• Developer says council's position wrong and holding up $105 million worth of development
• Tully backs council stance and says residents' lives and property must be respected

DEVELOPER Bob Ell and the Ipswich City Council are at loggerheads over the residential development flood level adopted in 2011 following the disastrous flood that year.

Mr Ell, the Leda Holdings executive chairman, in a letter to all councillors on June 15 said: "The Council has adopted a planning outcome for their flood policy that is without foundation, and is in direct conflict with the recommendations of the Government's Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the 2011 floods".

Mr Ell said that as a result, a development in North Ipswich of "350 townhouses representing some $105,000,000 of capital investment has been delayed since 2011", on land near the Workshops Museum that he owns.

But Ipswich City Council refutes Mr Ell's claims and said the flood level was adopted by the state government following the floods, and that the level was increased from the previous Q100 level to stop residential development below the 1974 level in areas affected by flooding in the Brisbane and Bremer River systems.

That decision ensured all residential development was above the 1974 level, which was the highest Ipswich flood on record since 1893.

Mr Ell, whose Leda Holdings owns and operates the Ipswich Riverlink Shopping Centre, is proposing development of the town houses below the new adopted flood level.

"That investment could create over 600 direct and indirect employment opportunities and that is just on our own site," he said in his letter.

In his letter Mr Ell states that Council's flooding regulation was "amended in mid-2014 to further Council's 'temporary' flooding instrument put in place in response to the January 2011 floods.

"The essential outcome of the amendment was to significantly raise the flood planning level beyond the level experienced in January 2011. This has significantly and detrimentally impacted ourselves and many other individuals and businesses throughout Ipswich".

In the letter Mr Ell was critical of how council had decided to "permanently adopt a flood line equivalent to the highest known event (of 1974)" and "well beyond the levels of the flood event that occurred in January 2011" which he said was "3m higher in our own case which has severely limited the opportunities for redevelopment".

"Council have repeatedly stated that their approach is in accordance with the recommendations of the Flood Commission of Enquiry (QFCOI) - it is clearly and unequivocally not in line with these recommendations," he wrote.

Ipswich City Council CEO Jim Lindsay disputed Mr Ell's claims in a letter in response.

In his letter of June 21 Mr Lindsay said "the 1974 flood is not the highest known flood in the Ipswich Local Government Area".

"There were two floods approximately 2m higher than the 1974 flood in 1893. However the 1974 flood is the highest known flood for which the council has reliable mapping information."

Mr Ell drew attention in his letter to a statement in the QFCOI which he says proves Ipswich Council "adopting the (1974 level) into their Planning Scheme is clearly wrong".

The "key extract" from the QFCOI report he says is the following: "The flood levels currently used by both (Brisbane and Ipswich) councils should not be discarded because of the hydrology expert panel's finding. Rather, they should remain in place, in the absence of some exceptional reason, while the comprehensive flood study is performed and appropriate flood levels and extents are determined".

But Mr Lindsay, in response, said Mr Ell was selectively quoting from the report and that the council's decision was praised by the Flood Commission of Inquiry as an appropriate response to the flood.

Mr Lindsay pointed to what he said were key statements in the report that Mr Ell was overlooking. The report, Mr Lindsay noted, said: "Ipswich City Council's temporary local planning instrument provides for temporary planning controls that reference equal to the greatest of the defined flood level from its 2006 scheme, and the 1974 and 2011 historical flood lines.

"That approach is prudent and should be continued until a comprehensive flood study is completed".

Deputy Mayor and former planning boss Cr Paul Tully said it would be irresponsible of the council to take any other position.

"Council is standing by the flood level adopted in 2011 and formally adopted by the State Government as part of the Ipswich planning scheme," he told the QT.

"The original Q100 flood level was superseded by the adoption of the 1974 flood level across the city and that was part of our response to the floods commission of inquiry.

"There is no way the council is going to allow residential development below the 1974 flood level which could put people's lives in jeopardy and see the destruction of their homes and property.

"The people of Ipswich would find that quite inconsistent if we gave a special deal to a Gold Coast developer.

"If he (Mr Ell) doesn't like it he should pack up and leave town. We are here to protect the residents and not to boost the profits of Gold Coast developers in Ipswich."

Current council planning chief Cr Andrew Antoniolli said the commission's statement that council's flood level decision was "prudent" validated its position.

He said the current flood line would remain in place at least until the flood study was completed.

"We understand that flood study may be released in 2017 and we don't expect an enormous amount of change," he said

"If (council's position) was deemed prudent, then it would be foolish to change it until the flood study is released.

"We are not going to back down on that.

"A line does not stop a flood. Floods follow their own course. But the line is based on historical and scientific data and gives us a level of risk that we can adopt with respect to planning."

But Cr Tully said both sides of politics supported the flood level.

"It was initially approved by the Labor Party in 2011 and the LNP in 2012," he said.

In his letter Mr Ell goes on to say that "of interest and relevance is the approach of the Brisbane City Council Planning Scheme, in relation to the same flood planning matter"

He said that in direct contrast to Ipswich, Brisbane had "adopted a sensible and rational approach to their flood policy which simply mandates that planning for new developments will, on a first principal basis, consider the 'old' flood control line or the level that occurred in January 2011, whichever is the higher."

"The outcome between these two council policies shows a farcical outcome where four random properties on the Brisbane River (one in Brisbane City Council, one in Ipswich), have a flood level control difference of at least 1.5 metres," he wrote.

But Cr Tully said "what Brisbane does is its own business".

"But we are not going to relax the flood line that has been adopted because we will protect people and protect families."

Mayor Paul Pisasale backed Cr Tully's stance.

"The flood line is the flood line and the rules are the rules and we have to stick to them," he said.

"We have all been through the 2011 flood and I could never cause anyone any problems by changing the flood line.

"I support development but I am not going to support development that will jeopardise future generations."

Mr Ell insisted the current flood line was "way too high".

"And the Wivenhoe Dam and all the flood mitigation had been built long after the floods of the old days," he said.

He said the floods in Ipswich were 2m lower than in Brisbane but the council "doesn't want to recognise that".

Mr Ell said the council's position was holding up economic development for his own company and others in Ipswich.

"We could have built an extra 600 units there," he said.

"I've got all that land there and I have paid over $295,000 worth of rates on land that is valueless.

"They (the council) have set themselves flood levels way above the Brisbane level but why? They are upstream, not downstream."

Cr Antoniolli said "where the water goes in Brisbane is potentially different to where it goes in Ipswich".

"We don't have the level of mitigation on the Bremer that exists on the Brisbane River," he said.

"You need to have localised solutions and we must do what we believe is right for our city.

"Not many people would know but in the 24 hours before the peak in the 2011 flood we were being advised by the disaster management co-ordination group that we should be prepared for 22m.

"That is considerably higher than what we ended up with in 1974 and 2011 but if there had been additional rain in the Bremer catchment we could have a flood level even higher.

"If Bob Ell wants to call our flood level irresponsible and Brisbane's responsible then why did the commission of inquiry call ours 'prudent'?"

"This developer doesn't answer to the residents of the future, but we do."