If the NSW Government and emergency services tell Yamba it rarely floods and its houses are safe from all but extreme flooding, are the town's residents supposed to believe them?

 

Below is a fairly typical description of Yamba and environs during high rainfall and flooding events.

Even though it appears text and images have been produced between 2015-2021 it seems to be considered by the NSW Government as a contemporary description rather than an historical one.

Read it carefully if you live in Yamba or have been a holidaymaker in the town when the Lower Clarence River has been in flood in recent years.

NSW State Emergency Services (SES), Flood Awareness NSW, retrieved 13 September 2022:

CLARENCE RIVER

Clarence Valley LGA

Yamba and Palmers Island – Are you at risk?

Yes you are!

Yamba is located on the southern bank of the mouth of the Clarence River. The main impact of floods in the area is isolation, however several residents and commercial properties can be inundated in severe floods. Even in minor floods, Yamba may become isolated when Yamba Road closes. Another consideration during local floods is the influx of tourists during holidays and summer season, who may be unaware of the local effects of flooding.

Palmers Islands is located directly west of Yamba on the southern bank of the Clarence River. Most of the land on the island is prone to flooding. In a minor flood, Palmers Island becomes isolated and surrounded by flood water. In a major flood some properties may experience over-floor flooding and some residents may need to evacuate.

Rural land along the Clarence River around Wooloweyah Lagoon can also be inundated and substantial numbers of rural properties can become isolated.

The period of isolation for these areas can vary depending on the size and duration of the flood, as well as high tides preventing drainage to the sea. Any residents wanting to leave the area would need to do so before flooding causes Yamba Road to close.

Palmers Island Yamba Road Store and School Flooding 

Do those five short paragraphs and that one image match your experience of floodwater and stormwater inundation in Yamba over the last 30 years?

Is it still mostly the inconvenience of isolation that the Yamba community suffers? Is it an accurate description to say that only “several residents and commercial properties can be inundated in severe floods”?

Is anyone else in Yamba asking themselves why that first paragraph quoted here is still accepted uncritically by state authorities, when the lived experience is that the inundation situation has been gradually becoming more pronounced over decades. That the amount of water entering town commercial and residential precincts is long past just nuisance value.

The natural flood storage areas and flood ways within the town, which carry water overland to the river estuary and out to sea, no longer function. In large measure due to the degree of draining, infilling and building over of these these features which has occurred over time and the fact that: (i) the town’s stormwater system can no longer adequately cope with the amount of rain falling from the sky and subsequent rainwater runoff from sloping ground/hard surfaces; and (ii) the river water arriving as flood carried down from higher up the river system whose swirl through town streets is often exacerbated by a tidal pull.

There are residents whose homes have been inundated at floor level in both 2021 and 2022 and residential lots which experienced stormwater/floodwater intrusion onto the property for the first time or at a deeper level that previous flood periods according to homeowners.

A better description of the changing Yamba experience of flooding can be found in an Inside Local Government article of 26 May 2022:

Clarence Valley Mayor, Ian Tiley, has demanded the Clarence be included in any 2022 flood studies and assessments, saying the region had been ignored in initial assessments by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

Mayor Tiley put forward a Minute at the June Council meeting following advice from the Department of Planning and Environment that post flood data behaviour assessments already undertaken had focused on the Richmond, Wilson, Brunswick and Tweed rivers – local government areas to the north of the Clarence Valley.

“The flood level at Grafton was not a predictor for the flood behaviour downstream,” the Mayor said.

“It is clear the Clarence flood increased in volume as it moved downstream and staff consider it likely the extreme localised rainfall events in the tributaries of the lower catchment impacted Clarence River levels downstream of Grafton, and that post flood data behaviour assessments may inform these assumptions.”

CVC previously reported in April that Yamba experienced its biggest rainfall event on record, with 1267mm in February and March. This included 274.4mm on 28 February – the highest 24-hour February total on record – and 258.2mm on 1 March for a total of 532mm.

“There has been no event or combination of events since records began that comes close to the rainfall totals recorded at Yamba in February and March,” Clarence Valley Council Director Works and Civil, Jamie Fleeting said at the time.

Getty Images has a collection of photographs which clearly demonstrate the growing dissonance between what is written by government agencies about flood behaviour and the lived experience of the Yamba community in March 2022.

YAMBA, AUSTRALIA - MARCH 02: An aerial view of a flooded street and properties in the town of Yamba, in northern New South Wales, on March 1-2, 2022 in Yamba, Australia.

(Photo by Elise Hassey/Getty Images)

Note: Hover mouse over upper righthand corner of images to reveal "Share" and "Full Screen" buttons.

Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty ImagesEmbed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images

Yamba's only flood evacuation route in early March 2022.... pic.twitter.com/9FLn2VY1A7

— no_filter_Yamba (@no_filter_Yamba) September 13, 2022

BACKGROUND

Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Special Climate Statement 76 – Extreme rainfall and flooding in south-eastern Queensland and eastern New South Wales, 25 May 2022, excerpt:

Summary

Extreme multi-day rainfall and significant flooding affected south-eastern Queensland and eastern New South Wales from 22 February to 9 March 2022. The heavy rainfall began in south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales during the last week of February, and continued further south into eastern New South Wales in March (Figure 1).

Multi-day rainfall records were broken across south-eastern Queensland and north-east New South Wales, with multiple sites recording over 1 metre of rainfall (Figure 2). For the last week of February, rainfalls across parts of the region were at least 2.5 times the February average (based on the 1961–1990 period), with some parts more than 5 times the average. For north-east New South Wales and large areas of south-eastern Queensland, this was the wettest week since at least 1900. The intense and sustained rainfall across the region led to flash flooding and riverine flooding extending from Maryborough in Queensland to Grafton in New South Wales. Some areas of south-eastern Queensland, such as the Mary River at Gympie, recorded their highest flood peaks since 1893.

Widespread major riverine flooding also occurred in the Sunshine Coast region, and in the Brisbane, Logan and Albert River catchments. In parts of north-east New South Wales, peak flood levels broke previous observed records (reliable since at least 1974 and for some locations dating back more than 100 years) by considerable margins. Devastating flooding occurred through Lismore (Wilsons River) and other nearby towns, including Coraki and Woodburn (Richmond River) and Murwillumbah and Tumbulgum (Tweed River).

In the first week of March, the rainfall system shifted south along the New South Wales coast, bringing further heavy rainfall to eastern parts of the state (Figure 3). As a result, the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment recorded its wettest 9-day period on record (since 1900) to 9 March (Table 11). With rain falling on already saturated soils and swollen rivers, flood levels in the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system exceeded those reached in March 2021 and were comparable to those of 1978 (Table 12).

*

So Premier Perrottet, it's perfectly acceptable to drown a small coastal town in the name of of so-called progress?

This is a story about a small coastal town in New South Wales that is in the second stage of drowning.

It realised it was caught in a strong tide decades ago, started to tread water while looking about to see how far it was to the safety of a solid 'in good faith' urban planning riverbank, found it was in trouble and raised a hand high in the air hoping someone would notice its growing distress.

All that happened was that that successive federal, state and local governments waved at it from the shore and turned away to continue their discussions with property speculators and developers.

 

Click on images to enlarge

For decades this town has been told by federal and state governments that it needed to expand to grow their respective economies. Local government has said it needs to contribute to the local economy (and by implication grow Council's rate base) as well as the regional economy. 

Time and again developers have told the town that clear felling more and more land, as well as draining the marshes, natural flood ways and flood storage land then covering these areas with landfill, will benefit local communities by increasing the supply of housing in the town - that they are in fact 'good neighbours' to have in the community. If the community pushed back these same developers more often than not quickly fell back on their 'rights' as owners of portions of the hundreds of hectares in question and, not infrequently pointed to barely activated development consents they had hoarded as nest eggs until a more favourable political or economic climate developed.

And because all three tiers of government frequently talk in terms of legal ownership of land and its cash value as rateable land, regardless of its aesthetic, environmental, cultural and social value to the community, towns like Yamba at the mouth of the Clarence River often get sucked into responding in terms of the degree to which overdevelopment within long established urban precincts impacts on property ie., loss, damage and/or reduced amenity. 

It's understandable. Like many other coastal towns, a good many Yamba residents are home and/or business property owners themselves.

However, this conversation needs to be firmly turned away from an almost bloodless actuarial view of potential property losses and a new thread has to enter the argument - risk to the life, health and wellbeing of the town population on a individual and collective level.

Because is not just property or lifestyle that will be affected as the climate change risks increase.  

Therefore, all three tiers of government as well as property developers and those contracted to assist the progress of their development applications, need to be forced to face the potential for loss of life, injury and chronic illness if they proceed with political agendas and commercial aspirations on a 'business as usual basis'. 

Yamba, along with the entire east coast of Australia, is facing a rising level of risk because: 

Australia's climate is now on average 1.44°C(± 0.24°C) hotter than it was in 1910 with 1.0°C of this rise occurring since 1960; 

the surface waters of the ocean which forms the eastern border of the town are becoming warmer; 

the East Australia Current has increased in speed moving further down the NSW coast; 

wave patterns have changed and waves breaking on local beaches and estuary soft shorelines are more erosive;

sea-level rise has commenced;

season of the year patterns are changing; 

adverse weather events are becoming a fact of life;

and Yamba can no longer boast that it has one of the best climate systems in the world. 

Floods now move through the Lower Clarence River estuary on average once every three years with some intervals between floods being much shorter than that and, out of control bushfires driven by high winds have proven that the town is not immune to the threat of fire. East-Coast Lows batter the town during adverse weather events.

During such events - especially flood events - Yamba can be cut off from the wider Clarence Valley for days to weeks and experience disruptions to its food and medicine supply chains.

To date there is not one piece of state legislation, regulation or instrument which guarantees that ALL these risks are taken into consideration whenever a development application is lodged and progressed to the point of denial or consent.

Every battle against inappropriate development in coastal towns like Yamba has to be fought on a case by case basis and, again like Yamba, fought in towns whose topographies are being reshaped time and time again with no overarching understanding on the part of decisionmakers of potential consequences of their actions. 

When Yamba asks local government about safety in times of natural disaster it holds aloft a leaflet with a cry of "Nothing to worry about!" or words to that effect. Then tells residents that they should either 'self evacuate' (leave town ahead of its one road to the outside world being cut), 'shelter in place' (stay at home), go to stay with unspecified family or friends on the only high ground in the town - Pilot Hill with its mix of approx. 200 private and holiday rental dwellings clustered either side of three streets. Alternatively residents are told they could make their way to the ‘evacuation centre’, a low-lying local bowling club where an unspecified person/s will record their details but seemingly do little else.

So knowing that Yamba is vulnerable to almost the full suite of climate change risks - risks being exacerbated right now by inappropriate large scale development consents - who in this small town surrounded on all sides by bodies of water might be the most vulnerable?

How does Yamba bring this range of personal vulnerability to the notice of those overly complacent federal, state and local government decision makers?

A Brief Outline of Demographic Characteristics Which Potentially Indicate Vulnerable Persons within the town boundaries of Yamba, NSW, during an Adverse Weather Event caused by Bushfire or Riverine Flooding which may be intensified by Ocean Storm Surge or Stormwater Inundation.

Based on data collected by Australian Bureau of Statistics on CENSUS NIGHT, 10 August 2021, spatial information from id.com.au and Yamba Floodplain Risk Management Study 2008.

Yamba township is approx. 16.92 sq. kilometres in area with a current population density of 376.9 persons per sq. kilometre.

At all times there is one road acting as access and egress for the Yamba resident population and it is a designated evacuation route in times of bushfire or flood. This road along its length is at its lowest point 1.4mAHD and highest point 2mAHD. Note: Australian Height Datum (AHD) expressed as mAHD indicates height in metres above mean sea level. 

There are recognised difficulties to safe evacuation in and from Yamba in times of Lower Clarence River flooding:

“These are likely to be high on account of:

• the distance to high ground,

• Yamba Road will be cut early making access difficult,

• the roads will quickly be inundated by up to 1 m depth or

greater,

• the emergency services (SES, Police) will be “stretched”

answering calls throughout the area.”

[Webb, McKeown & Associates, October 2008]

Three significant flood ways taking water from the southern sections of the town to the Clarence River are now either partially built upon, impeded by poorly designed infrastructure or in the process of being blocked by hectares of new land fill.

There are within Yamba:

• est. 2,747 occupied residential dwellings housing 6,405 men, women & children;

• est. 875 lone person households in Yamba & another 1,191 two-person family households;

• est. 273 lone parent households;

• at least 136 residential dwellings with no car;

• est. 625 households without an internet connection at the dwelling. Note: Based on 2016 Census data as this question was not asked in Census 2021.

• est. 758 private dwellings being rented, excluding holiday rentals;

• est. 49 social housing properties being rented – 17 freestanding houses, 32 townhouses/duplex units;

• On the basis of vulnerable age groupings:

(i) 830 children aged between 0-14 years of age

(ii) 2,414 adults aged between 65-100+ years of age;

• On the basis of self-reported chronic health conditions:

2,482 persons with between 1 and 3 or more chronic conditions, including

(i) est. 71 children between 0-14 years of age with one or two health conditions

(ii) est. 200 adults aged between 65-85+ years of age with between one and three or more chronic health conditions:

Note: the range of long-term health conditions include but are not restricted to arthritis, asthma, cancer, dementia, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, lung conditions, stroke and mental health.

• On basis of possible inability to finance their own self-evacuation:

402 households with weekly family incomes of $0-$499 dollars, including

(i) est. 105 family households

(ii) est. 302 lone person & group households;

• the est. 300-1,000+ visitors staying in the town's hotel, motels, caravan parks, holiday rental accommodation who may be unfamiliar with the topography or road network in Yamba if/when required to seek safe shelter.

A word Premier Perrottet.....

Mr. Perrott, when heavy rainfall and major to extreme flooding events occurred earlier this year in the Northern Rivers region from Clarence Valley to the Qld-NSW border, members of your government - including yourself - called much of what happened "an unprecedented event, an unprecedented situation". 

But that is not really an accurate description is it?

It was a predictable event and a predicted situation.

Time and time again the United Nations has warned Australia that it was going to be the first continent to face the full force of climate change impacts. Successive NSW state governments have been aware of the rising level of risk since the 1990s.

You have been a member of the NSW Division of the Liberal Party since 2002, a member of the NSW Parliament and a member of the NSW Coalition Government since March 2011 and, a minister in that government since April 2014. You were NSW Treasurer for 4 years, 8 months, 6 days and went on to be state premier these last eleven months.

I have never heard anyone suggest that you were someone of limited intelligence. So there is no way you had not noted the increased risk of coastal erosion, bushfire and flood along the 1,973km long and 100km wide NSW mainland coastal zone, particularly in the last two decades. 

However, like many in positions of power before you Mr. Perrottet, you have ignored the situation and refused to face the issue of what that meant in terms of physical protection of the population. Or confronted the need to instigate reforms to land use as well as to planning legislation, regulations and instruments, in order to better reflect the circumstances of a society living in a changing climate.

As premier your electorate is the entire state. It's long past time you started to genuinely represent all those most vulnerable to climate change induced fire, storm and flood in that very large electorate - not just the NSW Liberal Party, foreign investors, big business, land speculators, property developers, political donors and your deeply suspect coalition partner, the NSW Nationals.

BRIEF BACKGROUND 

A handful of not so fun facts for Yamba residents  

Matters that state government, local government and regional planning panels should consider (but more often barely notice in passing) before granting consent for large scale residential developments along the NSW coastal zone.

Take Yamba for instance, bounded by the Clarence River estuary and Pacific Ocean...

Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The largest flood that could conceivably be expected to occur at a particular location, usually estimated from probable maximum precipitation. The PMF defines the maximum extent of flood prone land, that is, the floodplain.

[NEW SOUTH WALES STATE FLOOD PLAN GLOSSARY , February 2018]

“Evacuation

1. Reliable access for pedestrians or vehicles required during a 100 year flood to a publicly accessible location above the PMF”

[RESIDENTIAL ZONES DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN, effective from 23 Dec 2011 , FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CONTROLS, LOWER CLARENCE RIVER FLOODPLAIN, YAMBA FLOODPLAIN & OTHER FLOODPLAINS]......

Approach to Yamba Bowling Club for most of Yamba population will be blocked by 1-in-100yr Flood at 2.09-2.2m & Extreme Flood at 3.56-3.68m. [https://maps.clarence.nsw.gov.au/intramaps97/]

In both flood types Yamba will be isolated from the wider Clarence Valley by floodwaters for a matter of days or weeks....

* 

It’s time. Time that at federal, state and local government level all elected or appointed officials, all public servants and council administrations turned to face what the phrase “climate crisis” actually means in macro and micro terms to coastal populations

 

It’s time. Time that at federal, state and local government level all elected and appointed officials, all public servants and council administrations really accepted that global warming and climate change is real and is happening right now.

To turn and face what the phrase “climate crisis” actually means in macro and micro terms.

Everyone needs to recognise that in 2022 science knows more that it did in the years 1990, 2000, 2010.

What was once thought the degree of global warming that the earth could tolerate (5°C above pre-industrial levels) is now in doubt and the tipping points causing ‘large-scale discontinuities’ are thought to have the potential to occur at as low as 1 and 2 °C – some of which have already occurred.

Australia’s climate has warmed on average by 1.44 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910 leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events. With most of this warming occurring since the 1950s. 

According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in 2020 a number of factors caused by a warming Australia can be identified;

• Oceans around Australia are acidifying and have warmed by around 1 °C since 1910, contributing to longer and more frequent marine heatwaves.

• Sea levels are rising around Australia, including more frequent extremes, that are increasing the risk of inundation and damage to coastal infrastructure and communities.

• There has been a decline of around 16 per cent in April to October rainfall in the southwest of Australia since 1970. Across the same region May–July rainfall has seen the largest decrease, by around 20 per cent since 1970.

• In the southeast of Australia there has been a decline of around 12 per cent in April to October rainfall since the late 1990s.

• There has been a decrease in streamflow at the majority of streamflow gauges across southern Australia since 1975.

• Rainfall and streamflow have increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s.

• There has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and in the length of the fire season, across large parts of the country since the 1950s, especially in southern Australia.

• There has been a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones observed in the Australian region since 1982.

Again according to BOM, by 2021 the national mean temperature was 0.56 °C warmer than the 1961–1990 average.

In other words, the continent continues to warm and our weather is changing across all seasons of the year and catastrophic weather events are either becoming more frequent or more intense.

The Climate Council in its UNINSURABLE NATION: AUSTRALIA’S MOST CLIMATE-VULNERABLE PLACES, 3 May 2022 report states:

Worsening extreme weather means increased costs of maintenance, repair and replacement to properties – our homes, workplaces and commercial buildings. As the risk of being affected by extreme weather events increases, insurers will raise premiums to cover the increased cost of claims and reinsurance.

Insurance will become increasingly unaffordable or unavailable in large parts of Australia due to worsening extreme weather…..

Across Australia approximately 520,940 properties, or one in every 25, will be ‘high risk’, having annual damage costs from extreme weather and climate change that make them effectively uninsurable by 2030. In addition, 9% of properties (1 in 11) will reach the ‘medium risk’ classification by 2030, with annual damage costs that equate to 0.2-1% of the property replacement cost. These properties are at risk of becoming underinsured….

Climate change affects all Australians, but some federal electorates face far greater risks than others.

The top 10 most at-risk federal electorates by 2030 are:

– 1. Nicholls (Vic)

– 2. Richmond (NSW)

– 3. Maranoa (QLD)

– 4. Moncrieff (QLD),

– 5. Wright (QLD),

– 6. Brisbane (QLD),

– 7. Griffith (QLD),

– 8. Indi (Vic)

– 9. Page (NSW) and

– 10. Hindmarsh (SA).

• In these at-risk electorates, 15% of properties (165,646) or around one in every seven properties will be uninsurable this decade….

• The percentage of properties that will be uninsurable by 2030 in each state and territory is 6.5% in Queensland; 3.3% in NSW; 3.2% in South Australia; 2.6% in Victoria; 2.5% in the Northern Territory; 2.4% in Western Australia; 2% in Tasmania and 1.3% in the ACT.

People living in the NSW Northern Rivers Region’s seven local government areas will recognise that both of their federal electorates are on the “Top 10 most at-risk” list.

In the Page electorate this refers to Parts of Ballina, Lismore, Richmond Valley, Clarence Valley, with a combined total of 103,657 properties at levels of risk ranging from medium to high. With 5.4% of properties at high risk to riverine flooding, 0.4% of properties at high risk to surface water flooding and 5.3% of properties at high risk to bushfire.

While in the Richmond electorate this refers to Tweed, Byron, Ballina, with a combined total of 106,445 properties at levels of risk ranging from medium to high risk. With 14% of properties being at at high risk to riverine flooding, 0.4% of properties at high risk to surface water flooding and 5.2% of properties at high risk to bushfire.

The insurance, banking and real estate industries have noticed these statistics for years and now speak in terms of coastal zone properties in danger of becoming uninsurable, sited on land that will no longer have a monetary value.

One co-author of the Climate Council report has advised home owners and buyers to have a deep understanding of the local hazards and to acquire a property-specific report on their risk.

Three years after the first U.N. assessment report containing predictions of global warming and climatic impacts, the NSW Government protected itself and local councils against being held accountable for future deficiencies in decision making with regard to urban and infrastructure planning by establishing a new the Local Government Act in 1993. 

This Act divested local councils of any and all responsibility by a presumption that local government in all things acts in good faith unless proven otherwise and, local government across the state slowly began to apply a superficial wash of climate change mention in policies and sometimes even planning documents.

Safe in the knowledge, that when considering actual development applications for both large and small land subdivision by predominately professional incorporated property developers, councils In The Chamber, council executives, administrations and all employees had a “Get out of Jail Free” card. Because after all it’s just a game of Monopoly, innit?

This attitude is what drives Clarence Valley Council and a number of property developers with land in Yamba. Who after decades of poring over maps of West Yamba together have increasingly been making decisions about Yamba township with little or no regard for either the wellbeing or concerns of residents and ratepayers.

It’s reached the risible stage in relation to that land zoned residential, accessed via Carrs Drive. Where a long promised Master Plan for the entire urban land release was not proceeded with and its need later denied. 

When land filling resulted in problems on surrounding properties becoming very evident, Council administration was careful to go through a very limited form of cursory community consultation designed not to have a binding outcome and, rather conveniently is now only offering a West Yamba Urban Release Area information page on Council’s website and a printed quarterly update on development progress previously mutually agreed to by property developers and Council.

A move which offers no binding certainty on population density, lot numbers or sizes and still treats land filling on an ad hoc basis.

The lack of any real consideration of climate change impacts is appalling and mirrored in other large subdivisions such as those in Orion Drive, Park Ave and Golding Street.

The video at https://www.keepyambacountry.com/copy-of-more-information demonstrates just how poorly thought through was the approx. 2.8 AHD landfill and drainage at the Park Ave lot which has raised an est. 6.65ha of land above the ground level of a significant number of adjoining and adjacent long established and occupied residential properties. 

Screenshot taken from video "IN-DEPTH DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT on the Keep Yamba Country website, 2022

Similar scenarios are being played out in other Northern Rivers local government areas. Developers are not stupid. They know that now climate change is not just an abstract idea but something that can be seen and experienced they only have a finite time to offload their coastal zone subdivisions onto unsuspecting residential lot purchasers – before the next catastrophic flood or bushfire devastates a town/area considered to be a desirable place to live and wipes out the urge to buy land there. 

BACKGROUND

Excerpts from Local Government Act 1993 as of 16 July 2022:

731 Liability of councillors, employees and other persons

A matter or thing done by the Minister, the Departmental Chief Executive, a council, a councillor, a member of a committee of the council or an employee of the council or any person acting under the direction of the Minister, the Departmental Chief Executive, the council or a committee of the council does not, if the matter or thing was done in good faith for the purpose of executing this or any other Act, and for and on behalf of the Minister, the Departmental Chief Executive, the council or a committee of the council, subject a councillor, a member, an employee or a person so acting personally to any action, liability, claim or demand.

733 Exemption from liability—flood liable land, land subject to risk of bush fire and land in coastal zone

(1) A council does not incur any liability in respect of—

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding.

(2) A council does not incur any liability in respect of—

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land in the coastal zone being affected by a coastline hazard (as described in the coastal management manual under the Coastal Management Act 2016) or the nature or extent of any such hazard, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being so affected.

(2A) A council does not incur any liability in respect of—

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land being subject to the risk of bush fire or the nature or extent of any such risk, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being subject to the risk of bush fire.

(3) Without limiting subsections (1), (2) and (2A), those subsections apply to—

(a) the preparation or making of an environmental planning instrument, including a planning proposal for the proposed environmental planning instrument, or a development control plan, or the granting or refusal of consent to a development application, or the determination of an application for a complying development certificate, under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and

(b) the preparation and adoption of a coastal management program under the Coastal Management Act 2016 (and the preparation and making of a coastal zone management plan under the Coastal Protection Act 1979 that is continued in effect by operation of clause 4 of Schedule 3 to the Coastal Management Act 2016), and

(c) the imposition of any condition in relation to an application referred to in paragraph (a), and

(d) advice furnished in a certificate under section 149 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and

(e) the carrying out of flood mitigation works, and

(f) the carrying out of coastal protection works, and

(f1) the carrying out of bush fire hazard reduction works, and

(f2) anything done or omitted to be done regarding beach erosion or shoreline recession on Crown land (including Crown managed land) or land owned or controlled by a council or a public authority, and

(f3) the failure to upgrade flood mitigation works or coastal protection works in response to projected or actual impacts of climate change, and

(f4) the failure to undertake action to enforce the removal of illegal or unauthorised structures that results in erosion of a beach or land adjacent to a beach, and

(f5) the provision of information relating to climate change or sea level rise, and

(f6) (Repealed) anything done or omitted to be done regarding the negligent placement or maintenance by a landowner of emergency coastal protection works authorised by a certificate under Division 2 of Part 4C of the Coastal Protection Act 1979,

(g) any other thing done or omitted to be done in the exercise of a council’s functions under this or any other Act.

(4) Without limiting any other circumstances in which a council may have acted in good faith, a council is, unless the contrary is proved, taken to have acted in good faith for the purposes of this section if the advice was furnished, or the thing was done or omitted to be done—

(a) substantially in accordance with the principles contained in the relevant manual most recently notified under subsection (5) at that time, or

(b) substantially in accordance with the principles and mandatory requirements set out in the current coastal management manual under the Coastal Management Act 2016, or

(c) in accordance with a direction under section 14(2) of the Coastal Management Act 2016.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the Minister for Planning may, from time to time, give notification in the Gazette of the publication of—

(a) a manual relating to the management of flood liable land, or

(b) (Repealed) a manual relating to the management of the coastline.

(c) a manual relating to the management of land subject to the risk of bush fire.

The notification must specify where and when copies of the manual may be inspected.

(6) A copy of the manual must be available for public inspection, free of charge, at the office of the council during ordinary office hours.

(7) This section applies to and in respect of—

(a) the Crown, a statutory body representing the Crown and a public or local authority constituted by or under any Act, and

(b) a councillor or employee of a council or any such body or authority, and

(c) a Public Service employee, and

(d) a person acting under the direction of a council or of the Crown or any such body or authority, and

(e) Water NSW, but only with respect to the exercise of its functions in the Sydney catchment area (within the meaning of the Water NSW Act 2014) or the exercise of its functions in any part of the State in connection with the granting of flood work approvals under the Water Management Act 2000,

in the same way as it applies to and in respect of a council.

(8) In this section—

coastal zone has the same meaning as in the Coastal Management Act 2016.

manual includes guidelines.

8 Personal liability

A matter or thing done or omitted to be done by the Project Review Committee, a member of the Project Review Committee or a person acting under the direction of the Project Review Committee does not, if the matter or thing was done or omitted to be done in good faith for the purpose of executing this or any other Act, subject a member or a person so acting personally to any action, liability, claim or demand.