FLOODY HELL
Anxious developers warn projects will dry up due to flood ‘rule’
DEVELOPERS are warning the Gold Coast City Council’s approach to projects on flood plains is going to be a bigger threat to the economy than the devastating COVID-19 pandemic.
A shock decision by the council to reject a Robina retirement tower – against the advice of officials – has prompted frustrated developers to write to Mayor Tom Tate and councillors for urgent clarification of the city’s flood policy. The Robina development has set a precedent in that roads around a project have to be flood free.
“If that happens, as it stands, there’s hardly a development on the Gold Coast that can proceed when there’s a potential flood situation,” a source said.
DEVELOPERS say the Gold Coast City Council’s rules about building on flood plains are a bigger threat to the economy than COVID-19 and are crucial to how a bulging city will look in the future.
The shock decision by councillors to go against the recommendations of officers and reject a Robina retirement development tower has sent shockwaves and confusion among the property industry.
Experienced council insiders predict ratepayers will have to cough up more $1 million in compensation and legal fees arguing that a majority of councillors took safety precautions for residents to an extreme level.
A council source said: “The last time the council tried this (against a developer) on the flood plain we spent $1.8 million trying to defend it and lost.”
A development industry source said council had previously used the one-inone-100 year flood event guidelines developed from the 1974 flood, but this had been updated to include sea-level rises and modelling for the year 2100.
However, the Robina development has set a precedent in that roads around a project had to be flood free.
“If that happens, as it stands, there’s hardly a development on the Gold Coast that can proceed when there’s a potential flood situation,” the development source said.
“Our road network has not been built to that (higher) flood standard. That’s when you can’t get anywhere. This (sort of flood level) is when Noah comes. In such events we will be leaving the building two by two with Noah loading his ship.”
Flood plains are considered the final frontier for development on the Coast. Land is all but gone in the city’s fastgrowing north and developers with deep pockets are squabbling over blocks on projected light rail routes.
The Bulletin has obtained correspondence from developers to councillors asking for council to ease the confusion about development in areas like Robina near the flood plain.
Under South-East Queensland Plan targets set by the State Government, the Gold Coast is bracing itself for an extra 350,000 residents by 2041. But the city has limited greenfield sites.
Residents in the north are complaining about the lack of roads and schools, and coastal suburbs from Labrador to Palm Beach in City Plan consultation voted against proposed population increases. Developers are scratching around for limited suitable sites.
The council is moving to rule out development on the city’s main flood plain and the recent Robina decision, on a site nearby, sets tougher benchmarks around retirement village and nursing homes projects.
Frustrated developers poised to spend tens of millions of dollars on projects have written to Mayor Tom Tate and councillors asking for clarification on the city’s flood policy.
“For the sake of the industry
THE LAST TIME THE COUNCIL TRIED THIS (AGAINST A DEVELOPER) ON THE FLOOD PLAIN WE SPENT $1.8 MILLION TRYING TO DEFEND IT AND LOST
COUNCIL INSIDER
and the city – and indeed the state – can you or the council urgently advise what designated flood level is council using to determine the applicable flood level,” a developer wrote.
A councillor responding to a developer admitted the Robina decision was “regrettable”.
Only Deputy Mayor Donna Gates and Councillor Peter Young, two of the city’s most experienced representatives on planning, voted against stopping the project.
The Bulletin asked the council if its planning officers were still using the 1974 flood as a guide, or working off a perceived flood level for the year 2100, or another created by the State and Commonwealth that takes into account global warming.
Council was also asked, if the 2100 level was the benchmark, how did this affect roads. The Bulletin asked whether a list of flood-affected roads had been created so developments
eyeing off potential sites could view them.
In a response, council planning chair Cameron Caldwell said: “The City will continue to assess development applications with regard to the City Plan’s Flood Overlay Code, as currently in effect.
“The City Plan’s Flood code requires the floor level of residential developments to be constructed 300mm above current designated flood level.
“The Flood Code also has requirements for flood-free access, which depend on site specific circumstances,” Cr Caldwell said.
“The City is currently reviewing the flood policy and code to ensure that it remains up to date with best-practice management of development with respect to flood hazard. Public consultation will occur if there are any proposed changes to the City Plan’s Flood Code and this will occur before any changes take effect.”