Rhett Duncan on Behalf of Unitywater

2:28 Rhett Duncan: 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 today. After ensuring the protection of public health 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

2:57 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 plan. 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 Unity Water applied for approval to build a new sewerage treatment plan within 200 metres of established luxury accommodation with significant outdoor recreational facilities within the 2.5 odier unit contour, would council approve? Sewage 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 Unity Water in July 2010. The STP operates under a Department of Environment, Science and Innovation environmental approval and continues to meet all of its licence obligations.

4:14 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 area.

4:46 The proposed Noosa Springs development 400 metres to the west and south-west of the proposed STP is protected against noise, odour and visual impacts by the intervening ridgeline.

5:03 Prior to the 1997 upgrade, odour complaints were being received by council from the sensitive receptors 400 metres to the north. Council has not received any complaints from the sensitive receptors 400 metres to the

5:17 south, increasing the buffer distance to 700 metres from the sensitive receptors in the north. In addition, key odour generating sources were located at the south-west boundary of the STP in order to further maximise distance from those sensitive receptors to the north. The 1997 STP was designed with consideration to the 400 metre buffer zones to the then proposed Noosa Springs development. If approved, 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 1995 EIS, as providing protection, and the development knowingly places sensitive receptors within the 2.5 odour unit contour. So council's decision is made. 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.

6:35 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 that there have been few odour complaints since the post-1997 upgraded STP. This is largely the result of two things. Unity Water 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 minimise odour, there is a limit to what we can achieve. 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. The STP is a community of about 300 acres, with a widening of the 2.5 odour unit contour. So while it's true the Oasis community of permanent residence 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.

8:02 The Noosa Springs proposal, however, shifts development north along the ridgeline, reducing that available protection.

8:12 You don't even want to note that while the proposed conditions have been amended to remove the requirement for all guests to be 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, the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation and the Department of Environment, responsibility cannot be transferred. You don't even want to note the reference to the 2.5 odour unit limit, however DESE do not take this into account when investigating odour 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.

9:15 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 imprisonment. The Act is not subject to the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation and the Department of Environment. So this means any odour complaint made to the regulator will be investigated and could result in action against Unity Water that may lead to prosecution and costly plant modifications. In fact, in light of the new environment legislation, Unity Water would need to consider costly plant modifications before any complaints are received should this development be approved. And for reference, Unity Water installed odour control equipment in Marumba Downs Treatment Plant in 2009. 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 Unity Water, would be directly impacted by an investment like this. We don't have a blank checkbook for upgrades and an investment like this would need to be recovered through sewage charges to Noosa customers.

10:36 Unity Water upgrades its STPs as catchments grow to ensure ongoing, compliant sewage 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 Marumba 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 Unity Water that cannot be transferred and would unnecessarily cost Unity Water, 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 Unity Water, 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.

12:04 Unity Water 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? Thank you. Thank you Rhett.

12:26 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thanks Rhett.

12:28 Councillor Lorentson: We have no more deputations. An apology for another deputation that came through. Thank you Rhett. So we're going to go straight to reports for consideration of the committee. And the first report, one, NCU23-0101, application for short-term accommodation at 561 Gimpy, Kin Kin Road. Kin Kin. Welcome to the desk, Richard and Patrick. I'll hand it over to Richard. And firstly, are there any conflicts of interest? No conflicts of interest. Can you give us a summary, or only Patrick in turn, of the report in front of us?

13:13 Speaker 4: So the proposal is for a short-term accommodation inside an existing two-storey, four-bedroom dwelling house. The proposal doesn't include any works to be carried out on site, so existing access will be retained. There's no vegetation removal proposed either. The application triggered impact assessment because the site at 2.2 metres from existing 2.5 hectares is under the four hectare threshold for code assessment in the rural zones. One submission was received for the application that was actually in support of the development. It is noted that a short-stay approval, sorry, application was lodged in September 2022 seeking a short-stay approval for the site. There was a bit of back and forth through that process where the owner was unable to establish existing use rights and hence have since lodged the DA. The report is recommending approval for the application with standard conditions including limiting the number of bedrooms to four and the number of people on site to eight. Standard outdoor recreation area conditions limiting the use to 9pm. It is noted that the current planning scheme amendments are under public notification at the moment, where this sort of short-term accommodation in the rural zones would be inconsistent.

14:31 It is too early in that legislation. It is a process for the changes to the planning scheme to actually be taken into consideration through this current application. Any questions?

14:42 Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Has the applicant been able to prove existing use rights?

14:47 Speaker 4: They weren't unable to, which is why they've had to watch the application.

14:56 Councillor Lorentson: In terms of the draft amendments, Tara, so there's reference to the coding principle. There's a reference to the code principle. And I understand that not much weight can be given to the draft considering what stage we're at. Yes.

15:13 My question is, even if we were at, say, a more progressed stage with the amendments, an amendment is simply, a draft amendment is simply that. It's a draft amendment. My question is, does it carry any legal force if it's just a draft amendment? And would the decision be indifferent if this application came, say, two months after we put out the publication for amendments for notice of the amendments?

15:52 Speaker 2: Consideration for the draft scheme. More weight can be given to the draft scheme as we move through the process. So we go through the notification process, and then there's consideration for those submissions that may be made. And then if Council seeks to adopt the draft scheme, then it certainly allows us to place them away from that draft scheme.

16:15 Mayor Wilkie: Could you talk a bit about the reason why we asked property owners of dwellings to prove existing use rights?

16:28 Speaker 2: Well, that relates to the short-stay local law. So as you may be aware, properties that have been used for short-term accommodation are required to obtain the short-stay local law approval. And there's a pathway of entitlement, so to speak, before they can obtain an approval. And that is to have an existing DA, which allows the use to occur. Or if it's a dwelling, that they demonstrated that they had existing use rights prior to the commencement of the 2020 scheme, because dwellings that were constructed prior to that date were able to be used interchangeably for permanent or short-term accommodation.

17:12 Councillor Lorentson: So in terms of the approval, short-term accommodation is supported in our planning scheme. Visitor accommodation in the hinterland is supported, and for these conditions, it's got to be low density, small in scale, depending on the actual size of the property. So it's not just a small amenity. My question is, how many short-term accommodations already exist in the hinterland? And was that considered or backed into the decision-making?

17:47 Speaker 2: To give you a specific number, I'd have to go back through some data to give that to you. But certainly the prevalence of short-term accommodation in the rural areas is significantly less than what we have on the scene. So as I said, we have a number of short-term accommodation in the hinterland.

18:00 Councillor Lorentson: And in terms of strategic intent and outcomes of both our MESA plan and also our tourism strategy, the application falls within that intent.

18:14 Speaker 2: I think it's consistent. The new scheme has been sought to sort of diversify our tourism opportunities within the hinterland area, and so it's certainly cool with the scheme at the moment.

18:28 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Tom, you've got some questions. Yes.

18:30 Councillor Wegener: So it's assessed against the whole of the planning scheme. But then we bring in the tourism NUSA report, which talks about wanting to diversify the economy out into the hinterland. How does that fit in? How does the tourism NUSA, the 2017 document, influence this decision?

18:59 Speaker 2: So you're saying it's a document prepared by tourism NUSA?

19:03 Councillor Wegener: Yes.

19:04 Speaker 2: It's not part of the planning scheme, so it has no influence in our determination of the application. We can consider the document and review its intent, but it's not part of the planning scheme.

19:22 Councillor Wegener: So when it says that we want to diversify in the hinterland area, it's not part of

19:41 Speaker 2: I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the document informed the Noosa Plan at the time of the 2020 plan was introduced?

19:49 Councillor Wegener: It could be, because it's quoted in the report. So there's all sorts of plans we have out there, we have the corporate plan, we have We have the housing strategy plan, and I was just surprised to see that this plan, the 2017 plan about bringing more business to the hinterland, the tourism plan, why it was in this report. So that's why I'm asking.

20:21 Speaker 1: There are economic development benefits of obviously generating further activity in the hinterland, and obviously accommodation is one element of providing that diversification. But as you're aware, the current funding scheme amendments are seeking to make some changes there, and that largely relates to your way around the housing piece around that SDA should be taking up that time. Thank you. That housing supply, so it obviously does encourage the new scheme amendments, but not at the cost of losing that permanent housing supply. So I guess that's where the housing strategy is seeking to influence on the new funding scheme moving forward. But the current scheme, as the team have identified, it is a consistent sort of activity, and obviously impact assessment also requires assessment against the entire planning scheme, and all of those factors within the planning scheme could be considered as part of this decision.

21:16 Councillor Wegener: Thank you.