Stakeholders say data used in the Corowa, Howlong and Mulwala Flood Study
Building costs skyrocket with industry in turmoil
Federation Shire’s building and development industry is in turmoil this week as the implications of the Corowa, Howlong and Mulwala Flood Study are fully realised.
Hold tight - we’re checking permissions before loading more content
Stakeholders say, in its current form, the study could destroy the local building industry and add $100,000 to the cost of building a home due to new height regulations.
They are furious that no attempt has been made by Federation Council to advise developers, builders and other industry professionals of the changes.
The Yarrawonga Chronicle has seen evidence showing at least one building application in Moira Shire in Victoria has been refused due to previous advice for the development being superseded by the Corowa, Howlong and Mulwala Flood Study.
At its November 24 meeting, Federation Council formally adopted the study, which was prepared by WMA Water, a Sydney-based, water engineering consultancy.
At the time, Council’s planning director Susan Appleyard said the planning and development department would need to assess development applications against the 1% AEP (one-in-one-hundred-year) event.
The report to councillors stated that in a 1% AEP event, a large portion of Mulwala would be inundated by 0.5 to 1 m of water.
This included new developments north of the Mulwala Canal, low-lying areas south of the canal, and the new Riverland Gardens development but, until last month, no-one was aware of the implications for new home construction.
The study was publicly displayed from August 11 to September 18, 2024, with just three submissions received.
A handful of people attended pop up sessions conducted during business hours, and a You Tube presentation on the council’s website had no views.
Steve Richmond from Stephen Richmond Building Design was alerted to the changes in a casual conversation and realised one of his designs in Riverland Gardens could be impacted by the changes.
The engineering had been done, and plans were ready to submit to council for approval.
“I thought ‘what is this flood thing’, I had no idea,” Mr Richmond said.
“That’s how I found out the house I’d designed had to be built more than 1100mm above the natural ground level.”
His client’s initial designs are now useless and the need to build more than a metre above ground level is expected to add more than $120,000 to the original budget.
“We have to build the ground up, and the house will need to be redesigned” he said.
“Technically, that ground should be compacted every 150ml and by the letter of the law, my understanding is an engineer must be on site.
“If they just put fill on it, they have to drill down through that fill into the ground.”
Mr Richmond is convinced councillors endorsed the $275,000, 200-page study without understanding it, and that the implications could ruin the local building industry.
Federation Council CEO Adrian Butler said councillors had received a comprehensive briefing, via two workshops, ensuring they had full access to the study, it’s findings and implications before it was adopted in November.
“For development applications being determined during the study’s exhibition period, direct notification was provided to relevant parties,” Mr Butler said.
“Recognising the long-term impact of the study, ongoing communication with developers and green/brown field landowners is prioritised.”
However, Councillor Andrew Kennedy, who is also a local builder, said the workshops did not explain flood heights and the implications for building were not made clear.
“If they had been, there was no way known I would have supported it,” Cr Kennedy said.
“If they’d told us what the flood heights were in the workshops, I would have asked a lot more questions, and I would have stood against it.
“This has implications for the whole shire; these are major cost implications to the building industry and developments; they won’t be able to sell the land.”
As an elected member, Cr Kennedy said he will be trying his hardest to have the ruling changed.
As a builder, he estimated the additional cost to lift a concrete slab a metre would run between $80,000 - $100,000.
“It’s not simple like building on natural ground; building on fill means the slab will be more susceptible to cracking,” he said.
“Why not 10mm or even 50mm above flood heights; we could work with that, but not 500mm … that’s what’s going to kill everyone.”
Pat Viceconte is a director at Riverland Gardens in Mulwala and also heard about the changes from a client.
He said he had “no idea” what the implications were for new building applications.
“I’ve had two complaints from people saying they were going to buy, but now they aren’t going to,” Mr Viceconte said.
“We’re using experts to determine whether the data is flawed and if we find it is, then we’ll look at the legal implications.”
Flood overlay map showing areas impacted by the Corowa, Howlong and Mulwala Flood Study.
Surveyor, Andrew Mott agreed there would be “huge, negative impacts” for the local building and development industry.
“There will be titled parcels, now in the community, where the cost to construct a dwelling will be restrictive and potentially unviable,” Mr Mott said.
“The effect on land values, dwelling design, viability of building a dwelling, and the ability to obtain flood insurance will all compound, arguably making new home construction less appealing.”
Former Federation deputy mayor, Shaun Whitechurch was involved in the workshops but not part of the new council, which adopted the study.
He said no raised heights or data were given during the workshops, nor was there any discussion about the ramifications of raising the levels.
“I contested the presentations and challenged the presenters,” Mr Whitechurch said.
“The study was based on modelling with no historical data, and any data dated back to the 1917 flood, before the weir was built.
“I challenged the findings to say the modelling in its entirety would be detrimental to any building in Corowa, Howlong and Mulwala.”
Six of the nine councillors who voted to adopt the study were newly elected.
They were briefed by council staff but hadn’t been through the workshop process and Mr Whitechurch said they would have been unaware of the implications for any development applications.
“Councillors have to go with the recommendation because you can’t diligently go against calculated findings … or you become liable,” he said.
“But the report and the study went to the nth degree, which wasn’t necessary.
“Now anywhere on the Mulwala foreshore would have to be built a metre above ground level; the Ski Club could never do another development on the site.
“In its current format, this is very bad.”
Federation Council acknowledged the importance of stakeholder engagement and Mr Butler said the council would continue to refine its processes to ensure greater community awareness and participation.
With no resolution in sight, Mr Whitechurch said a public meeting was needed to get a presentation from the council and to challenge it.
