The State Government recently designated Woy Woy town centre as a “growth corridor”.
However, these ambitions are at odds with Central Coast Council’s interpretation of the NSW Flood Plain Manual which Council claims “the direction of NSW Government Policy, as set out in the NSW Flood Risk Management Manual and set out in the NSW Local Environmental Plan Standard Instrument (and therefore within the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022) is that there should not be an increase in population density in areas where there is flood hazard/hazard to evacuation”.
Under its interpretation Council has stated that it will reject all intensification of residential development in all flood zones and areas with flood-affected evacuation paths no matter what depth of flood, duration of flood or velocity of flood.
Further, Council has advised it will add unspecified future sea level rise to its calculations as a pathway to rejecting development.
Woy Woy town centre experiences low level, low velocity and low duration flooding in a one per cent AEP (annual exceedence probability) flood event.
Council is regularly rejecting multi-dwelling development applications in areas of the Brisbane Water flood plain that experience lower flood depths than Woy Woy and adding an unspecified sea level rise component will prohibit multi-dwelling development in the State-designated growth corridor.
The Flood Development Manual warns councils that should they act contrary to the manual they risk losing their S.733 indemnities which could leave individual staff subject to liability.
Has anyone told the State Government or residents in the vast areas around Brisbane Water or Tuggerah Lakes impacted by this Council interpretation of state legislation?
This new interpretation also overrides pre-existing zoning of land so potential buyers need to be very wary of purchasing with the intent to develop.
The State Government needs to step in and clarify the situation.
Email, Jun 29
Craig Hillman, Empire Bay
Absolutely agree with Craig Hillman’s letter. To increase development in a floodplain where the traffic and parking congestion is already appalling and only going to become worse is idiotic.
what alternative do we have? That’s what humans do, we build and develop. Come up with solutions. I think something like 20% of the Netherlands is reclaimed land. It didn’t stop them. Build seawalls. Widen and increase roads. Faster trains. Bigger carparks. Bridges.Tunnels. And don’t forget it was only around twenty years ago the ‘experts’ told us that due to climate change we’d be in virtual perpetual drought and Warragamba dam would never be full again.
Don, I agree 100%. My comment outlines current Council policy bs the intent of State Government to redevelop Woy Woy, as things stand Council is at odds with State and will not approve any residential intensification in flood zones, this includes simple duplexes.
The majority of suburbs around Brisbane Waters are suitable for shelter in place strategies for that 2-4 hours once every 100 years when flood impacted.
I do hope the State government reins in our Council on this issue
What happened to my comment? Doesn’t conform to commonly held beliefs?
Don, we vett all comments before we publish. This is a response to court recent decisions that hold us partially responsible for comments on our platforms.
Council imposing building restriction due to claimed sea level rise should carry out due diligence and answer this question:
What percentage of melted polar and glacier ice water evaporates into atmosphere and cloud, instead of adding to AGW sea level rise?
Any progress been made over the warnavale town centre or its been forgotten can someone from central coast council be able to tell me what going on
In the LGA we have approximately 20,000 properties impacted by some degree of flood affectation. The majority of properties around Brisbane Waters, including Woy Woy are “text book” examples of locations that should be considered suitable for “shelter in place” strategies as opposed to stopping development completely – as others have pointed out, people need to live somewhere.
We are talking a flood of low level, low velocity and of short duration, around 3-4 hours in a 1 in 100 year event.
The floor levels of all new builds is minimum 70cm above the flood level, so what’s wrong with “sitting tight” for a couple of hours till the flood passes – or evacuating early?
For anyone who may misinterpret my view – I believe Council is wrong to restrict development on the basis of flood affectation stemming from Brisbane Waters in most areas, the policy puts Council at odds with the State Governments plans – it is this conflict that must be addressed ASAP.
I read born one the central coast and where I have lived has had kerb and guttering. I live at Woy Woy at the end of Woy Woy Rd where flashing signs warn of water running across the road for over three years. Drainage has recently been made so water no longer runs across the road. Could have been done the years ago. we still have pot holes because of lack of drainage.
Growth and change is the only way to improve, if the area doesn’t grow, it will become stale.
The council could actually fix the stormwater issues by putting stormwater lines out to the Ocean. At present the drains are make believe and only go to ground.
The council are more intent on putting wire mesh on the St. Huberts Island bridge than fixing the potholes in the atrocious roads, and remember, designating Woy Woy a flood plain area just drives up your house insurance.
Question to the Editor.
Why the title “Woy Woy not a suitable growth corridor”.
Nowhere did I use those words, my letters intent was to highlight a disparity between Council and State policy intent – My original title was “Council and State at odds over future of Woy Woy” which I believed encapsulates the issue – the imposed title is biased.
Thank you Craig. On review of your comprehensive and informed letter we agree and have changed the title to more closely reflect the intent of your points. Thank you for your interest.
Don Polska asks for alternatives, well a stable population would mean there was no need for putting new homes on climate risk land.