Glenelg Shire Council has backed tighter flood planning rules for parts of Dartmoor and Nelson, using a projected 1.2-metre sea-level rise by the year 2100, despite the state requiring councils to plan for at least 0.8 metres.
What happened? Councillors voted on Tuesday to introduce new flood controls in parts of Dartmoor and Nelson after a study found some areas could be at risk from rising river and coastal waters.
The decision means properties in certain flood-mapped areas could face additional planning requirements when owners want to develop or make changes to their land.
The background: The flood study was first identified as necessary in 2017, when the Dartmoor and Nelson areas were flagged as needing further investigation because there was limited information available to accurately assess and manage flood risk.
Council undertook a flood study in 2022 with a view to developing new planning rules.
These were publicly exhibited between December 2025 and February 2026 - five objections were received, including concerns about the accuracy of historical data used in the study and whether properties had been incorrectly identified as being at risk.
Those objections led to the matter being referred to an independent planning panel, which backed the council.
Why does the sea-level figure matter? The higher the projected sea level used in the modelling, the greater the area identified as being at risk of inundation.
Council officers said the state framework requires councils to plan for “not less than” 0.8 metres by 2100, but councils can use a higher figure.
Council officers said the new flood controls would not automatically prevent development, although some design requirements could apply to developments in affected areas.
Councillor Robyn McDonald, who supported the higher figure, said the mapping appeared to affect few properties, but that council needed to prepare for an uncertain future.
“Global warming is fairly unpredictable and we don't know how quickly things may change,” she said.
Why were some councillors opposed? Councillor John Pepper said council was unfairly burdening affected ratepayers by using a figure higher than the state minimum.
“I don't see why it had to be 1.2 when the state government is 0.8,” he said.
Councillor Michael Carr also opposed the decision.
Councillor Mary Picard argued the decision should be based on the scientific assessment rather than simply the minimum figure set in legislation.
What happens now? Council will send the proposed flood controls to the Victorian Planning Minister for final approval.