Attachment 1 | Amendment C153 Response to …...about specific potentially blocked drains, requests...

Attachment 1 | Amendment C153 – Response to Submissions

Sub #

Position on Amendment

Proposed C153 outcome

Summary of submitter position Affected Property

Map of affected property

Response to Submission Proposed Changes

1. Oppose

Added to the SBO for the first time

1. There has been flood mitigation works undertaken by Council in the area and the fact that an SBO is required suggests these works as a failure and waste of money.

48 Brickwood Street, Brighton

1. The application of the SBO relates to the one in 100 year storm event (a 1% chance of occurrence). Melbourne Water has advised Council that the modelling undertaken produces a scenario predicated on the drain and culverts being clear and flowing at capacity. The extent of the proposed SBO therefore represents flooding in a one in 100 year ARI (average recurrence intervals) event with unimpeded flows along drainage lines. Whilst regular maintenance and unblocking of drains would assist in reducing localised flooding issues, it would merely help prevent extreme event flooding being more extensive than indicated by the modelling.

No changes proposed. Refer submission to Panel.

2. Oppose

No change to SBO

1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as no flooding has occurred to the property in previous 20 years.

178 Thomas Street, Hampton

1. The SBO maps are based on the forecasted overland stormwater flows associated with a one in 100 year storm event, meaning that there is a one per cent chance that such an event could occur in any year. In many cases, the one in 100 year stormwater event may only have water at certain depths for a short period of time, but it is capable of causing damage. The risk of flooding has been identified and as such mitigation measures need to be put in place to avoid loss for damage to property.


3. Oppose, recommends changes


1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as coverage of the proposed SBO is minor and at the front of the property.

2. The inclusion of the property in the SBO may impact on the value of the property.

3 Bleazby Avenue, Brighton

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the flood shape at this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that the exhibited flood shape should be amended and the subject site and neighbouring site removed from the proposed SBO. The Special Building Overlay has an important function to reflect this underlying condition of the land to current property owners and future purchasers of affected properties, so they can make informed decisions about the property and about planning for their own safety during storm events. It cannot be assumed that current structures including fences, building and vegetation will remain in their current locations, and that particular parts of land will not be developed.

2. Impacts on property values are not generally relevant when preparing

planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions. It is noted that the SBO does not prevent development, but rather is a planning tool that requires Council to refer any new development in the overlay to Melbourne Water for comments or planning permit conditions. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO.

Refer submission to a Panel. Property may be removed from the SBO.

Page 2 of 31

Sub #






4. Oppose Reduction in SBO area

1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as the area identified as a 1 in 100 year flood risk is subject to flooding due to inadequate barrel drains in the area.

2. The large trees in the adjacent reserve further impact the drain’s efficiency.

3. Higher density development will exacerbate drainage issues in Bay Street/New Street area.

4. What are the planning considerations created by the application of the overlay?

1/66-68 Bay Street, Brighton

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the flood shape at this location and have advised that there is no proposed change to the exhibited flood shape. Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 outlines that 12.1km (3%) of the drainage network is identified as underperforming, where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding are unacceptable. Forty areas are identified in the Strategy arising from complains of flooding occurring during intense rainfall events and from drainage capacity assessments undertaken between 2005 and 2009. Due to the prohibitive cost and limitations imposed by the capacity of Melbourne Water’s drainage system, it is not practical to retrofit upgrades to bring all parts of Bayside’s drainage system up to current standards. The Strategy aims to improve the drainage system in known areas where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding on public safety and private property are unacceptable and provides a list of the priority areas.

2. Drains are inspected up to twice annually for blockages and obstructions and addressed as required. If residents are concerned about specific potentially blocked drains, requests can be made to Council to have inspections undertaken. This has been referred to Council’s City Assets and Projects team for investigation.

3. Like all of Melbourne, the City of Bayside is facing population growth and significant infill development in the future. Most additional dwellings are required to provide stormwater detention measures which manage the discharge of stormwater flowing into the drainage network. Although incremental developments throughout the catchment area may contribute to increases in runoff, this would only result in a marginal impact upon what is an existing risk of inundation from large storm events. The occurrence of overland flows is due primarily to the limited capacity of the drainage infrastructure, which in accordance with previous design standards was only required to be designed and constructed to the 1 in 5 year standard.

4. The overlay does not cause or change the likelihood of flooding but identifies particular characteristics of land existing at the time of the application of the overlay. The overlay seeks to ensure that any future development has proper regard to the health and safety of current and future occupants of land.


5. Support No change to SBO

1. Supports the Amendment as the site has problems with wet soil and poor drainage.

8 Bleazby Avenue, Brighton

1. Support for the amendment is noted.

No changes proposed.

6. Support Increase SBO coverage

1. When SBO was originally introduced in 2002, the modelling did not consider the 1:100 year flood event. It is positive to see the authorities now agreeing with the position of submitters for the 2002 amendment.

21-23 Meek Street, Brighton

1. Support for the amendment and comments are noted. No changes proposed.

Page 3 of 31

Sub #






7. Support, recommends changes

Reduction in SBO area

1. Considers that the SBO should be removed from the property entirely.

11 Lawson Parade, Highett

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that there should be no change to the exhibited flood shape of the proposed SBO. The justification for any changes from the exhibited boundaries should be considered as part of the Planning Panel process. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered.


8. Support Reduction in SBO area

1. Supports the Amendment. 146 Dendy Street, Brighton East

1. Support for the Amendment is noted. No changes proposed.

9. Support Reduction in SBO area

1. It is good that the SBO will be removed from the property.

54 Clinton Street, Brighton East

1. Support for the Amendment is noted. It is noted that the SBO is not fully removed from the property.

No changes proposed.



1. The affected area is minimal and would never be built on.

2. The inclusion of the property in the SBO may impact on insurance premiums, the value of the property as it will be recorded in any Section 32, and the need to obtain planning permits.

3. Overdevelopment is resulting in overloading of older drainage systems.

4. Developers must contribute to upgrading drainage network.

324 North Road, Brighton East

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that there should be no change to the exhibited flood shape of the proposed SBO. The justification for any changes from the exhibited boundaries should be considered as part of the Planning Panel process. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered.

2. Impacts on property values are not generally relevant when preparing planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions. It is noted that the SBO does not prevent development, but rather is a planning tool that requires Council to refer any new development in the overlay to Melbourne Water for comments or planning permit conditions. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO.

3. Property owners are encouraged to confirm their individual household insurance cover with their insurer to ensure that storm damage coverage includes damage as a result of land being subject to an overland flow path. Planning Panels have consistently found that an impact on insurance is not a matter which should have any bearing on the application of the SBO.

4. Like all of Melbourne, the City of Bayside is facing population growth and significant infill development in the future. Most additional dwellings are required to provide stormwater detention measures which manage the discharge of stormwater flowing into the drainage network. Although incremental developments throughout the


Page 4 of 31

Sub #






catchment area may contribute to increases in runoff, this would only result in a marginal impact upon what is an existing risk of inundation from large storm events. The occurrence of overland flows is due primarily to the limited capacity of the drainage infrastructure, which in accordance with previous design standards was only required to be designed and constructed to the 1 in 5 year standard.

5. Council is investing more than $20 million over 10 years to upgrade drainage systems and reduce the risk of flooding. In April 2016 Council adopted Amendment C139 which implements the Bayside Drainage Development Contributions Plan. Amendment C139 is currently with the Minister for Planning for consideration having been supported by an independent Planning Panel.



1. The area to be affected is a very small coverage to front garden. The map should be amended to remove the property from the proposed SBO entirely. Occupier has measured site with Cowley level and found property is above flood prone area.

2. The inclusion of the property in the SBO may impact on the value of the property.

5 Mary Street, Brighton

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that the exhibited flood shape should be amended and the subject site removed from the proposed SBO. The justification for any changes from the exhibited boundaries should be considered as part of the Planning Panel process. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered.


Refer submission to a Panel. Property may be removed from the SBO.

12. Oppose Added to the SBO for the first time

1. The property is elevated and is above ground level.

2. The inclusion of the property in the SBO may impact on insurance premiums and the value of the property.

3. Council should reduce rates to offset the impacts on property values.

4. Melbourne Water should introduce measures to mitigate flooding issues rather than simply identifying the risk of flooding.

5. Questions whether the model has been validated.

2/20 Male Street, Brighton

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that there should be no change to the exhibited flood shape for the proposed SBO. The justification for any changes from the exhibited boundaries should be considered as part of the Planning Panel process. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered.

2. Property owners are encouraged to confirm their individual household insurance cover with their insurer to ensure that storm damage coverage includes damage as a result of land being subject to an overland flow path. Planning Panels have consistently found that an impact on insurance is not a matter which should have any bearing on the application of the SBO.


4. Amendment C153 proposes to replace the existing SBO maps in the Bayside Planning Scheme with updated maps to reflect revised Melbourne Water flood extent data. This will also ensure that all new developments within the overlay are adequately designed to protect occupants from flooding and to ensure that the drainage system functions appropriately. The model allows the identification of


Page 5 of 31

Sub #






properties with the potential to be affected by flooding rather than applying the SBO to all low lying areas.

5. The flooding modelling methodology is considered to be industry best practice. The techniques to construct the model and to undertake simulations have vastly improved since Council initially began the introduction of the SBO into the Bayside Planning Scheme in 2002. The TUFLOW modelling software is well established and internationally recognised as the world’s most powerful 1D/2D hydrodynamic computational software.


1. The affected area is minimal and would never be built on.

2. The inclusion of the property in the SBO may impact on insurance premiums, the value of the property as it will be recorded in any Section 32, and the owner will now need to obtain planning permission for works.

3. Overdevelopment is resulting in overloading of older drainage systems.

4. Developers must contribute to upgrading drainage network.

324a North Road, Brighton East

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that there should be no changes to the exhibited flood shape for the SBO. The SBO has an important function to reflect this underlying condition of the land to current property owners and future purchasers of affected properties, so they can make informed decisions about the property and about planning for their own safety during storm events. It cannot be assumed that current structures including fences, building and vegetation will remain in their current locations, and that particular parts of land will not be developed.

2. Impacts on property values are not generally relevant when preparing planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions. It is noted that the SBO does not prevent development, but rather is a planning tool that requires Council to refer any new development in the overlay to Melbourne Water for comments or planning permit conditions. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO. Property owners are encouraged to confirm their individual household insurance cover with their insurer to ensure that storm damage coverage includes damage as a result of land being subject to an overland flow path. Planning Panels have consistently found that an impact on insurance is not a matter which should have any bearing on the application of the SBO. Any application for a planning permit will be required to pay the fee. If the SBO is the only permit trigger, it may be considered as part of the 10 day VicSmart process reducing inconvenience for property owners. Land owners are required to ensure that all required permits have been obtained prior to undertaking works on a property.’




14. Oppose No change to SBO

1. Objects to the inclusion of the property and the immediate neighbourhood in the SBO.

4 Royal Avenue, Sandringham

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that there should be no change to the exhibited flood shape for the proposed SBO. The justification for any changes from the exhibited boundaries should be considered as part of the Planning Panel


Page 6 of 31

Sub #






2. The modelling is not consistent with the site contours and should be redone using LIDAR or survey data.

process. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered.

2. The modelling methodology adopted by Melbourne Water uses RORB software to estimate flood discharges and TUFLOW modelling software, recognised as being a leading 1D/2D hydrodynamic computational software. This modelling is used to inform the boundaries of the SBO are fit for purpose, which is to identify land (at a high level) flood prone areas where special consideration of new development is required. The flood extents are determined using LIDAR (Light detection and Ranging) data and digital terrain modelling software. The 1% flood extent was obtained by constructing a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) of the ground contours, and a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the 1% flood levels. By comparing these two surfaces (using software) it is possible to identify locations where the DTM and DEM levels are the same. These locations define the edge of the flood extent. The approach taken by Melbourne Water has been tested through various planning scheme amendments undertaken in other municipalities including the cities of Banyule, Manningham and Port Phillip. Council expects that the appropriateness of the methodology will be tested once more as part of the Planning Panel process.


1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO.

53 Carpenter Street, Brighton

1. Submission opposing the amendment is noted. No proposed changes. Refer submission to Panel.


Remove LSIO Added to the SBO for the first time

1. Objects to the removal of the LSIO from Elsternwick Park as the entire property should be within the LSIO due to the presence of an open watercourse. The LSIO necessitates a greater degree of volume and velocity, has a higher and safer minimum ‘freeboard’ building requirements and promotes greater downstream safeguards. CSIRO and City of Port Phillip modelling suggests the vulnerability of Elsternwick Park to flooding. Sea level rise and associated storm surges will be an increasing factor in the Elster Creek catchment’s ability to drain.

Elsternwick Park

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the removal of the LSIO and application of the SBO at Elsternwick Park and recommended that Council not make any changes to the exhibited controls. The removal of the LSIO and application of a modified SBO provides consistency of the flood overlays along the Elster Creek across municipal boundaries, as the majority of the creek is not an open watercourse. The merits of retaining the LSIO and replacing it with an SBO will be discussed in detail as part of the Panel process. The modelling used by Melbourne Water is consistent with the approach undertaken with their recently completed planning scheme amendment C111 in the City of Port Phillip.


Page 7 of 31

Sub #








1. Support for the Amendment however recommends the entire property be removed from the SBO.

177 Bay Road, Sandringham



18. Support Fully removed from the SBO

1. Pleased the property will be removed in full from the SBO.

16 Beaumaris Parade, Highett

1. Support for the amendment is noted. No change.


1. No major flooding has occurred to the property and the drainage is working well and has been serviced regularly.

2. The proposal is just fear based and unnecessary. Regular monitoring of good water drainage is all that is needed.

20 Male Street, Brighton


2. Amendment C153 proposes to replace the existing SBO maps in the Bayside Planning Scheme with updated maps to reflect revised Melbourne Water flood extent data. This will also ensure that all new developments within the overlay are adequately designed to protect occupants from flooding and to ensure that the drainage system functions appropriately. The model allows the identification of properties with the potential to be affected by flooding rather than applying the SBO to all low lying areas. Council is investing more than $20 million over 10 years to upgrade drainage systems and reduce the risk of flooding. The Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 (DUS) sets a 10 year program of the highest priority drainage upgrade projects (40 in total) that aims to improve the performance standard of the underground pipe network that is under performing with respect to the consequences of public safety and damage to property from flooding.




1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as it is proposed to cover less than 5% of the property adjacent to the street where no building would be constructed.

2. The SBO unnecessarily encumbers the land.

5 New Street, Brighton


2. Amendment C153 proposes to replace the existing SBO maps in the Bayside Planning Scheme with updated maps to reflect revised Melbourne Water flood extent data. This will also ensure that all new


Page 8 of 31

Sub #






developments within the overlay are adequately designed to protect occupants from flooding and to ensure that the drainage system functions appropriately.


1. The solution to drainage issues in the area is to undertaken works and upgrade assets rather than applying an overlay to land.

2. Council’s approach transfers responsibility for the drainage system from Council and Melbourne Water to land owners.

3. The application of the SBO impacts amenity and property values.

2/3 Loller Street, Brighton

1. Amendment C153 proposes to replace the existing SBO maps in the Bayside Planning Scheme with updated maps to reflect revised Melbourne Water flood extent data. This will also ensure that all new developments within the overlay are adequately designed to protect occupants from flooding and to ensure that the drainage system functions appropriately. The model allows the identification of properties with the potential to be affected by flooding rather than applying the SBO to all low lying areas. Council is investing more than $20 million over 10 years to upgrade drainage systems and reduce the risk of flooding. The Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 (DUS) sets a 10 year program of the highest priority drainage upgrade projects (40 in total) that aims to improve the performance standard of the underground pipe network that is under performing with respect to the consequences of public safety and damage to property from flooding. The application of the SBO relates to the one in 100 year storm event (a 1% chance of occurrence). Melbourne Water has advised Council that the modelling undertaken produces a scenario predicated on drains being clear and flowing at capacity. The extent of the proposed SBO therefore represents flooding in a one in 100 year ARI event with unimpeded flows along drainage lines.

2. Council and Melbourne Water will continue to improve drainage infrastructure to ensure it is adequate to meet need. The purpose of applying an overlay is to ensure any development in these areas has regard to the potential for flooding. The potential overland stormwater flow paths identified in the SBO are due to the topography of land and the surrounding neighbourhood. This has not changed and the SBO identifies and quantifies the risk that was always present. Amending the Bayside Planning Scheme to include the SBO will help Council and property owners better manage risk through appropriate development.

3. Impacts on property values are not generally relevant when preparing planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions. It is noted that the SBO does not prevent development, but rather is a planning tool that requires Council to refer any new development in the overlay to Melbourne Water for comments or planning permit conditions. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO. The SBO does not have any direct impacts on amenity as it is a planning control which triggers the need for development to obtain planning permission.




1. Believes that retaining such a small area within the SBO is a drafting error, and retaining this small section serves no purpose for any party as it simply provides an administrative procedure with little ultimate value.

196 Esplanade, Brighton


Refer submission to Panel. Property may be removed from the SBO.

Page 9 of 31

Sub #







1. The inclusion of the property in the SBO may impact on insurance premiums, the value of the property and the potential of development opportunities on the site.

2. This will enable overflow out of the under-sized drainage system onto private land.

3. This stormwater overload will increase as development continues.

4. If the proposal is goes ahead, compensation will be sought.

7 Holyrood Street, Hampton

1. Impacts on property values are not generally relevant when preparing planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions. It is noted that the SBO does not prevent development, but rather is a planning tool that requires Council to refer any new development in the overlay to Melbourne Water for comments or planning permit conditions. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO. Property owners are encouraged to confirm their individual household insurance cover with their insurer to ensure that storm damage coverage includes damage as a result of land being subject to an overland flow path. Planning Panels have consistently found that an impact on insurance is not a matter which should have any bearing on the application of the SBO. The SBO does not prevent development of the site but rather requires the need for a planning permit to be obtained prior to commencing works.



4. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 clearly sets out the matters which are deemed to give rise to claims for compensation and the application of an overlay does not give rise to claims for compensation. The overlay does not cause or change the likelihood of flooding but identifies particular characteristics of land existing at the time of the application of the overlay. The overlay seeks to ensure that any future development has proper regard to the health and safety of current and future occupants of land.


Page 10 of 31

Sub #







1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as it will impact insurance premiums and the value of the property.

2. The area affected will not be built on. 3. There will be additional charges to

extra permits being required. 4. It is Melbourne Water’s responsibility to

maintain the urban drainage system. 5. Overdevelopment has caused flooding

issues and a levy should be charged to developers to contribute to upgrading the existing drainage network.


1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that there should be no change to the exhibited flood shape for the proposed SBO. The justification for any changes from the exhibited boundaries should be considered as part of the Planning Panel process. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered. Impacts on property values are not generally relevant when preparing planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions. It is noted that the SBO does not prevent development, but rather is a planning tool that requires Council to refer any new development in the overlay to Melbourne Water for comments or planning permit conditions. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO. Property owners are encouraged to confirm their individual household insurance cover with their insurer to ensure that storm damage coverage includes damage as a result of land being subject to an overland flow path. Planning Panels have consistently found that an impact on insurance is not a matter which should have any bearing on the application of the SBO.

2. The Special Building Overlay has an important function to reflect this underlying condition of the land to current property owners and future purchasers of affected properties, so they can make informed decisions about the property and about planning for their own safety during storm events. It cannot be assumed that current structures including fences, building and vegetation will remain in their current locations, and that particular parts of land will not be developed.

3. Any application for a planning permit will be required to pay the fee. If the SBO is the only permit trigger, it may be considered as part of the 10 day VicSmart process reducing inconvenience for property owners. Land owners are required to ensure that all required permits have been obtained prior to undertaking works on a property.

4. Bayside City Council is responsible for maintaining minor drains and the management of stormwater overflows from its drainage system. The application of the SBO relates to the one in 100 year storm event (a 1% chance of occurrence). Melbourne Water has advised Council that the modelling undertaken produces a scenario predicated on drains being clear and flowing at capacity. The extent of the proposed SBO therefore represents flooding in a one in 100 year ARI event with unimpeded flows along drainage lines.



Page 11 of 31

Sub #






25. Did not indicate a position

No change to SBO

1. Concerned about implications of soil levels being raised at neighbouring property.

2. Concerned about drainage grate blocking when flooding occurs.

7 Snooks Court, Brighton

1. In response to the concern raised about soil level height to neighbouring property, any future development at that location would be dealt with as part of a planning permit process. Any design response would need to comply with the requirements of the Planning Scheme and Melbourne Water, and impacts relating to flooding will be considered as part of permit applications.

2. In relation to the concern raised about the drain becoming blocked with debris and other matters, this should generally be rectified by the drainage maintenance team during implementation of their annual routine works program. Critical drains are inspected/cleaned twice annually for blockages and addressed as required. If residents are concerned about specific potentially blocked drains, requests can be made to Council to have inspections undertaken.

No proposed changes.


1. Cannot understand how the assessment includes the property. Previous rain and flood events were due to poorly maintained infrastructure. Whilst land was flooded, only one house in the street flooded due to its low floor level.

2. Questioned how the floodshape was generated. Interested in details about the height/storm duration and volume flood.

3. Questioned who will be accountable for the potential impact this will have on the value of the property and insurance premiums.

4. Questioned who will pay the costs associated with now requiring planning permits to undertake works.

5. Questioned what restrictions are now imposed in relation to building heights and basement parking excavations.

22 Coronation Street, Brighton East



3. Impacts on property values are not generally relevant when preparing planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions. It is noted that the SBO does not prevent development, but rather is a planning tool that requires Council to refer any new development in the overlay to Melbourne Water for comments or planning permit conditions. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO. Property owners are encouraged to confirm their individual household insurance cover with their insurer to ensure that storm damage coverage includes damage as a result of land being subject to an overland flow path. Planning Panels have consistently found that an impact on insurance is not a matter which should have any bearing on the application of the SBO.

4. Any application for a planning permit will be required to pay the fee. If the SBO is the only permit trigger, it may be considered as part of the 10 day VicSmart process reducing inconvenience for property owners. Land owners are required to ensure that all required permits have been obtained prior to undertaking works on a property.

5. It is noted that the SBO does not prohibit development, but rather requires planning permission to be obtained prior to commencing


Page 12 of 31

Sub #






works. At the time plans have been prepared for development, detailed comments from Council and Melbourne Water can be provided advising of the requirements for particular kinds of development.


1. The main cause of this proposal is due to the increase of construction plot ratios. Stormwater run-off is increasing with new development and will cause drainage issues in the future.

2. The inclusion of the property in the SBO may impact on insurance premiums and the value of the property, as well as an added future building cost.

3. Compensation will be sought to cover all affected property owners due to the massive extra water catchment area created by the extra development creating flooding problems.

385 and 385a South Road, Brighton East

1. Like all of Melbourne, the City of Bayside is facing population growth and significant infill development in the future. Most additional dwellings are required to provide stormwater detention measures which manage the discharge of stormwater flowing into the drainage network. Although incremental developments throughout the catchment area may contribute to increases in runoff, this would only result in a marginal impact upon what is an existing risk of inundation from large storm events. The majority of Bayside’s drainage infrastructure network was constructed between 1940 and 1970. The standards of drainage design during this period were lower than modern requirements, designed for typical, frequent, low intensity storm events (a 100% chance of occurrence). The occurrence of overland flows is due primarily to the limited capacity of the drainage infrastructure, which in accordance with previous design standards was only required to be designed and constructed to the 1 in 5 year standard.

2. Impacts on property values are not generally relevant when preparing planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions. It is noted that the SBO does not prevent development, but rather is a planning tool that requires Council to refer any new development in the overlay to Melbourne Water for comments or planning permit conditions. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO. Property owners are encouraged to confirm their individual household insurance cover with their insurer to ensure that storm damage coverage includes damage as a result of land being subject to an overland flow path. Planning Panels have consistently found that an impact on insurance is not a matter which should have any bearing on the application of the SBO.





1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO given it will only apply to a small percentage of the property. This small percentage does not warrant a change in classification.

2. This is a computer programme projection, not 100% certainty.

15 Wright Street, Brighton

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that there should be no change to the exhibited flood shape for the proposed SBO. The Special Building Overlay has an important function to reflect this underlying condition of the land to current property owners and future purchasers of affected properties, so they can make informed decisions about the property and about planning for their own safety during storm events. It cannot be assumed that current structures including fences, building and vegetation will remain in their current locations, and that particular parts of land will not be developed.

2. The flooding modelling methodology is considered to be industry best practice. The techniques to construct the model and to undertake simulations have vastly improved since Council initially began the introduction of the SBO into the Bayside Planning Scheme in 2002. The TUFLOW modelling software is well established and internationally recognised as the world’s most powerful 1D/2D hydrodynamic computational software. The application of the SBO


Page 13 of 31

Sub #






does not cause or change the likelihood of flooding, but recognises the existing condition of the land. It provides no onerous requirements on land owners, but rather outlines the underlying conditions of the property to allow owners and potential purchasers to make informed decisions about the property and plan for their own safety during storm events.


1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as a neighbour as advised Council is creating a stormwater detention area over the property.

2. New and larger property developments will add to the stormwater load. Objects to extra stormwater from all the new properties upstream over-flowing out of the drains to flood the property.

3. Compensation should be due if amendment proceeds.

4. The pipe under the railway line along Holyrood Street flowing to the sea should be upgraded to handle the additional stormwater.


1. The application of the SBO does not cause or change the likelihood of flooding, but recognises the existing condition of the land. It provides no onerous requirements on land owners, but rather outlines the underlying conditions of the property to allow owners and potential purchasers to make informed decisions about the property and plan for their own safety during storm events. Council and Melbourne Water will continue to improve drainage infrastructure to ensure it is adequate to meet need. The purpose of applying an overlay is to ensure any development in these areas has regard to the potential for flooding and does not provide any rights for the land to be used as a stormwater retardation area (or similar). The potential overland stormwater flow paths included in the SBO are due to the topography of land and the surrounding neighbourhood, which does not change as a result of the SBO being applied - the risk was always present. Modelling has become more advanced to be able to better understand flooding impacts during extreme storm events.

2. Most additional dwellings are required to provide stormwater detention measures which manage the discharge of stormwater flowing into the drainage network. Although incremental developments throughout the catchment area may contribute to increases in runoff, this would only result in a marginal impact upon what is an existing risk of inundation from large storm events.


4. Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 outlines that 12.1km (3%) of the drainage network is identified as underperforming, where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding are unacceptable. Forty areas are identified in the Strategy arising from complaints of flooding occurring during intense rainfall events and from drainage capacity assessments undertaken between 2005 and 2009. The Holyrood Street drain was identified as under capacity in the MWH report and recommended for upgrade between the VicRoads drain (on Beach Road) and 16 Holyrood Street. This 525mm drain is reliant on VicRoads and the Melbourne Water outfall drain further to the north which at peak flow would be at full capacity, hence the inundation in this upstream location. The road is designed to accommodate the overland flow in large storm events and short term flooding events within the road are outlined in Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy as being acceptable. This drainage upgrade project was not selected for the 10 Year Drainage Improvement Strategy. The estimated project cost is in excess of $300,000, however it would require simultaneous upgrade programs from Melbourne Water and VicRoads to realise any significant improvement in flood mitigation. No commitment from these authorities has yet been provided regarding the upgrade. Council’s City Assets and Projects department will continue to raise this issue with Melbourne Water and VicRoads.

No changes proposed. Refer submission to Panel. Council’ City Assets and Projects department to advocate to VicRoads and Melbourne Water regarding the upgrading of the Holyrood Street drain.

Page 14 of 31

Sub #







1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as the update will create a stormwater detention area over some of the property.

2. The inclusion of the property in the SBO may impact the value of the property.

3. It is probable that the stormwater flow will increase further from the proposed property developments that have not yet been built.

4. The pipes along Holyrood Street and under the Sandringham Railway Line should be upgraded to handle additional stormwater, therefore reducing the impacts on these properties.

5. Council is collecting fees from developments and these funds should be used to upgrade the stormwater system.

6. Compensation should be paid for loss of amenity and potential restriction on development opportunities.


1. The application of the SBO does not cause or change the likelihood of flooding, but recognises the existing condition of the land. It provides no onerous requirements on land owners, but rather outlines the underlying conditions of the property to allow owners and potential purchasers to make informed decisions about the property and plan for their own safety during storm events. Council and Melbourne Water will continue to improve drainage infrastructure to ensure it is adequate to meet need. The purpose of applying an overlay is to ensure any development in these areas has regard to the potential for flooding and does not provide any rights for the land to be used as a stormwater retardation area (or similar). The potential overland stormwater flow paths included in the SBO are due to the topography of land and the surrounding neighbourhood, which does not change as a result of the SBO being applied - the risk was always present. Modelling has become more advanced to be able to better understand flooding impacts during extreme storm events.



4. Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 outlines that 12.1km (3%) of the drainage network is identified as underperforming, where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding are unacceptable. Forty areas are identified in the Strategy arising from complaints of flooding occurring during intense rainfall events and from drainage capacity assessments undertaken between 2005 and 2009. The Holyrood Street drain was identified as under capacity in the MWH report and recommended for upgrade between the VicRoads drain (on Beach Road) and 16 Holyrood Street. This 525mm drain is reliant on VicRoads and the Melbourne Water outfall drain further to the north which at peak flow would be at full capacity, hence the inundation in this upstream location. The road is designed to accommodate the overland flow in large storm events and short term flooding events within the road are outlined in Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy as being acceptable. This drainage upgrade project was not selected for the 10 Year Drainage Improvement Strategy. The estimated project cost is in excess of $300,000, however it would require simultaneous upgrade programs from Melbourne Water and VicRoads to realise any significant improvement in flood mitigation. No commitment from these authorities has yet been provided regarding the upgrade. Council’s City Assets and Projects department will continue to raise this issue with Melbourne Water and VicRoads.


6. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 clearly sets out the matters which are deemed to give rise to claims for compensation and the

No changes proposed. Refer submission to Panel. Council’ City Assets and Projects department to advocate to VicRoads and Melbourne Water regarding the upgrading of the Holyrood Street drain.

Page 15 of 31

Sub #






application of an overlay does not give rise to claims for compensation. The overlay does not cause or change the likelihood of flooding but identifies particular characteristics of land existing at the time of the application of the overlay. The overlay seeks to ensure that any future development has proper regard to the health and safety of current and future occupants of land.


1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as the area is minor and within 3 metres of the boundary.

2. Seeking removal of SBO to the property as the area identified for inclusion is unlikely to be built on.

3. Concern for the impacts of any future development on Orlando Street, Hampton which is an adjoining site.

84 Orlando Street, Hampton


2. The Special Building Overlay has an important function to reflect this underlying condition of the land to current property owners and future purchasers of affected properties, so they can make informed decisions about the property and about planning for their own safety during storm events. It cannot be assumed that current structures including fences, building and vegetation will remain in their current locations, and that particular parts of land will not be developed.

3. Any proposal for future development to the adjoining site would need to follow the usual planning permit process and be referred to Melbourne Water. This would mean that Melbourne Water would respond to the concern for any future runoff from potential extensive site coverage.


32. Oppose Alterations to SBO boundaries

1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as there has been no previous identified risk of flooding at the property, and no flooding has occurred to date.

2. The south side of Glyndon Avenue was identified for drainage upgrades. This led to the removal of the existing SBO. Are Council upgrading the north side of Glyndon Ave and will this avoid the need for the SBO to be extended?

3. Melbourne Water should reconsider the need to apply the SBO to the north side of Glyndon Avenue.

4. The application of SBO is not an adequate alternative to rectifying drainage inadequacies.

5. Questions the basis for the overlay forming a ‘zig-zag’ shape and whether this realistically represents the flood risk.

6. Poor maintenance of the drainage network has led to this process being required.

10 Glyndon Avenue, Brighton


2. Council has not identified any recent/planned upgrade works on Glyndon Avenue. Some lower priority works are recommended for the west end of Glyndon Avenue, but beyond the scope of the Drainage Improvement Strategy.

3. Melbourne Water and the submitter will be given the opportunity to discuss the merits of the SBO boundary as part of any Planning Panel process.

4. The SBO is one tool available to identify land which is potentially subject to inundation. A range of other measures are undertaken by Council and Melbourne Water to address flooding and drainage issues.

5. The modelling methodology adopted by Melbourne Water has been tested through various planning scheme amendments undertaken in other municipalities. The justification for any changes from the exhibited flood model should be considered as part of the Planning Panel process. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties and the suitability of the floodshape.

6. Whilst regular maintenance and unblocking of drains would assist in reducing localised flooding issues, it would merely help prevent extreme event flooding being more extensive than indicated by the modelling. Drains on the critical list are inspected twice annually for blockages and addressed as required. If residents are concerned


Page 16 of 31

Sub #






about specific potentially blocked drains, requests can be made to Council to have further inspections undertaken.

33. Oppose Retained within the existing SBO but with a change to the floodshape

1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as the flood boundaries fail to have regard to the topography or characteristics of the site.

2. Why has Council not upgraded the drainage network, which would likely have resulted in the overlay not being required?

3. The SBO will have a detrimental impact on property values.

4. Council must provide details of all its future drainage upgrades over the next 10 years to provide certainty that these issues will be avoided.

5. Have repeatedly asked Melbourne Water for information regarding its drains which has been refused. Further questions to Melbourne Water have gone without response.

6. There has been a lack of consultation, information and education provided by Council and Melbourne Water as to the need for the changes and how the changes will impact on prioritisation of drainage improvement works.

7. There has been an inconsistent approach as to how the mapping has been applied, clear from the adjoining properties and the subject site.

8. The proposed changes will have a detrimental impact on the value of our property and will substantially increase insurance premiums.

8 Wright Street, Brighton




4. Details of Council’s proposed high risk drainage upgrades are outlined in the Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015. The opportunity for community input into future upgrade prioritisation has been referred to Council’s City Assets and Projects department for consideration.

5. Comment noted. The Planning Panel process will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on submitters properties.

6. The need for the amendment is outlined in the Explanatory Report, with opportunities for 1:1 meetings, drop in sessions and phone conferences to discuss specific sites or questions.

7. Comment noted. The Planning Panel process will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on submitters properties.

8. Impacts on property values are not generally relevant when preparing planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions. It is noted that the SBO does not prevent development, but rather is a planning tool that requires Council to refer any new development in the overlay to Melbourne Water for comments or planning permit conditions. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO. Property owners are encouraged to confirm their individual household insurance cover with their insurer to ensure that storm damage coverage includes damage as a result of land being subject to an overland flow path. Planning Panels have consistently found that

No changes proposed. Refer submission to Panel. Submission has been provided to Council’s City Assets and Projects department for consideration.

Page 17 of 31

Sub #






an impact on insurance is not a matter which should have any bearing on the application of the SBO.

34. Support, comments provided

No change to SBO

1. Has no concerns given there is no change proposed.

2. Raised concern for inadequate street drainage infrastructure in Sara Avenue, Brighton East.

3. Made suggestions for additional drains in the area to be included in Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy.

5 Sara Avenue, Brighton East

1. Support for the amendment is noted. 2. This issue has been forwarded to Council’s City Assets and Projects

department for investigation. 3. Suggestions for Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy have been

referred to Council’s City Assets & Projects department for consideration.

No proposed changes.


Fully removed from the SBO

1. Questions the removal of the SBO and how it will impact the property in the future, given the site has flooded in recent history.

2. Raised questions in relation to the drainage infrastructure in the area and whether redesigns are required or proposed.

5/191 New Street, Brighton

1. The flood modelling methodology is considered to be industry best practice. The techniques to construct the model and to undertake simulations have vastly improved since Council initially began the introduction of the SBO into the Bayside Planning Scheme in 2002. The TUFLOW modelling software is well established and internationally recognised as the world’s most powerful 1D/2D hydrodynamic computational software. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that there should be no change to the exhibited flood shape and the subject site should be removed from the SBO. The justification for any changes from the exhibited boundaries should be considered as part of the Planning Panel process. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered.

2. Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 outlines that 12.1km (3%) of the drainage network is identified as underperforming, where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding are unacceptable. Council is not aware of previous flooding or inundation issues in this location as a repeated issue. No recent works have been undertaken by Council in the area proximate to the site. Any future upgrade works by Council is likely to have negligible impact due to limited capacity of the Melbourne Water drain.

No proposed changes. Refer to Panel.

Page 18 of 31

Sub #






36. Support, provides comments

No change to SBO

1. In favour of the changes proposed, however believes all affected properties must be fully protected by and comply with the provisions in the Bayside Planning Scheme and the Water Act 1989.

2. Many low lying Bayside suburbs experience localised shallow flooding during storm events that exceed 3 year ARI intensity, let along the 1 in 100 year event. Melbourne Water’s calculations and modelling ignore these occurrences as though they are irrelevant or do not occur.

3. A range of stormwater mitigation measures are required as areas outside the SBO boundaries contribute to runoff.

4. Melbourne Water shows no interest in protecting existing properties from flood damage and can make matters worse if it requires new development to provide considerable amounts of fill on the site. This protects new development but not current development.

5. New development should provide stormwater detention systems rather than simply applying fill and resulting in diverting flows elsewhere. Multiple examples of fill being provided at development sites not only diverts water from its natural path, but it creates substantial additional amounts of water flow from these properties to the detriment of others.

6. Flood mitigation techniques must be rigidly enforced not only within the affected flood prone areas but should be mandatory throughout the entire catchment areas.

7. Insurers providing coverage for flood prone areas is not a satisfactory reason for responsible authorities to justify their neglect and complicity in the failure to protect flood prone areas. Under the Water Act 1989, existing property owners are prevented from building any structure to protect stormwater flows from inundating their properties or redirecting flow elsewhere. Under the current directives of Council and Melbourne Water, this is exactly what is occurring when new development is proposed, with the full knowledge of Council and Melbourne Water. Both authorities have failed in their duty of care and responsibility to protect flood prone properties from the redevelopment of larger structures.

4 Hardinge Street, Beaumaris

1. Support for the amendment is noted. A response to the several issues raised in this submission has been previously provided to the submitter from Council’s Director Environment, Recreation and Infrastructure.

2. The application of the SBO relates to the one in 100 year storm event (a 1% chance of occurrence). Melbourne Water has advised Council that the modelling undertaken produces a scenario predicated on drains being clear and flowing at capacity. The extent of the proposed SBO therefore represents flooding in a one in 100 year ARI event with unimpeded flows along drainage lines. Where existing roads and overland flow paths cannot cater for the 1% storm event, the pipes need to be increased to a size where the entire system can cater for the 1% storm unless costs are deemed unreasonable and alternative solution is determined. Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy guides investment decision-making in the design of upgrades to the drainage network. Due to the prohibitive costs and the limitations of the capacity of Melbourne Water’s receiving drainage system, this Strategy acknowledges that it is not practical to plan to upgrade the entire underground drainage system to current standards and calls for the highest reasonable level of flood mitigation for that part of the network to be delivered.

3. The majority of Bayside’s drainage network was constructed between 1940 and 1970. The standards of drainage design during this period were lower than if similar systems were to be implemented today, with much of the underground system being designed for typical, frequent, low intensity storms (a 100% chance of occurrence) and with little consideration of overland flow paths to convey large volumes of runoff during extreme localised rainfall. Due to the prohibitive cost and limitations imposed by the capacity of Melbourne Water’s drainage system, it is not practical to retrofit upgrades to bring all parts of Bayside’s drainage system up to current standards. However, drainage upgrade projects identified either from flooding complaints or capacity assessments can significantly mitigate the impact of flooding in susceptible parts of Bayside’s catchments.

4. Comment noted. 5. Most additional dwellings are required to provide stormwater detention

measures which manage the discharge of stormwater flowing into the drainage network. Although incremental developments throughout the catchment area may contribute to increases in runoff, this would only result in a marginal impact upon what is an existing risk of inundation from large storm events.

6. Council owns, operates and maintains an underground pipe network that provides drainage and flood mitigation services to the entire community. Much of the drainage system that performs below desired capacity cannot be upgraded without significant investment. Although it is neither practical nor affordable to retrofit upgrades to bring all parts of the drainage system up to standards, it is reasonable to prioritise areas where flooding is demonstrated to have a negative impact on habitable rooms or business premises.

7. There are planning scheme controls that identify areas prone to overland flooding. The purpose of these overlays is to set appropriate conditions and floor levels to address any flood risk to developments. These overlays require a planning permit for buildings and works. Much of the drainage system that performs below desired capacity cannot be upgraded without significant investment. Although it is neither practical nor affordable to retrofit upgrades to bring all parts of the drainage system up to current standards, it is reasonable to treat areas where flooding is demonstrated to have a negative impact on habitable rooms or business premises. This has led Council to undertaking infrastructure planning for drainage upgrades to address key sites and identifying that a program of works to the value of


Page 19 of 31

Sub #






Insurance companies may hold Council and Melbourne Water culpable for any damage to property.

8. Melbourne Water and Council must liaise far more closely on all building and planning applications.

$24.5M (in 2014 dollars) is necessary. The Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 sets a 10 year program of the highest priority drainage upgrade projects (40 in total) that aims to improve the performance standard of the underground pipe network.

8. Comment is noted. The planning scheme requires all planning permit applications received by Council to be referred to Melbourne Water for land covered by the SBO for their comments and requirements.

37. City of Port Phillip Submission Did not indicate a position

Remove LSIO Added the SBO for the first time

1. City of Port Phillip Residents have expressed concern that the proposed SBO does not cover the tennis courts on the corner of St Kilda Street and Glenhuntly Road. There is also confusion amongst residents as to why the LSIO is being removed and replaced with an SBO. There is concern that replacing the LSIO with the SBO could prevent future flood mitigation actions being applied.

2. Port Phillip Councillors have expressed a very high level of interest in the amendment, the outcomes it will achieve and any strategic risks or benefits that may result for the Elster Creek catchment and all communities that live, work or visit in the catchment’s environs.

Elsternwick Park

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the removal of the LSIO and application of the SBO at Elsternwick Park and recommended that Council not make any changes to the exhibited controls. The removal of the LSIO and application of a modified SBO provides consistency of the flood overlays along the Elster Creek across municipal boundaries including within the City of Port Phillip, as the majority of the creek is not an open watercourse. The merits of retaining the LSIO and replacing it with an SBO will be discussed in detail as part of the Panel process. The modelling used by Melbourne Water is consistent with the approach undertaken with their recently completed planning scheme amendment C111 in the City of Port Phillip.

2. Comment noted.

No changes proposed. Refer to Panel.

38. Oppose, recommend changes


1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as it is minor coverage with no tangible impact on the site.


1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that the exhibited flood shape be amended and the subject site removed from the proposed SBO. The justification for any changes from the exhibited boundaries should be considered as part of the Planning Panel process. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered.

No changes proposed. Property may be removed from the SBO.


Alteration to SBO boundaries

1. It is important for Council to take action to address flooding. More drains are urgently required in the area to minimise the risk of flood damage to properties. As a property downslope from a road, the property is constantly flooded when the road overflows. Additional drains will remedy this.

2. The drainage system is frequently blocked by leaves, debris, concrete slurry and other building debris which nearby properties are required to clear prior to storm events as they require

21 Huntingfield Road, Brighton

1. Flooding at this location has been raised previously with Council through direct flooding complaints. This new concern will be referred to Council’s City Assets and Projects department. In response to the number of complaints for this site, Council will now investigate the need for more frequent inspections. A detailed prioritised drainage upgrade program lists drainage assets which require drainage network improvements. Where identified, new items can be added to this list. If warranted, this inclusion will ensure a more frequent inspection and maintenance cycle to reduce the frequency of flooding.

2. This is likely a maintenance/cleaning issue (leaves from trees). Low priority works by Council are planned for the drain near the tapping to the Melbourne Water drain, but beyond the scope of the Drainage Improvement Strategy.

No proposed changes. Refer to Panel. Issue referred to Council’s City Assets and Projects department for investigation.

Page 20 of 31

Sub #






more frequent maintenance than Council provide.

The current level of maintenance at this site is generally two inspections within a three year period, however if it meets the requirements for inclusion on Council’s critical drainage assets list, these drains will be inspected/cleaned on a 6 month cycle.



1. Supports the reduction of the SBO to the property. As the area to be retained is essentially level, it appears that if any of the property needs to be in the SBO the boundary should align with the street frontage.

15 Killeen Avenue, Brighton East




No change to SBO

1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as the dwelling on the site is new and meets development requirements. Therefore, the dwelling should not be at risk of flooding.

2. Coverage of the proposed SBO is very minor and should be removed.

152 Tramway Parade, Beaumaris




Increase SBO coverage

1. Questions why their property is affected by the SBO and not other properties in adjoining areas.

2. The recent road works undertaken by Council in the last 12 months at the intersection of James and Meek Streets is contributing to channelling of stormwater onto the property. The intersection works undertake by Council has repeatedly resulted in damage to the property.

3. Requests a specific explanation and data showing why as a consequence of road repair at the adjoining intersection the property now floods.

4. Requests a meeting to view and discuss the metrics of the flood modelling.

31 Meek Street, Brighton

1. The areas referred to in the submissions are proposed to be included in the SBO as part of Amendment C153.

2. The request to investigate the road works has been referred to Council’s City Assets and Projects department for investigation on this matter. This will occur regardless of the status of Amendment C153.

3. It is understood that the issues being experienced are as a result of works undertaken by South East Water to install a tapping point in this location. As a result, some minor roadworks were undertaken by the authority in order to install the tapping point. It is presently unclear whether this or another issue may be the cause of inundation at the property. The submitter has previously corresponded with Council’s City Assets and Projects department on this matter. James Street is scheduled as a ‘must do’ project for the 2018/19 Annual Road Reseal and Resheet Program. Road grade and kerb and channel are to be corrected at this time (if necessary). Meek Street is in good condition and will not require resealing for several years

4. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered.



1. Infrastructure cannot cope with any more multi dwelling developments, as there are already issues with sewage flowing into stormwater infrastructure in heavy rain events. It is not acceptable for development further up the catchment to result in flooding of downstream properties near the coast.

2. The ageing infrastructure in the area needs to be updated to cope with the developments which have been occurring over the years.

3. There should be bigger drainage pipes installed under the railway line.

7a Holyrood Street, Hampton


2. Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 outlines that 12.1km (3%) of the drainage network is identified as underperforming, where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding are unacceptable. Forty areas are identified in the Strategy arising from complaints of flooding occurring during intense rainfall events and from drainage capacity assessments undertaken between 2005 and 2009. Due to the prohibitive cost and limitations imposed by the capacity of Melbourne Water’s drainage system, it is not practical to retrofit

No proposed changes. Refer to Panel. Council’ City Assets and Projects department to advocate to VicRoads and Melbourne Water regarding the upgrading of the Holyrood Street drain.

Page 21 of 31

Sub #






4. Will seek compensation if flood damage to property is experienced.

upgrades to bring all parts of Bayside’s drainage system up to current standards. The Strategy aims to improve the drainage system in known areas where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding on public safety and private property are unacceptable and provides a list of the priority areas. The application of the SBO relates to the one in 100 year storm event (a 1% chance of occurrence). Melbourne Water has advised Council that the modelling undertaken produces a scenario predicated on drains being clear and flowing at capacity. The extent of the proposed SBO therefore represents flooding in a one in 100 year ARI event with unimpeded flows along drainage lines.

3. Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 outlines that 12.1km (3%) of the drainage network is identified as underperforming, where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding are unacceptable. Forty areas are identified in the Strategy arising from complaints of flooding occurring during intense rainfall events and from drainage capacity assessments undertaken between 2005 and 2009. The Holyrood Street drain was identified as under capacity in the MWH report and recommended for upgrade between the VicRoads drain (on Beach Road) and 16 Holyrood Street. This project was not selected for the 10 Year Drainage Improvement Strategy. Project cost estimated in excess of $300,000, however it would require simultaneous upgrade programs from Melbourne Water and VicRoads to realise any significant improvement in flood mitigation.

4. This 525mm drain is reliant on VicRoads and the Melbourne Water outfall drain further to the north which at peak flow would be at full capacity, hence the inundation in this upstream location. The road is designed to accommodate the overland flow in large storm events and short term flooding events within the road are outlined in Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy as being acceptable. Council’s City Assets and Projects department will raise this issue with Melbourne Water and VicRoads.




1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as the topography used is inaccurate, therefore the flooding and drainage assumptions have not been adequately considered.

2. Insurance premiums will increase. 3. The ‘one in 100 year weather event’

assumptions are incorrect as there was no flooding in area during recent event.

46 Duncan Street, Sandringham


2. Property owners are encouraged to confirm their individual household insurance cover with their insurer to ensure that storm damage


Page 22 of 31

Sub #






coverage includes damage as a result of land being subject to an overland flow path. Planning Panels have consistently found that an impact on insurance is not a matter which should have any bearing on the application of the SBO.

3. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered.


1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as the observations and measurements taken on 29 December’s flood event between 3pm and 4pm indicate the property will not flood.

2. The effect of the SBO on the property is a false and misleading conclusion as it is based off folk lore related to flooding at the Beaumaris Concourse.

3. Recent flooding in the area is a direct result of blocked drains rather than a drainage issue. As a result, the area is subject to inundation rather than flooding.

4. Considers that the methodology used in the amendment is an invalid process. Before previous work is confirmed as remaining valid, in a revised amendment, surely a new calculation must be completed using current definitions and construction status.

19 Agnes Street, Beaumaris

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that there should be no change to the exhibited flood shape for the proposed SBO. The justification for any changes from the exhibited boundaries should be considered as part of the Planning Panel process. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered. The recent storm events referred to do not represent a one in 100 year storm event.


3. Whilst regular maintenance and unblocking of drains would assist in reducing localised flooding issues, it would merely help prevent extreme event flooding being more extensive than indicated by the modelling. In relation to the concern raised about the drain becoming blocked with debris and other matters, this should generally be rectified by the drainage maintenance team during implementation of their annual routine works program. Critical drains are inspected/cleaned twice annually for blockages and addressed as required. If residents are concerned about specific potentially blocked drains, requests can be made to Council to have inspections undertaken.

4. The flooding modelling methodology is considered to be industry best practice. The techniques to construct the model and to undertake simulations have vastly improved since Council initially began the introduction of the SBO into the Bayside Planning Scheme in 2002. The TUFLOW modelling software is well established and internationally recognised as the world’s most powerful 1D/2D hydrodynamic computational software. The appropriateness of the methodology can be discussed in detail at the Planning Panel hearing.



Increase to SBO area

1. Concern for the future development potential of the site if the SBO is applied.

2. Concerned about the impact on the value of the property.

3. The site currently has a maximum height restriction of 8m. The proposed measures will reduce the capacity of any future development below this as the floor level will need to be 300mm above flood level. Requests a provision be included to provide a height dispensation to allow the building height calculation to commence from the floor level.


1. The SBO does not prevent development, but rather is a planning tool that requires Council to refer any new development in the overlay to Melbourne Water for our comments and permit conditions. This gives Melbourne Water the opportunity early in the planning process to address any drainage, flood management and environmental issues. The SBO is unlikely to affect the development potential of the site.

2. Impacts on property values are not generally relevant when preparing planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions. It is noted that the SBO does not prevent development, but rather is a planning tool that requires Council to refer any new development in the overlay to Melbourne Water for comments or planning permit conditions.

3. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO. The Minister for Planning has recently announced a revision to


Page 23 of 31

Sub #






the maximum mandatory height control in Neighbourhood Residential Zoned land as 9 metres. Council does not have the authority to alter the Special Building Overlay or Neighbourhood Residential Zone to provide such an exemption, as these are State standard provisions. Council may consider including an exemption in the Schedule to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone which provides for a maximum height for development within the SBO.


No change to SBO







3. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO. The Minister for Planning has recently announced a revision to the maximum mandatory height control in Neighbourhood Residential Zoned land as 9 metres. Council does not have the authority to alter the Special Building Overlay or Neighbourhood Residential Zone to provide such an exemption, as these are State standard provisions. Council may consider including an exemption in the Schedule to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone which provides for a maximum height for development within the SBO.



No change to SBO









Page 24 of 31

Sub #







Not included within the SBO










Not included within the overlay










Increase to SBO area







3. Planning Panels have consistently found that any potential impacts on property values should not have any bearing on the application of the SBO. The Minister for Planning has recently announced a revision to the maximum mandatory height control in Neighbourhood Residential Zoned land as 9 metres. Council does not have the authority to alter


Page 25 of 31

Sub #






the Special Building Overlay or Neighbourhood Residential Zone to provide such an exemption, as these are State standard provisions. Council may consider including an exemption in the Schedule to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone which provides for a maximum height for development within the SBO.


Not included within the overlay










No change to SBO area










No change to SBO area



3. The site currently has a maximum height restriction of 8m. The proposed measures will reduce the capacity of any future development below this as the floor level will need to be 300mm above flood level.





Page 26 of 31

Sub #






Requests a provision be included to provide a height dispensation to allow the building height calculation to commence from the floor level.






3. The site currently has a maximum height restriction of 8m. The proposed measures will reduce the capacity of any future development below this as the floor level will need to be 300mm above flood level.

4. Requests a provision be included to provide a height dispensation to allow the building height calculation to commence from the floor level.







1. Objects to the inclusion of the property in the SBO as the land has been previously raised.

2. There has been a lack of appropriate consultation, information and education as to:

a. The need for the changes; b. How the change impacts the

setting of priorities for future drainage works in the area;

c. What the SBO means in practical terms.

3. The proposed changes will have an impact property value and insurance.

4. Questions the form of compensation for the financial losses.

5. Questions the time frames to fix the drainage problems.

181 New Street, Brighton

1. The land has been included within the SBO since it was initially applied in Bayside in the early 2000s. Since that time, Melbourne Water has developed more advanced methods of mapping and modelling to determine land susceptible to flooding that has resulted in the changes to the SBO boundaries. As a result, the majority of this property is being removed from the SBO.

2. Within the amendment documents, there is a significant amount of information which summaries in practical terms why the amendment is required and what is being proposed. The Frequently Asked Questions sheet summarises the effect of the SBO in simpler language than the planning scheme amendment documents. In relation to the prioritisation of future drainage works, Council officers investigate service requests in the area to understand the extent of the flooding in the area. This is then included in Council’s matrix for prioritising sites and ranks the priority of works, as outlined in the Drainage Service Driven Asset Management Plan. The inclusion of the SBO does not directly impact the prioritisation process as it is not a factor for prioritisation in the matrix.

3. It is noted that impact on property values are not generally relevant when preparing planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions. Planning Panels have consistently found that there is no justification for setting aside of any SBO amendment on the basis of requests for compensation, loss of property value, and possible increase in insurance premiums.

4. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 clearly sets out the matters which are deemed to give rise to claims for compensation. The overlay is merely seeking to identify a particular characteristic of land existing at the time of the application of the overlay. This will also


Page 27 of 31

Sub #






ensure that any future development is consistent with strategic planning for the area and the health and safety of current and future occupants of the development.

5. The Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 sets a 10 year program of the highest priority drainage upgrade projects (40 in total) that aims to improve the performance standard of the underground pipe network that is under performing with respect to the consequences of public safety and damage to property from flooding. In 10 years, 65% of the known under-performing parts of the network will have been addressed.


1. Objects to Amendment based on the projected lack of capacity in the drainage network and designation of the property as an overland flow path.

2. Melbourne Water has previously advised of the value that overland flow paths have as storage areas and flow routes for excess runoff or floodwaters. This is because Melbourne Water considers that the cost of building engineered structures to otherwise accommodate excess runoff is excessive. This designation of property as an overland flow path would raise questions as to whether this constitutes a form of acquisition of property rights. Melbourne Water has produced no evidence that it has undertaken an assessment of the cost to protect property from runoff that indicates it would be cost prohibitive.

3. The amendment documents fail to take into account the existing built environment where a new development maintains the status quo (fences, buildings), whereas new development on the site would improve conditions for neighbouring properties by diverting flood waters through the subject site. As such, the property should be removed from the proposed SBO.

4. During recent heavy rain events, the property remained unencumbered by flooding. Questions whether the modelling is accurate.

5. The levels of the site demonstrate that there is no natural flooding issues at the site and the amendment is a result of a lack of planning and infrastructure investment over the years.

6. Management of nearby public land (VicTrack owned) indicates that the risk of flooding is not being taken seriously, otherwise debris would be cleared and the flood path unobstructed.

6-7 Beach Road, Hampton

1. The SBO does not acquire any formal property rights or create easements for the passage of water. The SBO is a planning tool which recognises the existing conditions of the land and provides guidance for new development in areas subject to flooding. The purpose of the SBO is to set appropriate conditions and building floor levels to address the flood risk and to ensure that flood waters are not obstructed or diverted by development.

2. Properties are not uniformly affected by overland flows and Melbourne Water’s requirements for development will depend on the characteristics of each site. The modelling methodology adopted by Melbourne Water uses RORB software to estimate flood discharges and TUFLOW modelling software, recognised as being a leading 1D/2D hydrodynamic computational software. This modelling is used to inform the boundaries of the SBO are fit for purpose, which is to identify land (at a high level) flood prone areas where special consideration of new development is required. The flood extents are determined using LIDAR (Light detection and Ranging) data and digital terrain modelling software. Flood mitigation works for the entire metropolitan region, financed through the drainage rate, would cost the community billions of dollars and can only be undertaken incrementally over a period of many years. The most practical and economical solution is to manage new development (eg. raise floor levels of new buildings), in association with a capital works program. As part of its capital works program, Melbourne Water allocates approximately $116 million per annum to drainage improvement works. These works are identified through the drainage survey program and prioritised according to frequency and severity of flooding and maximum community benefit. Due to the issues with the pipes downstream, Council considers that installing a large stormwater detention system would be cost prohibitive as there is the potential for inundation of nearby roads to continue. As the issue appears to be with the capacity of Melbourne Water infrastructure, Council will advocate to VicRoads and Melbourne Water about the potential improvements to drainage infrastructure in this area.

3. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the submission and advised that it is not practical to provide an in-depth consideration of every property to be affected by the SBO. The flood modelling provides a high level overview of properties that could be affected by a storm having a 1% chance of occurring in any given year and entire catchments. Residential areas are represented in the models by areas where water will find it more difficult to travel through these areas. As fences and buildings can change over time, the modelling for residential areas indicates that as these changes occur, the flood shape will often still be applicable. Melbourne Water has recommended Council not make any changes to the exhibited floodshape for this property.

4. In many cases, the one in 100 year stormwater event may only have water at certain depths for a short period of time, but it is capable of causing damage. It cannot be assumed that flooding has not

No proposed changes. Refer to Panel. Council’ City Assets and Projects department to advocate to VicRoads and Melbourne Water regarding the upgrading of the Holyrood Street drain.

Page 28 of 31

Sub #






previously or will not occur on any given property simply because there are no recollections of flooding at that property.

5. The justification for any changes from the exhibited boundaries should be considered as part of the Planning Panel process. The Panel will consider the flood modelling methodology and it is expected that as part of this process Melbourne Water will outline the methodology used and how flooding will impact on individual properties where owners have requested their site be reconsidered. Council is investing more than $20 million over 10 years to upgrade drainage systems and reduce the risk of flooding. Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy plans a 10 year program of the highest priority drainage upgrade projects (40 in total) that aims to improve the performance standard of the underground pipe network that is under performing at locations known to be susceptible to damage from flooding, with respect to the consequences of public safety and damage to property from flooding.

6. Comment is noted. VicTrack is responsible for maintaining the land along the railway line.


No change to SBO

1. Submitter believes there is ineffective control in the planning scheme to address flooding.

2. Flooding should be addressed to take on cumulative effect and implications

3. Believes there is an implication from the proposed control on insurance premiums

5 Snooks Court, Brighton

1. Comments are noted. The Special Building Overlays are planning scheme controls that identify areas prone to overland flooding. The purpose of these overlays is to set appropriate conditions and floor levels to address any flood risk to developments. These overlays require a planning permit for buildings and works.

2. Measures to mitigate flooding issues are being implemented by Bayside Council and City of Bayside. For example, Council is investing more than $20 million over 10 years to upgrade drainage systems and reduce the risk of flooding. Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy plans a 10 year program of the highest priority drainage upgrade projects (40 in total) that aims to improve the performance standard of the underground pipe network that is under performing at locations known to be susceptible to damage from flooding, with respect to the consequences of public safety and damage to property from flooding.

3. Planning Panels have consistently found that there is no justification for setting aside of any SBO amendment on the basis of requests for compensation, loss of property value, and possible increase in insurance premiums.



Supports the Amendment as the site has flooded repeatedly in the past. Recommends Council and Melbourne Water undertake additional actions to minimise future risks, including: 1. Raise road levels, including

speedbumps to manage stormwater flows.

2. Insert open grill drains at nearby intersections.

3. More frequent street sweeping and drainage maintenance to avoid debris building up in drains.

4. Replace existing drains with larger capacity infrastructure.

5. Protect residents from possible infection caused by the release of greywater into the drainage network at times of stress and extreme events. Limit impervious surfaces in new development and for renovations of existing buildings.

4 Wagstaff Court, Brighton

Support for the amendment and broader comments have been forwarded to Council’ City Assets and Project department for consideration. The Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 (DUS) sets a 10 year program of the highest priority drainage upgrade projects (40 in total) that aims to improve the performance standard of the underground pipe network that is under performing with respect to the consequences of public safety and damage to property from flooding. Council already has increased site coverage restrictions for land within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (at 50%) and attempted to increase the permeability requirements through Amendment C140, however this was abandoned. Whilst regular maintenance and unblocking of drains would assist in reducing localised flooding issues, it would merely help prevent extreme event flooding being more extensive than indicated by the modelling. In relation to the concern raised about the drain becoming blocked with debris and other matters, this should generally be rectified by the drainage maintenance team during implementation of their annual routine works program. Critical drains are inspected/cleaned twice annually for blockages and addressed as required. If residents are concerned about


Page 29 of 31

Sub #






specific potentially blocked drains, requests can be made to Council to have inspections undertaken.







5. Protect residents from possible infection caused by the release of greywater into the drainage network at times of stress and extreme events.

6. Limit impervious surfaces in new development and for renovations of existing buildings.


Support for the amendment and broader comments have been forwarded to Council’ City Assets and Project department for consideration. The Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 (DUS) sets a 10 year program of the highest priority drainage upgrade projects (40 in total) that aims to improve the performance standard of the underground pipe network that is under performing with respect to the consequences of public safety and damage to property from flooding. Council already has increased site coverage restrictions for land within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (at 50%) and attempted to increase the permeability requirements through Amendment C140, however this was abandoned. Whilst regular maintenance and unblocking of drains would assist in reducing localised flooding issues, it would merely help prevent extreme event flooding being more extensive than indicated by the modelling. In relation to the concern raised about the drain becoming blocked with debris and other matters, this should generally be rectified by the drainage maintenance team during implementation of their annual routine works program. Critical drains are inspected/cleaned twice annually for blockages and addressed as required. If residents are concerned about specific potentially blocked drains, requests can be made to Council to have inspections undertaken.


61. Support

No change to SBO






5. Protect residents from possible infection caused by the release of greywater into the drainage network at times of stress and extreme events.

6. Limit impervious surfaces in new development and for renovations of existing buildings.


Support for the amendment and broader comments have been forwarded to Council’ City Assets and Project department for consideration. The Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 (DUS) sets a 10 year program of the highest priority drainage upgrade projects (40 in total) that aims to improve the performance standard of the underground pipe network that is under performing with respect to the consequences of public safety and damage to property from flooding. Council already has increased site coverage restrictions for land within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (at 50%) and attempted to increase the permeability requirements through Amendment C140, however this was abandoned. Whilst regular maintenance and unblocking of drains would assist in reducing localised flooding issues, it would merely help prevent extreme event flooding being more extensive than indicated by the modelling. In relation to the concern raised about the drain becoming blocked with debris and other matters, this should generally be rectified by the drainage maintenance team during implementation of their annual routine works program. Critical drains are inspected/cleaned twice annually for blockages and addressed as required. If residents are concerned about specific potentially blocked drains, requests can be made to Council to have inspections undertaken.


Page 30 of 31

Sub #







1. Understands the need for the overlay as the property has had significant floods. This has caused issues to the property’s sewer connection, ducted heating and other services creating nuisance and safety issues.

2. Council continues to undertake maintenance after flood events, rather than proactively dealing with infrastructure.

3. Significant drainage and sewage issues exist in the Thomas Street municipal reserve opposite the site.

4. Noted that in the December 2016 storm event, South East Water and Melbourne Water were closed and not contactable, whereas Council provided continuous service to address the issue of sewage from the reserve.

5. The drainage infrastructure in this neighbourhood should be prioritised for renewal due to the frequency of issues in the area.

6. Concerned that nearby areas are included in the SBO despite those properties never experiencing flooding.

172 Thomas Street, Hampton

1. Comment noted. 2. Council has a proactive program for upgrading drainage

infrastructure. Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 outlines that 12.1km (3%) of the drainage network is identified as underperforming, where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding are unacceptable. Forty areas are identified in the Strategy arising from complaints of flooding occurring during intense rainfall events and from drainage capacity assessments undertaken between 2005 and 2009. The Strategy aims to improve the drainage system in known areas where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding on public safety and private property are unacceptable and provides a list of the priority areas. These priority areas include where flooding is demonstrated to have a negative impact on habitable rooms or business premises.

3. Council is aware of the drainage issues in the Thomas Street reserve south of Thomas Street. As this is open space which floods only during heavy rain events, and does not impact nearby residential properties, this is consistent with Council’s approach.

4. Comment noted. 5. A detailed prioritised drainage upgrade program lists drainage assets

which require drainage network improvements. Where identified, new items can be added to this list. If warranted, this inclusion will ensure a more frequent inspection and maintenance cycle to reduce the frequency of flooding.


No proposed changes. Refer to Panel. Council’ City Assets and Projects have been provided a copy of this submission to further investigate the need for further drainage infrastructure works in the area.

63. Oppose, recommend changes


1. The proposed area to be affected is a small area which is unlikely to be built on, and should be removed from the proposed overlay.

1 Hayball Court, Brighton

1. At Council’s request, Melbourne Water has reviewed the SBO changes for this location. Melbourne Water has recommended that there should be no change to the exhibited flood shape for the proposed SBO. The Special Building Overlay has an important function to reflect this underlying condition of the land to current property owners and future purchasers of affected properties, so they can make informed decisions about the property and about planning for their own safety during storm events. It cannot be assumed that current structures including fences, building and vegetation will remain in their current locations, and that particular parts of land will not be developed.

No changes proposed. Refer to Panel.


1. Whilst the modelling indicates the area will flood, the primary issue is the limited maintenance of drainage infrastructure undertaken in the area.

2. The imposition of the SBO has far reaching implications for future development and property values for existing residences in the area.

2A John Street, Beaumaris

Submitter’s comments are noted. 1. Council’s Drainage Upgrade Strategy 2015 outlines that 12.1km (3%)

of the drainage network is identified as underperforming, where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding are unacceptable. Forty areas are identified in the Strategy arising from complaints of flooding occurring during intense rainfall events and from drainage capacity assessments undertaken between 2005 and 2009. Due to the prohibitive cost and limitations imposed by the capacity of Melbourne Water’s drainage system, it is not practical to retrofit upgrades to bring all parts of Bayside’s drainage system up to current standards. The Strategy aims to improve the drainage system in known areas where the probability of flooding and the impacts of flooding on public safety and private property are unacceptable and provides a list of the priority areas.


Page 31 of 31

Sub #






The application of the SBO relates to the one in 100 year storm event (a 1% chance of occurrence). Melbourne Water has advised Council that the modelling undertaken produces a scenario predicated on drains being clear and flowing at capacity. The extent of the proposed SBO therefore represents flooding in a one in 100 year ARI event with unimpeded flows along drainage lines.


Date post:	26-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Attachment 1 | Amendment C153 Response to …...about specific potentially blocked drains, requests...

Documents