London residents fighting a proposed office near the Thames River say they face two obstacles: Rules and bureaucrats who favour development.

The rules favour developers because they don’t always prohibit building near waterways, says Monica Jarabek, chairperson of the Oakridge Riverside Community Association

Instead, the rules used by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority create two zones where flooding might occur. While most construction is barred in the zone closest to the waterway, it’s often allowed in the farther zone.

Conservation authority officials say that two-zone approach is typically used in urban areas such as London.

For both zones the lines are drawn based on historical data on flooding.

The closer zone represents land that would be flooded once a century; the farther zone is for land flooding every 250 years — with London’s 1937 flood the most recent example.

But Jarabek wants the city to adopt a single zone in which no development is allowed, an approach used by some Ontario municipalities.

“This new, single-flood zone should allow no development except those deemed absolutely necessary, such as dikes,” she wrote in a letter to city planners.

Jarabek’s concerns are shared by Coun. Nancy Branscombe, whose Ward 6 includes the Medway Valley.

“I don’t support a two-zone flood plain,” Branscombe said.

Sifton Properties Ltd. plans to build a five-storey office building at the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and Wonderland Road. To do so, it needs authorities to change the zoning of the site from its designation of “open space.”

Council will decide whether to allow that change, a decision it would typically make with the advice of city planners.

And that concerns Jarabek and fellow community activist Rosemary Dickinson of the Oakridge Hazelden Community Association.

What concerned them was a comment by Sifton's senior land manager, Phil Masschelein, who told The Free Press Sifton bought the site after being assured by city officials it could proceed with its proposal.

City staff shouldn’t take a position until they’ve heard from the public, activists say.

“It’s a way of pre-judging the outcome before public input. It’s putting a bias into it,” Dickinson said.

Jarabek has asked city staff not to offer an opinion to council and wrote of her concern to The Free Press: “People have long suspected that developers and the city were ‘going through the motions’ when they consulted us. They now openly admit it.”

That’s not the case, London’s planning head, Rob Panzer, said.

“We provide preliminary opinions on prospective applications, but we certainly don’t commit to anything,” he said.

The early advice is given so developers don’t unwittingly waste time and money pursuing a goal that isn’t achievable, Panzer said.

And at the end of the day it’s council, not staff, who decide what to do, Panzer said.