DUNGOG SHIRE COUNCILAll Communications to be addressed to'The General Manager Telephone : (02) 4995 7777Dungog Shire Council Facsimile: (02) 4995 7750PO Box 95 Email: shirecouncil@dungog .nsw.gov.auDUNGOG NSW 2420 Website: www.dungog.nsw.gov.au

ABN 62 610 350 056

File EF 07/75 10/279406 April 2010CFD

Director GeneralNSW PlanningGPO Box 39SYDNEY NSW 2001

Att. Anna Scott, Water and Energy Infrastructure Projects

Dear Sir,

RE: Tilleera Dam (Application : 07 0156) - Submissions Report

Reference is made to the above and your correspondence to Council dated 18 March 2010.

Council would like to thank the Department of Planning for the opportunity to comment on theSubmissions Report (SR) prepared by the proponent.

In summary, the SR is an unresponsive and poorly balanced document. Many issues required tobe considered by Hunter Water Corporation (TTWC) in the assessment process remainunaddressed despite being identified initially in the Director Generals Requirements andsubsequently through the adequacy review and the many submissions on the EnvironmentalAssessment Report (EAR). The SR is compiled in a fashion that indicates that HWC'scommercial interests in the project override the Council and community's expectation of anobjective review of this proposal. As such, Council is urging DoP to give due consideration to theissues raised throughout this process in order to provide an impartial and equitable determination.

Of particular concern in the assessment process to date is the inadequate consideration of localsocial dimensions and the failure by HWC to provide a comprehensive assessment of all costsrelated to the project (Cost Benefit Analysis of the dam and other options). Further, the trafficand infrastructure provision has not been considered in the EAR post construction, this is afundamental flaw in the document. These critical considerations were required to be addressed inthe assessment process and remain unanswered by the proponent.

With specific reference to the SR, this report does not address the concerns cited by Council andthe community which Council represents. Nor does it submit a justifiable or detailed planningresponse to the fundamental and legitimate issues raised. It is apparent that the financial aspectsof the project are the paramount objective of the proponent and unfortunately, this outweighs anylogical planning or community based outcomes in the submissions response. In the clear absenceof any statements from the proponent that question the planning merit of Council'srecommendations, it is Council's opinion the recommended conditions proposed by Councilshould be imposed by the Minister.

Dungog56ireuke..rteFe ,ld 6e...

COUNCIL 'S VISION:A vibrant, united community, with a sustainable economy. An area where rural character, community safety, and lifestyle are preserved.

From any perspective, it should be recognised that the construction of the Tillegra Dam andongoing reliance on Chichester Dam and the Seaham Weirpool (all within the Williams RiverCatchment) create a significant and ongoing imposition on the local area. If the dam proceeds, upto 80% of the water supply for the Hunter Region will be generated in the Dungog Shire. Theimplications of locating these resources within the Dungog Shire over the long term and thefinancial benefit to Hunter Water and the NSW Government should be recognised and linked to along term financial return to Council and the local community.

In line with recent calls for Royalties to Regions payments to local communities for the extractionof coal or similar mined resources, a dividend linked to the future reliance of the region on theDungog Shire as a resource provider should be paid annually to Council to meet the additionaland ongoing demands this use will place on local infrastructure in perpetuity.

In addition, it is important that HWC identify the full social and economic implications on thelocal community and commit to significant local infrastructure projects in the short term such astourism and visitor information facilities. These projects would stimulate and maintain the localeconomy in the interim period until the dam fills and generates recreational use and businessactivity in the area.

It should be noted that many of the additional commitments HWC have made in the SR arerequired directly as a result of the proposed dam. This includes the construction of new roads andthe environmental/nature reserves and should not be put forward as proponent commitments,when they have in fact been required from the outset to replace assets that will be lost,accommodate the proponents design and achieve the required environmental offsets.

Dungog Shire Council requests that if the proposed Tillegra Dam is to proceed ; Hunter WaterCorporation in consultation with the Minister , the Department of Planning and CouncilRepresentatives review the commitments made to date to ensure that equitable and sociallyresponsible measures are in place to counter the impact of this project on the local communitythrough all phases of the project.

The following two annexures which are attached provide specific responses in relation to theHWC Submissions Report, being Annexure 1, which responds to Appendix A of HWCSubmissions and Annexure 2 which responds to the recommended conditions as reported inSection 9.6 of the document for Dungog Shire Council. Council respectfully requests that oursubmissions are given appropriate consideration by NSW Planning in their assessment of thisproject.

Craig DeaseyGeneral Manager

ANNEXURE1

DUNGOG SHIRE COUNCIL ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSION

The following is a table that includes issues raised by Dungog Shire Council (DSC) in its submission on the TillegraDam Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) as listed in the Hunter Water Corporation (HWC) Tillegra DamSubmissions Report Appendix A. The table includes the 14WC reference and additional comment by Councilofficers.

ISSUE SUMMARY IIWC DUNGOG SHIRE COUNCIL COMMENTRef

1. Inadequate assessment of impact 5.2 This issue was identified in the DGRS and HWCs failure to addresson community and council it was raised by DSC at the adequacy review stage and in the EARinfrastructure submission . IIWC has not assessed local impacts in these areas.

In relation to Economic & Social Impact the response from IIWCstill refer to "38 properties" and "farm income " as the loss to thelocal community and economy. The number of houses and familiesin the affected area and the loss to the local economy aresignificantly higher and need to be considered appropriately.

Many people living in this area draw income from outside sources(including welfare) and they and individual farms in the areagenerate significant activity in the local economy , well above thatidentified as farm income. To properly address the impact of thedam these impacts need to be assessed and mitigated.

With regard to Council Infrastructure , again appropriate studieshave not been carried out and the ongoing impact on roads andservices post completion have not been considered or appropriatelymitigated against.

DGR not comp leted.2. Lack of information and inability 5.11.2 Councils submission specifically referred to; the geology, fluvial

to apply the precautionary geomorphology, project justification and ecology. The referenceprinciple 5.11.2 does not address these concerns.

The lack of information and application of the precautionaryprinciple also applies in the initial assessment provided in otherareas , e.g. Social Impact Assessment , Road Dilapidation and TrafficStudy, Cost Benefit Analysis etc.

If the studies are not comprehensive and reliable, mitigation will notbe adequate, targeted or appropriate

3. Failure to provide specific 10 As above the failure to specifically commit to mitigation stems fromcommitments to mitigation the lack of appropriate assessment referred to in issue 2.

The commitments in ref 10 are not comprehensive or adequategiven the scale and the ongoing nature of the proposal.

4. Dungog Shire Council does not 5.2 As stated in response to issue 1support the project as the EARhas failed to adequately assessand compensate for the social andeconomic impacts to ourcommunity and infrastructure

5. HWC should provide a 5.2.2 This issue has been raised by many stakeholders since the release ofcomprehensive analysis of social, the HWC Options Paper and Why Tillegra Now Report. Unless theenvironmental and economic full cost of this project is identified a true appraisal and comparisoncosts both positive and negative of options cannot be made.using the Millennium EcosystemAssessment and Cost Benefit The project continues to be assessed from a cost to HWCAnalysis perspective.

Community and environmental costs must be weighted andconsidered . The modeling is available, recommended by Treasuryand could be applied for this project.

DGR not completed6. DSC doubts that there will be no 5 .2.9 Social Impact Assessment has not been carried out in relation to this

significant increases in demand matter . If a construction camp is built as now flagged , HWC havefor local accommodation during advised that these matters will be considered at that time.construction . Project managementwill remain the responsibility of HWC do not propose to lodge a DA if the camp is located on theirthe contractor, a workforce based land . If the dam proceeds, a separate DA needs to be lodged for anin Dungog will increase pressure accommodation camp regardless of its location.on housing significantly

The lack of certainty in this area does not prevent HWC fromconsidering the likely social and infrastructure impacts at the EARstage.

The failure to consider these issues at the EAR stage has meantthere is no firm commitment to mitigate impacts.

7. EAR fails to adequately address 5 .2.4 Again, there has been no detailed assessment of the local impacts onimpact on local businesses , the economy . Ref 5.2.4 continues to understate the loss at a localcompetition for services and local level and only makes vague statements (" likely") in relation tocontractor resources . consequences in the construction , fill and operational stages.

Dungog is a small centre; any impact on business will be significantand has not been adequately assessed.

Long term employment by HWC is stated at three personnel only.

The issue of how local businesses deal with competition forcontractors and labor in the construction phase has not beenassessed

8. EAR fails to adequately address 5 .2.5 Comment in this area has been provided above.economic impact on removal ofbusinesses and residents from Given the size of the local economy the impact will be significant.inundated area resulting in the Some estimates using a conservative multiplier have put the loss toimportance of employment and the economy , at the local level at between 5 and 7 million dollars aexpenditure in the area being year.underestimated.

9. Fail to adequately address loss of 5.2 . 8 Rates loss is estimated to be at $80 ,000 a year . HWC propose arates and like contributions to three year subsidy at this level.council when HWC will meetloss for 3 years only With rate pegging in 2010/11 set at 2.6 % a loss in the rate base of

approx 2% will be significant. Why only three years?

10. Fail to adequately address impact 5.2.9 There is still uncertainty in relation to accommodation of workerson social fabric and local and a detailed SIA on the local impacts has not been provided.services , local social equity,

social displacement , workers HWC have advised that a DA will only be lodged if theinteraction etc. These are often accommodation is not located on HWC land.considered for smalldevelopments but not on majorprojects . HWC have made aninitial commitment to the DungogInformation and NeighbourhoodService (DINS), this and othercommitments need to bemaintained and increased.

11. Fail to address increased demand 5 .2.9 SIA neededon medical resources . Provisionsfor medical services should bereflected in the SOC

12. 3 large projects will run co - 5.2.13 The Submissions report contains a number of errors in this area;currently with the dam, adding tosocial impacts which need to be The Gloucester Gas Pipeline proposes a construction camp with anassessed thoroughly . option near Clarence Town to house 200-300 workers for

approximately 12 months , possibly concurrent with the Tillegraconstruction phase.

The Transgrid upgrade will pass within 1 km of the town of Dungogand the traffic generated by this project will use the same route asthe Tillegra Dam generated traffic . The report states that theTransgrid line is well away from Dungog.

With regard to the Martins Creek Quarry, the operation of thisfacility is currently subject to action in the Land and EnvironmentCourt . The only EISs completed for this site (1991 and 1994)nominate a maximum of 300 ,000 tonne per year of which itidentified that only 90 ,000 tonne per annum would be by road andgenerally travel to the south of the Shire . The concrete facing of thedam may require considerable aggregate to be transported from thisarea . The report states that use of material from Martins CreekQuarry would have been subject to separate assessment of thatfacility .

13. HWC has not carried out a 5.3.1 HWC have not carried out a full road and traffic assessment ascomprehensive traffic impact & required in the DGRs.assessment for construction or 5.3.2assessment of the impact to roads The submissions report again identifies that a dilapidation reportthrough public use of the dam . and engineering assessment of the bridges will be carried out if theThe EA underestimates the road project is approved.use

IIWC have identified a contribution to Council roads of $1,000,000which it has largely tied to the repair of two bridges that need workto accommodate their heavy traffic . The residual is therefore only aminor contribution to the overall spending required to bring MR30Ito the required standard for future use . This cost is estimated at$2lMil

No assessment of the impact on Shire Roads generated byrecreational traffic post dam has been carried out. Additional trafficon roads in already poor condition will have a significant impactand impose long term costs on the Shire for road maintenance.

It is not appropriate for HWC to say that future road maintenance isthe responsibility of Council (page 128) if the construction of theirinfrastructure creates additional long term traffic on CouncilsRoads.

This infrastructure generates a long term income for HWC, the longterm costs should be mitigated in relation to road maintenance

14. Failure to differentiate between 5.3.2 Need for a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment and Roaddifferent classes of heavy vehicle Dilapidation report before proposing mitigationuse when considering level ofincreased use during construction

15. Failure to accurately identify 5.3.2 Need for a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment and Roadcurrent level and proposed Dilapidation report before proposing mitigationincrease in heavy movementsgreater than class 3 south ofDungog and increase use onChichester and Salisbury Rds

16. Traffic count data used do not 5.3.2 Need for a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment and Roadcompare to actual counts Dilapidation report before proposing mitigation

17. Structural details for many 5.3.3 Need for a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment and Roadbridges on Main Road are Dilapidation report before proposing mitigationincorrect

18. Tabbil Creek Bridge is 5.3.3 Need for a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment and Roadincorrectly-listed on Main Rd 301 Dilapidation report before proposing mitigationand LG Clements Bridge Southof Paterson is not referred to at all

19. Report underestimates amount of 5.3.2 Need for a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment and Roadmaterial and traffic movements Dilapidation report before proposing mitigationfor road and dam constructionand proposes B Double transportwhere B Doubles are notpermitted beyond WoerdensRoad on Main Road 301

20. Council estimates overall traffic 5.3.2 Need for a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment and Roadincrease could be as high as 70% Dilapidation report before proposing mitigationnot 20%, with a 150% increase inClass 3 vehicles on SalisburyRoad

21. Failure to recognise hazard 5.3.7 Total contribution of $171,000 in Dungog Clarence Town andcaused by increase in traffic Raymond Terrace.passing schools and sportingfacilities in Clarence Town andDungog

22. Failure to recognise lost costs 5.3.4 The report states that it was widely known that this area was to bewith inundation of Quartpot the next likely place for a dam to be built. This is not correct. Allbridge only built in 2004 on information available to the public and Council was that thererecommendation from HWC. would not be a dam for at least 20-30 years if ever. CouncilLoan for borrowings are still constructed this dam based on written advice from HWC staff tobeing repaid this effect. If there was any identification or advice that the dam

would proceed infrastructure in this area would have beenmaintained rather than replaced.

The net effect of this action is that there is a bridge elsewhere in theShire that could have been replaced and Council is still paying for aproject that it would not have committed to.

The replacement of inundated infrastructure by HWC along the newroads should not be seen as mitigation; it is a separate requirementon HWC and does not compensate for the lost opportunity cost ofQuartpot Bridge being constructed.

23. Statement of commitments do not 5.3.1 As in issue 13 and 14adequately compensate ormitigate against significant longterm impacts , and moreassessment and specificcommitments should be made intraffic for the project to beapproved

24. Geology available fails to 5.3.2 No further detail as to material suitability and geology identified,confirm the suitability of The issue of source of material for use in concrete is still unclear.materials for various usesproposed in the dam and road These issues could result in significant variation in trafficconstruction . If not suitable, there movementswould be greater road networksimpacts due to increase inhaulage routes

25. Geological complexity has 5 .4.9 Councils issue with the geology was that considering communityconflicting expert opinion and concern in relation to costs and dam safety, HWC consider thematters should be resolved prior GERA report and make available all data to allow reviewto project progressing inassessment and approvals

26. EA fails to address impact on 4.2.4 Absence of assessment in the EAR. Response in Submissionsriver and ecology through Report notedformation of deltas . Deltas willform and progress upstream fromthe dam perimeter

27. EA fail to address increase in 4.2.2 Still not addressed . The report does not address increased erosion inerosion where streams enter the low water level periods in areas where vegetation is lost due todam as the water level varies over inundation below the maximum water level, particularly on steeptime and vegetation is lost below slopes within the dam area.the maximum The report does not appear to consider slope stability above

potential erosion areas within the seasonal tidal zone. It isunrealistic to state that the dam will "usually" be operated betweenthe 96-100% capacity levels.

28. EA fails to address foreshore 4.2.1 As raised in 27erosion, increased erosion and &creation of cut points and channel 4.2.2lowering, slope stability abovethe dam and dam rim, foreshoreerosion from powerboats.

29. EA fails to address changes in 4.2 The construction of a second dam in the upstream tributaries of theflow patterns, cumulative effects, Williams River will alter irreversibly the natural geomorphicbed lowering, vegetation in weir processes, hydrology and ecology for the full extent of thepool, etc for full extent of river catchment.below the dam

Many of these changes have been understated in the EAR, cannotbe predicted accurately and cannot be mitigated against.

These impacts should be considered as a cost when looking atalternatives to the construction of a dam

30. It is not appropriate to propose 4.2 As stated in 29that impacts will be monitoredand addressed after the dam isbuilt. Use the precautionaryprinciple

31. Extent and significances of 4.2 As stated in 29change to stream bed and impacton stream ecology are notrecognised or adequatelyweighted in EA

32. Downstream modification will 4.2 As stated in 29impact on benthic species , changevegetation, bank stability andecology of seasonal wetlandsdownstream

33. Dam will be a barrier to species 4.3.1 As stated in 29migration without a fish ladder

34. Impact on Kooragang wetland not 6.2 As stated in 29fully considered and contributionof the Williams riverunderestimated

35. The condition of the Williams 4.4.7 As stated in 29River has been understated andfail to recognise previous work

36. EAR needs to provide 3 As previously identified by a number of stakeholders, the dam is putreassessment of options using the forward as the preferred option by I-IWC based on their own costs toBCA model, community construct and operate. This costing is inappropriate considering theconsultation, independent review. Social, Conservation and Heritage implications.Currently options have to beconsidered using the arguable IIWC should reassess options using the BCA modeldata provided

Section 3.6 of the submissions report continues to use arguablestatements as justification for the project:

• providing a "diversity of supply" and• could "provide for additional growth on the Central

Coast".• Fulfilling the objectives of the H250 plan (a retrospective

strategy)Until a proper analysis of costs and options is completed thesearguments for the dam are erroneous

37. ILUP is too subjective and 5.2.10 Council requests DoP condition the suggested commitments in theambiguous to provide certainty ILUP ensuring the proponent will actually have to carry out suchand clarity. Actions and works rather than just `consider' or `investigate'. The ILUP is farcommitments need to be too subjective to provide any level of community certainty.definitive and added into the SOC9 ILUP does not draw clear linkbetween land use and wateractivities. Needs to be regularlyreviewed by HWC with allstakeholders through life of theproject

38. Money on relocating Munni 5.6.4 Council acknowledges the potential commitment, particularly to theHouse would be better spent establishment of a VIC and Interpretive centre as an alternative tobuilding a new facility and the relocation of Muni house.salvaging elements of Munihouse or other Aboriginal and The level of commitment however would need to be reassessed asEuropean heritage items from the to the true cost of this alternative and the ongoing contributionarea. The new facility would be required.better situated somewhere central,such as in place of the existingvisitor centre in Dowling Street.

39. Council commends IIWC work 5.6.5 Ongoing consultation and commitment required if the dam proceedsfor the possible relocation ofQuartpot Cemetery and requestongoing commitment andcooperation should the damproceed

40. Management Plans should be 9.6 & Management Plans in relation to many aspects of the damdeveloped for construction and 10 construction and operation are proposed. These management plansoperation . Should be available for should be assessed by relevant stakeholders and authorities as tocomment from various their adequacy prior to adoption.stakeholders prior to adoption.

Development applications and applications for approvals under Sec68 of the Local Government Act should be lodged for aspects of theproject not considered within the EAR, including the constructioncamp , recreation facilities , dwellings and septic systems regardlessof the location within the Shire.

41. SOC must include specific HWC 9.6 & The commitments given need to be reviewed to ensure equitablecommitments in all areas 10 arrangements are included within any approval to mitigate against

all impacts of the project.

These commitments should include a long term agreement from theNSW State Government and HWC to meet ongoing costs toCouncil Infrastructure and the community.

ANNEXURE2

DUNGOG SHIRE COUNCIL COMMENT ON SECTION 9.6 OF THE HUNTER WATER SUBMISSIONS REPORT FOR THE TILLEGRA DAMPROJECT

No. DSC Recommendation HWC Response DSC Response1 That Hunter Water provide a contribution of $50,000 This is not supported. Hunter Water has The $323,000 provided by HWC is a one off

to DSC on a 5 yearly basis to complete a review of already provided $323,000 to Council for contribution. The proposed development will havethe land use planning framework around the a review of its planning documents. long term planning implications. Therefore, as thereproposed dam is a clear nexus (in perpetuity) between land use

planning and the proposed dam, it is highlyappropriate this cost be the responsibility of thedeveloper.

The fact a previous contribution has been made toland use planning by HWC is both irrelevant andnegligible when compared to the overall projectcost.

2. That Hunter Water provide $20,000 for the review of This is not supported. Refer to comments above. HWC has failed tothe DSC tourism development control plan Hunter Water has already provided consider the merits of this request, rather dismisses

$323,000 to Council for a review of it based upon economic considerations.its planning documents.

3. That Hunter Water provide a Sec 94 contribution of This is not supported. Council is well aware of the statutory aspects of s94,2% of the total project value ($9.4M based on From a purely statutory point of view, the however understands the imposition of s94$470M) Project falls under Part 3A of contributions or similar can be imposed at the

the EP&A Act and therefore Section 94 discretion of the Minister. Such level of communitydoes not apply. There is no contributions have occurred with other 3A projects.equivalent provision under Part 3A.Hunter Water has already made a The other contributions made by HWC are minorsignificant financial contribution to when compared to the required s94 contributions.Council in recognition of the effects of Again, HWC have not discredited the need for a s94the Project on the community contribution, rather attempted to reaffirm the one off(refer Section 12.11 of the EA Report) contribution they have already made is sufficient.and is committing to further This is not the case.funding (refer elsewhere in this table).

Refer to Councils comments in the EAR submissionthat strongly support the need for a section 94contribution. A development such as this with longterm traffic and community infrastructureimplications must be levied a s94 contributions forthe wider community benefit.

4. In the instances where the ILUP uses terminologysuch as' investigate' or'consider' or'subjectto', these commitments are to be clarified by theApplicant and included in the SOC.

No clarification is considered necessary.The use of this terminology reflects thedraft status of the ILUP.

The draft ILUP forms part of the EAReport and is therefore subject toany applicable conditions that theMinister for Planning considersappropriate to attach to the approval.

As alluded to by HWC, Council requests DoPcondition the suggested commitments in the ILUPensuring the proponent will actually have to carryout such works rather than just `consider' or`investigate'.

5. In accordance with the DSC Route Access Study the This is not supported. $2M is clearly insufficient when the DSC RouteApplicant must contribute $2M pa for a period of The NSW Government, through the access study identifies that $21M is needed.five years (CPI indexed) of funding towards roads Whole of Government Taskforce,upgrading as referenced in the study has committed $2 million for roads. Half Rather than addressing the planning issue (increased

of this amount will be provided traffic for the entire life of the dam-not justby Hunter Water. construction traffic) and identifying a strategy to

resolve the problem, HWC have simply relied ontheir previous and insufficient commitments.

The EAR does not adequately assess trafficimplications for the life of the project and the fullcontribution will ensure the development is servicedappropriately. The EAR can not promise thecommunity full recreation yet not provide theproportionate infrastructure.

The Whole of Gov't taskforce was established toassist Council in all spheres of the Dam proposal. Ithas not been the funding provider of the $2Milcommitted, only $lMil is coming from HunterWater $492K is a re-vote by the RTA plus anadditional $508K to enable matching funding.

Further, the existing design life of the pavement willbe dramatically reduced as a direct result of theincrease in heavy vehicle movements during theconstruction phase and expected traffic increasesinto the future. This degradation of the pavementwill lead to an increase in failures, will affect safetyand result in a reduced pavement life.

6. The road network north of the Dungog township to Hunter Water would not commit to This is a reasonable outcome in the short term.the proposed dam is to be upgraded to the current upgrading this section of road but However, HWC are failing to address the trafficRTA standards would maintain the section of road implications of their proposal post construction.

between Dungog and Tillegra in a Reports prepared by Council indicate tourist trafficsuitable condition for the duration of will be very high directly as a result of the dam. Theconstruction to ensure the safe proponent should clearly be responsible for roadpassage of vehicles. construction to RTA standards for all users across

the life of the project.

As HWC has committed to a full recreational damthe proponent has not considered or undertaken anystudies as regards the traffic impact of such on theCouncils road networks. As the road North ofDungog is only classified as a local road it should beupgraded to a regional road equivalent.

Further, the existing design life of the pavement willbe dramatically reduced as a direct result of theincrease in heavy vehicle movements during theconstruction phase and expected traffic increasesinto the future. This degradation of the pavementmay not become fully evident during theconstruction phase but will lead to an increase infailures, will effect safety and result in a reducedpavement life.

8&9 Road Dilapidation and Bridge Condition Assessment These studies are proposed as impact Road and Infrastructure assessment should bemitigation in the EAR completed prior to approval and adequate mitigation

included in the statement of commitments.11. That Council be compensated for the loss of three This is not supported. What HWC has ignored is that Council spent $1 Mil

concrete bridges that have been constructed within Hunter Water has already agreed to on new bridges through loan borrowings andthe inundation area replace affected Council utilization of roads to recovery grants to fund this

infrastructure through the construction of infrastructure as a consequence of their advice inthe new section of Salisbury 2003 that the Dam is not on their 30 year horizon.Road which includes the provision of The economic benefit of those bridges has not beenthree new waterway crossings . recognized nor the opportunity cost that has been

forgone by the community in not having alternativebridge infrastructure replaced.

12. That Hunter Water be required to undertake road This is not supported. The safety audit does not adequately address thesafety improvements at the Hooke Street, Chichester The EA Report included a safety audit impacts and conflicts which will arise at this site.Dam and Common Road intersections to improve which identified a range of safety The audit was not undertaken at the time of school

line of sight, enhance pedestrian safety and tominimise conflict with current road users

issues on routes anticipated to be used byconstruction traffic .Hunter Water has already committed toundertaking road safetyimprovements to address these issues .

in operation particularly at peak drop off and pickup times in the morning or afternoon.

The safety audit does not adequately address theimpacts and the conflicts that will arise due totransport vehicles, school buses, the only entrance tothe Dun og Industrial area.

14. The development is to provide for a pedestrian and This is not supported. The need for a pedestrian and cycle way is notcycle way link between Dungog and the proposed Hunter Water has already made a subjectively assessed, rather HWC have simplydam significant commitment to recreational relied on their previous and insufficient

infrastructure around the dam as commitments.documented in the draft ILUP.The provision of such a facility is How is the provision of such a facility the role ofconsidered to more appropriately be Council when HWC is the developer? Without thethe responsibility of Council. development there would be no need for such a

facility? The construction of the dam withoutadequate provision for a cycle way will consist of aconsiderable traffic hazard.

Refer to Councils comments on the need for apedestrian/cycle way in Councils submission to theEAR. The allocation of a cycle way is consistentwith state planning direction in regards to promotinghealthy communities and reducing motor vehicledependency.

15. Landscape buffer should be planted and maintained This is not supported. Any further land acquisition would be minimal asfor the length of the existing Salisbury Road from This would require further land only a small width extension of road reserve wouldMyall Creek Road back to the Chichester Dam Road. acquisition and Hunter Water is not be required and such costs would be far outweighedThe buffer should be landscaped with appropriate prepared to commit to this. In addition to by the positive environmental and amenityplantings (at least 3 rows of semi mature species to the financial aspect, this could outcomes.create a tree lined avenue) to mark the entrance way cause unnecessary concern on the part ofto the environmental and recreational setting of the potentially affected property The concern of the affected property owners isTillegra District owners. unfounded. Have HWC consulted with the property

owners on this particular issue? In Council'sexperience property owners are often supportive oftree avenues/buffers. Land owners concern in otheraspects of the project hasn't been used by HWC as areason for not proceeding with the proposal, why isit with this issue?

Apart from HWC' s financial concerns only positive

aspects will typically eventuate from the landscapebuffer. Property owners will have the main roadscreened , whist motorists entering the Tillegradistrict will be greeted with an improved amenityand a sense of place. This is discussed further inCouncil's land use strategy.

16. A detailed water users recreation study must be This is not supported. Any subjective review of the HWC ILUP willprepared and implemented in consultation with It is considered this is already adequately illustrate that the water user aspect has not beenrelevant authorities and stakeholders addressed through the draft ILUP and the satisfactorily addressed.

process described for its finalisationwhich includes There is a significant possibility of land use conflictconsultation with relevant stakeholders. that needs to be effectively managed. This will

confirm what uses should be in what areas withappropriate segregation, buffers and the relationshipwith adjacent land uses. The current scenario ofusing broad icons in the ILUS and HWC stating itwill be at the discretion of the community has nostrategic merit and doesn't achieve anythingmeaningful outcomes.

26. That Hunter Water contribute for the life of the dam This is not supported. Consistency with past part 3A approvals is not athe provision of a local community infrastructure It is noted this would not be consistent sufficient reason to not support such a request.fund, the equivalent of 1% of the monies paid to with past Part 3A approvalsNSW Treasury as a dividend to the State As already alluded to the Dam will negativelyGovernment impact upon the rate revenue streams of Council

HWC will use legislative provisions to ensure theland becomes non-rateable. Leaving Council and thecommunity with a funding gap, coupled with anincreasing demand for community infrastructure asa consequence of potential visitors to the LGA thepremise of this funding is equivalent to royalties forregions where the natural resources of the area areimpacted upon as a consequence of development,the impact upon the social fabric of the communityaside from the additional demands upon communityinfrastructure and services. Council will have tomake application to increase our rate income aboverate-peg limits to meet these costs if a levy of thisnature cannot be imposed.

27. That Hunter Water provide continuing funding of up This is not supported. There was no real attempt to undertake a detailedto $20,000 per annum to Dungog Neighbouring Counselling was an important service social impact assessment of this Dam. It is not onlyServices for a period of 10 years for counselling during the Project announcement the current residents within the inundation that weservices and subsequently to this point in time. are concerned about. The relocation of Munni

However, it is considered that cemetery is another aspect, however there aremany of the issues that were the basis for families within Dungog and beyond that no longerthis are now resolved. own land in that area but still regularly gather forThis notwithstanding, Hunter Water family re-unions etc and they have an affinity withwould provide a tailored service to that country. Aspects of their lives in respect of thissupport remaining landowners in the area have not been fully considered nor have theyProject area and families with an been interviewed by HWC or their consultants.interest in the cemetery location to ensure Furthermore people who have been activelythat they have proper support opposed to the project may also need assistancefor that process. should the Dam be determined, the commitment is

at best a cost of $200K.