Georgia R Thomas (DELWP)

From: Sent: Monday, 2 November 2020 9:07 AM To: Crib Point IAC (DELWP) Cc: Nicky Pitkanen Subject: Questions for Owen Boushel, social impact 4th November

EXTERNAL SENDER: Links and attachments may be unsafe.

Hi Georgia, please find below a list of questions to be put to the social impact expert Owen Boushel on Wednesday, regarding impacts to French Island.

In Section 5.50 of the witness statement, Mr Boushel notes that "Given the large volume of submissions, this review focuses on agencies, councils, community groups and peak bodies as well as directly affected landowners and occupiers." yet they do not consider the French Island Community Association submission ‐ the peak body for French Island, which stands to be affected by the development and raised questions of social licence and impact in its submission. Why was it not considered in your witness statement?

EES Technical report M (social impact assessment) and EES Chapter 26 (stakeholder engagement) do not address potential impacts to French Island, despite the close proximity of the island, the visual and noise impacts and the potential impacts to tourism of a large industrial development for an island that markets itself on its location in a high quality natural environment. Nor is there any evidence of community consultation being undertaken beyond providing information and answering questions (we note that "inform" is the lowest level of engagement possible on the IAP2 engagement spectrum commonly used by DELWP (see DELWP 2018. Current Practices A review of DELWP's community engagement approaches). Do you think that this negligible level of engagement and consideration of impacts is appropriate for this adjacent community? Why/why not?

Your witness statement responds to the Save Westernport Inc submission's concern that "social impact 'study area' … omits French Island, Phillip Island, Bass and Cardinia Shires, the City of Casey and at least two thirds of the Mornington Peninsula” (paragraph 66) by noting that "Technical Appendix M: Social Impact Assessment section 3.21, Table 3‐1 notes the spatial range for the impact assessment extends across Westernport to the Communities of Mornington Peninsula, Western Port & beyond for social effects related to changes in bio‐physical processes in Western Port" (Paragraph 67). The only place that the concerns of the French Island community, that stands to be significantly impacted by the development, are addressed, is therefore by mitigation described in table 8‐1 of EES Technical Report M. To mitigate the issue scored as > 10 years in magnitude and up to an unacceptable rating (a combined ranking of up to moderate negative rating) is to make the results of the limited environmental monitoring being undertaken available to the community, despite acknowledging that there is limited trust in the Proponents ability to understand and model the potential impacts of the project. Do you think that this is sufficient acknowledgement and addressing of possible impacts to French Island?

Flaws in technical reports supporting the EES mean that there has potentially been insufficient acknowledgement and modelling of lighting and noise to French Island, and that these possible impacts have therefore not been considered in the social impact assessments. What is best practice for going back and assessing these environmental impacts from a social impact point of view? Do you think the proponent should therefore go back and undertake further work to assess the concerns of the French Island community if the previous technical assessments are shown to be insufficient?

Thanks

1