, then put quality amenities in,” Mr Cinanni said.
“Fix the roads. Fix the infrastructure.”
The residents received a letter about the development when they were flooded, on November 16.
“Our houses were flooded with water so we asked for an extension because the cut-off date to object was December 1. But they never even replied to us, so we had to collate our complaints and lodge them,” Mr Dean said.
“They’re just trying to push this development through as quick as they can.
“Silence is golden.”
Mr Dean said the objectors had found dealing with Campaspe Shire Council difficult.
“We asked four times what the process would be after the objection meeting — a meeting that they refused to take minutes of — and Campaspe Shire Council told us that because there were 10 objectors, it would go straight to council,” he said.
“After 16 days they ’fessed up and said that if we wanted it to go to council, then we needed to petition three councillors before 14 days was up.”
A Campaspe Shire Council spokesperson said they understood the frustration residents felt with the timeframes, particularly during a challenging period for all with the floods.
“As the responsible authority, council is obliged to comply with the Act which does not allow the application process to be delayed for any reason, however concerned residents did lodge objections to the application,” the council spokesperson said.
“Council, although not obliged to, wanted to bring all parties together in good faith, and as such, facilitated a meeting to review the application material, listen to each other’s views and see if there was any form of compromise.
“This is not a formal meeting, rather it allows all parties to be better informed about the application before a decision is made.
“Officers assessed the application against the relevant state and local policies, zone, overlay and clauses and determined to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit.
“The application has since been appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal by objectors to the application, and the tribunal will determine the application.”
The outcome of the VCAT application is not yet known.