This was the view of councillor Ken Jordan at the April 13 council meeting on a night that produced some passionate discussions from councillors on the merits, or otherwise, of building dwellings on flood mounds.

The councillors considered three development applications (DA) - all of which had been recommended refusal by the council planning team.

Two were denied and a third was deferred to allow councillors time to digest an amendment put forward by Cr John Nell.

In the first DA, councillors voted unanimously to refuse a single dwelling on an existing flood mound at 1 Swanreach Road, Hinton, because it failed to satisfy the flood planning clause; it was not compatible with the flood characteristics of the site; and because it did not comply with the Development Control Plan (DCP).

The DA for a single storey dwelling at 918 Newline Road, Eagleton, was deferred to the April 27 meeting of council, with councillors agreeing to give the applicant time to amend the DA by raising the flood mound, deleting the ground floor and providing a PMF (probably maximum flood) refuge.

A third DA was refused for a dual occupancy (one existing) and flood mound at 814 Hinton Road, Osterley, where the applicant sought to construct an additional dwelling on a portion of the site identified as High Hazard Floodway.

In recommending refusal of the Osterley DA, the planners report stated that there were "alternate locations on the site which are affected by lesser flood categories that would have a reduced risk to life and property".

Cr Paul Le Mottee voted in favour of the development, saying that there was an anomaly in the satellite mapping.

"We are talking about an unusual knoll so small that it would not show up in the mapping," he said.

"During the on-site inspection if you looked to the left or right you would see you were metres higher then the flood ground and if you look straight ahead you were higher than the levee bank."

Cr Jordan said he also had no problem with high ground.

"My concern is [approving] dual occupancy in flood zone," he said.

"When I was first elected to the council if anyone wanted to build in a flood zone the answer was no. Then [council] approved a few and I thought, 'we have opened the floodgates'.

"The concern I have with this application is setting a precedent for the future... I know the phone calls I will receive: 'have you approved two dwellings in a flood zone?'

"Are they allowed to do it, well I suppose they are, but is it a good outcome for Port Stephens? Go out and have a look at all the mounds and double it. We will open the floodgates to a heap of DAs.

"We need to tread lightly because big business in Port Stephens [will be talking about] dual occupancy on every mound, two houses, maybe three, I don't know a motel, bed and breakfast?"

Earlier both councillors John Nell and Giacomo Arnott expressed their concerns for approving dwellings on high risk flood zone land.

"After the recent rains we have had, I would have expected that such applications would be withdrawn," Cr Nell said. "Why put people lives and money at risk ... there is no safe flood level."

Cr Arnott said that the threat of legal action in the case of a tragic outcome should be enough to deter any councillor from voting against the staff recommendations.

"The Act says that we councillors could be personally responsible if we don't act in good faith. It's a scary thought."

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can access our trusted content: