Rhett Duncan on behalf of Unitywater Topic: MCU21/0110 - Noosa Springs Proposed Development

Thank you, Councillor. Thank you for coming here this morning. Uniting water and provider for the Noosa region. My name is Rhett Duncan and in my role as executive manager of customer delivery, the operation and maintenance of our network is my responsibility. So thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. After ensuring the protection of and the natural environment, our most important priority is enabling economic development that allows communities to thrive. I'm here today to convey our very clear position that we do not support this development in this proposed location. This is our second deputation on the matter. And our opposition to the proposed location has not changed. In fact, it's stronger than before as a result of changes to the Environmental Protection Act introduced earlier this year. To be clear, we're not opposed to growth in Noosa Springs, just the proposed location. Which would be too close to the existing Noosa sewerage treatment plant. I'll explain our position and what we're asking of this committee and Council. However, firstly, I'd like to pose a question. If Unitywater applied for approval. To build a new sewerage treatment plant within 200 metres of established luxury accommodation with significant outdoor recreational facilities within the 2.5 odour unit contour, would Council approve? Sewerage treatment is an essential. Community service that's been lawfully carried out under Council operation since the mid 1970s. The STP was fully upgraded in 1997 and transferred to Unitywater in July 2010. The STP operates a Department of Environment, science and innovation environmental approval and continues to meet all of its licence obligations. The 1995 environmental impact statement commissioned by Noosa Council notes in section 3.10 buffer area and I quote "substantial buffer. Precincts exist around the existing and proposed STP. Nearest housing is more than 400 metres to the north of the existing STP northern boundary. The STP will be augmented to the south of the existing facility, increasing buffer from the centre of the proposed STP augmentation by approximately 300 the proposed Noosa Springs development 400 metres to the west and southwest of the proposed STP is protected against noise, odour and visual impacts by the intervening ridgeline. So there's some key points to note in this particular section of the EIS. Upgrade, odour complaints were being received by Council from the sensitive receptors 400 metres to the north. Council at the time made a conscious decision to shift the plant a further 300 metres to the south, increasing the buffer distance. To 700 metres from the sensitive receptors in the north. In addition, kyoto generating sources were located at the southwest boundary of the STP in order to further maximise from those sensitive receptors to the north 1997 STP was designed with consideration to the 400 metre buffer zones to the then proposed Noosa Springs development. Approved, if today's proposed development would see significant sensitive receptors located approximately 200 metres from the STP, significantly closer than the 400 metres considered in the design of the STP. The development encroaches up the ridgeline, noted in the 95 EIS as providing protection, and the development knowingly places sensitive receptors within the 2.5 odour unit contour. So council's decisions and actions at the time in this EIS were consistent, appropriate. And in keeping with the principles outlined in part E of the current state planning policy 2017. Which still seeks to protect STPs from encroachment by incompatible development. Therefore, approving the proposed development would be in conflict with the council's own earlier decisions to minimise. The potential impact of the STP on nearby land use and in conflict with the intent of. The State planning policy. It's true to note there have been few older complaints. Since the post-1997 upgraded STP. This is largely the result of two things. Unitywater deliberately operating the plant in ways that aim to minimise odour. And therefore impacts on neighbours and the geography and buffer zones provided. While we operate the plant to odour, there is a limit to what we can achieve. The STP comprises of thousands of. Pieces of mechanical equipment that can fail over time. They can have power. Supply interruptions through weather or electricity network events. We also note catchment volumes are increasing, meaning that while within licence limits, the plant is treating more sewage today than when it was built. Catchment volumes will continue to increase into the future, meaning the plant will continue to treat more sewage with a widening of the 2.5 odour unit contour. So while it's true the oasis community of permanent residents is located approximately 300 metres to the west of the STP, this community is afforded some shelter from the ridgeline running north-south between these properties and the STP. The Noosa Springs proposal, however, shifts development north along the ridgeline, reducing that available protection. You unity will want know, to note that while the proposed conditions have been amended to remove the requirement for all to guests be to advised of a potential odour from the sewage treatment plan, it retains the condition that the resort manages odour complaints internally via an odour complaint management plan, but this is not how it works in reality. The Department of Environment, science and innovation is the regulator in this space and regardless of any good intent from the proponent, responsibility cannot be transferred. Unity will even want to know. The reference the 2.5 odour unit limit however DESI do not take this into account when investigating owner complaints and issuing enforcement action. In fact the application of general environmental duty, environmental harm and nuisance is very open under the Environmental Protection Act. Changes to the Environmental Protection Act passed earlier this year now mean that odour is treated even more significantly under the act and environmental nuisance may now constitute serious or material environmental would harm. To take this opportunity to say thank you in addition, a new offence has been created under section 391 of the act in relation to contravention of general environmental duty while undertaking an activity where the contravention causes or is likely to cause serious or material environmental harm. Penalties relating to this offence include financial penalties and even up to two years in prison. So this means any odour complaint made to the regulator will be investigated and could result in action against Unitywater that may lead to prosecution and costly planned modifications. In fact, in light of the new environment legislation, Unitywater would need to consider costly plant modifications before any complaints are received should this development be approved. And for reference, Unitywater installed odour control equipment Murrumba Downs. Treatment plant in 2010 as a result of urban encroachment. This cost $38 million in 2010. I hate to think what that would cost in today's climate. Noosa Council as a shareholder of Unitywater would be directly impacted by an investment like this. We don't have a blank checkbook for upgrades. An investment like this would need to be recovered through sewage charges to Noosa customers. Unitywater upgrades its STPs as catchments grow to ensure ongoing compliance. Surge treatment. Upgrades to the treatment plant will change the odour contours used in modelling. A future DA application will need to consider sensitive receptors only 200 metres from the STP as a result of this proposed development. And I remind you, the Murrumba Downs installation where odour control equipment cost $38 million in 2010. So while we support development that promotes sustainable economic growth, we do not support this development in this proposed location because it locates new sensitive receptors close to existing sewage treatment operations. The proposed development would impose reverse amenity obligations on Unitywater that cannot be transferred and would unnecessarily cost Unitywater. Noosa residents and Noosa Council tens of millions of dollars and limit our ability to meet future growth in the region. Approving this proposed development would be at odds with the 1995 EIS and current state planning principles. The conditions proposed to be applied in an approval with good intent would actually further increase risk to Unitywater, to Noosa Council as a shareholder and our customers and this risk could be avoided if the proposed development is not approved in the first place. Unitywater are asking this committee and Noosa Council to not approve this development in this location. Again, I'd like to ask the committee and Council if the scenario was reversed, would Council approve a new sewage treatment plant only 200 metres from existing luxury accommodation.