Commentary and photos on yesterday’s flooding is receiving huge coverage in both the dailies and on social media. Not for the first time have large areas in Ormond, McKinnon, Bentleigh and Caulfield found themselves under water. Our concern is whether council has learnt its lessons from 2011 which was also supposed to be a 1 in a 100 years event.
Here is some food for thought –
- Development upon development must be impacting on the capacity of the drainage system – especially when the amount of impermeable surfacing, the increase in crossovers, and the removal of vegetation means that water now runs off into the drains instead of being absorbed into the ground.
- Council’s budget on drainage has remained the same for years on end (ie $3m). Thus, given rising costs, this equates to a reduction in real expenditure.
- It is amazing that both Bayside and Port Phillip have been able to introduce an amendment based on work with Melbourne Water that provides up-to-date analysis of potential areas under threat of flooding and imposes an SBO on these areas. Glen Eira in contrast keeps telling its residents that Melbourne Water has put any such work on hold. We find this incredible and unbelievable since the Elster Creek flows from Glen Eira directly into Port Phillip and the Elwood Canal. Why these councils have been able to successfully work with Melbourne Water and Glen Eira hasn’t (or won’t) is the real question here.
- These other councils have also introduced amendments that INCREASE the developer levy designed to pay for infrastructure. Glen Eira REMOVED ITS LEVY in June 2011 – thus presenting the developer with another ‘present’ and forcing residents to subsidise new developments. Please see our previous post on this – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/floods-and-drains-failure-and-cover-ups-continue/
If we are correct, and greater permeability and less site coverage is a contributing factor in reducing flood risks, then Glen Eira has not learnt a thing. We remind readers that:
- The carving up of the municipality into ‘minimal change’ and ‘housing diversity’ occurred in 2004. At this time minimal change areas were to have a 50% site coverage and 25% permeable surfaces. Housing diversity on the other hand was to have 60% site coverage and 20% permeability requirements. The introduction of the new zones could have made huge improvements here. They did not – in contrast to the following councils –
- Banyule for its General Residential Zone 2 has a site coverage of 40% (Glen Eira – 60%)
- Bayside for its Mixed Use zone has a site coverage – 50% (Glen Eira – 60%) and for its General Residential Zone a site coverage of 50% (Glen Eira 60%)
- Brimbank for its Neighbourhood Residential Zone has a PERMEABILITY requirements of 30% & SITE COVERAGE of 50% (Glen Eira has permeability requirement of 25%)
- Darebin for its General Residential Zone has a site coverage of 50% (Glen Eira 60%)
- Whitehorse – for its General Residential Zone has a site coverage – 50% and permeability of 30%. Its General Residential zone (GRZ2) has a 40% site coverage and 40% permeability requirement, whilst its & GRZ3 has a 50% site coverage and 30% permeability Finally, in Whitehorse, residents living in the Neighbourhood Residential zones have a site coverage of 40% AND a permeability requirements of 40%. In NRZ5 the permeability schedule is 30%. Once again, the real question is – why these other councils have been able to achieve so much more protection for residents and Glen Eira has done nothing since 2004 when the opportunity was there via the introduction of the zones?
Finally, we highlight Hyams comment made on the Glen Eira Residents’ Action Group Facebook page. Another exercise in spin and half-truths!
The flooding issues were in many places across Melbourne today, but we should still be trying to resolve them in our area. We spend around $3 million a year on improving our drainage. However, the main issue is that the Melbourne Water pipes lack the necessary capacity to carry all the water when there is heavy rain like today. The water from our council pipes hits the overflow in the Melbourne Water pipes and backs up so no more can get into our drains. In the floods in February 2011, the back up had so much force that concrete drain lids were lifted off. We have been strongly advocating to Melbourne Water since then for them to increase drainage capacity, and will continue to do so. It would therefore be useful, as Joel said, if you could forward to us any photos or footage you have of flooding in your street, and please also state the name of the street. As far as planning and development goes, if we were to simply refuse every application due to lack of infrastructure, VCAT would just overturn our decisions, and we would probably hear from the government. When the planning zones were implemented in 2013, we varied the ResCode requirements so that, in the Neighbourhood Residential Zones that cover nearly 80% of Glen Eira, the maximum site coverage was reduced from 60% to 50%, and the required permeable surface was increased from 20% to 25%. In the General Residential Zones and Residential Growth Zones, it remained at ResCode standards. As part of our Planning Scheme Review, we are looking at a levy so that developers contribute to the cost of infrastructure, and I’d also like to have another look at site coverage and permeability, so again, it would be useful to have evidence and details of flooding.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 30, 2016 at 11:51 AM
Act of G-D. Maximum rainfall in minimum of time.
December 30, 2016 at 11:51 AM
The site coverage comparisons are most insightful and highlight the ‘roll over’ approach of ‘our’ council. Give over to the developers who come in, make their bucks, get out leaving a scarred physical and social environment behind.
Hyams neglected to note the location of the zones and how appropriate they are to existing and potential infrastructure improvements. Why locate RGZ in areas susceptible to flooding or on the periphery of such? Why in valleys?
As you highlight only $3m (that Hyams is proud of) is allocated to storm water infrastructure. As you note, in real terms there has been a diminishing amount of preventative work done. The blame game must stop. Reflective practices must begin. The council needs to challenge Melb Water who I believe are single dimensional in their approach as a Referral Authority.
December 30, 2016 at 11:10 PM
The officer report of 2011 when Hyams voted to drop the levy gave the figures of $700,000 for clearing the pits and drains. Not all of them are checked regularly anyway only what council likes to call “hot spots”. My reckoning is that very little has been done to increase the capacity of local drains by putting in larger ones. They claim around 500km of local drains. I’d like to know how many kms of larger local drains this council has put in over the past ten years. If it was more than 50km I’d be amazed.
I agree that Melbourne Water has a role here but so does council. Buck passing must stop.
December 30, 2016 at 2:25 PM
I took photos of the flooding at the front of my property. Clearly the drain on the footpath wasn’t functioning although the street drain was. The concrete pit hasn’t been cleaned in over 10 years, and when I asked Council when they last cleaned the drains after the 2011 flood that cost me dearly, the response from Margaret Esakoff didn’t say when they were cleaned, only that Council had “attended” my street.
We have many multiunit developments in areas whose drains can’t cope with the runoff that is exacerbated by the loss of permeable soil. Most of them have basement carparks with concrete roofs spanning 90+% of the site. I would like to see an audit done to verify just how many of these multiunit developments comply with all ResCode standards.
The fact that few if any officer reports discuss compliance other than dismissively [“considered generally compliant”, noncompliance “not fatal”] and no councillor ever asks specifically whether a development complies with all standards when an application is considered at a Council meeting, all reinforce a view that Council doesn’t believe in standards. Council, through its then-Mayor Cr Hyams, has in the past refused to answer questions when asked explicitly what Council’s standards are.
December 30, 2016 at 5:43 PM
Glen Eira Council, councillors and staff, boast loudly how cheap the rates are as compared to other municipalities. They publish lists to prove it. Developers love Glen Eira. Short of discovering oil or gold, building in Glen Eira must be the most profitable business’s that exits. Like the early gold rush days every man and his dog headed to Bendigo and Ballarat the developers flock to Glen Eira Our Council should have done so much more. The people whose homes were flooded should feel that their Council has failed them.
December 30, 2016 at 6:57 PM
Build a basement car park in a flood area. Please. Unfortunately we are all subsidising these idiots through our insurance premiums.
December 30, 2016 at 10:01 PM
Standard B4: “Development should not unreasonably exceed the capacity of utility services and infrastructure, including reticulated services and roads.” From MSS: “There is serious community concern in some areas with flooding as a result of aging and/or inadequate infrastructure”. How does Council claim it will implement its 19yo Drainage Strategy? By “Levying development contributions to finance improvements and additions to physical infrastructure including drainage”. What did they actually do? Remove Development Contributions from the Planning Scheme. Council acknowledges that “Aging infrastructure such as drainage, footpaths and roads” are a problem and a constraint.
Twenty years ago Council decided there was a need for “further investigating the capacity of drainage infrastructure to accommodate multi-unit development”. When do we get to see the results of that investigation? The facts are that Council and VCAT both recklessly disregard the capacity of existing infrastructure, and Cr Hyams is inexcusably attacking Melbourne Water over repeated GECC planning failures. The one thing he has probably got right is that State Government via VCAT doesn’t permit Councils to manage their own municipalities.
December 30, 2016 at 10:02 PM
There are two other matters.
One is the almost complete lack of culvert cleaning. It’s ages since I’ve seen that done which adds immeasurably to blocked culverts and flooding.
The second is the manic tree planting. Manic in that nature strips are having trees with canopies of 30 metres diameter planted within 5 metres of each other and often under power lines. Just why gum trees, which are not suited to metropolitan areas, are still being planted is astonishing. The upshot of the manic tree planting is more rubbish getting into an already poor and poorly maintained drainage system and considerable added cleaning for residents.
I’m not opposed to having ample planned greenery but it’s become ludicrous.
December 31, 2016 at 7:56 AM
You are opposed to greenery, or you do a very good imitation of someone who is.
December 31, 2016 at 2:13 PM
Do you not understand the word “manic”?
December 31, 2016 at 9:58 AM
SBOs came in in 2002. In 2005 council got a shellacking from the auditor general. In 2011 promises were made to review flood areas. I could be wrong but I have never seen a single word about what is happening since 2011.
December 31, 2016 at 11:43 AM
An example of how broken things are can be seen with recent decisions at 110-114 and 90-94 Mimosa Rd Carnegie. The huge concrete basement for 110-114 is highly visible at the moment, covering most of the site. It was refused a permit by Council at Manager level, so the plans weren’t published in an Agenda. “Mediation” took place at VCAT and they got their permit. Somehow its size morphed from 41 dwellings [Council Minutes] to 50 dwellings [permit]. Nowhere is there a discussion explaining why the lack of permeability was acceptable.
90-94 was also refused at Manager level and went to VCAT for “review”. The Planning Scheme provides explicit decision guidelines for Standard B9 “Permeability objectives”. These include that the “responsible authority” MUST consider:
•The existing site coverage and any constraints imposed by existing development.
•The capacity of the drainage network to accommodate additional stormwater.
•The capacity of the site to absorb run-off.
•The practicality of achieving the minimum site coverage of pervious surfaces, particularly on lots of less than 300 square metres.
You might think that there would be some evidence in the VCAT decision [once again setting aside Council’s decision] that they did actually consider compliance against ResCode. Nope. There is no discussion of permeability, in fact no discussion of ResCode at all. Instead it’s all about it being zoned [now] RGZ, which as we know was imposed by the former Liberal Planning Minister after secret discussions with Jamie Hyams.
It is pretty clear that neither Council nor VCAT take permeability and drainage capacity seriously.
December 31, 2016 at 12:38 PM
A circular by Melbourne Water in 2015 advised that at that time, Glen Eira was one of the few Victorian Councils not to have Flood Mapping included in the Planning Scheme. It is assumed that this situation has not changed since 2015.
Councillor Hyams made some comments about the recent flooding on the Glen Eira Resident Action Group website however he makes no mention of this gap and what Council is planning to do to address it.
Why is it that the strategic planning framework in so inadequate in our municipality Councillor Hyams? Stop defending and blaming others and action an appropriate planning framework.
December 31, 2016 at 1:18 PM
Out of sheer curiosity, we’ve had a look at some officer reports from Port Phillip. Copied below is one report from their last planning meetings. Whilst far from “perfect’, Port Phillip at least has some policy that it adheres to in assessing applications. Glen Eira of course does not have a Water Sensitive urban Design policy. Here’s what their officers had to say on storm water –
“Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)/Sustainable Design
A new building is proposed; therefore, the application would need to satisfy the requirements of the Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy at Clause 22.12 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. The applicant has prepared a STORM Rating Report to address the policy requirements. The STORM Rating Report submitted achieves 125 percent rating, the STORM Rating Report nominating rainwater tank(s) as
the water retention mechanisms for the water drained from the roof. The plans submitted show a two 1000L rainwater tanks adjacent to the sites southern boundary consistent with the STORM Rating Report. The figure included in the STORM Rating Report calculations for roof area was incorrect (smaller than the roof area shown on the plans). Therefore, it is recommended that a condition be included on any permit issued requiring an amended Water Sensitive Urban Design Report be submitted and
the plans be amended accordingly (refer to Conditions 1(j), 1(k) and 8.”