The draft amendment proposes to apply the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code to land in Campbell Town, Perth and Ross.

The draft amendment is applicable for several properties in Campbell Town, Ross and Perth.

Flood mapping for Campbell Town and Ross was developed for the town areas based on potential impacts from the Elizabeth River at Campbell Town and the Macquarie River and Downs Creek at Ross.

Flood mapping was developed in West Perth for the catchment area of Sheepwash Creek to Drummond Street.

The extent of the proposed flood mapping has been designated to an area determined by Council to be within the urban boundary of each town.

Ten representations were received from members of the community. The following issues were raised:

• Changes to the extent of flood prone area from the current area
• Increase in insurance premiums
• Impact on future saleability of land
• Climate change is not real and should not be a consideration
• Impact upon future possible development
• Land has not flooded in the past
• Impact on property value
• Drainage infrastructure issues should be resolved
• Additional culverts are required
• Lack of historical data for Ross to enable accurate flood prediction
• Issues with the modelling used and where data came from to inform the model

TasWater made a representation stating no objection to the draft amendment and that TasWater did not wish to attend any hearing.

Planning authority's response to the representations

The planning authority considered the representations and recommended no changes to the draft amendment.

The Commission noted that a referral to the State Emergency Service (SES) was not evident in the information provided with the certified draft amendment and that the SES had been undertaking a statewide flood mapping project.

The Commission issued a direction letter to the SES and TasWater dated 2 December 2024, inviting any relevant submissions and attendance at the hearing if required.

TasWater provided a submission dated 17 December 2024 stating no objection to the draft amendment and no requirement to attend a hearing. The SES provided an extensive submission on 14 February 2025 and confirmed attendance at a hearing.

The hearing was held at 13 Smith Street, Longford on 18 February 2025.

Clare Hester ERA Planning and Environment (ERA) on behalf of Council

1. Under section 40M of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (the Act), the Commission is required to consider the draft amendment to the Local Provisions Schedule (LPS) and the representations, statements and recommendations contained in the planning authority's section 40K report and any information obtained at a hearing.
2. A hearing was convened to assist the Commission consider the issues in the representations.
3. The Commission must also consider whether the draft amendment meets the LPS criteria as set out under section 34(2) of the Act:

(a) contains all the provisions that the SPPs specify must be contained in an LPS; and

(b) is in accordance with section 32; and

(c) furthers the objectives set out in Schedule 1; and

(d) is consistent with each State policy; and

(da) satisfies the relevant criteria in relation to the TPPs; and

(e) as far as practicable, is consistent with the regional land use strategy, if any, for the regional area in which is situated the land to which the relevant planning instrument relates; and

(f) has regard to the strategic plan, prepared under section 66 of the Local Government Act 1993, that applies in relation to the land to which the relevant planning instrument relates; and

(g) as far as practicable, is consistent with and co-ordinated with any LPSs that apply to municipal areas that are adjacent to the municipal area to which the relevant planning instrument relates; and

(h) has regard to the safety requirements set out in the standards prescribed under the Gas Safety Act 2019.

Application of the Flood-Prone Hazard Areas Code overlay

1. The amendment proposes to apply the Flood-Prone Hazard Areas Code overlay to parts of Campbell Town, Perth and Ross.
2. The Section 8A Code Application Guidelines for the Flood-Prone Hazard Areas Code overlay Guideline No.1 - Local Provisions Schedule (LPS) Zone and Code Application (Guidelines) as follows:

FPHAZ 1 The flood-prone hazard area overlay should be applied to areas known to be prone to flooding, particularly areas known to be within the 1 per cent annual exceedance probability (AEP) level.

FPHAZ 2 In determining the extent of the flood-prone hazard area overlay, planning authorities may utilise their own data, including any equivalent overlay contained in an interim planning scheme or section 29 planning scheme for that municipal area, or data from other sources.

1. In the supporting report dated 6 March 2024, ERA on behalf of Council submitted:

The proposed approach is to use the 1% AEP plus climate change scenario which will exceed the requirement in FPHAZ 1 but is in accordance with FPHAZ 2. This is consistent with the approach other Councils have taken when updating the flooding overlays including Glenorchy City Council and Clarence City Council. This is also consistent with section 1.0.2 of the draft Tasmanian Planning Policies which include discussion on the benefits of using land use planning as a mechanism to support measures that help address the causes and impacts of climate change, including localised flooding.

1. The SES in its submission dated 14 February 2025 provided advice on the proposed flood mapping in the draft amendment for Campbell Town, Perth, and Ross. In the submission, the SES also provided details of the progress on the Tasmanian Strategic Flood Mapping (TSFM) currently being carried out by the SES and confirmed that the mapping would be publicly released in March 2025.
2. At the hearing, it was noted that there are differences between the planning authority and SES mapping, and particularly more relevant to Ross and Perth.
3. The planning authority noted that Entura and Hydrodynamica had been engaged by Council to prepare a flood study which provided information on the footprint of potential flooding.
4. At the hearing, the SES noted that the TSFM went further to identify depth and velocity flood hazard and was prepared in accordance with Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2019 guideline for best practice mapping. The flood mapping also identified areas of hazard between H1-H6.

1. In its submission, the SES supported the certified overlay for Campbell Town, noting there was strong alignment with TSFM.
2. At the hearing, Mr Dean raised concern that the overlay was not present when he purchased the property in 2021. Mr Dean raised concern regarding the impact on development potential because of the overlay and questioned whether local and state government infrastructure should be upgraded.
3. At the hearing in response to Mr Dean's concerns, Ms Hester on behalf of the planning authority, submitted that the application of the flood overlay did not prohibit development, and Council could provide details of flood depth upon request. Ms Hester noted that council had opted to now implement the overlay out of a sense of responsibility for public safety.
4. At the hearing the SES confirmed it supported the overlay as certified for Campbell Town.
5. Mr Dean provided a further written submission dated 15 April 2025, reiterating opposition to the application of the overlay to their land.

1. In its submission, the SES was not supportive of the overlay as certified for Perth. The SES raised concern in relation to the planning authority overlay as future culvert upgrades informed the level of potential flood levels and stated:

SES suggest options for the Overlay update in the Perth area could include the use of the local detailed flood modelling without the inclusion of planned future capital works or the use of the of the [sic] TSFM in the Perth locality using the 1% AEP with climate change.

1. At the hearing, the SES reiterated it was not supportive of flood mapping which relied on the future upgrade of culverts and submitted it posed an unsatisfactory risk as the works had not been completed.
2. The planning authority noted at the hearing that no date for completion of culvert upgrades could be provided with certainty.
3. The Commission issued a post hearing direction letter on 20 February 2025, requesting the planning authority provide comment on, or support of, the SES mapping. In response to the direction, the planning authority provided a submission dated 7 April 2025 which submitted that Council would need to undertake further flood studies to clarify the extent of the differences between the SES (excluding future culverts) and Council mapping (including future culverts) and at this stage Council had not planned for the expense in its budget.
4. In the submission, the planning authority supported use of the SES flood mapping for all areas except as specified in Longford.
5. The planning authority further stated it accepted the SES mapping for Sheepwash Creek but submitted that further modelling and mapping would be required once culverts were completed.
6. In response to the planning authority's submission, no further submissions were received regarding application of the overlay in Perth from other parties.
7. In response to the Commission's subsequent direction letter dated 22 May 2025, the planning authority submitted it agreed with the extent of the overlay provided by the SES for Perth. In addition, the planning authority stated it considered the application of the overlay H1-H6 inclusive, was consistent with consideration of the Flood-Prone Hazard Areas Code.

1. The SES noted in its submission that there was a difference between the certified overlay and TSFM for Ross. The SES noted several differences between mapping methodology as to why the certified overlay did not correspond with the SES mapping. The SES suggested the following as options to address the differences:

Adopt the TSFM flood extents, given their more conservative approach; or

Conduct further hydrologic review to resolve discrepancies between models, particularly regarding flow estimates at key gauges.

1. The Commission provided a post hearing direction letter on 20 February 2025. In response to the letter the planning authority provided a submission dated 7 April 2025 which submitted that Council would need to undertake further flood studies to clarify extent of a flood overlay for Ross and at this stage Council had not planned for the expense in its budget.
2. In the submission, the planning authority proposed to use the SES flood mapping for all areas, except as specified in Longford.
3. In response to the submission provided by the planning authority, no further submissions were received about the application of the overlay in Ross.
4. In response to the Commission's letter dated 22 May 2025, the planning authority submitted it agreed with the extent of the overlay provided by the SES for Ross. In addition, the planning authority stated it considered the application of the overlay H1-H6 inclusive, was consistent with consideration of the Flood-Prone Hazard Areas Code.

1. The Commission notes that there is similarity between the planning authority and the SES on the application of the overlay in Campbell Town.
2. The Commission notes the concerns raised by Mr Dean, however further notes that whether the overlay was applied or not, the Code may still apply, as the planning authority has information by way of the flood study indicating the potential risk of flooding to the property.
3. The Commission also notes the SES mapping was released to the public in May 2025 And that the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code may also be considered by planning authorities under clause C12.2.3 and C12.2.4 without an overlay being present.
4. The Commission is persuaded by the planning authority that further work is required to consider the extent of the overlay in Perth and Ross. The Commission further notes that the mapping provided by the SES is based on the most recent studies and provides a more contemporary view on potential flood risk.
5. The Commission considers the SES mapping most appropriate for the application of the overlay for Campbell Town, Perth and Ross.
6. The Commission agrees with application of the overlay where appropriately identified however, contemporary data is an essential basis for a supporting flood report.
7. The extent of the application of the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code underpinning the planning authority mapping, is not supported by the expert evidence provided by the SES for Perth and Ross.
8. The Commission notes that the SES publicly released the TSFM in March 2025 and provided mapping, based on more recent data and analysis, than is currently in the possession of Council.
9. The Commission acknowledges that the planning authority and TSFM mapping is mostly consistent for Campbell Town. However, the Perth and Ross mapping component of the draft amendment by the planning authority is not consistent with the SES data. In Perth, the extent of the overlay is reliant on culvert upgrades which have not occurred and are to be completed on an unspecified schedule.
10. The Commission finds that relying on works which have not occurred introduces an unnecessary element of risk to landowners and the broader community.
11. The Commission notes the extent of the overlay for Ross differs between Council and mapping provided by the TSFM. As the planning authority has not provided any evidence to support differences between the TSFM and the overlay as shown in the certified amendment, the Commission is persuaded the SES mapping is more accurate.
12. The Commission finds that the SES mapping should be applied to Campbell Town, Perth and Ross as the planning authority has not provided an appropriate alternative expert study of the areas to support the differences between the certified amendment and the more recent and contemporary SES mapping.
13. To apply the most relevant and up to date information in a flood prone area overlay for Campbell Town, Perth and Ross, the Commission is of the view that the draft amendment requires significant expansion of the overlay that warrants a new and separate process to be undertaken.

1. The relevant regional land use strategy is the Northern Tasmania Regional Strategy (regional strategy).
2. The applicant's report dated 6 March 2024 submitted that the amendment was relevant to Goal 3. Specifically, G3.1 Promote and protect the Region's unique environmental assets and values and G3.2 Establish planning policies to support sustainable development, address the impacts of climate change, improve energy efficiency and reduce environmental emissions and pollutants.
3. Additionally, the applicant submitted that the amendment was relevant to E7, specifically E7.3 Key Environmental Strategies, Policy Natural Hazards.

1. The Commission finds that the draft amendment is, as far as is practicable, consistent with the regional strategy.

State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009

1. The ERA supporting report dated 6 March 2024 submitted that the application of the overlay would not have any effect on agricultural use and would be beneficial in consideration of land management by raising awareness of future flood risk.

1. The ERA supporting report dated 6 March 2024 submitted that improved transparency of flood risk was consistent with and supportive of the State Policy on Water Quality Management (Water Quality Policy).

National Environmental Protection Measures (NEPMs)

1. The ERA supporting report dated 6 March 2024 submitted that there were no current NEPMs considered to be relevant to the amendment.

1. The Commission finds that the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land, the Water Quality Policy and the NEPMs are relevant to the draft amendment.
2. The Commission finds that the Protection of Agricultural Land Policy would be met as agricultural land use will not be affected by the draft amendment.
3. The Commission also finds that the Water Quality Policy would be adequately addressed through future development applications.
4. The Commission finds the draft amendment is not inconsistent with any of the NEPMs and that no other State Policies are relevant to the draft amendment.

1. The ERA supporting report dated 6 March 2024 submitted that the amendment furthers the objectives of schedule 1 and provided assessment against Part 1 (a) - (e) and Part 2 (a) - (i) of the Schedule 1 Objectives.

1. The Commission finds that, on balance, the amendment does not further the objectives set out in Schedule 1 of the Act.
2. The extent of the application of the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code underpinning the planning authority mapping is not supported by the expert evidence provided by the SES for Perth and Ross as evidenced in the Commission's assessment

Decision under 40N(1)(c) to reject the draft amendment

1. The Commission rejects the draft amendment under section 40N(1)(c) for the reasons discussed above.
2. The Commission, in accordance with section 40N(1)(c)(ii), directs the planning authority to provide a substantially modified draft amendment that applies the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code overlay consistent with the SES mapping to Campbell Town, Perth and Ross as shown in figures 1-3 in Attachment A.

Apply the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code overlay to properties in Campbell Town as shown in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: extent of the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code overlay Campbell Town.

Apply the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code overlay to properties in Perth as shown in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: extent of the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code overlay Perth.

Apply the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code overlay to properties in Ross as shown in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3: extent of the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code overlay Ross.