Upload
others
View
9
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TO BUFFER OR NOT TO BUFFER?
LAND USE CONFLICTS WITHIN SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT BUFFER ZONES
2006 BPLAN FINAL YEAR THESIS
TO BUFFER OR NOT TO BUFFER?
LAND USE CONFLICTS WITHIN SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT BUFFER ZONES
WRITTEN BY GLENN DAWES 3061565
Cover Art Work: Riverstone STP Map: Sydney Water Warriewood STP: Dawes 2006 Sewage Treatment Plant: www.epd.gov.hk - 9/09/06
i
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION – THE BUFFER ZONE ISSUE 1 What is a buffer? 2 Research 2 Methodology 3 Conclusion 5
Chapter 2. UNDERSTANDING THE BUFFER 6 History 6 Land Use Conflicts 7 NIMBYs and LULUs 8 Land Use Control 11 Conclusion 12 Chapter 3. TYPES OF BUFFERS 14 Separation Zones 14 Habitat/Riparian Strips 16 Environmental Protection Zones 17 Comparison of Buffer Zones 18 Conclusion 19 Chapter 4. LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES 20
Buffer zones and Management 20 Location and Establishment of Buffers 22 Existing Legislation 24 Comparison of Legislative Requirements in Relation to Buffers 26 Conclusion 27 Chapter 5. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT BUFFERS – ANALYSIS OF ISSUES AND THEMES 29 Methodology/Measures of Ensuring Appropriate Information 29 Analysis of Themes 30 Location and Establishment of Sewage Treatment Plants within Sydney 30 Sewage Treatment Plant Buffer Zone Policy/General Policies 33
ii
Odour/Smell Impacts 35 Health/Environment Impacts 37 Money/Money Related Themes 37 Development Issues 39 Land Use Conflicts 40 General Buffer Themes 41 Planning/Planning Outcomes/Better Planning 43 Theme Flow Analysis 44 Conclusion 45 Chapter 6. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT CASE STUDY – WARRIEWOOD STP 46 Background 47 Issues 47 Legal Issues 53 Problem Solving 54 Conclusion 56 Chapter 7. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS – THE WAY FORWARD 57 As Is Option 57 Tighten or Reduce Buffer Restrictions Option 59 Capping Option 61 Conclusion 62
REFERENCE LIST 64 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW RESEARCH QUESTIONS APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT – NICK CHAPMAN (SYDNEY WATER) APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT – NATHAN HUON (PITTWATER COUNCIL)
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Insanity Streak Comic 2 Figure 2: Structure and Flow of Research 4 Figure 3: Griffin’s Plan of Canberra 1912 7 Figure 4: Attitudes Toward Siting: Opposition to Statewide Versus Local Facility Siting 9 Figure 5: Locals rallying against the Desalinisation Plant 10 Figure 6: Liverpool STP Buffer zone map 15 Figure 7: Representation of a small lake or wetland with its drainage basin. 17 Figure 8: Environmental Protection Zone minimising external threats 18 Figure 9: Camden STP 32 Figure 10: Theme Structure and Flow 45 Figure 11: Warriewood STP 46 Figure 12: Warriewood STP buffer zone map 48 Figure 13: Warriewood Cinema Centre – Pittwater Business Park 50 Figure 14: Pittwater Business Park 50 Figure 15: An example of the residential dwellings found within the buffer zone of Warriewood STP 51 Figure 16: Warriewood STP entrance 52 Figure 17: Pittwater Business Park 52
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Analysis and Comparison of differing buffer zones 18 Table 2: Comparison of Legislation Effecting STP Buffers 27
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank Nick Chapman and Nathan Huon who gave up their time to speak to
me about the (at times monotonous) buffer issue. The resources and information
gained by these professionals were undoubtedly the key to my research. Furthermore,
I’d like to thank Dr Robert Freestone who provided guidance and support throughout
the research period. Finally, thanks must go to my family and friends who listened to
my constant ramblings about STPs and offered support when needed.
Thankyou
Glenn Dawes (2006)
Researcher
1
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION – THE BUFFER ZONE ISSUE
Conflict arises when disagreements between viable land uses occur. These are usually
related to environmental, economic or social issues. The disagreement over who
benefits from certain major infrastructure and who is affected by them can often lead
to conflict (Wester-Herber, 2004). Furthermore, today’s society is faced with an
increasing population and less land to accommodate this increase, with people moving
to areas in close proximity to these major infrastructures. “The world we live in today
is based on industries necessary to sustain our lifestyle. The physical structures and
waste generated by this all has to go somewhere—giving a potential conflict between
local concerns versus national interests. This can, and has, lead to conflicts
concerning where to place certain industries” (Wester-Herber, 2004. p114). A recent
article in the Daily Telegraph ‘It’s states not rates’ outlined the lack of urban land
releases in New South Wales, causing the increased prices in land and new homes.
This was in light of the comments made by Treasurer Peter Costello, that state and
local governments are not releasing enough areas for urban development (Daily
Telegraph, 19/8/2006). This lack of developable land can then be directly linked to
the push to obtain any type of land in existing areas. Unfortunately this type of land is
few and far between and often found near major infrastructure in which land use
conflicts arise.
As planners, we need to achieve an efficient and compatible arrangement of land uses
which reflect the physical constraints and opportunities, social patterns, commercial
services, service infrastructure, development paths, environmental sensitivities and
economic conditions (Water Corporation 2001). In order to achieve such an outcome,
policy and mitigation measures need to be undertaken to allocate where viable land
uses that accomplish what has been stated can be placed with emphasis on what is and
can be around them. The conflicts that occur due to this arrangement can be best
resolved through spatial separation, removing the source of nuisance or conflict by
distancing conflicting uses, in which buffering of particular land uses occurs.
2
What is a buffer?
Buffers are a key instrument in discouraging land use conflicts involving any form of
development, whether it be protecting the environment or locating major
infrastructure amongst residential or incompatible land uses. Buffer zones are an
important planning practice that need to be adhered to when looking at an area that
contains major infrastructure or an area of environmental significance. Failing to do
so creates land use conflicts, which hinder development and cause issues within
governments. Sewage Treatment Plants (STP’s) are complex facilities which manage
a communities waste. “Effective and safe waste management is fundamentally
important for the maintenance of a sustainable global population and, also, a desirable
quality of life within the framework of global societies” (Jolley and Wang, 1992,
preface). Land use conflicts occur around these facilities due to odour, health or
environmental issues that may arise from the ongoing treatment of waste. Figure 1
depicts the issues of odour and health involved with a STP in a light hearted manner.
Appropriate mitigation of these STP buffers need to be enforced to resolve such
conflict arising from such issues.
Research
The issue that my thesis will explore is that of land use conflicts, in particular land use
conflicts involving STP’s. During my one year work experience (a requirement of the
Bachelor of Planning degree at the University of New South Wales) with Sydney
Water, I observed the controversial nature of Sydney Water’s 400 metre buffer zone
that surrounded each of their STP’s. This involved the constant argument between
Figure 1: Insanity Streak Comic: The Daily Telegraph 01/08/2006, p31
3
Sydney Water and developers about the need for STP buffer zones and the list of
appropriate land uses allowed within them. For example residential areas require
higher standards of amenity (pleasantness) than industrial or commercial operations.
“Buffer zones are maintained to protect residents from the effects of land uses that are
not compatible with residential areas” (Water Corporation 2001, p1).
The actual notion of what buffer zones are and why they exist is important as it
provides a platform on which the main research of STP buffers can be based. Buffer
zones are a practical and widely adopted solution to real planning issues. These
planning issues relate to land use conflicts, and within this lies the problem and
understandably is where my research is based. By using existing legislation and
discussing the issue with experts in this area, it is my intention to establish an
understanding of land use conflicts involved with buffer zone planning, in particular
STPs, and to find appropriate measures to alleviate them.
Methodology
My investigations will incorporate existing literature on land use conflicts and buffer
related issues along with the relevant legislation currently in place, governing the
buffer zone. This will then be strengthened with information sought from
professionals with experience in buffer zones.
My research will generally be broken into three sections, allowing for an appropriate
analysis of the buffer issue. The first section will provide a background on buffers,
from which we can observe the nature of a buffer zone. Understanding what a buffer
zone is, why it is needed and to what extent it can be applied, allows us to see its
importance in the planning world. Information will be sourced from a variety of
literature, covering aspects of land use conflict and buffer orientation in a global
sense, with Australia being the key focus.
The concept of buffers is understandable when looking at them on paper, but how are
they applied in the real world? The second section will look at the existing legislation
in relation to land use conflicts, separation and STP buffer zones. Furthermore,
information sourced from professionals, through two interviews with persons having
4
different viewpoints on the issue, will be used to allow for a better understanding of
what is actually occurring. The way in which these interviews were conducted was by
using the funnelling technique. “Funnelling refers to a process of questioning in
which the interviewer controls the flow and type of information being asked by
starting the interview with questions of a general and broad nature. Then as
participants engage in conversation, the interviewer guides the informants view
towards more specific issues” (Minichiello, et al, 1995, p84). This will be followed
by an in depth look at the Warriewood STP from which representatives from Sydney
Water and Pittwater Council have commented on the implications the plant has had
on surrounding land uses, and how these have been solved. This section will also
include a discussion of the McIntyre and Ors v Pittwater Council court case, involving
Warriewood STP and its buffer, complementing the understanding of how buffers are
used and implemented.
Finally, the research will be brought together to provide some recommendations on
STP buffer issues. It will look at how buffers/land use conflicts affect planning and
how we can provide a better way forward, using the information sourced from
government authorities and the literature that has been assessed. The structure of my
research is demonstrated within the diagram below. The diagram shows how the
sections interrelate with each other leading to my conclusion.
Figure 2: Structure and Flow of Research
Introduction
Buffer Understanding
Buffer Types
Legislation/Policies
affecting Buffers
Issues affecting STP
Buffers
Warriewood STP Case
Study
Conclusions – The Way
Forward
5
Conclusion
Having worked within a state government authority such as Sydney Water, it is hard
not to accept buffer zones as an important planning strategy to real planning issues.
My initial opinion in regard to the issue is along similar lines to state government
policies. Rules and regulations need to be enforced to prevent developers moving in
and around major infrastructure. There appears to be a weakening of the enforcement
of this legislation relating to STP buffer zones, allowing developers to build without
much opposition. However, arguments against buffer implementation cannot be
ignored and appropriate analysis of what is happening in this area must be undertaken.
This research will not only give me a better understanding, but will allow for an
overview of what is going on and give an answer to the question, to buffer or not to
buffer?
6
Chapter 2. UNDERSTANDING THE BUFFER
In general terms buffer zones are used to restrict certain types of development or
protect an area from development. Buffers can be placed to protect national parks or
waterways through riparian corridors (Correll, 2005), conserve heritage areas
(Kozlowski and Vass-Bowen, 1996) or to restrict undesirable and incompatible land
uses from areas where major infrastructure may cause land use conflicts (NSW EPA,
2001). Buffer zones are a practical and widely adopted solution to real planning
issues. “They can be recognised for airports, refineries, quarries and mining, animal
feedlots, noxious industries, pharmaceutical manufacture, organic chemical industries
and sewage treatment plants” (Water Corporation, 2001, p2). But why is it there? To
determine this, I will look at the history and some of the causes of why buffers are
established, with particular reference to STP’s.
History
Buffer zones have been used in natural conservation situations in the 1940s in the
United States (Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005). When observing historic plans, it can
be seen, though not particularly identified, that simple buffering techniques had been
used. Griffin’s Canberra Plan of 1912 is one that demonstrates these techniques.
Within Griffin’s design, two movements of the time are evident. Griffin was heavily
influenced by the City Beautiful and Garden City movements. The City Beautiful
movement “involved planning and landscaping major buildings around formal water
basins” (Overall, 1995, p12). The Garden City movement used parks or green bands
to screen and separate residential areas from major highways (Overall, 1995). As
shown in Figure 3, the area has been designed to separate what could be conflicting
land uses. The plan has dedicated sectors for residential, manufacturing and semi
agricultural uses, with areas for government activities and a market centre (marked in
red boxes in Figure 3). Although not termed as buffering techniques at the time, it is
evident that this separation of uses and the incorporation of City Beautiful and Garden
City movements were put in place to soften any planning issues that may occur in the
future. This aversion of land use conflict is one that buffers today are based on.
7
Figure 3: Griffin’s Plan of Canberra 1912:
Source:www.library.cornell.edu/Reps/DOCS/griffin.htm
Land Use Conflicts
As mentioned earlier, land use conflict arises when two or more activities with a
differing and conflicting nature are found within a specific area. The urban-rural
fringe is an area that, in recent times, has frequently seen changes in land use
(Henderson, 2005) causing such land use conflicts. The conflict usually occurs with
the encroachment of residential buildings around areas of high industrial or
8
agricultural activities (eg STP’s), creating amenity issues for those new residents. A
good example of land use conflict is expressed in Sullivan et al. Their studies in the
movement of people in busy urban areas to the peaceful urban-rural fringe have
allowed them to see a land use conflict. That is, farmers who use the land for income
and to live on, have been overthrown by the demand for land by urban people taking
advantage of low prices and a more enjoyable relaxing environment. Each group has
its own ideas of what the area should be used for and thus a land use conflict occurs
(Sullivan et al. 2004).
Webster-Herber (2004) looked at land use conflict by assessing a persons opinion and
background (place identity) in regard to a proposed development of state significance.
This allowed for a better understanding of who is affected, rather than looking at the
subject at a macro level. With this in mind, the push for the involvement of the
community, using public concerns as a basis, is ever increasing. It allows for more
clear and concise decisions about land use conflict. Webster-Herber argues that
individuals need to be considered in any land use conflict dispute, resulting in
individuals gaining a voice. A land use conflict can therefore be seen to have dire
consequences on a community as a whole and must be handled appropriately. So
building something of major significance, whether industrial, commercial or
residential, will have an affect on the people who are generally located in the area,
and as such, give rise to significant community movements like Not In My Backyard
(NIMBYs) and Locally Undesirable Land Uses (LULUs) which discourage such
types of development.
Not In My Backyard (NIMBYs) and Locally Undesirable Land Uses (LULUs)
It is difficult to define these movements. Generally LULUs are common with major
infrastructure uses that are not viable in a particular area (Rephann, 1996) and
NIMBYs being a case of local communities wanting the benefits of a particular
development, but not wanting it to be near them affecting their livelihood. “It is a
reflection of a public attitude that seems to be almost self-contradictory – that people
feel it is desirable to site a particular type of facility somewhere as long as it is not
where they personally live” (Portney, 1991, p11).
9
Figure 4: Attitudes Toward Siting: Opposition to Statewide Versus Local Facility
Siting (Portney, 1991, p12).
Portney’s research within hazardous waste facility siting and NIMBY’s show peoples’
attitudes towards major facility siting, represented in Figure 4. It can be seen that
many people are in favour of having the facilities but are opposed to them being sited
anywhere near them. This causes more problems for Governments on deciding where
certain facilities should go due to public opinion.
Many projects of state or national significance “involve disparate risks, costs, and
benefits for a variety of involved stakeholders, affected populations, and neighbouring
environments” (Vajjhala, 2005, p2). Due to these issues, local objection and concerns
are common, with NIMBYs and LULUs representing these objections. Moilanen, in
her paper on development on Redondo Beach explains that these types of movements
are usually headed toward unwelcome major infrastructure (Moilanen, 2006) in which
STP’s can be generally categorised. Minehart and Neemans understanding of
affective siting of waste treatment facilities also mentions such public outcry even
though there is a consensus that a waste treatment facility is needed (Minehart and
Neemans, 2002). So it is evident that these movements cause problems for crucial
infrastructure.
10
A current example of these movements was demonstrated when it was determined to
site a desalination plant in Kurnell to battle the water shortage crisis faced by Sydney
and New South Wales as a whole. With Sydney’s dam levels at record lows, the state
government decided a desalinisation plant was needed to convert sea water into
drinking water to supplement water supplies. However, strong opposition from
Kurnell residents and other activists about environmental impacts, the area’s already
existing infrastructure and heritage concerns (due to it being the birthplace of modern
Australia), forced the desalinisation plant to be put aside for some time and for other
options to solve the water crisis to be investigated. An article in the Sydney Morning
Herald outlined the strong opposition against the plant. The article reported that 800
people rallied to oppose the plant (Figure 5), with the NSW Opposition leader John
Brogden stating, that “this is the wrong technology, it's the wrong plant and it's most
certainly in the wrong place” (SMH, 17/06/05).
Figure 5: Locals rallying against the Desalinisation Plant (Source www.smh.com.au)
Understandably, this type of infrastructure is considered a LULU, as none of the
Kurnell residents are prepared to have this infrastructure placed within their locality.
With public pressure, the state government had to reconsider its options to locate and
11
build a desalinisation plant within Kurnell. Controlling land use is therefore an
important issue when placing major infrastructure of any kind.
Land Use Control
The planning system can be seen as instruments and organizational arrangements
which coordinate the management of land use and land use change (Healey et al,
1988). Planning therefore has an important role in ensuring appropriate land uses
(Kozlowsli and Peterson, 2005) and must be considered when trying to resolve land
use conflicts as outlined earlier. It is planning however that must recognise and
acknowledge the significance of the land use issue and take aboard the interests of the
community and of those who are directly involved (eg developers, non government
organizations). “As in most conflict situations, most stakeholders see other
stakeholders as their opponents, and as a result each party concentrates on
maximizing single-function use” (Groot, 2006, p184). So understanding this within
planning is required, if solutions are to be obtained. This would be one of the hardest
issues any level of government must face when approaching land use control
(Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005).
But how does planning affect land use control? Planning allows a government body or
consent authority the ability to undertake certain actions. They may deter or influence
land uses by removing ownership (acquisition), subject land to reasonable constraints
and conditions (regulation) or provide incentives for a land owner to comply
voluntarily to such regulations (Platt, 1976). Generally land use control is done at a
local level, with consent authorities using appropriate mitigation measures within
Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs), such as Local Environmental Plans
(LEPs) and Development Control Plans (DCPs). An EPI is made in accordance with
section 24 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), in
which EPIs must achieve any of the objects stated within the EP&A Act. These
objects are stated below and are quoted from section 5 of the EP&A Act.
12
The objects of this Act are:
(a) to encourage:
(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and
artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests,
minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the
social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,
(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and
development of land,
(iii) the protection, provision and co-ordination of communication and utility
services,
(iv) the provision of land for public purposes,
(v) the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities, and
(vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and
conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species,
populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, and
(vii) ecologically sustainable development, and
(viii) the provision and maintenance of affordable housing, and
(b) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning
between the different levels of government in the State, and
(c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in
environmental planning and assessment.
(Source: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No 203)
Within these EPIs, with particular reference to LEPs, zoning is a major component in
managing land use. This is where different land uses are classified by colour to
different zones of any particular area (Farrier, 1993). These zones then specify what is
or what isn’t allowed within that zone, and legislation is then formed to govern such
land uses. Various land use controls then appear within these EPIs and are used to
control or prevent any potential conflict.
Conclusion
In an Australian context, STP conflicts are based around developers wanting to build
in areas in close proximity to infrastructure. This in turn will affect the people, as in
13
the desalinisation example, who reside in or use these developments in the future.
Complaints involving these land use conflicts are often then directed to the
government. The level of government involved will then need to implement
environmental regulation (Henderson, 2005) or any other type of action to stem any
current conflict and reduce the chances of that particular conflict happening again.
Policy and plan making is therefore seen as a solution to prevent and control land use
conflicts. Such legislative material will be discussed in detail in chapter 4.
Legislation can then be seen as the governments biggest tool in denying or delaying
development in reference to major infrastructure. Buffers can be seen to be a land use
control as they reduce environmental problems such as noise pollution, odours, and
soil erosion (Sullivan et al, 2004). Types of buffers will be illustrated in the following
chapter. Knowing why they exist and where they come from allows us to see their
importance, offering us an insight into what is needed in the future.
14
Chapter 3. TYPES OF BUFFERS
To understand what buffers are, we must look at the different types of buffer methods
that are used. Kozlowski and Peterson are two researchers who have investigated
these different types of buffer methods. Generally, buffers are segregated into three
categories, separation zones, habitat strips and environmental protection zones
(Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005).
Separation Zones
Separation zones are a method of solving the land use conflicts mentioned earlier.
They are put in place to reduce or eliminate the impact of a particular land use
(Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005). Interestingly, Kozlowski and Peterson do not believe
these to be true buffers, being enforced and therefore wrongly termed.
An example used within their research is that of a saw mill. The saw mill may cause
noise and dust irritants, which may affect surrounding land uses. In contrast to STPs,
in which smell is the major irritant, saw mills can be seen as vital infrastructure in this
instance. This type of buffer is a planning solution to land use issues, as it is planning
policies that support and impose them on certain areas. A separation zone constitutes
a determined distance from the source of contamination or irritation, with the land
within this zone, specified as open space or non development areas (Kozlowski and
Peterson, 2005).
The subject of STP buffer zones lies within this particular field of study and it is hard
not to argue against some of the information presented by Kozlowski and Peterson.
Given that they are trying to design and implement buffers to conserve areas of high
nature conservation value (Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005), their main argument with
this approach is that set buffers rarely achieve the desired objectives. Concerns are
raised over different sites having different physical and social issues. These social
issues relate to the earlier mentioned LULU situations, reducing development
opportunities caused by the neighbouring infrastructure (Henderson, 2005).
15
Figure 6: Liverpool STP Buffer zone map (Source: Sydney W
ater)
16
Greenbelts are also known as separation zones. They form an area and provide an
urban community with a breathing space in which development cannot become
overpowering (Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005) and are usually made up of a
landscaped area. The physical nature of separation zones make them ideal in
separating land uses. Separation zones can therefore be seen as a government
initiative to stem conflict in land use. An example of an Australian separation zone
buffer can be seen in Figure 6.
Liverpool STP is found in the western suburbs of Sydney and is depicted in the
middle of Figure 6. It is buffered to reduce the amenity impacts of odour it may have
on neighbouring residential areas, the outer limit of the buffer shown as a red line
circling the STP. Apart from the existing residential areas within the buffer, the buffer
consists of open space and industrial areas, with Lake Moore, Rosedale Park, Haigh
Park and Warwick Farm Racecourse taking up most of the buffer zone. These land
uses are seen to be allowable within the buffer zone as they are not affected by odour
as much as a residential area may be. The buffer zone in this case is to prevent new
residential activities occurring within the buffer and therefore reducing the chance of
future land use conflicts.
Habitat/Riparian Strips
Habitat strips or riparian buffer zones are areas that generally remain landscaped or
untouched during a development in order to maintain habitats for regeneration or
conservation (Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005). Further to this, habitat strips increase
aesthetics of an area, and provide other uses such as open space use.
In an urban sense, habitat strips are known as riparian strips. These provide
enhancement to an urban areas water quality, flood mitigation and conservation
efforts (Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005). They filter out contaminants (Correll, 2005)
from overflows or land use run off resulting from human activities such as
deforestation and urbanization (Anbumozhi, 2004), allowing for this improvement in
environment. This type of buffer is outlined in Figure 7. As the figure demonstrates,
the riparian buffer surrounds the natural feature, enhancing the quality of the lakes in
this instance.
17
Environmental Protection Zones
These zones are typically put in place to add an extra layer of protection to areas that
have been classified as highly sensitive and hold greater environmental value to an
area (Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005). Similar to riparian buffer zones, these protect
areas such as wildlife habitats, remnant vegetation and any water features that may
occur in the environment, with the zones minimising the threats that originate in
surrounding areas (Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005). Basically this type of buffer zone
is a combination of both the Separation and Riparian zones mentioned earlier, with an
emphasis on environmental protection, using the environment itself to buffer a highly
sensitive area from outside threats. This is shown in Figure 8, in which a highly
sensitive area is buffered from the incoming threats.
Figure 7: Representation of a small lake or wetland with its drainage basin.
Riparian buffers are present in shaded areas (Source: Correll, 2005, p436).
18
Comparison of Buffer Zones
The following table represents the comparisons and differences between each type of
buffer and is based on a table within Kozlowski and Peterson’s research on the main
attributes of the differing buffers.
Separation Zone Habitat/Riparian Strips Environmental Protection
Zones
Purpose To eliminate or reduce the impact of conflicting land uses.
To provide a strip of habitat to assist in maintaining, regeneration or conservation of natural areas.
To protect highly sensitive environmental areas from external threats.
Composition Open space with limited development allocated, depending on use.
Natural vegetation native to that area.
Natural vegetation native to that area.
Structure Surrounds an area with a specified distance drawn from the source area.
Follows and surrounds a natural area, with sizes specific to the natural feature.
Surrounds an area with a specified distance drawn from the source area.
Function Zone decreases impact of noxious source to surrounding land uses.
Zone allows for regeneration and the maintenance of the ecosystem.
Zone decreases impact of surrounding land uses on the environmental area.
Examples STP’s, Agricultural Uses
Water features, Urban developments
Fauna and Flora protection areas, National Parks
Table 1: Analysis and Comparison of differing buffer zones (Adapted from Kozlowski
and Peterson, 2005)
Figure 8: Environmental Protection Zone minimising external
threats (Source: Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005, p89)
19
Conclusion
Well designed buffers will create substantial social, economic and environmental
benefits over time, once implemented. The types of buffers shown in this chapter are a
snapshot of what is currently used when buffering land uses and/or protecting the
environment. The differences between the three types of buffers are varied. One
provides a barrier (either physical or non physical) to separate conflicting land uses.
The second provides a strip of habitat that maintains environments, through allocation
of land specifically for this purpose. The third reduces outside threats to a natural
conservation area. All can be seen to assist planning as they allow for proper policy to
be written and enforced, which potentially solves or prevents land use conflict or
destruction of habitat.
20
Chapter 4. LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES
So far I have looked into what constitutes a buffer, placement of buffers and the
different types of buffers but not how they are applied in the real world through
planning policy or legislation. This chapter is dedicated to exploring the various
controls and recommendations, through management, location and legislation and will
be based on existing Australian policies and reports that affect the buffer zone issue.
Apart from some broad examples of policy documents, the emphasis is placed on
NSW based policies and legislation which demonstrate current planning policy to
which all NSW local governments and government departments adhere.
Buffer zones and Management
The following are documents that highlight the importance of buffer zones and
suggest appropriate measures for their management.
Assessment and Management of Odour from Stationary Sources In NSW (EPA Draft
Policy)
This draft policy aims to provide future planning and regulatory management for
potential odour generating activities. In particular it touches on land use planning and
outlines a strategic way of approaching the odour issue. This document attempts to
reduce the likelihood of land use conflicts and eliminate NIMBYs and LULUs
through better siting of odorous industry.
“Odour impacts in residential and other sensitive areas stem mostly from
inappropriate land use decisions. Inappropriate land use decisions may have allowed
odorous industry to develop in close proximity to these areas or allowed the
residential zone to grow around an established industry” (NSW EPA 2001, p22). This
is heavily related to that of STP buffer zones when considering development options
within them.
21
However the policy is still in draft form and mainly provides ideals. Further
investigation into management of odour is needed to solve any future conflicts that
may occur. State government should revisit this issue and determine better outcomes.
Preliminary Report on Buffer Zone for Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant (Water
Corporation, 2001)
The report refers to retaining the buffer zone around Subiaco Wastewater Treatment
Plant excluding odour sensitive land uses such as residential development.
What is interesting within this report is its definition and analysis of buffer zones. It
provides a good summary of buffer zones within Australia by providing each states’
limitations involving buffer areas. Western Australia and the Australian Capital
Territory usually set their buffer zones at 1000 metres and New South Wales and
Victoria set theirs at 400 metres. There is no national standard for buffer size.
National standardisation may be something that should be considered as a means of
solving future land use conflict.
The report also outlines the consequences of an inadequate buffer zone, which the
document states as threefold:
1. Nuisance and hazard experienced by residents adjacent to the buffer zone;
2. Additional cost experienced to ratepayers for sewerage operations; and
3. Additional energy consumption by sewerage system.
(Water Corporation, 2001, p2)
It is also important to note that they provide an area of recreation (Sullivan et al.
2004). Buffer areas around STPs provide an excellent opportunity for sport recreation
fields, walking tracks or just enjoying the natural environment. These should also be
considered when formulating policy and legislation.
22
Planning Guidelines: Separating Agricultural and Residential Land Uses
(Department of Natural Resources Queensland, 1997).
As per Sullivan et al’s (2004) work on agricultural buffers, this planning guideline
provides advice and guidance on controlling and diminishing the potential conflict
that is caused between farming activities and residential development in an Australian
context. The purpose of the document is to assist local developers, land holders,
consultants and local governments in making planning decisions within the areas of
conflict (Department of Natural Resources Queensland, 1997).
The common theme throughout this research is the notion of odour. It is not surprising
that odour is the most complained about issue when dealing with odorous emitting
industries and steps have to be introduced in order to stem its affects on residential
amenity. One of the objectives within this guideline is to locate new residential areas
so that the impact of these odour causing agricultural activities is minimised. The
planning solution is to provide a 500 metre buffer around these activities to reduce
any affect on amenity.
The separation of major infrastructure from residential developments seems to be
popular within these types of guidelines. These restrictive distances are dependent on
the type of industry being assessed and, on paper it seems, are good planning controls
to manage land use conflicts.
Location and Establishment of Buffers
Efficient location of buffers is determined by land use restrictions, such as
topography, but more importantly by the affects on the community in which the
facility is located (Minehart and Neeman, 2002). Buffers are important because they
recognise the permanent interrelationship that exists between any protected area and
its surrounds (Kozlowski and Vass-Bowen, 1997).
However, areas that need to be buffered have differing impacts and a singular buffer,
“a protective belt of certain width” (Kozlowski and Vass-Bowen, 1997, p249) is not
always sufficient. This refers to environmental impacts on fauna and flora, which is
23
also a problem that exists around STP’s. Kozlowski and Vass-Bowen observe that
there are many factors and issues that relate to certain areas. This relates to the
discussion of separation and riparian buffers mentioned earlier in Chapter 3.
The establishment of buffers with STP’s however is to discourage inappropriate
developments within a set area and therefore the ‘protective belt of a certain width’ is
sufficient.
The draft policy by New South Wales Environment Protection Authority - Assessment
and Management of Odour from Stationary Sources In NSW outlines three
development stages where location and establishment of buffers could occur.
� The Initial Planning Stage: The odorous industry must be clearly defined
within an environmental planning instrument before any development can
occur. This would limit development that may cause future conflict over odour
issues.
� The Subdivision Planning Stage: This stage involves locating residential areas
away from odorous industries and have general industry located nearby
instead by internal subdivision patterns. This can only occur if residential
development has not started.
� The Building Design Stage: “If subdivision development has started in a
potential odour impact area, and there is no opportunity for any flexibility in
land use, consideration can still be given to introducing controls on building
design so odour impact is minimised” (NSW EPA 2001, p22). This involves
facing buildings away from odour sources, ventilation etc. Many opportunities
exist when designing buildings to allow for natural airflow.
“Establishing buffer areas in environmental planning instruments is an established
method of minimising future land use conflict through the development control
process” (NSW EPA 2001, p23).
24
Existing Legislation
Although there is not an extensive range of literature on STP buffer zones, legislation
gives us an insight into some of the issues they are trying to solve or avoid. Apart
from the EP&A Act outlined in Chapter 2, the following are currently enforced
policies and recommendations put forward in NSW in relation to buffers.
Guidelines for Buffer Areas Around STP’s, Circular No E3 (Department of Planning
1989)
As per the title, this document outlines guidelines that were sent to all municipal and
shire councils in Sydney in regards to STP buffer areas.
The document outlines the basis of STP buffers, that is, the buffer zone being 400
metres wide, having the land used for compatible purposes (such as reserves,
recreation uses or for grazing) and incorporating the issue in Local Environmental
Plans so as to limit development encroaching on STP’s. This corresponds with
Minehart and Neeman’s research in which they point out that it is government
responsibility to manage the siting (Minehart and Neeman, 2002) and the relevant
legislation in regard to waste treatment plants, to satisfy the community that are in
close proximity.
The guidelines also make some interesting points. One is to encourage Councils to
“avoid rezonings that permit more intensive development and take advantage of any
opportunities to extend the buffer area” (Circular E3, 1989, p1). However, it seems
this ideal has somewhat diminished over time. Councils who have STP’s within their
local government areas do not seem to get involved with buffer zones, furthering
complex land use conflicts. This is a key document and needs to be brought back to
life to stem the developers push into buffer areas.
Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Buffer Zone Policy (Sydney Water Corporation, 1997)
The main aim of this document is “to provide appropriate buffer zones around Sydney
Water's Sewage Treatment Plants in order to minimise the impact of odour, noise,
25
appearance and hazards on nearby residents” (Sydney Water Corporation 1997, p3).
This document further coincides with Circular E3 outlined earlier and provides in
depth information on the buffer zones themselves. This is the main document when
referring to STP buffer zones, as it recommends ways in which development within
buffer areas can be controlled.
“The Buffer Zone Policy should be implemented taking into consideration the need
for preventing residential development encroaching on existing STP’s as well as the
adverse impacts of new STP’s on residential areas”. (Sydney Water Corporation
1997, p4). However, some land uses are encouraged within the buffer. The following
is a list of generally accepted land uses allowed in buffer land outlined within the
policy.
� Open space
� Recreation areas
� Public roads
� Drainage basins
� Natural bush/forest
� Constructed wetlands
� Flora and fauna reserves
� Certain industries (eg. a food processing industry may not be compatible but a
tannery or abattoir is likely to be) and;
� Agricultural use.
Understandably, other land uses can be considered acceptable within the buffer, with
each case being approved on its own merits (Sydney Water Corporation 1997).
As mentioned earlier, residential developments are the main concern with this issue.
Due to urban expansion, neighbouring land is sold for residential uses then over time,
if complaints go unresolved, this escalates into a situation of heightened conflict
(Henderson, 2005). The odour and possible health issues that can occur around STPs
warrant policy procedures to be put in place to discourage residential development.
This reduces the likelihood of local objections and the advent of NIMBY or LULU
movements.
26
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Section 129 (NSW Government)
Under section 129 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act (PEO Act), it
is illegal for offensive odours to be generated by any licensed premises, ranging from
a local bakery to a STP. The first part of section 129 states:-
“(1) The occupier of any premises at which scheduled activities are carried on under
the authority conferred by a licence must not cause or permit the emission of any
offensive odour from the premises to which the licence applies.”
It is therefore the responsibility of Sydney Water to contain its odorous emissions as
much as possible. To achieve this, they have implemented the buffer zone policy and
Circular E3.
Comparison of Legislative Requirements in Relation to Buffers
Each document provides assistance when considering placement of buffer zones in
general and in particular those effecting STP’s. Table 2 outlines the policies that
directly effect STP buffers, containing type, purpose and how they relate to the STP
buffer itself. The latter part of the table shows the major policies that are currently
enforced with STP’s, with the EP&A Act 1979 and the PEO Act 1997 being where
the majority of this legislation is sourced.
27
Document Type Purpose Relation to Buffers
EP&A Act 1979 NSW Legislation
Statutory Law
Controlling
document of all
planning
instruments
Controls how planning is
applied, in particular that of
how local planning
documents are applied.
PEO Act 1997 NSW Legislation
Statutory Law
Outlines
regulations
regarding offences
to the environment
Places restrictions on
Sydney Water, where
Sydney Water places
buffers to meet these
restrictions
Draft Assessment and
Management of Odour
from Stationary Sources In
NSW
Environment
Protection
Authority Draft
Policy
Outlines ways in
which odorous
industries can be
planned and
managed
Outlines the actual planning
of STP’s and the resultant
buffer being put in place
Guidelines for Buffer Areas
Around STP’s, Circular No
E3
NSW Planning
Circular
Information for
government
planning
authorities in
regard to STP’s.
Specifies the need for a 400
metre buffer to be placed
around STP’s in NSW
Sewage Treatment Plant
(STP) Buffer Zone Policy
Sydney Water
Policy
Policy outlining
the STP buffer and
the constraints the
buffer has on
developments
Prime document
Table 2: Policy and Legislation affecting STP Buffers
Conclusion
The legislation and guidelines outlined within this chapter is a snapshot of policy
approaches to the issue of land use conflicts and the implementation of buffer zones.
By reviewing these documents, it can be seen that buffers are not a new technique
within Australian governments. Interesting points do occur within each document.
The different distances for different states, specified within the Subiaco Wastewater
Treatment Plant Report, suggest that there is no set standard in which the current
buffer policy for Sydney STP’s is based. The common theme of all policy and
legislation analysed in my research is the prevention of odour and protection of
28
amenity. Each policy therefore affects residential developments and the protection of
the people who reside in them. Applying these policies becomes difficult for
governments, as most of the industries that the policies are aimed at are needed in
society, but no one wants them near them (i.e. NIMBY syndrome). The policy can
then become the villain in any development case.
29
Chapter 5. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT BUFFERS –
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES AND THEMES
In order to understand how buffers affect the real planning world, the current planning
system in New South Wales and what is happening on the ground, appropriate
professionals need to be sourced and queried on the issue of buffer zones. Throughout
my research thus far, I have investigated buffer zones generally, with mention of STP
buffers. This chapter will begin to explore the STP buffer issue, with common themes
and issues commented on by professionals who deal with STP buffer zones. The
information is based upon existing STP’s within Sydney, Australia,
Methodology/Measures of Ensuring Appropriate Information
Understanding how conflicts are caused and how they are handled is essential in the
research process. Using a contact that I had a previous connection with, I was able to
source such information. This involved interviewing Mr. Nick Chapman, a team
leader in the Urban Growth Branch of Sydney Water, who deals with the STP buffer
issue. Through Mr Chapman, I was introduced to another person who was familiar
with the STP buffer issue, in particular Warriewood STP. Nathan Huon, a project
manager for Warriewood Land Release Projects at Pittwater Council, had worked
extensively with the buffer zone issue and was happy to provide information.
Approaching the two professionals early in the research process was essential due to
both persons being busy and hard to get in contact with. Once they were both notified
and became interested in my research project, interviews were organised. A list of
questions were then organised for this interview and may be viewed in Appendix A,
with subsequent transcripts in Appendices B and C. These questions sort information
about STP buffers and how they affect real planning decisions in the field.
The questions start with introductory types such as, “what is your
background/experience with Sewage Treatment Plants?” This type of question allows
for the interviewee to get comfortable and get them thinking about the issue. After
this initial question, questions relating to specific themes are outlined. For example,
30
the question “do you believe that land use conflicts occur when a developer wishes to
purchase and develop land within the buffer zones”, hopefully prompts answers to the
land use conflict theme.
Analysis of Themes
The following is an analysis of the information sourced from these professionals and
information previously discussed in regard to policy and land use conflicts. The
themes covered by the interviews are as follows;
*Location and Establishment of Sewage Treatment Plants
*Sewage Treatment Plant Buffer Zone Policy/General Policies
*Odour/Smell Impact
*Health/Environment Impacts
*Money/Money Related Themes
*Development Issues
*Land Use Conflicts
*General Buffer Themes
*Planning/Planning Outcomes/Better Planning
This chapter will discuss and analyse these themes to demonstrate the issues that are
involved with STP’s and their buffer zones and will allow for a better and more
concise conclusion when looking for a way forward.
Location and Establishment of Sewage Treatment Plants within Sydney
Sydney Water currently own thirty two STP’s in the Sydney metropolitan area, which
service around 4.2 million customers, arcing from the Hawkesbury region, to the Blue
Mountains and as far as Kiama in the south. These STP’s are located “according to
the contours of the land and the geography of the land, not conveniently tucked away
in an industrial zoned area” (Chapman 2006). This is because sewage is transported
via gravity, and thus a gradual slope in the land is needed for the sewage to reach the
STP with as little pumping as is required. This results in STP’s being built in areas of
low lying land such as a valley, creek area or on the coast of Sydney, to avoid large
31
amounts of money being spent on unnecessary pumping. “So for as long as sewage
treatment is an integral part of existing and potential development which of course it
is…..there are some impacts associated with the disposal of the communities waste
and those need to be taken into account during the development assessment process”
(Chapman 2006).
An example of a successful establishment due to its location is Camden STP. Sydney
Water has placed this STP at the bottom of a valley with limited development around
it. As they got in early, to an area that consisted of “virgin territory” (Chapman 2006),
it meant that Sydney Water could apply better planning policies to the site, including
the buffer policy. In this case, due to its early planning, Sydney Water were able to
influence the “way lot boundaries and subdivisions are drawn, so that they are out of
range of the 400 metre buffer, so people know when they are buying that they’re not
going to be encumbered by a buffer policy” (Chapman 2006).
This also related to Camden Council’s plans for the area as it coincided with their
local planning where they want local scenic qualities preserved. This caters for all
concerned, with two levels of government pleased and no existing residential
development affected by the STP. This example is shown in Figure 9. As can be seen,
Camden STP is surrounded by open space, with only future residential development
lots to the west of the plant (bottom of the figure) affected. This shows good planning
initiative and is a good example of a properly located STP, where land use conflict
has been minimised due to its location and planning mechanisms put in place.
However, many other STP’s in Sydney are improperly placed or forced to be placed
due to population growth in areas that have existing residential.
32
Figure 9: Camden STP: Note the sm
all number of lots affected by the red buffer zone line. Source: Camden Council
33
Sewage Treatment Plant Buffer Zone Policy/General Policies
“Sydney Water decided that it needed a clear policy to be a guide for Sydney Water
people and for external stakeholders when looking at particularly residential
development proposals within, you know, a few hundred metres of a Sewage
Treatment Plant, and this branch [Urban Growth] has been the custodian of that policy
ever since so that’s best part of 15 years” (Chapman 2006).
As outlined earlier, the buffer policy Mr Chapman speaks of is the main document
Sydney Water uses when controlling land use conflicts associated with STP’s. The
aim of the policy is “to provide appropriate buffer zones around Sydney Water's
Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) in order to minimise the impact of odour, noise,
appearance and hazards on nearby residents” (Sydney Water Corporation 1997, p3).
On paper, this policy looks acceptable and in theory it seems the policy has a right to
exist. However, what is written on paper and what is reality are two different things.
To get a better understanding on the policy issue, Mr Chapman was asked to comment
on the policy itself.
“I think I do agree [with the policy] for two reasons I suppose, one because I have to,
because it’s my job to implement the buffer policy on behalf of Sydney Water and
I’ve done that for years. The organisation has shown no signs of a desire to change
it’s policy so as long as I’m on the payroll it’s my job to implement it” (Chapman
2006). This is a reasonable response given that he is working for the organisation who
wrote the policy. However he also added, “but it does help if you believe in the
principles of what you do at work and I certainly think it makes good planning sense
to have a buffer policy” (Chapman 2006). So the policy in Mr Chapman’s view is
something that is needed. He understands that there is an issue involved with land use
conflicts around STP’s, a policy is desirable and it makes ‘good planning sense’.
Furthermore, Mr Chapman’s comments support the information found in the policy
itself in reference to residential amenity. “So any policy that sort of steers away from
housing where the potential for odour impacts on residential amenity is quite high and
instead steers development down the sort of commercial, industrial, recreational, open
34
space or even institutional route, the better in my view” (Chapman 2006). It should be
added that I have known Mr Chapman professionally for some time, and he has held
this view throughout this entire time.
From Pittwater Council’s perspective however, Mr Huon believes that a buffer zone
around a STP is a ‘necessary evil’ that needs to be applied to such major
infrastructure. Although this might be the case, he believes that “each site should be
looked at on its own merits” (Huon 2006), and policies should be formed through that
process. In relation to existing residences, Council believes that it is “not good enough
in this day and age to say well we’ll just continue to put our bad smell [within
residential areas], where there should be a forward plan, You wouldn’t build a new
STP in existing residential areas now would you?” (Huon 2006). This is a valid point.
Many of the STP’s in New South Wales have been built near, or in proximity to,
residential areas after the areas have been established. Sydney Water cannot create
policies preventing development where that development already exists.
The policy allows for industrial or certain types of commercial uses to be situated
within the buffer zone. But who is to say that people working within the buffer are not
as affected than those living in the buffer. Mr Huon worked within the buffer zone, as
some of the Pittwater Council offices were located there. At times he said “…that
literally the whole building stinks like sewer, like sewage” (Huon, 2006). Arguably,
if you were to work within this environment you are not exposed to it twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week. You get to go home whilst people who live within the
buffer are exposed to it constantly. However, the average working day is 9am to 5pm,
8 hours exposed to the potential odour of a STP. “How you can say its ok for people
to work in that environment?” (Huon 2006).
The buffer policy is not the only policy that has been referred to within this research
process. As outlined earlier, the Draft Assessment and Management of Odour from
Stationary Sources In NSW report produced by the Environment Protection Authority
and issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation is heavily related to the
issue at hand. Mr Chapman states, “what people don’t realise and this is certainly, and
if it isn’t already the first line in our policy, it should be the first line in our policy and
it’s the first line in the draft odour policy that DEC issued in 2001, which is that
35
complaints about odour to the authorities represent the most common complaint of
all” (Chapman 2006). It can be see that both the policy and Mr Chapman’s comments
recognise odour (outlined later) to be the major problem with land use conflicts. But if
there has been so much controversy over the policy, how come it still exists?
Information sourced from Mr Chapman shows why the policy is there and how it can
be put in place. A development of 42 town houses was proposed in one of Sydney
Waters buffer zones, to which Sydney Water objected, with the support of the STP
buffer policy. However this was challenged within the Land and Environmental Court
in 2000, and the court upheld the policy, regarding it as a good policy, and believing it
should be implemented in this situation. This then means that there is some case law
now provided which can be referred back to. “Because the court knows that land use
conflicts as the result of odour generating (in the case of a sewage treatment plant, an
essential community facilities), is a fact of life. So you have to get your planning
right” (Chapman 2006). This shows us that this issue and these policies are not just to
do with Sydney Water, but many other authorities, developers and councils.
These policies are important and they should be recognised as important instruments
within the planning system and in certain cases, as cited above, are supported by the
court system. However, you must look at the reasons behind the thoughts of the
professionals consulted. It is easy to forget that someone who is working so close with
the issue will take a defiant position. The policy is seen to be an ideal, that is needed
within the planning system, with the buffer concept one that allows this ideal to
become reality. However, it can be seen that the policy does have its flaws, and Mr
Huon, (from a council perspective) has demonstrated that the policy cannot be applied
as an overall approach, but must be looked at case by case.
Odour/Smell Impacts
This is one of the major causes of land use conflicts, in reference to STPs. As odour is
a nuisance factor, inappropriate developments around STPs will be affected. This is
also an issue that prompted many of the policies reviewed earlier. “Sydney Water
wrote the Sydney Water STP buffer zone policy in response to complaints from the
public about sewage odours from STP’s” (Chapman 2006).
36
Odour is a problem with STPs, because sewage is an odorous substance. The question
therefore is who is affected by such odours and why? When asked about the dangers
or problems with residential development being placed within the buffer, Mr
Chapman discussed who would be affected by odour if such development occurred.
“The people who are most likely to be most affected by smells are people who are
close to the smells for a long time and that means that people who are in houses who
are possibly living in a place and if they’re elderly or relatively house bound, then an
occasional sewerage smell could have a significant impact on their residential
amenity” (Chapman 2006).
This comment is heavily supported by the Assessment and Management of Odour
from Stationary Sources In NSW report. “Odour impacts in residential and other
sensitive areas stem mostly from inappropriate land use decisions” (NSW EPA 2001,
p22). However Mr Huon’s comments earlier that working within an environment that
is affected by odour does not please anyone. It is hard to distinguish why someone
who works within a buffer zone is not as affected as someone who lives in a buffer
zone. Looking at this issue from the outside has allowed me to see who is affected and
how they are affected. Odour and land use conflicts have a strong correlation and thus
must be reflected in any policy that is trying to solve the issue. Any policy must then
incorporate all that are exposed to an odour and asses each impact, to allow for an
appropriate setting in which an STP may be placed.
An example of when the odour impacts from STP’s can be a problem is summarized
by Mr Chapman. “We have our cinema owner at Warriewood complaining that the
smells from the sewage treatment plant are effecting his cinema patrons, and some of
them have left, had to leave his cinema and have demanded refunds, because they
claim that the smells in the cinema are unacceptable, and that they are sewage type
smells” (Chapman 2006). Mr Chapman also moves on to say that it has become that
bad that the cinema owner and a developer have taken Sydney Water to court. This
will be summarised in the case study on Warriewood STP in chapter 6.
Due to these odour problems, STP buffers must be seen as an answer. As mentioned
earlier, a separation zone buffer has been used to separate conflicting land uses.
Creating a buffer removes inappropriate development away from the STP, in this
37
case, residential areas. Unfortunately this simple answer is contested continuously,
and Sydney Water must concede in certain areas as the push for the need of
developable land for residential purposes becomes greater.
Health/Environment Impacts
Health and environmental impacts is an issue that is associated with STP’s. Mr
Chapman points out generally why STP’s exist. Sydney Water treats sewage “with
two particularly important things in mind which is the need to protect the environment
and the need to protect human health” (Chapman 2006). So generally, without STP’s
we wouldn’t have a buffer zone issue, but consequently a health and environment
issue instead.
When questioned about this impact, Mr Chapman added, “Well there’s been no
evidence that I’ve ever been shown or had described to me that scientifically showed
that there is any health impacts from smells, from sewerage….. your talking nuisance,
rather than health impact” (Chapman 2006). Mr Huon also believes that STP’s do not
cause health issues but rather have an effect on amenity which local government need
to address to take care of surrounding residences. Council must keep their general
public happy.
Without any known medical evidence to the contrary it can be concluded that
although health and the environment are certain issues in relation to the treatment of
sewerage, they do not considerably affect or cause land use conflicts when looking at
the buffer issue. Odour and amenity issues outweigh any impact an STP may have on
health and the environment.
Money/Money Related Themes
With any issue relating to development and in particular land use conflicts, money is
always a major issue. However, this issue was not referred to in all documentation
reviewed. The issue is more implied and dealt with through a case by case basis. A
money problem faced in buffer related issues around STP’s was outlined by Mr
Chapman. “Sewage treatment plants can be designed to be built to not release any
38
odour at all but it costs an absolute fortune and [Sydney Water’s] regulators,
particularly the Department of Environment and Conservation and financial regulator
IPART, both say you spend a certain amount of money at sewage treatment plants
dealing with odour but most of the money is spent on insuring that there is no
downstream health or environmental impacts and that is a very sensible balance”
(Chapman 2006).
Understandably, it would cost the government if health issues occur. However the
main concern lies with the consequential odour issue. Odour needs to be dealt with
and this is what developers want fixed to allow for developable land. That is, they
don’t care if it makes you sick, just as long as you can’t see it or smell it
Mr Chapman provides a very interesting argument about payment for such an
expensive process. “So there is huge pressure been brought to bear by these very big
developers on government and Sydney Water to spend large sums of money to make
the smells go away. But you can’t just cap the plant, you actually then have to run a
complicated odour, scrubbing and filtering process, seven days a week, everyday of
the year for the next century, you know, and that costs an absolute fortune in plant and
energy and operating costs which the community will have to bear, somebody would
have to pay for that” (Chapman 2006).
STP’s can be capped and can be designed not to omit odour. But this is expensive,
and the government cannot afford to put money into this and avoid other issues such
as health. So consequently, if capping of STP’s was to occur, funding would need to
be sourced and inevitably, the public would end up paying the price. However, as
outlined in chapter 6, the Warriewood STP is about to undergo works to do such a
thing, with developers and Sydney Water providing the funding. This is due to the
pressure for developable land in a highly sought after area and the cost of the
infrastructure being outweighed by the profits.
Money issues also relate to the possible development that can occur within the buffer.
The demand for residential areas and the considerable low building costs for
residential developments compared to industrial or commercial developments, means
that the land found within buffer zones is prime for residential apart from these odour
39
issues. “All the money is in the land” (Huon 2006). Understandably there is a lot of
money to be made by developers within the residential market, and buffer zones
usually offer Greenfield (untouched land) development opportunities which
developers want to take advantage of. This then fuels land use conflicts in the future if
inappropriate planning is implemented, allowing incompatible land uses to be placed
within an area which will be effected by an odour producing plant.
Solving this push for developable land and then providing appropriate amenity for
developments placed in inappropriate areas is the issue which needs to be addressed.
A quote comes to mind when considering this situation, “For the love of money is the
root of all evil” (Timothy, 6:10, New Testament). While the residential market for
developers is profitable, there is always going to be this push for land, and it appears
the government will have to heed to this demand in certain situations, thus requiring
appropriate planning solutions and legislation and policies to support them.
Development Issues
As mentioned throughout many of the other themes, development within the buffer is
a major cause of land use conflict. Development then becomes “an important
dimension to be taken into account when development proposals are being considered
close to a Sewage Treatment Plant” (Chapman 2006).
An important aspect to this issue is the question of what are appropriate developments
to allow within buffer zones and how is this to be conveyed to developers. “You need
good policies to provide some guidance to land owners and proponents about what is
or is not a good idea in terms of development next to a sewage treatment plant and
that’s where the policy comes in” (Chapman 2006). The STP buffer zone policy does
point out appropriate land uses in buffer areas. As mentioned earlier, open space and
industrial uses are acceptable uses with basically no residential developments. “So
any policy that steers development down the sort of commercial, industrial,
recreational, open space or even institutional route the better in my view” (Chapman
2006). However, some STP’s exist in developed residential areas and as stated by Mr
Huon, “eventually someone is going to get some shitty industrial development… and
stuff the whole thing and the problem will never get fixed” (Huon 2006). You can’t
40
expect to make problems go away by placing compatible land uses around an area just
to solve one land use issue. This would cause a landslide of other related issues, with
residents complaining about other industrious activities. As in the case of the
desalinisation plant mentioned earlier, the residents didn’t want anymore industry in
an area already full of industry.
Development should be able to be controlled in these areas by allowing compatible
uses and this, on paper, will avoid land use conflicts. “You want to avoid
incompatible development because you know based on that history that people are
going to complain and you want to avoid that preferably by not having inappropriate
development there in the first place” (Chapman 2006). But we can’t move away from
the fact that more planning is needed to solve the considerable development issues
that would occur from this approach.
Land Use Conflicts
“Buffer zones are maintained to protect residents from the effects of land uses that are
not compatible with residential areas” (Water Corporation 2001, p1). This is the main
issue that is evident through all the previous themes. It can be seen that the policies
put in place are to stop these conflicts from occurring. As stated above, buffers are
used to stop inappropriate uses through separation. If conflicts occur due to
developers wishing to purchase and develop land within the buffer zone “land use
conflicts only develop if there is inappropriate development which for one reason or
another could produce the possibility of odours literally getting up peoples noses to
the extent where they complain to the authorities” (Chapman 2006). This is supported
by Sullivan’s and Henderson’s research on land use conflicts mentioned in Chapter 2.
As mentioned throughout my research, a major reason for land use conflicts is the
demand for land within Sydney and this is acknowledged by Mr Chapman. “What is
happening in Sydney, which is effecting not just land use conflicts associated with
sewage treatment plants but land use conflicts associated with busy roads, railway
tracks or flight paths, is that the price of land in Sydney goes up and the demand for
new housing goes up” (Chapman 2006).
41
Although this is site specific, i.e. Sydney, strong correlations can be made with other
capital cities. As mentioned in the Subiaco report earlier, different states have
different buffer limitations and I believe this is brought on by different development
pressures. As Mr Chapman states, “what was previously kind of marginal land is now
prime residential land, so the potential for conflicts to emerge has increased as well”
(Chapman 2006). This may be accepted by the public, but it takes the blame away
from the STP itself.
If there were no STP’s, obviously this issue would not exist. But they exist due to the
need to treat sewage to benefit communities at large. Mr Huon, in his experience,
doesn’t see the development push as the issue of land use conflicts within STP’s. He
sees the problem of odour and amenity is caused by the plant itself, and appropriate
positioning of the STP’s in the first place needs to be considered. However, in what
he has worked with, the pressure has resulted in an existing problem and then finding
an appropriate solution to that problem. Although buffers prevent certain land use
conflicts, they also create new ones. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!
General Buffer Themes
Through the research, buffer zones are seen to be one of the ways of dealing with land
use conflicts and in reference to STP’s, seem to be the appropriate measure. They are
put in place to “minimise the impact of odour, noise, appearance and hazards on
nearby residents” (Sydney Water Corporation, p3).
Arguments however exist on whether or not buffer zones sterilise the land, that is they
don’t allow for anything worthwhile to occur within them. Mr Chapman believes,
“buffers don’t sterilise the land, buffers are just one of the tools in the kit bag to be
used to reduce land use conflicts to prevent them from emerging” (Chapman 2006).
Therefore buffer zones cannot be dismissed on their merit. They do not ruin land but
require appropriate land use choices. As mentioned in the Draft Assessment and
Management of Odour from Stationary Sources in NSW, there are appropriate land
use planning guidelines in setting up development in these areas around new odorous
industries. This is done through considering development in the initial stages, that is
implementing their use in an Environmental Planning Instrument, subdividing land in
42
order to remove residential uses and designing buildings so as they are not affected by
the odorous industry.
The buffer distance then comes into play. Where did this 400 metre line appear from?
This line often comes under criticism by many developers and landowners, wanting to
know what it is based on and where they are allowed to build. Mr Chapman states,
“We have had to say sorry we can’t be accurate about a line, but we have got one and
it’s called a 400m buffer, and that’s the best we’ve got; this is a policy approach”
(Chapman 2006). The line is set due to policy, with the line allowing for various
weather patterns which disperse the odour, and therefore affect the amount of odour
traceable in areas at different times. The line is an approximation of what area is
affected by odour. But where is it drawn from?
Mr Huon believes that the line of 400 metres “defies logic” (Huon 2006). In the case
at Warriewood the line is drawn from the lot boundaries of the actual STP and not the
plant itself. Mr Huon puts the point across that the line isn’t based on anything in
particular, and if so, is based on old technology. Due to “Sydney Water happening to
own vast areas of land around the outside of the STP, how can you come up with this
400 thing” (Huon 2006) that affects surrounding development? A recent development
opportunity, to be discussed in detail in Chapter 6, involved a developer wanting to
build a retirement village, but was affected by the buffer zone. Presenting two aerial
photographs the developer showed Council that the 400 metre line, drawn from the
plant itself, would barely affect their development, as opposed to the current situation.
This is an interesting point “how do you actually apply a buffer zone?” (Huon 2006).
The size of the buffer then becomes a little unclear and this is further blurred when
certain developments within the buffer are permitted (e.g. Industry developments).
This becomes more open to conjecture when there is no real evidence of the origin of
the 400 metre rule. However, the main aim or goal of the buffer seems to be strong.
43
Planning/Planning Outcomes/Better Planning
“The planning system has a job to do to try and avoid situations of incompatible
development. In this case close to a sewage treatment plant, but it could be close to an
abattoir or a chemical factory which produces occasional odours” (Chapman 2006).
Rules and regulations are undoubtedly the way in which we can control land use
conflict, and planning is the best way to implement these regulations. I have
previously discussed some policies existing in Australia, in particular New South
Wales, and how they affect and solve land use conflicts. But what is the perception of
land use conflicts in planning from a professional’s point of view? Planning can be
seen to deal with three main decisional problems. These are;
1) the future goals for an existing and future community (Postulation),
2) optimum strategies to achieve these goals (Optimisation) and
3) how these strategies will be implemented (Realisation)
(Kozlowski and Peterson, 2005).
This is what is faced by planners in general and also applies to buffer zones. Both
professionals commented on this theme, noting that it was a considerably important
issue when approaching the buffer issue.
Ideally, “the planning system would operate in a way to head off, as best it can these
potential land use conflicts emerging in the first place by making the right sort of
zoning decisions and then upholding that through the development control process”
(Chapman 2006). The development control process would then need to allocate and
alleviate problems caused by these land use conflicts. The issue with many planning
problems is that you “need to get your planning right” (Chapman 2006). Careful
consideration needs to be given to policy making to allow for all aspects of land use
conflicts to be dealt with.
“From Councils perspective it’s……there’s some responsibility from Council to
ensure an appropriate level of amenity in any planning consideration” (Huon 2006).
Relating to buffers specifically, local governments must make their planning
decisions in regard to their local residents and the needs of these people. Although not
44
forgotten by State Government agencies such as Sydney Water, there is a larger
emphasis or responsibility on local governments to perform for their public. “So
Council’s (Pittwater Council) position with our particular buffer experience, has been
very conscious; even the elected council, not just staff, have been very conscious
about that amenity issue” (Huon 2006).
Planning policies that provide for separation distances from odour or nuisance-
causing infrastructure can then be seen to be a valid planning choice, especially when
planning new treatment plants, as long as it fits in with local planning perspectives
and is accepted by the majority. From a councils point of view, existing areas of
residential development that are now affected by amenity issues should not be
classified as the problem within the buffer policy. “The focus should be on finding the
long term solution and using opportunities such as urban renewal or residential
development around the plant, just to try to find a commercial solution to fixing the
problem” (Huon 2006).
The buffer issue is seen to have evolved beyond the actual policy that is put in place
to protect it. Depending on what is being discussed, a new STP or one that exists, the
policy seems to be out of date. Although the policy still works on its merits and
comments made by Mr Chapman that, “it needs to be implemented as it is, and
implemented more consistently” (Chapman 2006), one must question its power within
the planning environment. It is has worked well in the past, and can be seen to work
well in areas of untouched land, as shown in the Camden case, but faces troublesome
issues when cases such as Warriewood occur, which will be outlined in Chapter 6. As
it stands, the buffer policy is just a guiding document. It would be good to see these
type of controls implemented in a statutory document to try to avoid land use
conflicts.
Theme Flow Analysis
Figure 10 shows the flow of themes as they effect STP’s and the policies behind them
to create better planning objectives and outcomes. A simple explanation of the flow of
themes shows that land use conflicts cause a variety of issues in which buffers are
established and planning policy is implemented to allow for better overall planning.
45
Figure 10: Theme Structure and Flow
Conclusion
It is interesting to see two sides of the buffer zone argument. One from the state
perspective and the other from the local point of view. Although both agree on the
concept of the buffer policy, one difference stands out. The establishment of the STP
and consequently the buffer, has issues based on the STP being constructed either pre
residential development surrounding it or post residential development. The issues
involved with STP’s seem fewer when appropriate planning has been implemented
from the beginning of the process. Odour and amenity are seen to be the major causes
of land use conflict within the buffer, and it seems both levels of government are
trying to solve these issues, either through policy or development agreements. An in-
depth case study into Warriewood STP will put the themes discussed in this chapter
into context.
Land Use Conflicts
Odour/Smell Impact Health/Environment
Impacts
Money/Money Related
Themes Development Issues
General Buffer Themes
Planning/Planning
Outcomes/Better Planning
Location and Establishment of
Sewage Treatment Plants
Sewage Treatment Plant Buffer
Zone Policy/General Policies
46
Chapter 6. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT CASE STUDY –
WARRIEWOOD STP
Previous chapters have provided an overview of buffer zone types, legislation and
examples in relation to STP’s. Chapter 3 provided examples of buffer zones,
identifying three major types, separation, riparian and environmental protection zones.
From this, we would assume that the standard buffer used around STP’s is one of
separation. Chapter 4 then discussed relevant policy documentation in reference to
Australia and in particular, that which effects Sydney. Following this in Chapter 5,
were a list of themes facing STP buffer zones in Sydney from professional
perspectives. This Chapter will use the knowledge gained from the previous chapters
and apply it to a general case study, that of Warriewood STP. Through information
sourced from legal cases involving the plant, and information from the professionals
listed earlier, Warriewood STP is a good example of what is happening now with the
STP buffer zone conflict.
Figure 11: Warriewood STP (Dawes 2006)
47
Background
Built in the late 1960’s, Warriewood STP treats 59,000 residents sewage in the
surrounding area, with a discharge of approximately 16 mega litres a day on the
shoreline of Turimetta Head (www.sydneywater.com.au). Although not the biggest
STP in Sydney, the amount of sewerage treated within a day can cause significant
odour impacts on surrounding developments, for which Sydney Water has
implemented the buffer zone policy to reduce this impact.
Information sourced from Nathan Huon (Pittwater Council – Project Manager)
showed that current development within the local area started when Warriewood
Ingleside Land Release was announced by the State Government back in 1991. With
this release, Pittwater Council conducted comprehensive planning work that involved
looking at the variety of constraints that would apply on the land, which culminated in
a draft planning strategy. The strategy outlined sector development to be undertaken
throughout the release, in which individual developers moved in and purchased small
land holdings to satisfy the sector developments (Figure 12). This release project was
then stopped in 1995, to be re-released in recent years as the Warriewood Land
Release. The release will provide approximately, 1890 new residential dwellings and
26 hectares of employment generating land. Within this land release, the area inside
the Warriewood STP buffer zone was left untouched by any planning strategy, to
cater for Sydney Water’s buffer zone policy.
Issues
“A problem has arisen for residents surrounding the buffer zone and those who live in
existing residential premises in the buffer zone, which were built prior to the sewage
treatment plant” (Brogden, 2001). There are approximately 330 existing residential
dwellings inside the STP buffer zone and land use conflicts due to odour have
occurred due to their proximity to the plant. Further issues occur with commercial or
industrial development. Although allowed within the STP buffer zone, depicted by the
STP buffer zone policy, "from a planning perspective and a community perspective,
industrial development down there has been undesirable, always has been” (Huon
2006). This is believed to change the nature of councils local community.
48
Figure 12: Warriewood STP buffer zone map – Note the differing sectors of development (Sydney Water 2004)
49
Figure 12 depicts the different sectors showing the various residential and commercial
development scenarios. As demonstrated, existing residential zones are to the east of
the STP. These areas are affected by odour on numerous occasions and complaints are
directed to Sydney Water. The areas to the west of the STP are zoned primarily non
urban, with residential developments proposed in Sector 14, C and D. These sectors
are what has cause major issues with the STP buffer, as developers push to get
primary land. Legal action has occurred over this issue and will be outlined later.
An example of a complaint to Sydney Water was outlined by Mr Chapman in his
interview. “We have our cinema owner at Warriewood complaining that the smells
from the sewage treatment plant are effecting his cinema patrons, and some of them
have had to leave his cinema and have to demand refunds, because they claim that the
smells in the cinema are unacceptable, and that they are sewage type smells”
(Chapman 2006). This case shows that inappropriate land uses located near STP’s
cause land use conflicts. In 1997, when the application for the cinema development
was put forward to Pittwater Council, Sydney Water expressed its doubts, warning
that the development may be effected by odour impacts. Pittwater Council however,
allowed the development, as it was permissible under its local planning restrictions
for the area.
The example shows that planning in these areas is essential, with future
considerations to be taken into account. In areas like this, we cannot simply plan for
the here and now, we must view an area as a whole and determine what impacts
particular developments will have now and what impacts these developments will
have in the future. This in turn relates to the original location of the STP, as little or
no thought was given to the existing residential areas in proximity to the STP when it
was built. Figure 13 is a picture of the Cinema, which is approximately 100 metres
from the STP itself. Figure 14 also shows the location of the Business Park which the
Cinema is a part of, with many of the uses in this area permissible within the buffer
zone policy.
50
Figure 13: Warriewood Cinema Centre – Pittwater Business Park (Dawes, 2006)
Figure 14: Pittwater Business Park to the Left of picture, Warriewood STP to the
right (Dawes, 2006)
51
An example of the 330 existing residential dwellings found within the buffer is shown
in Figure 15. The photograph has been taken from the entrance of the STP, facing
across the road to where residential dwellings are located. This is representative of the
residential area depicted in the buffer zone map (Figure 12).
Figure 15: An example of the residential dwellings found within the buffer zone of
Warriewood STP (Dawes, 2006)
Open space and tree line borders are attempts to screen the STP and dissipate any
odour caused by the plant. Figures 15 and 16 show this, with trees and open space on
either side of the entrance to the STP. To an unsuspecting person, the STP seems to
have little or no impact on the surrounding area. However, my research shows that,
odour is the unseen issue that is causing these land use conflicts. As mentioned
earlier, these odour issues also effect the business park located near the STP, on which
Mr Huon previously commented, (that is working in the Council offices in the
business park was sometimes unbearable due to the odour impacts). This is
represented in Figure 17.
52
Figure 16: Warriewood STP entrance – Note the vegetation surrounding the STP
Figure 17: Pittwater Business Park – Note the proximity to the STP (behind tree line)
(Both figures Dawes 2006)
53
The variety of issues presented in Chapter 5 by the professionals interviewed are
identifiable within Warriewood STP and its buffer zone. The problem of residential
development encroaching on buffer land and therefore being affected by odour is
occurring in Warriewood. However the significance of this site opposed to some of
the others is the amount of existing residential dwellings and the current push by
developers to place conflicting developments within the buffer. An appropriate
solution is therefore needed to stem such conflicts.
Legal Issues
In July of 2000, the Warriewood STP buffer was the subject of a court case, involving
the subdivision of land for industrial use and a proposed residential development
which comprised of 42 residential units (Williams, 2000). It is known as McIntyre
and Ors versus Pittwater Council (Land and Environment Court, Talbot J, 2000). The
residential component of the development application and the subsequent court case
was a major test of the buffer zone policy. The main issue that needed to be
determined by the court was “whether the application ought to be approved having
regard to its location within the buffer area of the Warriewood Sewage Treatment
Plant in terms of:
(a) objections lodged by Sydney Water Corporation; and
(b) the circular issued by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) in
respect of these buffer areas” (McIntyre and Ors versus Pittwater Council, 2000).
Both Circular E3 and the STP buffer zone policy, outlined in Chapter 4 were cited.
Also used was “a paper to Pittwater Council prepared jointly by Sydney Water,
DUAP (now known as Department of Planning) and the Environment Protection
Authority on an approach for implementing planning controls in the buffer area
around Warriewood STP” (Williams, 2000, p25) which recommended that odour
impacts should be recognised in land use planning decisions.
Pro development arguments from the applicants’ consultant town planner Charles Hill
included that the STP buffer policy is only intended to be a guideline rather than
54
legislation, as it cannot be used to interpret odour impact for every situation involving
STPs.
With all this in mind His Honour Justice Talbot J stated, “in principle the Court
should not be a party to the creation of a situation in which basically incompatible
land uses are juxtaposed, thereby avoiding the prospect of future conflict” (McIntyre
and Ors versus Pittwater Council, 2000). The court realised that by allowing the
development to go ahead, it would be causing future land use conflict. With this the
court determined that the residential component of the proposal be refused.
Problem Solving
Apart from the court case, there has been continued pressure on Sydney Water and
Pittwater Council to come up with an overall solution that will alleviate land use
conflicts and allow for residential development within the buffer.
As mentioned in a report by Pittwater Council in late 2001, as a result of ongoing
representations by Pittwater Council and liaison at a senior level between Council
staff, Sydney Water and the Department of Planning, Sydney Water has developed a
proposal to “cap” the odour producing sources of the Warriewood Sewerage
Treatment Plant which would allow residential development within the 400m buffer
zone surrounding the Plant to proceed (Pittwater Council, 2001). However this
proposal has not been realised until this current year, 2006. As discovered through
interviews with Mr Chapman, this was because of various meetings between Sydney
Water and the major developer Meriton, who had been involved with ongoing court
cases over the buffer issue in Warriewood for numerous years. Both parties then
signed an agreement in which Meriton agreed to pay Sydney Water a certain amount
of money which would be used for the purpose of constructing odour mitigation
works at Warriewood STP. In turn Sydney Water would relent on allegations made in
the Land and Environment Court, to which I was not privy.
Following this agreement, Sydney Water approached Pittwater Council, telling them,
due to these odour mitigation works, Sydney Water would not object to residential
development within the buffer zone. This is a considerable backflip on Sydney
55
Water’s behalf when you analyse information sourced from professionals in Chapter
5. Pittwater Council then rezoned the land within the buffer from the primarily zoned
non urban to mixed residential (in the Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 1993). This
then allowed for approximately 22.5 hectares of land to be developed into residential
areas.
Furthermore, Anglican Retirement Villages (or ARV), had gained a deferred consent
for a State Environmental Planning Policy Seniors Living development, for which
Pittwater required an agreement between ARV and Sydney Water prior to
construction. ARV would also contribute to the odour mitigation works to be
completed by Sydney Water. Currently the situation is that Sydney Water will begin
the odour mitigation works if one of two things happen-
i) Meriton gets their Development Application approved to build 180 houses
within the buffer; or
ii) Sydney Water and ARV sign an agreement for development to commence
Sydney Water has three stages of possible works that can be commissioned. Stage A
works, the primary works, will hopefully solve all issues of odour surrounding the
plant. However, if developers don’t get their development applications in, and Stage
A works are unsuccessful, Stages B and the C will be commenced as a contingency
plan, where developers will need to contribute towards costs. Due to the large costs
being upwards of $20 million for subsequent stages to be commenced, many
developers are dubious. Unfortunately the success of the Stage A works will not be
known for some time, as odour forecast modelling is based on weather patterns that
are ever changing. If on a still day where no wind dissipates any remaining odour,
complaints may still occur if this odour travels into neighbouring residential
properties. This is why Stages B and C exist. With this in mind developers must then
realise that they may be allowed to develop within the buffer, but they must be aware
of possibly contributing to further costs to the capping of the plant in the future.
56
Conclusion
Warriewood STP is a good example of how land use conflicts can occur around STPs
and how the buffer is used to try and discourage these conflicts. Furthermore, the
buffer policy has been tested and deemed appropriate by the Court as seen in the
McIntyre and Ors versus Pittwater Council court case in the Land and Environment
Court in 2000. Interestingly, Warriewood STP has shown a possible solution to the
buffer issue, where residential developments are now permissible in the buffer. By
allowing for the capping of the plant, the odour issue is gone, thus meaning there is no
need for a buffer zone, as a STP would not become a conflicting land use with
residential areas. Overall, the Warriewood STP solution has provided four positives,
“a great planning outcome, Sydney Water has solved a problem on their site, existing
residences are fixed up and there’s a great commercial arrangement where Sydney
Water aren’t funding the whole thing” (Huon 2006). However, the capping of the
plant is not guaranteed to work and therefore we must sit and await the outcome.
57
Chapter 7. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS – THE
WAY FORWARD
My research has looked at some of the fundamentals of buffer planning within
Australia. Land use conflicts were seen as the major issue with buffer planning and
this was what was used to approach the concept of buffers. Using STPs as my core
example of buffer zones, I was able to understand the major issues for and against the
buffers themselves and any relevant policies regarding the establishment of buffers.
This was due to the analysis of existing literature, legislation and consultation with
relevant government authorities and professionals who worked in the buffer area. The
initial aim of my research was to gain this understanding, and it can be seen that this
type of planning issue is prevalent through the planning system. However, the notion
of whether buffers are necessary and an answer to the originally posed question, ‘to
buffer or not to buffer?’ has always been the desired outcome.
To provide an answer to this, or provide my perspective on what should occur, three
possible options can be considered for future planning of buffer zones within
Australia, in particular to those effecting STPs -
1) to leave the issues as they are (the ‘As Is’ option),
2) to tighten or reduce restrictions on policies relating to buffer zones, and
3) to provide solutions to the problem to reduce the need of a buffer (i.e. capping
STP’s).
‘As Is’ Option
As mentioned in my introduction there is a current push for developable land within
Australia, in particular that of residential developments to cater for a growing
population. The ‘As Is’ option relies on leaving current policies in place. The STP
buffer zone policy would stay in effect, with a limiting boundary of 400 metres
surrounding all STP’s, with a strong emphasis on discouraging any residential
development within this 400 metres. This option also relies on the benefits buffers
offer when put in place. So what are these benefits? These benefits have been
categorised into physical, economical and social.
58
Physical
The physical benefits of buffers is varied. The actual concept of separation of
conflicting land uses is where the main benefit occurs. The STP buffer zone separates
an odorous industry from that of residential developments. The concept behind
separation is that by removing or distancing conflicting land uses, you reduce the
chance of issues occurring between the two. However, the ongoing need for land,
creates a situation where land within these buffer areas becomes a prime development
area.
Economical
These mainly apply to environmental type buffers. The economical benefits that
someone (e.g. a farmer) may experience by implementing such a buffer might include
financial benefits such as “reduced taxes, rate rebates, subsidies for a range of
activities including fencing, weed and fire management” (Kozlowski and Peterson,
2005, p144).
In reference to STP’s, by leaving things the way they are, benefits would include the
cost effective treatment of sewage, without the need to charge residents extra for the
service to supply funding for expensive capping of the plant (an option to be outlined
later).
Social
Reducing the amount of complaints due to a conflicting issue would be classed as a
social benefit. The separation of conflicting land uses, in particular that of odorous
industry and the source of complaint, i.e. residential developments, means local
communities would not suffer any decline in residential amenity but still have a
reliant effluent disposal industry which they could rely on, such as a STP.
Unfortunately the ‘As Is’ option cannot sustain the influx of residential developments
encroaching on STP buffer land. In the Warriewood STP case, the ‘As Is’ option does
not or will not work as shown in Chapter 6. Relying on the dwindling power of the
59
STP buffer zone policy, would mean that the government would be overrun with
complaints due to odour emitting from these plants. The policy itself, outlined by
opponents in the court case involving Warriewood STP, is seen as a guideline only.
Developers will generally take advantage of this. Encouraging however, is the fact
that the policy has been upheld in court, even though this may be challenged in the
future.
Tighten or Reduce Buffer Restrictions Option
When put to the two professionals interviewed, the notion of tightening or reducing
restrictions seemed not to be the main concern, but the way in which these restrictions
apply caught their attention.
Mr Huon believed that if the buffer fits in with local planning, it is an acceptable way
of approaching nuisance issues caused by STP’s. However, he does not believe that
“you can have a policy that fits all situations, the situation’s got to have its own
[policy]” (Huon 2006). Mr Chapman stated that the restrictions should not be
“necessarily tighter, but just to implement more broadly the provisions that already
exist” (Chapman 2006). The conflicting attitudes of different levels of government are
interesting. Therefore a common understanding needs to be achieved in order for any
progress.
Both agree on the application of buffers. As seen in Chapter 3 and the ‘As is’ option
above, there are many benefits that buffers can apply. Mr Huon’s thoughts on a buffer
policy that shouldn’t apply to all STP’s, but be looked at in a case by case manner
appears sensible. Mr Chapman’s thoughts on broadening the implementation of buffer
zones, so that there are no conflicting land uses, is not inaccurate, but with the push
for residential land, more open to criticism.
The following is a hypothetical look at what could occur if the restrictions on buffers
were tightened or reduced.
60
Tighter Restrictions
A STP buffer restriction may be that no commercial or residential developments are
allowed, hopefully discouraging nuisance complaints. This would lead to an
intensification of industrial developments. Some areas can only cope with a certain
amount of industry. For instance in Warriewood, Councils plans did not want an
intensification of industry in that area. The area was planned for release, in which
close to 2000 residential dwellings would be built and industrial developments would
not fit in with local planning. The desalinisation plant mentioned in Chapter 2 is an
example. Residents believed that there was too much industrial activity already (oil
refinery) and their arguments are strong. If my local area suddenly became an area of
high industrial activity, I too would complain.
Tightening restrictions would no doubt reduce nuisance complaints of odour, but the
pressure put on by developers for that land would increase, meaning a lot of time and
money will be spent on the issue. Furthermore, the residents who currently live in
buffer zone affected dwellings would then be further impacted by either incoming
industry or lower land prices due to their location and land use limitations.
Reduce Restrictions
If the buffer zone around STP’s was reduced, or residential developments were
allowed within them, a free-for-all residential development situation would occur
overnight. These residential developments would then be subject to odour and
residents living in these developments would subsequently complain. This option
would then be seen as undesirable. Returning to an earlier quote made in the NSW
EPA draft policy, Assessment and Management of Odour from Stationary Sources In
NSW, we can see why some restrictions are necessary. “Establishing buffer areas in
environmental planning instruments is an established method of minimising future
land use conflict through the development control process” (NSW EPA 2001, p23).
The notion of tightening or reducing restrictions on buffer zones is therefore not a
particularly good issue solving option. I agree with the professionals consulted over
the buffer issue, in that how the rules are applied on STPs is where the problem lies.
61
Appropriate investigation into how each STP relates to its surroundings is needed to
solve this type of issue.
Capping Option
Buffers are used to reduce the impact of a certain activity on other activities or vice
versa. Removing the effects of such an activity would then potentially remove the
conflict that may occur. This option is demonstrated within the Warriewood STP case
study, Chapter 6. The solution that has been reached in Warriewood is to cap the STP
at the cost of developers and Sydney Water. With a long consultation process that
lasted many years, agreements struck between Sydney Water, Meriton and ARV have
lead to this type of result, with support by the local government authority, Pittwater
Council. The plan is for Sydney Water to begin odour mitigation works on the STP,
with Meriton and ARV contributing to costs as they are now able to build within the
buffer and can provide their residences with a better amenity, with reduction in
odours. But what are the strengths and weaknesses of this option?
Strengths
The strengths of this option are simple and straight forward. The main aim of the STP
is to limit residential developments in close proximity to STPs as they would be
affected by the resultant odours caused by them. By removing the odour, and
effectively removing the nuisance, the chance of complaints and conflicts would be
reduced, with the actual buffer concept becoming history. In the case of Warriewood,
the outcomes of such an approach are that all parties are satisfied. Capping of the
plant allows for better amenity within the area, pleasing the local government
authority and existing residents, developers are allowed to build residential
developments and the state authority does not bear all the cost, due to developer
contributions. On paper, this is an ideal solution to this particular conflict issue.
Weaknesses
There are two considerable weaknesses with this option. One would be the cost of the
works to actually reduce odours from emanating from the STP. In the Warriewood
62
case, developers are paying for the privilege, but this is not the case for all STPs. To
provide funding for other STPs, money would be ultimately taken from all the rate
payers in the area. This would be seen as unacceptable and unfair to those who are not
affected by the nuisance.
The second weakness of this approach is that this method would spread to other STPs
and cause the end of the buffer concept as we know it. The Warriewood case has sent
“a very strong message to the development community that if you are prepared to pay
a certain amount of money then the buffers might disappear” (Chapman 2006). If this
is the case, then residential developments will be occurring around many STPs. This
will then result in the community paying once more for the capping of STPs as
developers would pass their costs down to the home buyer.
With this new technology other STP’s would be under threat from development
activity. “You can be sure some developers will now be looking at land with
residential development potential next to Liverpool STP, Riverstone STP, not so
much Penrith, possibly Shell Harbour” (Chapman 2006). Overall the argument is if
this technology exists to remove or reduce odours from STP’s then why not
implement it. If planning policies fail and the option is cost effective, then the capping
option would be the best solution.
Conclusion
The development push for land is the major cause of conflict when investigating STP
buffer issues. Land use conflicts are prevalent in many development situations,
however the STP buffer situation seems unique and intriguing. So what is the answer,
do we or do we not buffer?
With the analysis of the three options for possible solutions for land use conflicts in
buffer zones, I believe a solution is possible. My opinion is that all three options
should be utilised. Although the ‘As Is’ option is not working in today’s environment,
the actual policy it is based on has good fundamental principles, that is, to separate
conflicting land uses to avoid future disagreements. In reference to tightening or
restricting the buffer policy I believe, as do the professionals, that the implementation
63
of the policy is the key. In Greenfield areas or where there is no residential
developments, the policy can be used to outline what can occur and to what extent.
This would also have to coincide with local planning perspectives in that area. In
areas of existing residential development, and the push for developable land is
prevalent, then charging developers for capping measures seems acceptable. The
buffer would not need to apply.
To buffer or not to buffer?
In light of my research, buffers are still an important technique in regard to
major infrastructure such as STPs. In certain cases where the required land is
not at a premium (e.g. Greenfield development), I say buffering is the most
economical and efficient option. However, each STP should be assessed on its
own merits and taken on a case by case basis. If the land values (around existing
STPs such as Warriewood) warrant other methods such as capping then this
would be the preferred option.
64
REFERENCE LIST
Library Material
Farrier, D. 1993. The Environmental Law Handbook; Planning and Land Use in New South Wales, Redfern Legal Centre Publishing, Sydney. Healy P, McNamara P, Elson M and Doak A, 1988. Land Use Planning and the Mediation of Urban Change; The British Planning System in Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jolley, R and Wang, R, 1992. Effective and Safe Waste Management; Interfacing Sciences and Engineering with Monitoring and Risk Analysis, Lewis Publishers, United States of America. Kozlowski, J and Peterson, A, 2005. Integrated Buffer Planning; Towards Sustainable Development, Ashgate, Great Britain. Minichiello, Victor; Aroni, Rosalie; Timewell, Eric and Alexander, Loris, 1995. In-Depth Interviewing: Researching People: Principles, Techniques, Analysis, 2nd Ed, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne. Overall, J, 1995. Canberra, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow; A Personal Memoir, The Federal Capital Press of Australia, Canberra. Platt, R, 1976. Land Use Control: Interface of Land and Geography, Association of American Geographers, Washington D.C. Portney, K, 1991. Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities, The NIMBY Syndrome, Auburn House, United States of America. Rephann, T, 1996. The Economic Impacts of LULUs. (Spatial Modelling Centre, Sweden). Vajjhala, S, 2005. Mapping Alternatives: Facilitating Citizen Participation in Development Planning and Environmental Decision Making. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. Thesis.
Journal Articles
Anbumozhi, V, Radhakrishnan, J, Yamaji, E. 2005. Impact of riparian buffer zones on water quality and associated management considerations, in Ecological Engineering, Volume 24, Issue 5, 30 May 2005, (Elsevier) Pages 517-523. Correll, D, 2005. Principles of planning and establishment of buffer zones, in Ecological Engineering, Volume 24, Issue 5, 30 May 2005, (Elsevier) Pages 433-439.
65
Groot, R, 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes in Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 75, Issues 3-4, 15 March 2006, (Elsevier) Pages 175-186.
Henderson, S, 2005. Managing land-use conflict around urban centres: Australian poultry farmer attitudes towards relocation, in Applied Geography, Volume 25, Issue 2, April 2005, (Elsevier) Pages 97-119.
Kozlowski, J and Vass-Bowen, N, 1996. Buffering external threats to heritage conservation areas: a planner's perspective in Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 37, Issues 3-4, July 1997, (Elsevier) Pages 245-267. Minehart, D and Neeman, Z, 2002. Effective Siting of Waste Treatment Facilities, in Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Volume 43, Issue 2, March
2002,(Ideal Library) Pages 303-324. Moilanen, R, 2006. Heart of the City: Development at Redondo Beach, in California Policy Options 2006 (Los Angeles, UCLA School of Public Affairs), Pages 207-222. Sullivan, W, Anderson, M and Lovell, S, 2004. Agricultural buffers at the rural–urban fringe: an examination of approval by farmers, residents, and academics in the Midwestern United States, in Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 69, Issues 2-3, 15 August 2004, (Elsevier) Pages 299-313. Wester-Herber, M, 2004. Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts—the role of place-identity in risk perception, in Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 7, Issue 2, April 2004, (Elsevier) Pages 109-116. Williams, P, 2000. In The Courts, in New Planner, September 2000, Pages 24-25
Documents
Brogden, 2001, in NSW Assembly Hansard, 11 April 2001, Article 49, New South Wales Parliament, www.parliament.nsw.gov.au Department of Planning, 1989, Guidelines for Buffer Areas Around STPs, Circular No E3 (formerly DEP 148), Department of Planning, Sydney. Department of Natural Resources Queensland, 1997. Planning Guidelines, Separating Agricultural and Residential Land Uses, Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane. Sydney Water Corporation, 1997, Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Buffer Zone Policy, Development Services Branch, Sydney. Pittwater Council, 2001, Draft Planning Framework for STP Buffer Sector, Pittwater Council Draft NSW Environment Protection Authority, 2001, Assessment and Management of
Odour from Stationary Sources In NSW, Environment Protection Authority, Sydney.
66
Water Corporation, 2001, Preliminary Report on Buffer Zone for Subiaco Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Consulting Environmental Engineers, Perth.
Newspaper Articles
‘It’s states not rates’ Daily Telegraph, 19/8/2006 Insanity Streak Comic: The Daily Telegraph 01/08/2006, p31 ‘Residents rally against desalination plant’ Sydney Morning Herald 17/06/05 (online access)
Internet Sites
www.smh.com.au - Accessed: 10/09/06 - Updated: 10/09/06 www.sydneywater.com.au - Accessed: 25/10/06 - Updated: 25/10/06 www.library.cornell.edu - Accessed: 15/10/06 - Updated: 15/10/06 www.legislation.nsw.gov.au - Accessed: 20/09/06 - Updated: 20/09/06 www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2000 - Accessed: 20/09/06 - Updated: 20/09/06
NSW Legislation
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No 203. Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Section 129
Court Information McIntyre & Ors v Pittwater Council (Land and Environment Court, Talbot J, 21/7/2000)
Interviews Nick Chapman – Team Leader Urban Growth (Sydney Water) 6/9/06 Nathan Huon – Project Manager Land Release Projects (Pittwater Council) 28/09/06
1
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW RESEARCH QUESTIONS
� What is your background/experience with Warriewood Sewage Treatment
Plant?
� What is your opinion about the 400 metre buffer zones that surround Sewage
Treatment Plants? Do you agree with the basic concept of existing policies put
in place by Sydney Water?
� What do you see as the problems/dangers of residential developments being
placed within 400 metres of a Sewage Treatment Plant?
� Do you believe that land use conflicts occur when a developer wishes to
purchase and develop land within the buffer zones? Is it dependant on the
proposal of the developer?
� How in your mind, can these conflicts be resolved?
� Would it be acceptable to say that Sewage Treatment Plant buffer zones
should be disregarded or reduced in size? Why or Why not?
� Should there be tighter or less restrictions relating to developments around
these types of important infrastructure?
� Any other matters?
1
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT – NICK
CHAPMAN (SYDNEY WATER)
Date: 6/9/06
Time: 4pm
Duration: Approximately 45 minutes
Location: Level 16 Sydney Water Head Office
Interviewer: Glenn Dawes (G)
Interviewee: Nick Chapman (N)
G: Ok, um alright so here we are talking about (Laugh) Sewage Treatment Plant Buffer Zones.
N: Fascinating Subject.
G: Yeah, Yeah. Um, we’ll get things started off by asking what is your background
experience/experience with Sewage Treatment Plants?
N: Oh quite a lot really, talking about it at dinner parties and everybody switches off. Um seven years I
guess, which is the time that I’ve been at Sydney Water…and the Urban Growth Branch as you know
is the Department within Sydney Water which wrote the Sydney Water STP buffer zone policy in the
early nineties. In response to complaints from the public about sewage odours from STPs and emerging
land use conflicts. And Sydney Water decided that it needed a clear policy to be a guide for Sydney
Water people and for external stakeholders when looking at particularly residential development
proposals within, you know, a few hundred metres of a Sewage Treatment Plant, and this branch has
been the custodian of that policy ever since so that’s best part of 15 years actually and as a team leader
little did I know what I was taking on, when someone said, Oi Nick why don’t you run with this STP
buffer issue you know, your new you haven’t got anything better to do and its been attached to me ever
since and I cant shake it off.
G: Fun Stuff. So we’ll move onto the next question. What is your opinion about the 400 metre buffer
zones that surround Sewage Treatment Plants and do you agree with the basic concept of the policy?
N: (pause) Ahh, my opinion is that its (pause) an important dimension to be taken into account when
development proposals are being considered close to a Sewage Treatment Plant. But is by no means the
only consideration and I certainly support it for obvious reasons which I’ll explain in a minute but
probably too set the scene a bit its worth (pause) registering the fact that the reason that Sydney Water
takes these buffers seriously is because we got thirty Sewage Treatment Plants servicing 4.2million
customers right across the Sydney metro area and up into the Blue Mountains and down as far as
Kiama. And often with Sewage Treatment Plants are located according to the contours of the land and
the geography of the land not, you know, conveniently tucked away in a industrial zoned area and the
2
reason their located due to contours is because one of the fundamental reasons of Sewage transport and
treatment is that you use gravity.....
G: Gravity, yeah.
N:….as much as possible. So often these STPs are built at the bottom of a valley or a creek and there’s
really nowhere else where they can be unless you spend vast sums of money relocating them and
pumping all this sewerage to them. And so for as long as Sewage treatment is an integral part of
existing and potential development which of course it is, there’s always going to be the need for some
sort of trade off I suppose. And I think the trade off is that you have state of the art sewage treatment at
these thirty STPs right across Sydney, but you accept that there are some impacts associated with the
disposal of the communities waste and those need to be taken into account during the development
assessment process. And you need good policies to provide some guidance to land owners and
proponents about what is or is not a good idea in terms of development next to a sewage treatment
plant and that’s where the policy comes in.
G: Yeah, so you do agree with Sydney Water’s Policy?
N: I think I do agree for two reasons I suppose, one because I have to, because its my job to implement
the buffer policy on behalf of Sydney Water and I’ve done that for years. And the organization has
shown no signs of a desire to change its policy so as long as I’m on the payroll its my job to implement
it. But it does help if you believe in the principles of what you do at work and I certainly think it makes
good planning sense to have a buffer policy because it’s a question of trade offs and (pause) most
people associate the transport and treatment of sewerage as being something nasty and they don’t want
to know about it and for better or worse the community has given Sydney Water the responsibility
under law to treat sewerage on behalf of the community. And we do that with two particularly
important things in mind which is the need to protect the environment and the need to protect human
health. And when you are looking at a sewage treatment plant that means in reality that we concentrate
on treating the sewerage on site so when you discharge the treated wastewater, which is what sewage is
called. It is not going to contaminate downstream waters in a way which could cause health impacts to
people or their pets which might swim in the creeks. And similarly your not going to get terds floating
up on the beach which tends to offend people and quite literally get up their nose so to my mind
protecting health and environmental qualities in the receiving waters is where all the money and
technology and the effort should be directed. And if you get some smells from time to time that are not
noxious and there certainly not going to create any lasting environmental or health impact, other than a
(sniff) eww that’s bit of a nasty whiff in the same way that you say that bus is very loud then it
disappears down the road and you don’t necessarily think about it but you acknowledge that the public
transport is important and the community needs it and so if you have really really quiet buses which
cost an absolute fortune to build and run then you might not be able to get cost effective public
transport and is the same with sewage treatment plants they can be designed to be built to not release
3
any odour at all but it costs an absolute fortune and our regulators, particularly Department of
Environmental Conversation and our financial regulator IPART, both say you spend a certain amount
of money at sewage treatment plants dealing with odour but most of the money is spent on insuring that
there is no downstream health or environmental impacts and that to me is a very sensible balance. So,
to have a buffer policy which says well look, smells from sewage are kind of just a fact of life when
you close to a sewage treatment plant so if there is an opportunity through the development control
process to make sure you get compatible development close to Sewage Treatment Plants that’s not
going to be offended by the occasional wiff of sewerage, that’s a much better planning outcome than
having a sewage treatment plant surrounded by twenty storey apartment blocks.
G: I think we sort of went onto the next question but, just thought if there’s anything you wanted to
add, what would be the problems or dangers of residential developments being placed within a buffer
zone, you already to started to talk about the environmental impacts but is there anymore you wish to
add?
N: Well there’s been no evidence that I’ve ever been shown or had described to me that scientifically
that there is any health impacts from smells, from sewerage. And if there were, we would look at that
very seriously but principally in order to protect the working environment for our employees who work
on the sewage treatment plants and who are you know in close proximity to the process everyday of
their working life. Unless your working in enclosed spaces where you can get a build up of gases and
that sort of thing, because there is no empirical or scientific evidence of any health impact, your talking
nuisance, rather than health impact. And the people who are most likely to be most effected by smells
or people who are close to the smells for a long time and that means that people who are in houses who
are possibly living in a place and if their elderly or relatively house bound, then an occasional sewerage
smell could have a significant impact on their residential amenity. Where as if it’s a park or a tile shop,
or even a bowling club, or a set of offices that are all air conditioned where people are onsite much less
of the time. Also a lot of people are in transit. I mean they are their to play bowls, they play for an hour
a week or an hour a month and then they go again. Statistically the likelihood of them being effected by
a smell by a sewage treatment plant is going to be much, much lower and even if they did smell
something they’ll probably say oh well I’m out here bowling you might get noise you might get smells
you might get wind you might get dust you have to wear a hat and sunscreen because your out in the
sun. All of these things are potentially going to impact on somebodies amenity and they kinda expect
that. And the occasional sewage treatment plant smell is really not going to be of any great
significance. So any policy that sort of steers away from housing where the potential for odour impacts
on residential amenity is quite high and instead steers development down the sort of commercial,
industrial, recreational, open space or even institutional route the better in my view…... The reason
being, sorry just to finish off, the last thing we want or DEC our regulators want is people picking up
the phone on Sunday morning saying your plant stinks again and I’ve got the whole family coming
over for a Christmas barbeque, what are you going to do about it? I’m going to complain to my local
member of parliament. And what people don’t realise and this is certainly, and if it isn’t already the
4
first line in our policy, it should be the first line in our policy and it’s the first line in the draft odour
policy that DEC issued in 2001, which is that complaints about odour to the authorities which is the
Department of Environmental Conservation, represent the most common complaint of all. So given
that, the planning system has a job to do to try and avoid situations where because of incompatible
development in this case close to a sewage treatment plant, but it could be close to an abattoir or a
chemical factory which produces occasional odours. You want to avoid incompatible development
because you know based on that history that people are going to complain and you want to avoid that
preferably by not having inappropriate development there in the first place.
(Phone Interruption)
G: Ok next question, do you believe that land use conflicts occur when a developer wishes to purchase
and develop land within the buffer zone and is it dependant on the proposal of the developer?
N: Absolutely it is dependent on the proposal of the developer. In my view land use conflicts only
develop if there is inappropriate development which for one reason or another could produce the
possibility of odours literally getting up peoples noses to the extent where they complain to the
authorities. And that traditionally happens when people have moved into a house to live, and the
amenity impacts which they consider to be unacceptable. And that could include noise and odour. And
you could say that is an inappropriate development. But there's another classic case, which we have at
the moment. Which is a brilliant kind of case study of how not to plan development property in the
buffer. Where we have our cinema owner at Warriewood complaining that the smells from the sewage
treatment plant are effecting his cinema patrons, and some of them have left, had to leave his cinema
and have to demand refunds, because they claim that the smells in the cinema are unacceptable, and
that they are sewerage type smells. And its got so bad now that the cinema owner and a developer, that
shall remain nameless, one of the biggest developers in New South Wales is conducting litigation
against us in the Land and Environment Court. On the ascertain that the odours effecting the patrons of
this cinema are offensive. Under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, Section 129 it is
illegal for offensive odours to be generated by anybody. By Sydney Water, the local bakery, a shoe
factory or an abattoir. And the irony is that when Pittwater Council was assessing the development
application for this cinema back in 1997, or it might have been, no it was 1997, Sydney Water
objected. Quite vigorously to the DA. Because Sydney Waters view was that the cinema which was
different from most forms of commercial development which wouldn’t be effected by odour, but in
Sydney Waters opinion, they already saw trouble looming. And we said no, we don’t think Council
should approve this development. And council said, thankyou very much Sydney Water we are going
to approve it anyway. Because it fits in with our local planning objectives for the area. And then, you
know eight years later it ends up in court because there’s a conflict between peoples legitimate right
and desire to have a nice evening at the movies and our perfect legitimate and rightful responsibility to
treat the communities sewerage. And the problem is that they happen to be next door to each other and
a conflict has a emerged. So, in an ideal world, the planning system would operate in a way to head off,
5
as best it can these potential land use conflicts emerging in the first place by making the right sort of
zoning decisions and then upholding that through the development control process. But what is
happening in Sydney, which is effecting not just land use conflicts associated with sewage treatment
plants but land use conflicts associated with busy roads, railway tracks or flight paths is that the price
of land in Sydney goes up and the demand for new housing goes up, you find the development sector
response is to go buy land which would previously have been considered kind of marginal or
compromised in some way. And so 10 or 15 years ago, there would have been large tracts of land,
undeveloped, in close proximity to a sewage treatment plant at Liverpool, or at Warriewood or at
Fairfield, or at Penrith and people would not be interested in developing it for anything, let alone
housing. But now, what was previously, kind of marginal land is now prime residential land, so the
potential for conflicts to emerge has increased as well, and that’s exactly what has played out around
Warriewood and one or two other STP buffers.
G: Would it be expectable to say after what you just said then that Sewage Treatment Plant buffer
zones should be disregarded or reduced in size because of this demand for that land.
N: I think its possible, but at a very significant cost. And because of the very significant cost that has to
be borne by someone, I don’t think it is acceptable. Because good planning is about best use of land,
given all the sort of, the factors you need to consider and all the costs and benefits, social,
environmental and economic that need to be weighed up. And I think you get the best balance of cost
and benefit across the range if you also include a separation area if you like, or a buffer between types
of land use that would, if they were shoved up against other, be incompatible. And that’s most of the
very basic, kind of philophosy of good planning. You don’t go out of your way to or you don’t just
discover incompatible land uses which then have to have vast sums of money spent to ameliorate those
impacts, but you could never do away with them altogether, you just have to spend lots and lots of
money. And we find ourselves in the situation at Warriewood where that the pressure to build new
houses within the Warriewood STP buffer has been relentless for, you know, the seven years I have
been working in Sydney Water. The stakes are high politically and economically because the northern
peninsula was urban consolidation and the bottom end of Warriewood Valley, in where the STP was
built 30 years ago, is a pretty good spot for some medium density residential development. So there is
huge pressure been brought to bare by these very big developers on government and Sydney Water to
spend large sums of money to make the smells go away. But you cant just, you know, cap the plant,
you actually then have to run a complicated odour, scrubbing and filtering process, seven days a week,
everyday of the year for the next century, you know, and that costs an absolute fortune in plant and
energy and operating costs which the community will have to bare, somebody would have to pay for
that. So you could argue that to just disregard buffers and say oh well, you know, those aren’t relevant
anymore because the price of land, you know, you just gotta put houses there, is in one sense just
setting yourself up to pay significantly down the track in an attempt to make the problem go away or at
least minimise the problem. And actually if you get your good planning right in the first place, you
wont have a problem anyway. Which means all that money can be spent on things that are more
6
important, which could be protecting the water quality at Warriewood Beach for example, where
Warriewood STP discharges to, or forgetting sewage treatment but have the money spent on hospital
beds at Mona Vale or putting in new footpaths and open space provision for urban flow, you know,
that’s where the money should be spent, not very expensive odour capping and scrubbing.
G: So after all that, do you think there should there be tighter restrictions relating to developments
around these types of important infrastructure?
N: I think given the situation in Sydney, the answer would have to be, not necessarily tighter, but just
to implement more broadly the provisions that already exist. Because I mean these policies haven’t just
come out of the air last year. The problem of odours and their impact on people has been known for
many, many years, and planning has been trying to avoid that for many, many years. So in my view we
should just continue to plan sensibly to minimise land use conflicts. And if we do that you don’t really
need to tighten things up because we will have compatible land uses, because one of the common
critisms levelled at Sydney Water or our regulator, the Department of Environmental Conservation is
that, you know, having a 400 metre buffer around the plant is to sterilise the land. The land is sterilised,
well the people who own that land or use that land should be compensated. And so, you know, at the
very least Sydney Water should refund the poor cinema owners tickets. And my response to that is you
know, buffers don’t sterilise the land, buffers are just one of the tools in the kit bag to be used to reduce
land use conflicts to prevent them from emerging. Once you got the buffer in place then that sends the
right signals to the planning system to get compatible development along the types of development I
mentioned earlier. And if you get that, then the policies that we currently have are being properly
implemented and most people should be satisfied most of the time. The difficulty is that, because of the
relentless pressure to find land for housing in Sydney, then developers are actually being a bit more
pushy. And not just pushy in respect of us and our buffers but also the planning authorities, the state
planning authority, who we see as being important allies in the whole exercise of implementing buffers.
But planning authorities are political organisations and they are subject to a lot of pressure from
various development stakeholders to change their zoning or relax it, not tighten it up. And that is really
just storing up problems up for everybody in the future and I think the cinema is a classic illustration of
that, who would of known that eight years ago that the cinema at Warriewood could be vulnerable to
odour impacts, what a surprise. Now we are being told by a number of very expensive barristers in the
Land and Environmental Court because odour is unacceptable. And all we can say is that we told you
so and we didn’t recommend you build your cinema where you subsequently built it. And it is worth
pointing out that its not the first time the buffer policy has been tested in the Land and Environmental
Court, it was tested in the Land and Environment Court in 2000 and it was upheld. The judge said no,
this is a good policy and I support Sydney Waters objections to a town house development, it was a
forty town house development in the buffer, and I think Council as the local planning authority is
wrong not to reject this development, so I’m refusing it because it came to me in the Land and
Environment Court, because I think the policy is a great policy and it should be implemented in this
situation. So there is some case law now on the table, which demonstrates that its not just Sydney
7
Water and a few policy makers in the state government who think buffers are a good idea, but the court
supports that. Because the court knows that land use conflicts as the result of odour generating in the
case of a sewage treatment plant essential community facilities, is a fact of life. So you have to get your
planning right. So I don’t think that it needs to be tightened up, I just think it needs to be implemented
as it is, and implemented more consistently. And if there are attempts by development stakeholders to
get planning authorities not to implement it or to put the cost onto, in our case, Sydney Water. To sort
of make the profit go away at the publics expense. I don’t think that is an appropriate use of public
money. The only beneficiaries are the people who own the land, who then build the houses and sell it
on. Its not like, you know, the whole community uses Warriewood Beach, which is going to benefit
from a major upgrade in a treatment process, which means that there are absolutely no environmental
impacts associated with the out pour of the STP at that beach. Everyone benefits from that, well
everyone who uses the beach. Rather than just you know, half a dozen land owners and a big developer
or two.
G: Little update on what’s been happening in Warriewood.?
N: Well Glenn, a lots been happening since you’ve been away even though the fabric of this place and
level 16 hasn’t changed at all. There are slightly a fewer people on the floor than there were when you
were last here, but a lots been happening on the Warriewood front so its very timely that you popped in
for an update, before you finish this piece of work.
Three key things have happened in the last 11 months. They are all kinda linked, its almost like a
stepped process that’s continued. The first step what was kinda the wash-up from the litigation from the
land and environment court which ran for nearly 2 years. It was brought by Meriton on behalf of the
Cinema owner who was complaining about alleged offensive odours coming from the STP and spoiling
a night out at his cinema, and he was alleging in his averdavid that his cinema patrons would storm out
and demand a refund. Well that litigation continued to build, and hundreds of thousands of dollars
spent on a legal team because it was a pretty important test case of the buffer policy as far as Sydney
Water was concerned, so we had the full support of the board of directors to make the best defence we
could against the allegations. But in reality, neither Sydney Water or Meriton really wanted this thing
to be thrashed out in a full court hearing which was going to last three weeks with about five barristers.
For two reasons probably, and I guess Meriton would have had different more commercial reasons to
want to stay out of court compared to Sydney Water. But firstly, if you can avoid hundreds and
thousand of dollars on fees to pay 5 barristers, you should do that and Secondly this is a classic land
use conflict, it’s the result of planning policies that have either not been properly implemented or
thought of when it was to late and there have been attempts by various players to implement those land
use policies retrospectively and that has caused the land use conflict. That is not a good thing for
conflicts in policies to be thrashed out in court really, we should be able to get it sorted out our selves
through the policy development and consultation and negotiation process, and that’s basically what
happened. So after a fair amount of high level communication between Meriton and members of our
8
board of directors and members of the Sydney Water executive, Sydney Water and Meriton signed an
agreement in June, saying basically that Meriton agree to pay Sydney Water a sum of money to go
towards the cost of building state of the art odour mitigation works at the STP, and we also agree to
withdraw to the alligations made in the Land and Environment Court. That was really important first
step.
The second step, a consequence if you like of that agreement that we struck with Meriton, we wrote to
Pittwater Council, for the first time in 8 years formally withdrawing our objection to significant
residential development within the STP buffer. When I saw that letter I was a little nervous I suppose,
as it was a significant departure from what we had already had said. And of course Pittwater Council
said at last Sydney Water you’ve seen reason, so we’ll take your advise and we’ll promptly rezone the
land, which they did. So about month after Meriton and Sydney Water signed their agreement,
amendment no. 71 for Pitwatter LEP1993 was gazetted. About 22.5 Ha in the buffer went from mostly
non urban went to mostly mixed residential, and that was a huge step for everybody.
The third step if you like is as us and Anglican Retirement Villages, getting closer to signing an
agreement, or ARV as they are known to pay their fair share towards the cost of the state of the art
works at the STP. So I had this interesting job to do, which was to stand up at a public meeting
convened by Pittwater Council just after the agreement had been signed between Sydney Water and
Meriton. I said well, we’ve withdrawn our recommendation against significant residential development
within the buffer, council has indorsed rezoning and that rezoning proposal is being considered by the
Department of Planning and the Minister, and Sydney Water commits to building stage A of the odour
mitigation works if either two things happen. Either Meriton, who we have already signed an
agreement with by then, successfully secure DA approval to build about 180 houses I think on the
buffer land they own. So either that happens or Sydney Water and ARV sign up. ARV because it’s a
SEPP seniors living development, succeeded in getting planning approval with Pittwater Council a few
months back with their aged person facility in the buffer, on condition they sign an agreement with
Sydney Water. So it was a deferred commencement commission. So the onus is on both ARV and
Sydney Water to sign up. If that happens we wont have to wait around for Meriton’s DA to be lodged
and approved, the flag will drop the green light will go on and we’ll go ahead and commission these
stage A works, at a total cost of 22 million dollars and the development sector will pay half of that and
Sydney Water will pay the rest.
But there is a bit of fly in the ointment, which is that the stage A works might not be good enough, so
what we are saying to developers is if you don’t get your DAs in and approved over the next year or
two and the Stage A works are then commissioned and up and running and they are subsequently found
to be not operating to expectations, then Sydney Water will have no option to commission further
stages B and C at a total cost of 20 million dollars. The redevelopers will be required to contribute to
those B and C costs as well as the stage A costs. As you can expect some of the developers are saying
they aren’t happy with that, the works are either effective or not and the reason that we are going down
9
this track and we withdrew our objection to residential development in the buffer is because we
genuinely believe stage A works will be affective. But the reason why we have a contingency in place
is because of the nature of the modelling that underpins of the concept design of the stage A works. So
its all computer modelled odour impacts and computer model weather. Because the extent of which
odours cause annoyance to people is directly related to how the weather is at any given time. So if the
wind is blowing really strongly, you might have a pretty stinky plant for some reason and it wont cause
annoyance, because the strong wind will break up all the odours and dissipate and defuse. But if it is a
really still weather day, then we will have this kinda unfortunate kinda bubble of odour which will
emerge and gradually work its way over the STP and our fence and go pop, just as somebodies opening
up a champagne for their Christmas barbeque. Now, we have no way of predicting what the weather is
going to be in three years. But what we have is a pretty sophisticated model where we have a set of
meteorogical data that we have gathered over the years. And we say right that’s a typical set of weather
data, we expect it to be the same in 2011, and if it is, and odours continue to behave in the way we
know they do behave, then as result of our modelling we reckon the Stage A works will be good
enough, but they might not be that’s why we need that contingency arrangement for Stages B and C.
And whats interesting is that that’s sort of the Achilles Heel for the whole planning policy thing, but
also is its strongest reason for existing, because what the developers want is certainty. It’s a bit like are
we this side of the road or are we that side, tell us and we know how to design our building envelope.
Want they’ve wanted for years is to say right draw the line where the zone of the odour impact finishes,
and I’ll build my houses up to that line and I wont go across it. We have had to say sorry we cant be
accurate about a line, but we have got one and its called 400m buffer, and that’s the best we’ve got.
They say well how do we know if its 350m or 450m, and we say nobody knows because it depends on
the weather, this is a policy approach. They say that’s outrageous I need certainty here. So I’ve coped
criticism from the developers and the land owners when I’ve attended these Pittwater Council
meetings, who’ve said well that’s not good enough Sydney Water, we want to know if we have to
contribute just to the Stage A works or the lot. We don’t want this uncertainty which is yeah contribute
the Stage A costs and maybe you’ll have to contribute Stages B and C we’ll let you know in 5 years
time. By which time the deals are done and everyone’s retired to the Gold Coast through the land sales.
So I think that is really interesting because even now, even though we’ve gone down this free radical
path, we still cant be defiant we still cant be certain we still have to have costly contingencies in place
and we still have to insist that developers who develop in 2 or 3 years time need to contemplate to pay
more money.
G: So if that goes all ahead does that mean the buffers gone?
N: Buffers gone, I mean it is effectively gone now, we’ve withdrawn our objections, so the
manifestation of the policy with our STP has finished.
G: Couldn’t this start a landslide of developments within STPs?
10
N: Yep, and that’s always been a factor in our internal deliberations and our consultations with other
key stakeholders in planning including Department of Planning, Department of Environment
Conservation which is our regulator and various developer groups and councils. And your right it
probably a bit strong to say its opened the flood gates, but what its done is send a very strong message
to the development community that if you are prepared to pay a certain amount of money then the
buffers might disappear. Developers being developers will say well we don’t think we should pay all
that we think the community should pay some of that too.
I think that the whole buffer thing at Warriewood in my view has revealed both the strengths and the
weaknesses of a policy approach, because in terms of the strengths we have successfully sent a
message to a planning authority, in this case Pittwater Council and local developers and land owners,
that there is a policy in place that recommends against particular types of land use up against the fence
of the STP. Because it might be vulnerable, so on that basis we don’t think it would be a great idea for
you to seek a rezoning for housing. To the extent we are going to object, and people are taking notice
of that. And there taking notice of the fact that it was thrashed out in L&E court 6 years ago in 2000,
the policy approach was supported. The weakness though is that it really hasn’t solved the conflict, the
conflict has been driven by much more than just the benefits of the community treatment of sewage,
and a community owned STP. The policy has been subject to all those pressures from Sydney today
which are about housing for the elderly, housing which is affordable in the northern beaches which
aren’t particularly well served by public transport into the city etc. A planning authority for good
strategic planning reasons wants to completely develop the whole Warriewood Valley, not just leave a
section around the STP and have that zoned as industrial. So, like all policies its only got a certain shelf
life, and what we have seen is a in a sense a commercially based process override the application of the
policy to resolve the land use conflict. Lets hope that’s done in a way which is good enough, but some
might question the extent in which it is properly sustainable because its going to cost an awful lot to
run these odour mitigation works as long as there’s an STP doing its job at Warriewood. Sydney Water
on behalf of the community of Sydney, will continue to bear those costs. Anyway I think we are getting
very close to signing an agreement with ARV, and that will mean the flag will drop the green light will
go on and we will go ahead and commission the works, and the buffer will be history.
Just to get back to your earlier point, you can be sure some developers will now be looking at land with
residential development potential next to Liverpool STP, Riverstone STP, not so much Penrith,
possibly Shell Harbour and we’ll say right lets see what can get by way of a shift in the application of
the buffer policies here. And you can argue that’s fine, I mean if the technology exists and someone’s
willing to pay for it why not use it.
G: So it could be the end of the buffer policy, or will it still have some weight?
N: I think that it will always be valid as a policy because it goes back to the fundamental principles of
good planning policy in which you don’t have incompatible land uses coexisting, you try and separate
11
them as much as possible, recognising that both have value but put them together and it’s a bit like a
unruly family and they end up having fights and there heads ache. So I think there will always be a
place for planning policies which recommend separation areas between STPs and where people live. If
we can get in early, and we are doing this out at Camden, then we can actually influence the way lot
boundaries and subdivisions are drawn, so that they are out of range of the 400 metre buffer, so people
know when they are buying that there not going to be encumbered by a buffer policy. We have that
luxury because when I last counted , I think there were 4 dwellings within the whole Camden STP
buffer where as in Warriewood there are 330, and most of them were there before 1975 when the STP
was built. Whereas Camden its kind of virgin territory so that means we can apply the planning policies
more effectively and in a more pure sense, and the Council can say ok Sydney Water yep we can see
where your coming from, we agree, but by the way this also supports our scenic view policy because
the STP is at the bottom of a river valley, and that has landscape scenic qualities. What’s really good at
Camden is that its in Councils interest to see those scenic qualities preserved by avoiding building at
the bottom of the valley where our STP and the buffer is. So both parties benefit. That’s a really neat
planning solution because you’ve got zoning, which is done up front before there is pressure to develop
which actually fulfils a number of planning objectives, not just one, and that’s good news.
G: I think that wraps it up, thankyou.
12
1
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT – NATHAN
HUON (PITTWATER COUNCIL)
Date: 28/09/06
Time: 10am
Duration: Approximately 30 minutes
Location: 1 Park Street Mona Vale
Interviewer: Glenn Dawes (G)
Interviewee: Nathan Huon (N)
G: Ok here I am talking to Nathan Huon, the project manager for Warriewood Land Release Projects,
and you’ve been involved with Warriewood Valley land release.
N: Since last year , May last year I got involved, and prior to that I had several projects with Council
being the construction project manager.
G: And your up to date on the Warriewood STP and the buffer issues?
N: There's been significant issues with Warriewood STP, just to go back to the beginning, the
Warriewood Valley Land Release was part of the Warriewood Ingleside Land Release, which was
announced by the government back in 1991 for release. That was Warriewood and Ingleside. Council
then did about 4 years of planning work, quite comprehensive planning work at looking at all the
environmental and planning constraints for the land and come up with a draft planning strategy which
identifies land use and land capability and development scenarios. As a consequence of that they
actually cumulated in the preparation into what they call a draft planning strategy. That strategy was
placed on sectors, sector development through the valley. They were logical sectors of the individual
land owners, and the concept there was that council didn’t want to be dealing with individual land
owners, you know market garden or something where they want to do a really crappy battle axe
subdivision or something. What it has resulted in, in most cases, was a single developer coming on and
buying out all the small land holdings, and doing a development on sector by sector basis. That’s why
when you go down to the valley you’ll see quite substantial areas of development in one go. In 1995
the government pulled the pin on the land release. So a lot of wasted effort and a lot of disappointment
from Council in particular who had been instructed to release the land and had to fork out the money to
do the planning studies and the like, very frustrating. Then it was re-released as just Warriewood Land
Release and just some statistics on the releases, there’s approximately 1890 residential dwellings, and
in the order of 26 hectares of employment generating land. In the valley we have a Section 94
contributions plan which we collect money for and because its net present value model and we don’t
actually record in today’s terms what the total value is, it’s a little hard to put a total figure, but its
about 130 million dollars worth at my estimates the total contributions plan, and we’ve still got about
2
76 millions worth to collect yet and spend, so that’s just some statistics. The area around the STP
buffer in the planning documents had always been left out. And I understand Sydney Waters position in
the beginning had been, no its 400 metres, big circle drawn, there was no allocation of dwelling yield
for that land. That left council with quite a dilemma because it wasn’t ordinary planning, there was an
ad hoc existing arrangement for zonings down there, some of it was zoned rural, some of it was zoned
industrial and the land use and the land capability and in particularly the adjacency between some of
the lands in the buffer and existing residential and new residential there was a conflict. So from a
planning a perspective and a community perspective, industrial development down there has been
undesirable, always has been. From Sydney Waters perspective, Industrial development is good,
because it can be done within the buffer. On the other hand, Council has had a resolved position from
the outset that Sydney Water should have capped the plant. There’s some, I cant think on the top of my
head, the number of dwellings, but there’s hundreds existing dwellings within the existing buffer that
were there before the plant. So Councils position has been right from the beginning it was, my
understand is there was quite a bit of disappointment from the people from Council involved, that
Sydney Water didn’t seize the opportunity of the whole land release with almost 2000 dwellings to find
a solution through an appropriate charge, perhaps the DSP charges. Which I think are the lowest in
Sydney in Warriewood, from my understanding. It was disappointing, they were saying look we are
putting this 400 metre you cant do anything in there. That wasn’t fixing the problem, that was only
really short term and was problem hiding not problem solving. Council pressed and pressed and
pressed, and said look why don’t you try and get your income from the whole of the development,
they’ve pulled it down into this refined area. What’s happened with the buffer down there is that
Council with a resolved position residential development for two reasons. One for Sydney Water to cap
the plant and secondly we want existing residences to be remediated in terms of the odour impacts.
We’ve gone through a process of rezoning the land to residential.
G: That’s where ARV comes in?
N: ARV gave us the opportunity to force a solution I suppose for the planning of the area, because they
didn’t require a rezoning because they were a permissible use under SEPP SL legislation, so Council
has got two choices, we could have taken the ARV development and said well yeah you might be
complying but you cant build in the buffer, which we are quite entitled to do. Rather than doing that,
we used the opportunity to promote there consent, they have a deferred commencement consent. In
addition to that they had Meriton putting pressure on Sydney Water through the courts.
G: There waiting for ARV to sign up before they…
N: I think Harry’s calmed down a bit now, there’ve knocked up some commercial agreement with
Sydney Water that we are not privy too. But it’s a really good outcome. You got land down there now
that can be used from a planning perspective in an appropriate way, it’s a positive impact on the
adjacent lands, it provides a creek line corridor system through the middle there which will eventually
3
lead through to the development process coming into public ownership and can be remediated. So
there’s some really good stuff there and also the capping of the plant. Not only affects all those existing
residences in the area, but also has a significant positive impact on the other commercial and public
uses that are within the buffer. Not to forget there’s significant sports fields, you get people down there
playing sport in the morning and have to put up with the stench. Council offices in Vuko Place, another
good example, I used to work down in Vuko Place and a cold winters morning, its just an atrocious
environment, it stinks. No one really tells you, people say so many odour units and all this kind of stuff,
but fact of the matter it is that it stinks. There’s cinemas down there, McDonalds, you know all sorts of
things that people frequent so the positive benefits are huge.
G: Cause I knew there was a court case involving the cinema in some way?
N: Yeah that was a bit before my time. But I understand there was issues with that, I think that case
was brought up with triguboff with Meriton and Sydney Water.
G: You’ve looked at the policies put in place by Sydney Water on the buffer, What’s your opinion on
the buffer itself?
N: I think the buffer concept itself is a necessary evil I suppose, for existing plants, you would hope. I
think the principle from my perspective should that each site should be looked at on its own merits. I
mean if we had desirable land uses, from a communities planning perspective as industrial or whatever,
all around the area, I don’t think its an issue, and that’s the approach Sydney Water took, they looked at
it isolation from the reality from a planning perspective, they were only looking at it from their
planning perspective. Particularly where there is existing residences I think its not good enough in this
day and age to say well we’ll just continue to put our bad smell, where there should be a forward plan,
you wouldn’t build a new STP in existing residential areas now would you? So I think that means to
me that where there are existing STPs and if there is existing residential that should be having a
forward plan. What we’ve demonstrated down in Warriewood is to incorporate the costs, or try and
recover some of the costs through the development process, cause what your effectively doing is
almost upzoning land because your solving a problem. The land previously didn’t have any
development capability because you couldn’t build residential there, lots of developers would argue
that there is high development costs, all the money is in the land. So if you just look at it quite
clinically like that, you’ll say land today cant build on, land tomorrow you can build on significantly
more because of the solution so I think there should be ample opportunity in a planned way to solve the
usage problems in buffers.
G: With that do you see any problems or dangers of residential development being right next to the
STP?
4
N: I understand its not a health issue, its more of an amenity issue. From Councils perspective its I
suppose there’s some responsibility from Council to ensure an appropriate level of amenity in any
planning consideration. So councils position with our particular buffer experience, has been very
conscious, even the elected council, not just staff have been very conscious about that amenity issue.
G: Do you think it’s the development push that creates these land use conflicts?
N: Well it hasn’t down here, this situation has been in part designed by council to solve a problem, I
think the pressure here really has come from, there’s an existing problem lets make a good solution all
round. If you really take a basic view of what’s happened down there, Sydney Water are capping there
plant at half the cost, there recovering half the costs through a development scenario, they could have
recovered more if they had spread it around the valley at the beginning, rather than isolate down to a
smaller area. Existing residences are getting a significant amenity benefit and we’ve got a great
planning solution in terms of residential development in an area that had, traditionally had ad hoc
zoning that had been placed in by the state government ages ago in an ad hoc fashion. We’ve been
facing a serious of development applications for really uncoordinated industrial development down
there. Which in turn has put pressure on us, if you don’t find a solution or make a solution happen
eventually someone is going to get some shitty industrial development down here and stuff the whole
thing and will never get fixed. If we had of lost, gone to court over a couple of industrial developments
and lost, the plant would never get capped cause they were never going to recover any money from
anyone.
G: So that sort of goes back to the policy or the guidelines of what Sydney Water would allow within
the buffer zone, so you think that in this particular case that industrial types of developments shouldn’t
be allowed.
N: I cant quite understand much myself how it is appropriate to work in a lower amenity than it is to
live. Having worked in an office where and the reality of it is the odour is obviously worse when
you’ve got a temperature inversion, traditionally happened during Winter you turn up to work where
the air conditioner has been off all night, and the outside cool air has entered the building during the
night, it literally is the whole building stinks like sewer, like sewage. And I kind of understand, I can
understand maybe there is a greater impact because of the peoples residential amenity, but I cant
understand how you can say its ok for people to work in the environment.
G: So would you say that there are no need for buffer zones or they should be reduced?
N: No I think they need to be, I think the buffer zones I presume, I don’t know much about other buffer
zones but I presume there’s existing treatment plants that may have buffer zones around them, and I
think providing that fits in with the local planning and its reasonable, maybe it’s a good way of doing
it. But in situations where you have existing development that may have been there before the plant or
5
the plant maybe was upgraded after they were there that has cause some of the loss of the amenity, I
think the focus should be on finding the long term solution and using opportunities such as urban
renewal or residential development around the plant just to try to find a commercial solution to fixing
the problem rather than just leaving it reliant on the plan. You know I just don’t think you can have a
policy that fits all situations you got to, the situations got to have its own.
Im not sure if this is in your questions, the other interesting thing is ARV where arguing with, council
put itself as the meat in a sandwich with ARV cause, well we knew what was going on, ARV were
trying to convince council initially that we shouldn’t be concerned about the buffer, we should just
ignore it and give them a consent, and we said look were not stupid we know what capable, in fact the
reason you’re here is because of us, this has all been very carefully thought out. They put an argument
to us, they bought two arguments to us. One was that they were only part in the buffer, the most
important thing they put to us, and I think it carries some wait is the way in which the buffer zone is
applied. The way in which Sydney Water has applied the buffer in Warriewood, was 400 metres from,
not from the odour admitting plant but from the land boundary. Now down there they have significant
areas of land, including a depot and the like on the corner, like a works depot which is separate to the
STP operation. It just defies logic, I mean where does the 400 metres come from. Is it, I mean if 400
metres there’s been some technical assessment that from this odour admitting plant that’s sort of a
reasonable thing, great. But just because Sydney Water happened to own vast areas of land around the
outside of the STP, how can you come up with this 400 thing. When ARV did the picture, they got an
aerial and said ok, heres 400 metres from the closest point and heres a 400 metre zone. The 400 metres
that was actually locked in actually covered most of their site and the 400 metres which was from the
odour admitting bits and pieces clipped the corner of the site. So there was an interesting point like how
do you actually apply a buffer zone, and it seems a bit unclear or an anomaly in the policy in how its
done. Then ARV made the comment, does that mean if Sydney Water acquired more land around their
plant does that mean is there someone who hasn’t been previously affected by the buffer is affected,
just cause they happened to own some more land.
G: Would you have any ideas of how it could be improved with restrictions?
N: I think it has to be done by a site by site basis, I think that’s really important, I think they have this
blanket policy just as applied as a rule so you’ve got a rule without any site analysis or specific
circumstance looking at it, I think that seems odd. I certainly think, I cant see any reason why you
wouldn’t, I mean I suppose there is an element if Sydney Water owned the site they might like to
expand it, but my suspicion is that when the 400 metre concept was done it would of probably been
based on very old technology and the newer technologies and what not in terms of, and even with
maintenance operations and all that kind of stuff, you would think were in favour of modifying the way
in which 400 metres or whether it is 400 metres is applied.
6
G: What I was thinking because of this development was that the buffer wont exist anymore in
Warriewood basically that other STPs that Sydney Water has got will be under threat from developers
by finding about this one and start putting up their case and I think that’s why Sydney Water was trying
so hard with this one.
N: I think the reason trying hard with this one is because there have now zoned land around them and
they’ve got the ARV who have significant relationships well not relationships I suppose you call them
influence, not with just state government but a federal government level. So you’ve got a major player,
it’s a 120 million dollar development the ARV site, so its big dollars and big political stuff in a time
when we are looking for appropriate aged housing where councils supports the proposed development
its consistent with the planning strategy down there, there’s only one issue. So enormous amount of
pressure on Sydney Water after a very concerted effort of not to do anything and enormous pressure for
them to do something, that coupled with a court challenge by one of the largest developers in Australia,
Meriton. Which affectively represented probably half or closer to two thirds of the area that subject to
this quandary, I think the guns are lined up I think there’s no great deal of choice, I think there’s very
high level pressure on them to find a solution and as soon as the land was rezoned well now it well they
have to well as soon as the ARV thing sorry was agreed in principle right we are going to do it, the
biggest risk for Sydney Water was that the land didn’t get rezoned and industrial development came in
on the residual areas which meant they couldn’t levy them. So its all or nothing. As soon as we crossed
the line with ARV, right we are going to put residences down there and that means we are going to cap
the plant, as soon as that happened, the whole thing fell into place. All of the leverage turns back to
Sydney Water now saying we want residential development down there cause there going to pay, were
going to get money back off them. Certainly been very interesting in that respect all the different tactics
and the commercial considerations and stuff like that.
G: well with the capping of the plant, what if it doesn’t work?
N: I suppose there is still risk in everything you do. What council position on it was, Sydney Water has
a done a preliminary design, a staged design of plans drawings lids, and that’s been on the table for
some time. What councils position was and this is reflected in the ARV consent was that you cant
measure odour on one day, or pinpoint a time, the only way you can measure odour is either
instantaneously which doesn’t give you a true picture of the yield or the lifespan of the development,
you can only do that through modelling or predictive modelling. So what we’ve done is that we’ve
conditioned the ARV consent to require ARV to engage an independent consultant to review Sydney
Waters proposed works and confirm on the ARV site what the various stages would achieve with the
predictive modelling and they’ve used the cowpuff method. We actually became quite proficient in all
the terminology in odour mitigation. I’ve got the EPAs draft policy here in the file. So they’ve done
that now actually and we are about to sign that off for them. But that’s then stage A stage B and Stage
C, Sydney Water and ARV have to enter in an agreement this is for ARV consent to become
operational, they have to demonstrate there’s an agreement to undertake A B and C or A B or C, and to
7
whatever extent its required to adapt to odour units. So that’s the way Council has handled the
technical aspects of it. Sydney Water being the authority yes heres the works we can do this is how we
can achieve it, ok that’s fine, but you’re the authority and your entering an agreement we should have it
done independently and that can only be done with predictive modelling, so we’ve done that now. So
the risk that it doesn’t work, well I suppose there is risk, but you can only, we think we’ve done as
much as you could do to give as much certainty. We’ve had extensive discussions and what not to
solve it all. I can recall a meeting with our solicitors and Sydney Water with about two or three
solicitors and ARV with their solicitors all sitting in the board room because we couldn’t get past how
we could consent and it was council who came up with the idea of the consent that’s been issued.
G: I think that wraps it up unless you’ve got any more to add?
I really do think that from time to time particularly some of these big authorities and I know council
does as well, there’s several areas in council that are particularly bad at it, is applying policy just for the
sake of applying policy and often there’s good reason for the policy. There’s two types of people in
government there’s people who make problems or cause problem or find them and hide them, and
there’s people who find them and solve them. I like to think several people in our team in particular
and there’s other areas in council obviously we really try and focus on trying to solve them, even if it
means if its expensive effort or what not so its really when your going to have a career in government,
become part of the solution than part of the problem. I think also respect other peoples constraints, its
very easy to get siloised and just look at your own thing. I think this is a good example down there
where there’s been a challenge and there’s been some areas and some people who have tended to look
at their own outcome, and what weve got as a result of a really concerted effort is a lot. Its been going
on for 15 years of really continuos effort from Council in particular and Sydney Water in terms setting
up meeting after meeting after meeting. With a result you got 4 things, got a great planning outcome
Sydney Water has solved a problem on there site, existing residences are fixed up and there’s a great
commercial arrangement where Sydney Water aren’t funding the whole thing.
G: Win - win?
N: win - win exactly
G: Thankyou
8