Aimee Chapman, Newstead
I support flood mitigation work in Newstead. What I do not support is a process in which council advances a preferred option despite worsening flood outcomes for a small number of identifiable homes, without those owners being directly and clearly notified of the specific impact on their property.
My concern is not that no community consultation occurred. My concern is that general consultation through public meetings, flyers, notices and broad invitations to participate is not the same thing as direct, property-specific notification once council had identified that its preferred option would adversely affect a limited number of homes.
In our case, neither my mother nor I were directly informed that our home was among the properties facing worsened flood outcomes under Option 6.
I only came across the relevant flood study material by chance while researching a separate project involving flood-affected communities in another shire. Otherwise, we would have remained unaware that our property was among the homes at risk under the preferred option. We then had to work through technical documents that were not clearly labelled and repeatedly follow up after earlier emails received no response at all.
We were also given no clear indication that any support, mitigation or compensation was in place for the small number of households whose flood outcomes would be worsened under the preferred option. That makes direct notice and transparency even more important.
I have repeatedly raised these concerns directly with council, including through formal correspondence to the mayor and a formal complaint to the CEO, yet I have still received no substantive response addressing the core issues.
If a flood mitigation option benefits the township overall but makes a smaller number of homes worse off, that fact must be made transparent. Those owners should be written to directly, clearly told the impact on their property, contacted by phone, and offered individual meetings before any vote to proceed.
General community consultation is not an adequate substitute for that level of notice.
This is not an argument against flood mitigation. It is an argument for fairness, transparency and proper treatment of the households most directly affected by council’s chosen option.