Flood Risk Management Workshop - Greater Sydney ...

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage

Flood Risk Management Workshop - Greater Sydney Councils, 17 June 2015 Report

Flood Risk Management Workshop - Greater Sydney Councils, 17 June 2015

R EPORT

for


by

Molino Stewart Pty Ltd ACN 067 774 332

AUGUST 2015

MOLINO STEWART PTY LTD ABN 95 571 253 092 ACN 067 774 332 PO BOX 614, PARRAMATTA CBD BC, PARRAMATTA NSW 2124 TEL: (02) 9354 0300 FAX: (02) 9893 9806 www.molinostewart.com.au

DOCUMENT CONTROL Document Reference

FRM workshop report - final

Project

Flood Risk Management Workshop - Greater Sydney Councils, 17 June 2015

Document Type

Report

Author

Neil Dufty

REVISION HISTORY Date

Version Name

Comments

15/07/2015 Ver 1

Neil Dufty

First draft for review

21/08/2015 Ver 2

Neil Dufty

Final report

DOCUMENT APPROVAL For Molino Stewart

Name

Steven Molino

Position

Principal

For NSW Office of Environment & Heritage Name

Daylan Cameron

Position

Senior Team Leader – Water, Floodplains and Coast, Greater Sydney Region

ii


CONTENTS 1

INTRODUCTION 1.1 NSW Floodplain Management Program 1.2 Council Survey 1.3 Floodplain Risk Management (FRM) Workshop 1.4 Attendance 1.5 Evaluation

1 1 1 1 2 2

2

PARTICIPANTS’ WRITTEN COMMENTS 2.1 Flood insurance and access to data 2.2 Community Engagement 2.3 Grant Administration 2.4 Overland Flow Flooding 2.5 State and National Guidelines

3 3 4 4 5 6

3

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS 3.1 Community Engagement comments 3.1.1 What works 3.1.2 What doesn’t work 3.1.3 Suggested improvements 3.1.4 Needs

7 7 7 8 8 9

4

GRANTS ADMINISTRATION SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Grants administration comments 4.1.1 What works 4.1.2 What doesn’t work? 4.1.3 Suggested improvements 4.1.4 Needs

10 10 10 10 10 10

5

WORKSHOP FEEDBACK SURVEY 5.1 Workshop objectives 5.2 Meeting expectations 5.3 Building capabilities 5.4 Key issues covered 5.5 Sharing experiences and Information 5.6 Strengthening Relationships and Partnerships 5.7 Facilitation of the workshop 5.8 What was most valuable? 5.9 What was least valuable? 5.10 How could the workshop be improved? 5.11 What issues should be covered if another workshop was held? 5.12 Other comments

12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14

Flood Risk Management Workshop - Greater Sydney Councils, 17 June 2015 - Report

iii

6

SUMMARY AND WAY FORWARD 6.1 Summary 6.2 Way forward

15 15 15

APPENDICES Appendix A – Sydney Councils Flood Risk Management Needs Survey – Summary Report Appendix B – FRM Workshop Agenda Appendix C – Workshop Feedback Survey

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Did the workshop meet expectations? Figure 2: Did the workshop build capabilities in flood risk & FRM projects? Figure 3: Were the key FRM issues covered? Figure 4: Did the workshop enable you to share experiences & information? Figure 5: Strengthening relationships & partnerships Figure 6: Was the workshop well facilitated?

iv

12 12 12 13 13 13


1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

NSW FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) provides financial and technical support to local councils with the preparation and implementation of flood studies and flood risk management plans under the NSW Floodplain Management Program. Within OEH, the Greater Sydney Region (GSR) Water, Floodplains and Coast (WFC) team provides technical support to 42 councils. The delivery of flood projects involves a complex mix of technical, social and planning issues. Some councils have a long history of successfully undertaking flood risk management projects, whilst others are just commencing the process and require considerable support from OEH.

1.2

COUNCIL SURVEY

In May 2014, OEH’s GSR WFC team invited councils to participate in a flood risk management needs survey. The survey was prepared by the GSR WFC and Community Engagement teams, in consultation with Environmental Programs Branch staff. The objectives of the survey were to: 1. better understand the needs of councils in managing flood risk and undertaking projects under the NSW Floodplain Management Program 2. determine which areas are a high priority for further support and how councils would like the support delivered 3. improve OEH’s effectiveness in working with councils and provide better support. Responses were received from 72% of the Sydney councils.

Over 50% of respondents selected following as high priority needs:

the

• information on insurance issues for flood affected properties • OEH guidelines management issues

on

floodplain

• more information on approaches to investigate mainstream and overland flooding • improved councillor understanding of the NSW Floodplain Management Program • improved generic briefs for studies and plans. Over 75% of respondents selected the following preference for accessing this information: • meetings with specialists

OEH

technical

flood

• enhanced website resources • attending seminars/workshops hosted by OEH. The survey report is provided in this report as Appendix A.

1.3

FLOODPLAIN RISK MANAGEMENT (FRM) WORKSHOP

Based on the survey report, the GSR WFC and Community Engagement teams planned a workshop for local councils focussing on the high priority needs (see Section 1.2). OEH engaged consultants Molino Stewart to help design and facilitate the workshop. The objectives of the workshop were: 1. To provide support and assistance with the high priority issues and needs identified in the survey of Sydney councils 2. To provide a forum for OEH and council officers to:

-


Share information and experiences regarding the management of flood risk and flood risk management (FRM) projects 1

-

Strengthen relationships and partnerships Discuss key issues and opportunities for improvement.

The workshop design consisted of presentations, small group discussions, open forums and Q&A sessions. The workshop agenda, listing all presenters and their topics, is provided as Appendix B in this report.

1.4

ATTENDANCE

1.5

EVALUATION

As part of its engagement, Molino Stewart was asked to prepare an evaluation report for the workshop (this report). The evaluation is based on the following: • Comments made by workshop participants in relation to the five priority themes (Section 2) • Discussion related to small sessions (Sections 3 and 4)

group

• Responses to the workshop feedback survey (Section 5).

The workshop was held on Wednesday 17 June 2015 at the Mantra Hotel, Parramatta. Thirty-five of the 42 local councils were represented at the workshop. In total, there were 80 people in attendance.

2


2

PARTICIPANTS’ WRITTEN COMMENTS

The first activity of the day was designed to be an icebreaker (bringing people with similar knowledge interests/gaps together to start a conversation) and an opportunity for the WFC team to identify those areas that councils may need assistance with. This information will help the WFC team to better tailor their support of councils’ flood risk programs. Workshop participants were asked to choose one (or more) of the priority themes (from the five areas identified as a high priority for councils) that they were most interested in, or had questions or comments about. The themes were: • Flood insurance and access to data • Community engagement • Grant administration • Overland flow flooding • State and National Guidelines. The participants were asked to write their questions or comments on large sticky notes, which were then affixed to the wall under the chosen theme heading.

Comments included: • The use of tax payer-funded work for financial gain by a private company seems morally wrong. • Why shouldn’t insurance companies fund flood studies if they want to use the data? • Will insurance sharing data?

companies

consider

• Community blames council for increases in insurance premiums – do insurance companies use council data? • If a council provides a flood study (and associated model) to insurers, will the insurer verify/test the study, and if so, will the insurers provide results of the verification to council? This could assist with correctness and robustness of flood studies. • What information can insurers provide to councils where councils have not undertaken flood studies but are aware of potential/actual flooding? • We have provided flood data to the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA). Can we get feedback on how the data was used? Are there improvements in relation to insurance (change to flood premium, benefit to community, and/or use of more accurate data)?

By far the most popular theme was ‘overland flow flooding’, followed by ‘community engagement’.

“Flood insurance and data access should be a three-way experience.”

Throughout the workshop participants were also encouraged to write comments on the sticky notes and place them on the wall under the appropriate theme.

There were some associated issues raised including:

The following is a summary of all written comments provided under each theme heading.

2.1

FLOOD INSURANCE AND ACCESS TO DATA

Most comments were about councils’ concerns relating to the provision of flood data to insurance companies.

• Insurance companies want flood mapping but councils’ flood maps do not match up with the standard definition for flooding – such as overland flow where the water has exceeded the size of the pipe or what happens when the creek has been piped and flooding is now occurring as overland flow – this does not meet the standard flood definition but it is flooding and all mapped in with the mainstream flooding. It is all flooding from a council perspective. • OEH stage damage curves underestimate damages. If insurers want council flood and flood level data they need to be providing flood damage data


3

to improve damage estimates evaluating mitigation options.

for

• Can insurer’s standard set of FAQs regarding flooding and insurance premiums be made public for council to pass onto community members? • Overland flooding generally occurs where there is an altered waterway which tends to be within the definition of mainstream flooding. Have insurance companies ever ruled on what a council considered to be overland flooding?

• Our community is also a culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) community with different experiences and expectations regarding flooding. • How best to deal with communities in low lying areas that will be affected by sea level rise. Experience shows that they are unwilling to accept that abandonment may be eventually required. Equally they are unwilling to pay the price of adaptation (e.g. filling).

• Is climate change considered in premium considerations?

“It is hard to get the community to engage and when they do it is all about their property values and insurance rather than the shared community problem.”

• Under the standard flood definition, does a modified creek include creeks that have been piped? Other comments included: • There is obvious duplication between NSW flood database and NFID. How can this be resolved?

The remainder of the comments were mainly suggestions as to how to improve community engagement including:

• The insurance industry presenter said he thinks CCIS Insurance Agency underestimate flood damages. What is OEH’s view on this?

• As all local governments are facing the same difficulties regarding community engagement it would be worthwhile for OEH to make all related and required community engagement resources available to the local governments. (Five similar comments requesting resources and guidance by OEH.)

• The presenter stated that overland flooding is excluded by insurance companies. I am aware of residents being charged flood insurance in upper catchments due to overland flooding. • Wondering what other location-based risks are considered similarly to flood (may be bushfire?) and will you pay more in some areas with higher risk? • Overland flow paths within urban areas are often associated with older subdivisions that have infilled and piped a creek/watercourse. Does this affect the ICA definition of mainstream flooding?

2.2

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Over half of the comments on this theme related to councils’ difficulties in engaging with their communities. These comments included: • Our community seems very disinterested in flooding as we haven’t had a significant flood in the LGA since the 1980’s.

• There needs to be opportunities for coordinated cross-agency engagement, including participation of non-government stakeholders such as insurers, banks, etc. • A typical issue: residents are frustrated when they know their properties will soon be “flood affected” properties. However, there is no guarantee that the proposed mitigation measures will be implemented. • It would be good to have some community engagement resources on OEH’s flood management program web page.

2.3

GRANT ADMINISTRATION

Comments about grant administration were related mainly to: • Timing • Streamlining processes • More information.

4


have more idea of how a similar project could be costed (two comments)

Timing • Work plan to be prepared early. • If council can use its own tender process and documents, then this would decrease time taken to secure a contract from five months to one month. • It’s sometimes difficult to keep a preferred consultant when it takes a long time to get a variation approved. • OEH grant assessment process not aligned with councils’ budgetary/programming cycle causing program management and financing issues. Grants allocations for the next financial year need to be confirmed by October to be included in councils programing.

• Why are floor level surveys not funded?

2.4

OVERLAND FLOW FLOODING

Most of the participant comments on overland flow flooding related to: • Definitions • Freeboard/floor levels • Development controls • Mapping • Community engagement. Definition

“Need to announce grants earlier in financial year or at least on the expected time e.g. always September” (3 comments).

• How do you define overland flow (4 comments)? • Overland flow flooding is not completely understood Freeboard/Floor Levels

Streamlining processes • Engineering projects such as those through the FRM program need to have variations acknowledged and built into the process. This process is currently onerous and slow. Regional OEH staff generally understand the issues and should be able to sort these out more efficiently than the current process, without the many questions required by the OEH grants team. • It would be good if OEH and councils got together to discuss/workshop internal processes to get better alignment. • Why is the flood program underspent when the councils cannot access funds for major flood mitigation works?

More Information • Who has the final say in the procurement process? Councils have procurement requirements and so does OEH.

• Adding freeboard to overland flow can result in many times more flow than the overland flow itself. • What is an appropriate freeboard height (2 comments)? Development Controls • Difficult to have development controls • One of the flood mitigation options is development control; therefore it is important to design habitable and nonhabitable floor levels at the right level. • What is appropriate control for multilevel basement for commercial and residential development? Mapping • How do you map overland flow to demonstrate consistency between all councils similar to mainstream flooding? • How do you define flood extents, particularly in smaller catchments?

• Can the projects offered grants under the program be tabled on the OEH website again? Councils and consultants would


5

2.5

Community engagement • This is the area council need to address in detail to get residents to take action on flood risk management • Not enough emphasis riverine flooding

compared

STATE AND NATIONAL GUIDELINES

There were only a few comments including:

to

• How to apply climate change to flood risk management

• Would like to obtain other council/OEH experience on understanding overland flow studies and community consultation process

• Existing floodplain development manual needs revision with innovative approaches in the guidelines

• How to ensure property owners realise the risk and work with council to minimise the risks.

• Training needed for council engineers on the Manual.

Other comments included: • Should you clear vegetation for downstream flow or not, and who’s responsible for the clearing? • Policy making for overland flooding • Need guidance and consistency in the approach to overland flow flooding assessment and interpretation.

6


3

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS

There were facilitated small group discussions after the Community Engagement presentation. The rationale for the community engagement session was to allow participants to learn from each other about what works and what doesn’t. OEH acknowledges that many councils have had good experiences with engaging the community about flood risk projects and this was a good opportunity to share that information. The session had a designated scribe to gather information that may inform a later workshop, or development of resources, on community engagement, if necessary. In this session, participants were moved into groups and asked to discuss their experiences with working with the community on flood risk projects, in particular: • What works • What doesn’t work • Suggested improvements • Needs. The following is a summary of the discussions based on the notes from each group.

3.1

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMENTS

Successful methods “One-on-one engagement (possible drop-in) so people can talk about their issues face to face” (2 comments). • Have two-on-one sessions with each community member i.e. council rep and consultant at flood study session where attendees have to book in. This can help gauge interest • Early engagement/from the beginning (2 comments) • Allowing time at end for one on one detailed answers • Consultant to give presentation • Encourage attendees to register before they turn up • Having a contact on a letter who may answer most people’s questions • Having commonly asked questions on website • On Council’s Facebook page have a call for photos from the most recent flood • Evaluation following engagement and improving through feedback • Avoiding ‘town-hall’ style public meetings • Involve NSW SES on door knocking/meet the street campaigns • Individual weekends

property

explanations

on

• Interactive maps on website so people can view their properties Incentives

3.1.1 What works Timing • It’s good to undertake consultation after a flood event, when the community is more aware of the risks of flooding • Defined time slot (6–8pm) • Time of the year is important (after rainy season, i.e. autumn).

• Free BBQ to attract people • Provide catering at events. Communication “Keep the community informed from the beginning of the project” (2 comments). • A communication strategy prior to the commencement of the engagement • Explain in plain English


7

• Use several mediums to get invites/info out (social media, print, website, mail) • Take emotion out of the terminology • Careful management of messages – negative and positive. • Sufficient info available regarding: -

Hazards

-

Info for individual properties

-

Studies

-

Preparing for floods

-

What to do in a flood.

• Culturally and linguistically diverse communities are difficult to engage on technical issues. “Hard to get interest from communities who have not experienced a flood.”

Other Comments • Political interests within council prevent formation of a Floodplain Management Committee (FMC) – this results in lack of community input into the process and a lack of disclosure of results

Other Comments • Engage the community with decisionmaking in council and with future issues (2 responses) • Engagement should be well planned • Involve the community around locations of implementation of options e.g. park users and neighbours if it is to be used for detention • Having a community champion spokesperson for consistency.

or

• Problems with community consultation process when considering mainstream as opposed to overland flow flooding. When overland flow issues arise later in the process, there can be nasty surprises for those who were not initially involved • Residents available

don’t

want

data

publicly

• The community not being involved at the planning stage

3.1.3 Suggested improvements 3.1.2 What doesn’t work Large Disorganised Meetings • Large groups. Forums often get hijacked by upset persons. • No catering

• Incentivise attendance through dinner or monetary incentives

• Unorganised • Underestimating the level of responses

• One on one communication possible. (2 comments)

• Not providing visual aids Reaching People/Communication • Getting young people who are not rate payers to engage is difficult • Not everyone speaks English

8

“Find ways to make sure we hear and accommodate the concerns of affected property owners.”

accesses

internet

or

where

• Big educated FMCs representing whole LGA can work, depends on the behaviour of the community reps to handle the strategy • Have a suite of measures to engage with residents

• Low turn out to information nights

• Get community leaders involved to get message out further

• Some people don’t see relevance or can live with floods

• Verify data and outcomes before going to the community

• People are too busy to engage and attend workshops

• Use smart communicate

phone

technology

to


• Get other council sections involved that have relationships with other groups • Need to communicate that the purpose is to gather info, to better inform the flood study, and create solutions to be developed.

3.1.4 Needs • Guidance on effective community engagement/management (3 comments) • Need close consultation with the community to address insurance cost and property value impact issues • Consistency in advice to councils on timing of s149 notification and wording.


9

4

• Lack of flexibility in budget. It’s difficult to estimate cost up front

GRANTS ADMINISTRATION SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS

• No ability to handle scope creep between grant approval and going to tender

This session followed the presentation by OEH’s Leah Andrews about the grant administration process. OEH acknowledges that some councils have struggled with certain aspects of the grant process so this session was designed to enable councils to discuss and document their concerns and provide feedback to OEH. OEH will then use this information/feedback to improve/streamline the grants process where possible.

4.1

in

the

application

is

• Council reporting requirements are onerous and need to be understood by OEH • The “New works assessment” form is difficult to fill in

• OEH does not have resources to assist Council with project administration as they did in the past.

4.1.1 What works

4.1.3 Suggested improvements funding

is

good

(2

• Paperwork is simple (3 responses) • Sending draft to OEH in advance • Templates provide good guidance • Putting budget in brief to consultants helps ensure tenders don’t all come in over budget • Guidance is available online • Having 5 months to submit a work plan (2 responses) • OEH staff are good (grants unit is very good) (2 responses) • Having a single point of contact at OEH • One year extension to three years is more efficient • The milestone system

4.1.2 What doesn’t work? • Variations resulting from consultants not meeting deadlines or over budget • Consultants don’t work on time • Mismatch between council budget cycle

10

• Terminology inconsistent

• Data collection for pipes under 750 mm is not allowed

GRANTS ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS

• Project based responses)

• Late grant offers (2 responses) should be made in August not December. By the time the paper-work is sorted out it’s June already.

• Alignment of funding • The funding model. Consider a new one such as RMS block release • Will OEH fund peer reviews of flood studies? • What does OEH do with funds that are not expended in the Financial Year? • Can OEH generate 2/3 subsidy of final project cost? • Align funding announcements earlier in Financial Year to reduce internal reallocations • The application process needs to be simplified • New works form to cater for overland flow • Assistance from OEH staff during the project for claiming milestone payments and application for variations • Clarification to streamline eligibility of floor level survey cost.

4.1.4 Needs • Simple application process. Don’t need so many questions


• Deal with applications earlier in the year • Sufficient council resources.


11

5

WORKSHOP FEEDBACK SURVEY

A workshop exit survey was provided to each local council participant. Fifty-seven (93%) of the 61 local council participants completed the survey. The survey comprised a mix of closed (Likert scale) and open questions. The survey form is provided as Appendix C in this report.

5.1

5.3

BUILDING CAPABILITIES

Participants were asked if the workshop will help them better manage flood risk and FRM projects. As shown in Figure 2, 86% of participants agreed that the workshop will build these capabilities, with 12% ‘neutral’ and 2% feeling that the workshop would not help them. Strongly Disagree

2% 16%

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

12%

Neutral

Participants were asked if they understood the objectives of the workshop. Almost all (98%) agreed that they understood the workshop objectives, with only 2% giving a ‘neutral’ response.

Agree 70% Strongly Agree

No participants said they did not understand the objectives.

5.2

MEETING EXPECTATIONS

Disagree

Figure 2: Did the workshop build capabilities in flood risk & FRM projects?

Participants were asked if the workshop met their expectations.

5.4

As shown in Figure 1, most participants (88%) agreed that the workshop met their expectations, with none feeling that it did not meet expectations. Twelve percent gave a ‘neutral’ response.

Participants were asked if the workshop covered the key FRM issues for their council.

12% 29%

KEY ISSUES COVERED

As shown in Figure 3, 76% agreed that the workshop covered key FRM issues, whilst 20% gave a ‘neutral’ response. Only 4% thought that the key issues were not covered.

Strongly Disagree Disagree

22%

20%

Neutral

59%

Figure 1: Did the workshop meet expectations?

12

Disagree Neutral

Agree Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

0% 4%

Agree 54% Strongly Agree

Figure 3: Were the key FRM issues covered?


5.5

SHARING EXPERIENCES AND INFORMATION

Participants were asked if the workshop enabled them to share experiences and information. As shown in Figure 4, 96% agreed that the workshop enabled them to share experiences and information, with 4% giving a ‘neutral’ response.

5.7

FACILITATION OF THE WORKSHOP

Participants were asked if the workshop was well facilitated. As shown in Figure 6, 98% of participants thought that the workshop was well facilitated, with 2% providing a ‘neutral’ response.

Strongly Disagree

4%

Strongly Disagree

2%

Disagree

Disagree 39%

53%

Neutral 57%

45%

Neutral Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree Figure 6: Was the workshop well facilitated? Figure 4: Did the workshop enable you to share experiences & information?

5.8 5.6

STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS

Participants were asked if the workshop helped them to strengthen relationships and partnerships with other local councils and OEH. As shown in Figure 5, 96% agreed that it did, with 4% giving a ‘neutral’ response. Strongly Disagree

4%

WHAT WAS MOST VALUABLE?

In an open question, participants were asked what aspects of the workshop they found most valuable. The main responses were: • Networking (10 responses) • Overland flow (5 responses) • Insurance session (4 responses) • Grant administration (4 responses) • Community engagement (4 responses) • Small group discussion (4 responses).

Disagree 43%

Neutral 53% Agree Strongly Agree

“Being able to talk to other professionals & OEH staff to share knowledge, experience & processes. The technical information sessions were also extremely valuable.” “It was a good idea to pull together all the Sydney Metro Councils as by & large we have similar issues.”

Figure 5: Strengthening relationships & partnerships


13

5.9

WHAT WAS LEAST VALUABLE?

In an open question, participants were asked what aspects of the workshop they found least valuable. The main responses were: • Not enough time for each theme (4 responses)

5.11 WHAT ISSUES SHOULD BE COVERED IF ANOTHER WORKSHOP WAS HELD? In an open question, participants were asked what FRM issues should be covered if another workshop was held. The main responses were:

• Grant administration – very defensive (3 responses)

• More detailed examination of overland flow flooding (6 responses)

• State and national guidelines (2 responses)

• Linking FRM with land-use planning (2 responses).

• Community engagement (2 responses). One participant did not like the catering and another thought that the room acoustics were poor.

“All issues discussed were valuable, however we felt the time was not enough to discuss or cover five issues. More talk and discussion in depth was needed in some areas such as community engagement and overland flow flooding.”

5.10 HOW COULD THE WORKSHOP BE IMPROVED? In an open question, participants were asked how the workshop could be improved. The main responses were: • More time on each theme (8 responses) with a suggestion to hold mini workshops (e.g. half day) focussing on one or two topics in depth • Provide handouts on each theme including presentations (3 responses) • Hold workshops regularly (2 responses). There were also single responses relating to the timing of the workshop (not at the end of the financial year), changing the venue location in future and having more presentations delivered by councils.

14

Some other responses are provided in the following text boxes. “Climate change considerations, future directions in OEH, more council case studies, brief overview of ARR review/new chapters, national flood information database.” “Managing rapid growth, how to run a flood committee, key aspects of flood modelling stages, key aspects of study and plan stage, managing flooding in high hazard areas, how to talk to community about overland flow, flood warning systems.” “Using social networking in community consultation –issues and methods. Most successful FRM – mitigation projects. Involving SES and linking FRMS&P process with local flood plans.”

5.12 OTHER COMMENTS Almost all of these comments congratulated OEH for the initiative and requested more workshops in the future. There was a comment suggesting that the workshop should be aligned with the outcomes of the recent FMA Conference. There was also a request for OEH to lead and provide guidelines on overland flow flooding. “This has been the best workshop I have attended. Well organised, interactive, relevant and interesting. I am a planner, not an engineer and my attention was maintained throughout. Well done!” NSW Office of Environment & Heritage

6

6.1

SUMMARY AND WAY FORWARD SUMMARY

From the workshop evaluation (see Section 4), the following summary comments are made: • The workshop was well attended by local councils • The objectives of the workshop were largely met • The workshop generally met or exceeded expectations of the participants • Almost all participants learnt more and increased their capabilities in FRM • The key issues were well covered, although some participants felt that there could been more time to discuss each • The workshop was an opportunity to share experiences and information

6.2

WAY FORWARD

Based on all feedback, the following suggestions are made for future activities: 1. Hold similar workshops in other OEH regions 2. Hold more workshops in the OEH Greater Sydney Region as miniworkshops concentrating on one topic e.g. overland flow flooding 3. Re-survey local councils in the Greater Sydney Region in 2 years’ time to further guide initiatives based on council needs 4. Provide fact sheets or guidelines to councils on overland flow flooding and community engagement best practices 5. Consider involving NSW SES in future workshops due to their responsibilities in flood emergency planning, preparedness and response.

• The workshop enabled most participants to strengthen relationships with other councils and with OEH • The workshop was well facilitated. From the comments in the workshop (Sections 2 and 3), the following summary comments are made: • There is concern about the provision of flood data to insurance companies. • Some councils find it difficult to encourage communities to be engaged in FRM, although some have had success with community engagement. • Some councils have appreciated improvements in grant administration processes, although some have concerns about aspects such as timing, variations and filling in application forms. • Further guidance to local councils is required on aspects of overland flow flooding such as definition, freeboard, development controls, mapping and community engagement.


15

APPENDIX A – SYDNEY COUNCILS FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT NEEDS SURVEY – SUMMARY REPORT


1

Summary Report Sydney Councils Flood Risk Management Needs Survey Background The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) provides financial and technical support to councils with the preparation and implementation of flood studies and flood risk management plans under the NSW Floodplain Management Program. In the Sydney region, OEH’s Water Floodplains and Coast (WFC) team provide technical support to 42 councils. The delivery of flood projects involves a complex mix of technical, social and planning issues. Some councils have a long history of successfully undertaking flood risk management projects, whilst others are just commencing the process and require considerable support from OEH. In May 2014, OEH’s Greater Sydney Region team invited councils to participate in a flood risk management needs survey.

Objectives The objectives of the survey were to:   

better understand the needs of councils in managing flood risk and undertaking projects under the NSW Floodplain Management Program determine which areas are a high priority for further support and how councils would like the support delivered improve OEH’s effectiveness in working with councils and provide better support.

Methods The survey was prepared by OEH’s Metro Branch Greater Sydney Region team in consultation with OEH Community Engagement and Environmental Programs Branch staff. A personalised invitation to undertake the survey was emailed to a total of 60 council officers at 42 councils in the Greater Sydney Region. The council officers who received the invitation were those whose names are on a contacts database maintained by the Greater Sydney Region WFC team and who are known to be involved in managing flood risk. The free online ‘Survey Monkey’ site was used. The survey consisted of the following five questions, with free text boxes for further comment/feedback: 1. Which council do you work with? 2. What is your role in managing floods? 3. What would assist you and your council in undertaking your flood projects? Office of Environment and Heritage | Sydney Councils Flood Risk Management Needs Survey – Summary Report

1

4. How would you prefer to access the information identified in question 3? 5. Do you have any feedback or suggestions on ways in which OEH could assist your council with the management of flood risk and projects under the Floodplain Management Program?

Results

Q1) Which council do you work with? Responses were received from 72% of Sydney councils (i.e. 32 of 42). A total of 41 survey responses were received. Some councils had more than one survey respondent. The following councils responded to the survey: Ashfield Council Bankstown City Council x 2 Blacktown City Council Blue Mountains City Council Botany Bay Council Burwood Council Camden Council City of Canada Bay Council Canterbury City Council Fairfield City Council x 5 Hawkesbury City Council

Hornsby Shire Council Hurstville City Council Kogarah City Council Ku-ring-gai Council x 2 Lithgow City Council Liverpool City Council Manly Council Marrickville Council Mosman Council City of Ryde Council Strathfield Municipal Council

Parramatta City Council Penrith City Council Pittwater Council Rockdale City Council Sutherland Shire Council The Hills Shire Council City of Sydney Council x 2 Warringah Council x 2 Willoughby City Council Wollondilly Council Woollahra Council

Office of Environment and Heritage | Sydney Councils Flood Risk Management Needs Survey – Summary Report

2

Q2) What is your role in managing floods?

Manager/team leader 33%

Works engineer 0.1%

Flood risk officer 22%

Stormwater and drainage engineer, 35%

Natural resource officer 0.6% Asset manager 0.1% Land-use planner 0.4%

Q3) What would assist you and your council in undertaking your flood projects? You may rank as many or as few as you wish. This question was asked to help OEH determine councils’ priority needs, which will in-turn enable OEH to deliver more targeted information and support based on these needs. As can be seen in the graph on the following page, as a high priority, over 50% of respondents selected:     

information on insurance issues for flood affected properties OEH guidelines on floodplain management issues more information on approaches to investigate mainstream and overland flooding improved councillor understanding of the NSW Floodplain Management Program improved generic briefs for studies and plans.


3

More technical assistance from OEH Improved information on grant funding and applications Improved councillor understanding of the NSW Floodplain Management Program Additional assistance with construction projects Additional assistance with investigation and design projects Information on insurance issues for flood affected properties Case studies of successful projects Low priority

Information on best-practice community engagement

Medium priority Sample community consultation letters for each stage of the project

High priority

Sample FAQs/Q&A sheets to assist with community consultation More information on flood education and awareness Improved generic briefs for flood studies and flood risk management studies and plans Improved information on the OEH Floodplains webpage OEH guidelines on floodplain management issues More information on various approaches to investigate mainstream and overland flooding 0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%


40.00%

4

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Q4) How would you prefer to access the information identified in question 3? You can choose as many or as few as you wish. Over 75% of respondents selected the following preference for accessing the information identified in question 3:   

meetings with OEH technical flood specialists enhanced website resources attending seminars/workshops hosted by OEH.

Hard-copy booklet(s) were not popular. Q5) Do you have any feedback or suggestions on ways in which OEH could assist your council with the management of flood risk and projects under the NSW Floodplain Management Program? Free text feedback covered a range of issues. Many respondents suggested that OEH take a greater leadership role in issues such as insurance, climate change impacts, and projected sealevel rise. Several participants suggested that OEH should:   

provide guidance or guidelines on overland flow provide more financial assistance to councils improve the grant process and increase assistance with applying for grants.

The free-text included no negative feedback about the way the WF&C team works with councils. Forty per cent of the comments included complimentary remarks about the support provided by OEH officers, even though there were no direct questions about satisfaction with OEH. Where to from here? The survey results will be taken into account by OEH in the design and delivery stages of all future support provided to councils. OEH’s Metro Branch flood officers are working with colleagues from other OEH Branches throughout NSW, where similar surveys have been undertaken, to compare survey results and improve the support provided to councils. OEH Metro Branch is planning to host a workshop during 2015 focusing on the high priority areas identified in the survey (i.e. by over 50% of respondents). OEH will work with relevant stakeholders to make improvements to the generic briefs for flood studies and plans. Briefing sessions will be offered for council senior management and councillors to improve their understanding of the NSW Floodplain Management Program.


5

Acknowledgements OEH’s Metro Branch Greater Sydney Region Water Floodplains and Coast and Community Engagement teams wish to thank the following individuals and groups for their input and participation in the survey:    

Council staff who responded to the survey Duncan McLuckie – OEH Principal Flood Specialist Zhan Patterson – OEH Environmental Programs Branch Community Engagement Leah Andrews – Senior Team Leader Contestable Grants, Coast Estuaries and Flood.


6

APPENDIX B – FRM WORKSHOP AGENDA

Office of Environment & Heritage

Agenda Flood Risk Management Workshop Wednesday 17 June 2015 WORKSHOP DETAILS To provide support and assistance with the high priority issues and needs identified in the survey of Sydney councils

Objectives

To provide a forum for OEH and council officers to: • • •

share information and experiences regarding the management of flood risk and FRM projects strengthen relationships and partnerships discuss key issues and opportunities for improvement

Date and Time

Wednesday 17 June, 9.00am – 4.00pm

Location

Mantra Parramatta, Cnr Parkes St & Valentine Ave, Parramatta NSW

Attendees

Local council officers in the Sydney Region, OEH staff, Insurance Australia Group, Molino Stewart (facilitators)

AGENDA

1. Registration

9.00am

2. Introduction – David Trewin, Regional Manager Greater Sydney, OEH

9.30am

3. Welcome – Tom Grosskopf, Director Metro Branch, OEH

9.35am

4. Workshop context and objectives – Daylan Cameron, Senior Team Leader, Water Floodplains and Coast, Greater Sydney Region, OEH

9.45am

5. Activity – Neil Dufty, Workshop Facilitator (Principal, Molino Stewart)

10.00am

6. Flood insurance and access to data

10.15am

•

Presentation by Andrew Dyer, Senior Analyst – Flood, Natural Perils, Chief Analytics Office, IAG

•

Status of NSW Flood Database – Duncan McLuckie, Principal Flood Specialist, OEH

•

Q&A session

7. Morning Tea

11.00am

8. Community engagement •

Context - Neil Dufty, Workshop Facilitator (Principal, Molino Stewart)

•

Council case-studies - Lee Lau, Blue Mountains City Council and Duncan Howley, Warringah Council

•

Small group discussion

11.30am

9. Lunch

12.30pm

10. Grant administration

1.15pm

•

Presentation by Leah Andrews, Senior Team Leader, Contestable Grants - Coast, Estuary and Flood, OEH

•

Small group discussion

11. Overland flow flooding •

Presentation by Gus Pelosi, Senior Natural Resource Officer, Water Floodplains and Coast, Greater Sydney Region, OEH

•

Facilitated discussion

2.00pm

12. Afternoon tea

2.45pm

13. State and National Guidelines

3.10pm

•

Presentation by Duncan McLuckie, Principal Flood Specialist, OEH

•

Facilitated discussion

14. Evaluation - Neil Dufty, Workshop Facilitator (Principal, Molino Stewart)

3.50pm

15. Debrief – Daylan Cameron, Senior Team Leader, Water Floodplains and Coast, Greater Sydney Region, OEH

3.55pm

16. Workshop close

4.00pm

APPENDIX C – WORKSHOP FEEDBACK SURVEY

FLOODPLAIN RISK MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP Feedback form 1. I understood the objectives of the workshop O

O

O

O

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

O Strongly agree

2. The workshop met my expectations O

O

O

O

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

O Strongly agree

3. The workshop will help me better manage flood risk and floodplain risk management (FRM) projects O

O

O

O

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

O Strongly agree

4. The workshop covered the key FRM issues for my council O

O

O

O

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

O Strongly agree

5. The workshop enabled participants to share information and experiences O

O

O

O

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

O Strongly agree

6. The workshop helped participants to strengthen relationships and partnerships with other councils and OEH O

O

O

O

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

O Strongly agree

7. The workshop was well facilitated O

O

O

O

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Questions on back page

O Strongly agree

8. What was most valuable about this workshop?

9. What was least valuable about the workshop?

10. How could the workshop be improved?

11. If OEH ran another FRM workshop, what issues would you like covered?

Any other comments

Please hand in your completed form before you leave. Thank you