Campaspe Shire Council has backed a state-led process to introduce new flood planning controls in Echuca and Kyabram, despite concerns the process could reduce local decision-making.

The decision at council’s August 18 meeting followed a lengthy debate over proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C128.

The amendment would implement the Echuca-Moama Flood Study, Echuca Flood Risk Management Plan and Kyabram Flood Study and Management Plan through new flood-related planning controls and update flood mapping and planning controls in Echuca and Kyabram.

In Echuca, some areas covered by flood overlays would be reduced while others would be expanded, with some properties gaining or losing planning permit triggers.

In Kyabram, the revised mapping would more clearly define the area covered by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, with the overall extent of the overlay proposed to increase.

The amendment would not apply retrospectively to existing land uses or developments.

At the meeting, councillors voted to seek written consent from the Victorian planning minister to prepare and give notice of the draft amendment.

If consent was given, the amendment would be exhibited for public comment, then council would ask the minister to refer the amendment and submissions to the Flood-related Amendments Standing Advisory Committee for independent review and hearing.

The standard council-led amendment pathway remains available, with the debate at council’s meeting focusing on whether the process should remain council-led or proceed through the state government’s SAC pathway.

Two residents addressed the meeting, raising concerns about the proposed amendment and the process for implementing it.

Kyabram resident Amy Tonkin had been directly affected by the flood study after buying a block in Kyabram in September 2023 and completing her home in August 2024.

Ms Tonkin said her property was not within a flood overlay when she purchased it and was not identified as flood prone.

However, she was required to build above the one-in-100-year flood level, resulting in her home being constructed significantly above natural ground level.

She raised concerns that the 2021 study did not account for further subdivisions, development and new infrastructure in Kyabram since the study was adopted.

“It would be fair to say that the Kyabram flood study is not a relevant document to be relied upon to impose overlays to land which came into existence after 2021,” Ms Tonkin said.

She also argued council should address infrastructure recommendations contained in the study, including drainage upgrades and pump maintenance, alongside the proposed planning controls.

Renee Pichler, speaking on behalf of the recently formed Big Weather Committee, also urged councillors to reject the SAC pathway.

The Big Weather Committee was formed following Kyabram’s flash-flooding event in March.

Ms Pichler said Campaspe residents elected councillors to make decisions in the best interests of the community, and argued decisions made in Melbourne did not always translate fairly to rural communities.

“Referring this planning scheme amendment to the state government, instead of following the normal amendment process, risks our local voices being lost in the bureaucratic process in Melbourne,” she said.

Speaking in support of the motion, Cr Rob Amos said the decision was not just about flood mapping, but about choosing the right pathway to protect communities and uphold council’s responsibilities.

“As the officer report makes clear, there are currently two flood studies that have been adopted by council that have not yet been implemented into the (Campaspe planning) scheme,” Cr Amos said.

Cr Amos said the SAC pathway was the most responsive option and had been designed specifically for complex flood-related controls.

A report attached to the August 18 agenda, states the SAC pathway is the Department of Transport and Planning’s preferred approach for implementing flood studies.

The report also highlights a standard council-led amendment could expose council to significantly higher costs, including legal and expert witness expenses associated with a planning panel process.

“If we choose to run a standard council-led amendment, we take on every cost, every legal burden, every expert witness, every panel hearing alone,” Cr Amos said.

“Our ultimate duty here is to protect people’s lives and protect their properties,” Cr Marwood said, also speaking in support of the motion.

Speaking against the motion, Cr Jessica Mitchell supported seeking authorisation to exhibit the amendment but did not support referring it to the SAC.

Cr Mitchell said she had seen through state-designed arrangements how decisions made elsewhere could leave council dealing with the consequences locally, while the “untested” committee pathway showed no evidence of being cheaper or faster.

“The biggest risk is the proposed pathway does not have to bring impacted landholders on the journey, nor does it consider the impacts,” she said.

Cr John Zobec also raised concerns about the number of people who could be affected by the amendment.

“This is an amendment that will affect thousands of community members, not one or two, thousands, because it is a blanket amendment,” he said.

Cr Marwood said the process would still provide residents with an opportunity to have their say.

“I think as hard as it is to see, this process recommended does give people a really good opportunity to represent themselves and their communities and I think it is the best pathway forward,” he said.

The motion carried 5-3, with Crs Amos, Marwood, Zoe Cook, Paul Jarman and Daniel Mackrell voting in support, while Crs Mitchell, Zobec and Luke Sharrock voted against. Cr Adrian Weston was absent.

Council will now seek the planning minister’s written consent to prepare and give notice of the draft Planning Scheme Amendment C128.

Riverine Herald Google News Panels

Tuesday, 13th November 2029

Single Stories

Select Stories

Publish Panels