Valley Watch Inc takes Clarence Valley Council to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking an honest answer as to the exact number of Yamba dwellings identified as having floor levels below modelled flood inundation heights

 

Over my lifetime I have lived in eight local government areas.

During my childhood years only one impinged on my consciousness, when community resistance to a proposed council measure saw parents & children armed with buckets of paste, large paintbrushes and posters, out after dark on the back of a truck deployed to festoon telegraph poles & public buildings with sentiments opposing the proposition.

It was also the first time I began to realise that local government was a point at which competing interests vied to be heard and an arena it which every interest hoped to prevail.

 

It was brought home to me when returning from attending a council meeting, a neighbour entered my family home exultantly crying “The mick’s have it! We won!”.

It was during those early years that I also began to learn that both state government and local council decisions about where to create new urban precincts can have unexpected consequences for families purchasing a home. In my case the lesson came with fast moving flash flooding, which sent water rushing under dwellings in a largescale housing project built on sloping former farmland land at the fringes of a city. Carving away clay and soil from foundations and making timber houses quiver like jellies on their newly exposed, vulnerable brick piers.

Over the years since then I have watched local government grow more complex and in many ways more powerful. With its elected arm frequently highly politicised and its administrative arm intent on imposing its own will on council decision making as its default position in relation to planning matters.

I have lived long enough to see more and more cities, suburbs, towns and villages expand their built footprints until they began to fill New South Wales coastal floodplains and, in the last three decades noted that this particular planning strategy has been repeatedly warned against.

I have also watched with both interest and sometimes alarm as vested interests have grown even more powerful when it came to deciding if, where and when areas on those floodplains should be turned into mile after mile of family homes just as vulnerable to the forces of nature as was that family home of my childhood. Still being built as mine was to designs and with materials which were never fully capable of withstanding severe storms, floods, wildfire or earthquake.

Right now the little town of Yamba (at the mouth of one such floodplain) is the focal point of one of those contests between residents seeking to protect the wellbeing and safety of a community and the political interests of three tiers of government aligned as they currently are within this state with the financial and commercial interests of property developers and land speculators both foreign and domestic.

Part of that contest is being played out in the matter of Valley Watch Inc v Clarence Valley Council, Case No. 2022/00290453, before the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division) in Sydney on Monday 17 October 2022 at a Case Conference (GIPA and Privacy) at which the progression of the matter through the Tribunal process will be decided.

Note: Full title of GIPA is the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 which in NSW is the vehicle under which a legally enforceable right to access most government information is exercised unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.

Clarence Valley Independent, 12 October 2022:

Valley Watch takes council to NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Eight years of frustration by local community group Valley Watch over Clarence Valley Council not releasing important Yamba floor level survey results will now be subjected to a review by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Valley Watch spokes-person Helen Tyas Tunggal said 14 years after Yamba’s existing flooding problem was identified in council’s 2008 flood study, and eight years since professional floor level surveys were done in 2014, affected residents are still unable to access the results.

“Enough is enough” Ms Tyas Tunggal said.

“14 years is too long.

“The council has an obligation to act in the best interests of residents and stop keeping this information secret.”

The 2008 Yamba Floodplain Risk Management Study FRMS identified the issue of a lack of a floor level survey, but Ms Tyas Tunggal said it took another six years to be conducted.

“Due to a lack of surveyed floor level data an assessment based on approximations,” the FRMS stated.

The approximations, Ms Tyas Tunggal said were made of the number of existing house floors that would be inundated including a 20-year flood (122 homes); a 100-year flood (1223 homes) and extreme flood (2144 homes).

“It took until 2014 for the floor level survey to be conducted,”’ Ms Tyas Tunggal said.

“(The residents were notified) as a part of the investigation work for the preparation of the Development Control Plan that will guide residential development in West Yamba, it is a requirement that floor levels of surrounding residential dwellings be ascertained,” affected residents were told by council.

“These floor levels are required to determine whether any existing dwellings are at risk from the proposed future filling of appropriately zoned parts of West Yamba to enable future residential development.”

“And yet those residents whose floors were surveyed have not been told by the Council what the results are,” Ms Tyas Tunggal said.

Valley Watch has made various attempts to clarify what has happened to the resulting documentation from the 2014 floor level survey.

As a result, the organisation has asked its solicitor to seek a review of Council’s refusal to release the information.

“We think it is only fair for residents to be told how at risk of flooding their homes are,” Ms Tyas Tunggal said.

“Council has that information and could make the information available if they wish.”

When council replied to Valley Watch’s request for information the written response stated “Premature release of the floor level data might (for instance) result in one or more sales falling through without the statutory immunity of Council being assured.”

“We do not accept that by releasing floor level survey data council will lose its statutory Immunity,” Ms Tyas Tunggal said.

“The statement however raises concerns that there is significant information contained within the survey results that residents and the public need to know.

“We are asking the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to take an independent look.”

A particular quote in the aforementioned article is revealing to say the least: 

“Premature release of the floor level data might (for instance) result in one or more sales falling through without the statutory immunity of Council being assured.”

One has to wonder why Clarence Valley Council would expose itself so blatantly, in asserting words to the effect that it believes it is perfectly proper for council to keep the full range of flood risk information from existing homeowners, as well as to actively involve itself in duping prospective homebuyers and presumably conveyancing agents acting on the buyer's behalf.

Such a coldly cruel expression of caveat emptor by an imperious Clarence Valley Council. 

It was interesting to note that the article set out below also appeared in that same issue of the Clarence Valley Independent. A well-intentioned article which voices the ideal while skirting around much of the problematic reality that is local government in 21 Century Australia.

Clarence Valley Independent, 12 October 2022:

Mayoral column 3 – Community engagement and consultation

October 12, 2022 -

In late 2021, during the Council election campaign, some candidates acknowledged that the Council should do much better in informing the community on matters of importance.

I believe that a local Council that consistently engages effectively with its community is helping to safeguard local democracy while placing people at the centre of local government. Perfunctory, irregular “consultation” should be unacceptable.

Councillors have received complaints of a lack of communication and response times to your communications. We are committed to continuous improvement in this regard. If you have experienced communication issues, I encourage you to contact me or your local councillor.

The level of community engagement undertaken should always be appropriate to the nature, complexity and impact of the issue, plan, project, or strategy. Adequate time and reasonable opportunity should be provided for people to present their views to Council in an appropriate manner and format. The Council should have proper regard to the reasonable expectations of the community, to the costs and benefits of the engagement process, and to intergenerational equity.

Quote of the Week

“Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says stopping development on flood plains, especially in western Sydney, will go a long way towards saving communities already reeling from multiple natural disasters. "The obvious answer is to stop development on flood plains," he said on Friday.”

[The West Australian, 7 October 2022] 

Cartoons of the Week

 

Jon Kudelka

Fiona Katauskas

Nine Entertainment-Fairfax Resolve Monitor opinion poll results concerning the major parties since the May 2022 federal general election

A walk through the opinions, expectations and intentions of those statistically being seen as representing the national electorate......

The first Nine Entertainment-Fairfax Resolve Monitor poll after the May 2022 federal general election was published on 21 August 2022.

In answer to the question “Regardless of who you would like to win the next federal election, who do you think will actually win?” respondents answered:

The Labor Party – 55%

The Liberal-Nationals – 15%

Undecided/Too close to call – 30%.

On 18 September 2022 the result of the identical question returned a response of:

The Labor Party – 51%

The Liberal-Nationals – 16%

Undecided/Too close to call – 33%.

While the latest result to that very same question on 9 October 2022 was:

The Labor Party – 55%

The Liberal-Nationals – 16%

Undecided/Too close to call – 29%.

Across those three poll periods sitting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese led Opposition Leader Peter Dutton as “Preferred Prime Minister”:

Albanese 55% to Dutton 17%

Albanese 53% to Dutton 19%

Albanese 53% to Dutton 18%.

Again, across those three poll periods, responses to the question “Statements that might describe a party best – Is offering strong leadership” the response was:

21 August 2022

Labor – 48%

The Liberals – 17%

Someone else – 8%

Undecided – 27%

18 September 2022

Labor – 45%

The Liberals – 19%

Someone else – 8%

Undecided – 29%

9 October 2022

Labor – 46%

The Liberals – 19%

Someone else – 9%

Undecided – 27%

Similarly over the three polling periods, respondents saw Labor leading the Liberals by a significant margin when it came to having a united team behind the leader, listening & focussed on the right issues and, communicating well.

As to the poll question on 9 October 2022 as to who was performing well in their respective rolls in recent weeks, respondents replied:

Albanese

Good to Very Good – 60%

Poor to Very Poor – 25%

Undecided – 15%

Dutton

Good to Very Good – 30%

Poor to Very Poor – 41%

Undecided – 28%

When it came to the question “Which party would you put number ‘1’ on the ballot paper?” the answers came back:

21 August 2022

ALP – 42%

LNP – 28%

GRN – 12%

OAP – 5%

UAP – 2%

IND – 8%

OTH – 3%

18 September 2022

ALP – 39%

LNP – 32%

GRN – 10%

OAP – 6%

UAP – 2%

IND – 8%

OTHER – 2%

9 October 2022

ALP – 39%

LNP – 30%

GRN – 12%

OAP – 5%

UAP – 3%

IND – 9%

OTHER – 2%

So you built, purchased or rent housing on flood prone land - what comes next beside an upgraded personal flood plan?

 

2022 may be the year that brought home to many on the Australian east coast what it really means in a changing climate to have built, purchased or rented a freestanding house, townhouse, unit or flat on flood prone land or on floodplain.

Right now, ten months into the third year of a triple La Niña event, individuals and couples may well be wishing that the real estate agent, local council, individual who did the property conveyancing, a neighbour, friend or family member, had been a little more forthcoming about what moving to a particular street, town, local government area or region actually meant when it came to hazard risks from storms, heavy rainfalls and local or widespread flooding.

Whether it is your first home, your retirement dream home or just an affordable rental in which you are happily settled, for literally thousands of people the limitations of the dwelling in which they currently live is becoming apparent.

While devastated souls in catastrophically affected areas are trying to come to grips with trauma and loss as they assess their options.

Where to start with looking at your home with fresh eyes, before deciding if it will withstand the worst floods or whether you need to modify the dwelling, move the house to higher ground or look for a brand new home on land in a safer area? Big decisions.

In mid-2021 a report was published looking at certain options available for flood prone buildings.

Bushfire & Natural HAZARDS CRC, COST-EFFECTIVEMITIGATION STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT FOR FLOOD PRONE BUILDINGS, Final project report, July 2021, excerpt:

Globally, floods cause widespread impacts with loss of life and damage to property. An analysis of global statistics conducted by Jonkman (2005) showed that floods (including coastal flooding) caused 175,000 fatalities and affected more than 2.2 billion people between 1975 and 2002. In Australia floods cause more damage on an average annual cost basis than any other natural hazard (HNFMSC, 2006). The fundamental cause of this level of damage and the key factor contributing to flood risk, in general, is the presence of vulnerable buildings constructed within floodplains due to ineffective land use planning.

Retrospective analysis show large benefits from disaster risk reduction (DRR) in the contexts of many developed and developing countries. A study conducted by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) found an overall benefit-cost ratio of four suggesting that DRR can be highly effective in future loss reduction (MMC, 2005). However, in spite of potentially high returns, there is limited research in Australia on assessing benefits of different mitigation strategies with consequential reduced investment made in loss reduction measures by individuals and governments. This is true not only at an individual level but also at national and international levels. According to an estimate, international donor agencies allocate 98% of their disaster management funds for relief and reconstruction activities and just 2% is allocated to reduce future losses (Mechler, 2011).

The Bushfire and Natural Hazards Collaborative Research Centre project entitled Cost-effective mitigation strategy development for flood prone buildings is examining the opportunities for reducing the vulnerability of Australian residential buildings to riverine floods. It addresses the need for an evidence base to inform decision making on the mitigation of the flood risk posed by the most vulnerable Australian building types and complements parallel CRC projects for earthquake and severe wind.

This project investigates methods for the upgrading of the existing residential building stock in floodplains to increase their resilience in future flood events. It aims to identify economically optimal upgrading solutions so the finite resources available can be best used to minimise losses, decrease human suffering, improve safety and ensure amenity for communities.

This report describes the research methods, project activities, outcomes and their potential for utilisation.

Flood mitigation strategies mentioned in the report

Elevation

Elevation of a structure is one of the most common mitigation strategies where the aim is to raise the lowest habitable floor of a building above the expected level of flooding. This can be achieved by extending the walls of an existing structure and raising the floor level; by constructing a new floor above the existing one; or through raising the whole structure on new foundations (walls, piers, columns or piles)as shown in Figure 3.

Technical considerations that need to be taken into account in raising buildings are structure type, construction material, foundation type, building size, flood characteristics and other hazards. Other factors to take into consideration when elevating existing structures are additional loading on foundations, additional wind forces on wall and roof systems and any seismic forces (FEMA, 2012).

Generally the least expensive and easiest building to elevate is a low-set single storey timber frame structure (USACE, 2000). The procedure becomes complicated and more expensive when other factors are included such as slab on-grade construction, walls of masonry or concrete or application to a multistorey building (USACE, 1993). Elevation is one of the strategies which currently can result in incentives from the insurance industry in the form of reductions in annual premiums for flood insurance (Bartzis, 2013).

Relocation

Relocation of a building is a dependable flood mitigation technique. However, it is generally the most expensive as well (USACE, 1993). Relocation involves moving a structure to a location that is less prone to flooding. Relocation normally involves placing the structure on a wheeled vehicle, as shown in Figure 4. The structure is then transported to a new location and set on a new foundation (FEMA, 2012). Relocation is much easier and cost effective for low-set timber frame structures. The relocation of slab-on-grade structures is more complicated and expensive.

Relocation is most appropriate in areas where flood conditions are severe such as a high likelihood of deep flooding, or where there is high flow velocity with short warning time and a significant quantity of debris. Technical considerations for relocation include the structure type, size and condition. Light weight timber structures are easy to transport compared to heavy masonry and concrete buildings. Similarly, the relocation of single storey compact size structures is far easier than for large multi-storey structures.

Dry floodproofing

Dry floodproofing essentially attempts to keep floodwaters out of the house. The portion of a structure that is below the expected flood level is sealed to make it substantially impermeable to floodwaters. This is achieved by using sealant systems which include wall coatings, waterproofing compounds, impervious sheeting over doors and windows and a supplementary leaf of masonry (FEMA, 2012). The expected duration of flooding is critical when deciding which sealant systems to use because seepage can increase with time making flood proofing ineffective (USACE, 1993). Preventing sewer backflow by using backwater valves is also important in making dry floodproofing effective (Kreibich et al. 2005; FEMA, 2007).

Dry floodproofing is generally not recommended in flood depths exceeding one metre based on tests carried out by the US Army Corps of Engineers as the stability of the building becomes an issue over this threshold depth (USACE, 1988; Kreibich et al. 2005). Dry floodproofing is also not recommended for lightweight low-set structures or structures with a basement. These types of structure can be susceptible to significant lateral and uplift (buoyancy) forces. Dry floodproofing may also be inappropriate for light timber frame structures and structures that are not in good condition and may not be able to withstand the forces exerted by the floodwater (FEMA, 2012).

Wet floodproofing

In this measure floodwater is allowed to enter the building to equalise the hydrostatic pressure on the interior and exterior of the building, thus reducing the chance of building failure due to a pressure differential on components. As all the building components below the flood level are wetted, all construction material and fit-outs should be water-resistant and/or can be easily cleaned following a flood. Flood resistant materials can help reduce flood damage and facilitate cleanup to allow buildings to be restored to service as quickly as possible. FEMA (2008) provides a detailed list of building materials classified as acceptable or unacceptable for wet floodproofing based on cleanability and water resistance.

Wet floodproofing involves raising utilities (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical systems etc.) and important contents above the expected flood level.

Wet floodproofing may not be suitable in floods with duration of more than a day as longer duration can lead to damage to structural components of the building and can also result in the growth of algae and mould (FEMA, 2007). Also wet floodproofing can only reduce loss from floods but cannot eliminate loss as some amount of cleanup and cosmetic repair will always be necessary (USACE, 1984). Although using flood damage resistant materials can reduce the amount and severity of water damage, it does not protect buildings from other flood hazards, such as the impact of flood borne debris.

Flood barriers

Flood barriers considered here are those built around a single building and are normally placed some distance away from it to avoid any structural modifications to the building. There are two kinds of barriers: permanent and temporary.

An example of a permanent barrier is a floodwall which is quite effective because it requires little maintenance and can be easily constructed and inspected. Generally, it is made of reinforced masonry or concrete and has one or more passageways that are closed by gates. An example of a floodwall is shown in Figure 5.

There are also several types of temporary flood barriers available on the market which can be moved, stored and reused. There are a number of considerations with regard to the use of these barriers such as the need for prior warning and enough time to be set up in order to be effective (Kreibich et al. 2011). They also require periodic inspection and maintenance to address any repair required. Further, access to the building could be difficult (FEMA, 2007).

A number of vendors make temporary flood barriers that can be assembled relatively easily and moved into place. Some of the temporary flood barrier options are presented below and shown in Figure 6.

Sandbags: This is a traditional and less expensive way to construct a barrier up to 1m high in front of a building and its openings. However, it requires considerable time and effort to set up.

PVC tubes: These consist of two flexible tubes laid side by side and joined permanently to form a twin element with high stability. They can be made ready quite quickly, generally in less than 15 minutes, and are available in 1m height and 10m length units.

Metal boards/fence: This fence system consists of two boards in compact flat packs that are lifted into place after transportation to the site and the system is stabilised by water pressure.

Flexible barriers: These barriers are able to dam or redirect flowing water up to 1m high and can be set up very quickly on almost all surfaces.

Box wall: A freestanding flood barrier for use on smooth surfaces. These can be attached and placed next to each other to build a 0.5m high wall around a building.

Box barrier: An effective temporary flood barrier (0.5m high) that can be aligned easily and rapidly. After positioning, the box can be filled with water to hold it in place.

The report looks at vulnerability to flood risks of various types of housing from: Timber Frame (raised floor); Cavity Masonry - Victorian Terrace (raised floor); Cavity Masonry (raised floor); Brick Veneer (raised floor); and Brick Veneer (slab-on-grade).

The report also examines the strength of selected building components and generally the cost effectiveness of building material for use in flood prone buildings.

The full report can be downloaded at:

https://www.bnhcrc.com.au/file/13042/download?token=2Iqm6aEk

The Aussie Bird Count in on again Monday 17 to Sunday 23 October 2022. Join in! Count the birds in your backyard, street, local park or where ever you go outdoors

 

‘Tis the season for birds and birdwatching, so Australia’s favourite citizen science event, the Aussie Bird Count, will return for Bird Week, between 17–23 October. You don’t have to be an expert birder to take part — all you need is a little enthusiasm! Register today to join in the fun.

Just spend 20 minutes in your favourite outdoor space and tell us about the birds you see during that period…..

You can count as many times as you want. Every count helps.

Then lodge your bird count at

https://go.birdlife.org.au/e/946822/submit-a-count-/m517dt/941763961?h=pIMsCY5VNTUdRWYUqvXQGc04EHBA-zMPxxPn5dkNeJk

OR

download the app from Apple Store or Google Play

Road travel is still hazardous in regional & rural NSW after more than 9 months of heavy rainfall & flood damage

 

ABC NEWS, 9 October 2022.  IMAGE: The swollen Macquarie River continues to rise near homes around Troy Gully in Dubbo.(Supplied: Rod Price)

The Daily Telegraph/Northern Star, 6 October 2022:

Tony Leggo was part of the Bonalbo Rural Fire crew who attended the latest accident where a coupe ended up on its roof.

“Two local Bonalbo residents were driving behind them and saw the rear swaybar of the car in front come off in the first set of potholes,” Mr Leggo said.

“The car then lost control and hit a second lot of potholes where it started to roll over.

“A crew of four as well as the Group Captain West attended that one.”

He said all of the district’s roads are in poor condition after back-to-back La Nina events and associated floods.

“I get it,” he said, “but when you’re forced to drive at 60 km/h or less on sections and meet someone on your side of the road coming around corners, it’s dangerous.

“Millions were spent recently on a section of the Clarence Way which was improperly mixed so it has to be done again.

“The accident should be a wake up call because it was sheer luck nobody died.”…..

Bonalbo firefighter Joanne Leggo was on scene to assist.

“In my own opinion, I think that the condition of the road, with many potholes being unavoidable, has taken its toll on our cars and perhaps the car experienced mechanical failure upon hitting the smaller, hard to avoid, potholes,” Ms Leggo said.

“They may not have known that the car was at breaking point that day.”

Clarence Way, a major arterial road that connects NSW and Qld, demands improvement, according to residents and emergency personnel.

“Residents, tourists, and seasonal workers have been left to risk their lives daily,” Ms Leggo said.

“The witnesses were adamant the car was not speeding, which makes it even more frightening.”

Occupants of the car, seasonal workers with limited English, were uninjured.…..

Flood affected local government areas eligible to share $312.5 million, to rebuild damaged roads and transport infrastructure, in order to better withstand future natural disasters:

Armidale, Ballina, Bellingen, Byron, Central Coast, Cessnock, Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour, Dungog, Glen Innes, Gwydir, Kempsey, Kyogle, Lake Macquarie, Lismore, Maitland, Mid-Coast, Muswellbrook, Nambucca, Newcastle, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Port Stephens, Richmond Valley, Singleton, Tenterfield, Tweed and Upper Hunter.

This enhanced round of grant money is jointly funded by the NSW and Federal governments.

‘While support to rebuild damaged roads was announced earlier this year, it only allowed for infrastructure to be repaired to pre-disaster conditions.

It has now been expanded to enable councils to build back in a more resilient way with roads to be improved, and built to withstand future natural hazards.

"This is the next step in the process to get these projects underway, and I'd encourage councils to apply for this funding," Federal Minister for Emergency Management, Murray Watt said.

"We've seen infrastructure like roads and bridges damaged time and again, with no opportunity for them to be repaired or built to a standard that would help them withstand and bounce back from a future natural disaster.

"By rebuilding to a better standard we can protect communities during disasters, while also lessening the long-term damage to regions."’ [The Armidale Express, 7 October 2022]

Clarence Valley Council continues its schedule of works which includes flood repairs.

Storms and heavy rain continue to bedevil the state, with three Natural Disaster Declarations published over the last four months.

La Niña is still active and is expected to increase the chance of above average rainfall for northern and eastern Australia right through to December this year.