Rhett Duncan on Behalf of Northern Seq Distributor-Retailer Authority Trading as Unitywater

2:24 Rhett Duncan: My name is Rick Duncan, and in my role as Executive Manager, Customer Delivery, the operation and the maintenance of our network is my responsibility. This is our third deputation in relation to the proposed development at Noosa Springs. And we remain firm in our opposition to this proposed location of the new hotel development. This deputation is based on the current application. However, we understand that a further extension of the decision period to the 24th of December of this year is not in place. The proposal is to make minor changes to the application and provide updated advice from a number of experts with respect to ecology, odour, noise, visual amenity and bushfire. Unity Water has no visibility of these proposed changes or the potential impact that these may have on planned operations. Once we have an understanding of the impact of these minor changes, we would welcome an opportunity to discuss them with you. I would now like to take this opportunity to brief Council on the impacts to operation of the plant prior to a decision being made on this application. Unity Water is an essential services provider, lawfully operating water and wastewater services for the Noosa community. The Noosa Sewage Treatment Plant has been in operation on the current site since the 1970s, where it was operated by Council.

3:45 The entire Noosa Sewage network consists of 418 kilometres of sewer mains, 10,319 maintenance holes. And 114 pump stations, all configured to transport sewage to this specific location, which has been operating successfully for over 50 years. The plant can't be picked up and relocated without enormous cost and years of disruption to all sewage services for the Noosa residents, the community and its hundreds of thousands of annual visitors. When the plant needed upgrading in 1995, Council made a conscious decision to shift the plant closer to the southern and the western property boundaries, maximising the distance to the existing residential developments to the north. This is consistent with the recommendations in the Environmental Impact Assessment commissioned by Noosa Council to keep sensitive receptors more than 400 metres away from the treatment plant. There doesn't seem to be any reason to change this and increase the risk of odour impact by introducing more sensitive receptors within the 400 metre distance from the plant. This is consistent with the recommendations in the Environmental Impact Assessment commissioned However, the current development locates the swimming pool and the outdoor amenities approximately 150 metres from the sewage treatment plant site boundary and approximately 200 metres from existing odour generating processes.

5:09 Planned operations haven't changed. In fact, there's greater treatment occurring today as the Noosa community population grows and visitor numbers continue to increase year on year. The Noosa treatment plant operates within its licence capacity. However, the Noosa treatment plant operates within its licence capacity. The Noosa treatment plant is subject to significant peak loading during holiday periods. Meaning the highest risk of odour is during peak holiday occupancy at the proposed development. Approval of the proposed Noosa Springs development could also put Council in direct conflict with the State Planning Policy, July 2017, which seeks to protect STPs from encroachment by incompatible development. So what's this 2.5 odour unit contour line and what does it actually mean? Well, there's been a lot of discussion about this. We have had a lot of discussion and a lot of focus on this 2.5 odour unit contour line modelling, much of it being with our proper context and understanding of what it actually means. Firstly, the applicant would like you to think that the 2.5 odour unit contour is a hard and fast line, beyond which there are no odour issues. This is not the case. The odour modelling exercise and the 2.5 odour unit contour are simply scientific means of assessing the risk. It's not the law and it does not release unity water from its obligations under the law.

6:27 The Environmental Protection Act and the June 2024 legislative changes specifically focus on odour, meaning odour is now treated as an environmental nuisance and may constitute serious or material environmental harm. This is the law and it carries both financial penalties and potential imprisonment. But I'll come back to the law in a bit more detail shortly. Secondly, a crucial point to note is the 2.5 odour unit contour line modelling is a modelling estimate based on a point in time when data was captured nine years ago in 2016. It's not a single hard line where people experience odour on one side of the line and no odour on the other side. In fact, think of the contour like a windsock, not an impenetrable barrier. The modelling outcome will shift with the prevailing weather conditions, like wind direction and body temperature. It's sensitive to the density of surrounding vegetation and impacted by the operational conditions of the plant, which change throughout any given day. The 2.5 odour unit contour you see is therefore an average of all the modelling predictions based on the data used. In some scenarios, the 2.5 odour unit contour will be closer to the treatment plant and in other scenarios it will be further from and potentially beyond the proposed development.

7:47 Recent information received from the previous plant operator confirmed that since the upgrade was completed in 1997, there have been 12 odour complaints from neighbouring residences recorded by the plant, all of which stem from beyond the 2.5 odour unit contour line. In fact, six of those are from the 1.25 odour unit contour line based on the 2016 odour modelling provided by this Council as part of this application. Another consideration is if vegetation densities change over time, such as clearing prior to construction. This may render the modelling invalid, as one of the core variables used in the modelling has now significantly changed. Our climate is also changing, bringing into question the validity of nine-year-old data collected in 2016. Now odour modelling only considers the quantifiable experience being something people might smell, but does not distinguish the type of odour or take into account how different people might react and respond to the smell. Importantly, the contour line modelling does not take into account or consider in any way what is unquantifiable. And by this I mean the variations in daily planned operations, changes in daily weather and individual sensitivities to smell, the actual lived experience of being close to an operational sewage treatment plant.

9:11 Thirdly, the odour modelling is based on the predicted 1 hour 99.5th percentile ground level concentration of odour. We do not know what the 100th percentile contours look like. By using the 99.5th percentile, the model is saying that odour will be experienced for 44 hours in a year. Now this may not sound like a lot, however I refer to my earlier comment about the greatest risk of odour occurring during peak holiday season. Imagine a fully booked hotel in peak summer holiday season, guests sitting by the pool smelling the odour from the plant for 8 hours as they are trying to enjoy their relaxing holiday. Although by modelling the 99.5th percentile, the developers have met the 2013 DETSI modelling guidelines. Council, the Noosa community and Unity Water should also be presented with the case at the 100th percentile, which is the actual worst case scenario, as this may present a very serious risk. This would allow an assessment of operational risks in a worst case scenario event. Even if the frequency of issues is low, an odour event can still exist and any exposure may be considered unacceptable. This situation is the unquantifiable.

10:27 There must be a balanced approach to risk that looks at both the quantifiable and the unquantifiable, which is the lived experience for visitors and guests. So as I mentioned earlier, the changes to the Environmental Protection Act passed in June 2024 now mean that odour is treated even more significantly under the Act and environmental nuisance may now constitute serious material environmental harm. A new offence in fact 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 harm, specifically odour. Penalties related to this offence include financial penalties and even up to two years of imprisonment. If this development is improved, Council is putting sensitive receptors right back into the frame and on the doorstep of the modelled odour contour line. Council is placing the reverse amenity risk back onto Unity Water and therefore back onto our customers. Even worse than this, Unity Water could also be faced with a civil suit from Noosa Springs if odour causes an impact on their hotel business and forecast occupancy rates. Remember my point about modelling versus lived experience.

11:43 It only takes one individual to complain about their lived experience of staying at the hotel during an odourous event and the regulator will have cause to investigate. At that point it won't matter what any modelling at the 99.5 percentile says because the lived experience of that complainant dictates what happens next. Unity Water knows this first hand from experience at one of our sewage pump station sites where one complainant, new to the adjacent property in 2020, resulted in an over $1 million upgrade and the subsequent legal matter that remains ongoing today. The pump station in question have operated without complaint in the middle of suburbia surrounded by three properties for over 40 years. The operational and financial implications of one person's lived experience and the reaction to odour can have far reaching impacts on our business. And we all know the power of social media today where a single complaint can quickly escalate into a do not stay at a stinky hotel message. I cannot more firmly put on the record that the combination of enforced reverse amenity the unknown lived experience could result in action against Unity Water that may lead to prosecution, costly plan modifications and financial loss resulting from defending and or potentially settling a civil case.

13:08 Noosa Council as a shareholder in Unity Water would also be directly impacted by this outcome. We don't have a blank cheque for upgrades or for defending legal actions that are preventable. In our last two deputations I referenced the cost of new odour control equipment at the Marumba Downs Treatment Plant in 2010 as a direct result of urban encroachment and that cost was $38 million in 2010. What that cost would amount to today, I can't hazard a guess. So in closing, Unity Water is an essential services provider. We operate responsibly and lawfully for the benefit of Noosa residents and community. We support development that promotes sustainable and responsible economic growth but we oppose the proposed location of this development because it locates new sensitive receptors closer to existing sewage treatment operations. The assertion that odour contour modelling at the 99.5th percentile is justifiable as a balanced approach to risk assessment is misleading. It only takes one complainant with a negative lived experience at the new hotel to expose Unity Water to the potential enormous reputational and financial risks and serious legal ramifications.

14:23 These can be prevented by Council backing its 1995 decision to establish a 400 metre buffer zone and to also comply with state planning policy regarding encroachment by incompatible development. The proposed development would impose reverse amenity obligations on Unity Water that cannot be transferred and would unnecessarily cost Unity Water's Noosa customers, Noosa Council and Unity Water as a unit water shareholder tens of millions of dollars and severely limit our ability to meet future growth. The conditions proposed to be applied in approval, although with good intent, actually further increase the very serious risks to Unity Water, to Noosa Council as a shareholder and to our customers. These risks can be avoided if the proposed development is not approved in its current location in the first place. Unity Water are asking Noosa Council to not approve this development in this location. Again, I ask Council if the scenario was reversed, would Council approve a new sewage treatment plant with a 99.5th percentile odour contour right on the doorstep of existing luxury accommodation where the outdoor recreation facilities for that luxury accommodation fell well within that contour line?

15:39 Thank you. Thank you, Mr Duncan.