Council causes property damage

[Tigger]

Council has an old bridge across creek which they have not maintained. This bridge is critical for 100's of commuter traffic daily. Bridge blocked up under and creek upstream has infilled. This worsens the flood hazard (ie increased frequency and extent of overtopping). Bridge was built to 1:30 years ARI (designs specs at the time) and is now less than 1:5 years ARI (recent engineer report). Increased flood damage to 6 neighbours as a result.

Since Council has worsened the flood situation are they liable for increased property damage?

Council refused to even acknowledge our formal complaint so we referred to the Ombudsman whose informal verbal advice is that Council is not required to maintain their infrastructure. Really?

So Council can build a bridge which causes increased property damage to neighbours and that's Ok?

 

[jrc]

Historically Councils were not liable if they did not do anything, but only if they did something badly. Very technical.

 

[marg4000]

Sounds as if the council has not actually done anything (probably that is the problem). Time and nature cause changes to creek and river banks.

Why not get in touch with your local member and see if you can get something done? Even better if you can get a group of neighbours together. If you wait for "someone else" to "do something" it will never happen.
Marg

 

[Tigger]

When they built the bridge in 1976 instead of removing the old pipe crossing rubble they laid the culverts on top. That was 1 m extra height on the bed, hence it has infilled upstream.

"if they did something badly."
jrc, that's the problem, Council built the poorly designed bridge which trapped rubble and then fails to clean it out which makes it worse. The creek has infilled 1 m upstream so has 1 m less depth for carrying flows. Hence it overflows more frequently now. If they had built the bridge properly or maintained it, the frequency would still be much the same.

Thanks Marg, we have been doing just that for 9 years and got nowhere. We have put our own $$ into getting permits and doing what we can to clean it out but can't keep going like this. Local Pollies + State MP are useless. They all say it was flood prone and hence seem to think that gives them the right to make it more flood prone. We don't mind the natural frequency but the increased impacts due their bridge are the problem.

 

[norwoodman]

What suburb is the problematic bridge/culvert located in?

 

[Tigger]

Koongal.

It's not river floods, that would be too simple! No, it's heavy rain/run off/flash floods. As I said, we don't mind the natural frequency, it's the frequency and depth worsened by Council that is the problem. 1 foot of water every 30 years or so is not the same as 1 metre every five years or so.