Paper Preparation Guidelines
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A TALE OF TWO TREATMENT PLANTS: LESSONS IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Kate Thomas 1, Tamara Weaver2, Tania Keelan 3 1. Logan Water Infrastructure Alliance, Logan, QLD, Australia 2. Logan City Council, Logan, QLD, Australia 3. Logan Water Infrastructure Alliance, Logan, QLD, Australia KEYWORDS Community engagement, lessons learned, wastewater treatment plant, City of Logan INTRODUCTION The City of Logan (Logan) in south east Queensland is one of Australia’s fastest growing local government areas. With more than 320,000 residents, the city’s population is set to increase dramatically in the coming decade. In part, this is due to urban development in the city’s southern suburbs; an area which features the Queensland Government's Greater Flagstone and Yarrabilba Priority Development Areas (PDAs). These areas are currently home to about 5,000 people but will grow to a population of about 300,000 at ultimate development. To prepare for growth, the Queensland Government and Logan City Council (Council) have developed several water and wastewater servicing strategies over the past decade. Recent (2016) strategies confirmed the potential to develop two new regional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and associated infrastructure to transport and treat wastewater from the PDAs and Council’s development areas in Park Ridge and Logan Village. The new WWTPs, currently known as Cedar Grove WWTP and Logan South WWTP B, will supplement or replace services provided by four existing WWTPs in Logan including two regional (major) plants at Loganholme and Beenleigh. Figure 1 shows the service catchments of Logan’s WWTPs. Figure 1: Map of Logan’s WWTP catchments YEAR CASE STUDY WAS IMPLEMENTED 2010 to 2019 CASE STUDY SUMMARY Council’s approach to planning two new regional WWTPs, undertaken about eight years apart, featured radically different community engagement programs. This case study reviews the approaches taken, the changing government and community attitudes towards infrastructure planning and community engagement, and the (sometimes surprising) outcomes of Council’s engagement programs for the treatment plants. Community engagement objectives for planning the new WWTPs were different. In 2010, Council’s main objective was to inform community members about a decision to locate a WWTP on 204ha of acquired property in Cedar Grove. In 2018, the main objective was to ask community members what issues Council should consider when searching for a site for a WWTP. Both engagement programs involved distribution of communication materials and community events, with the WWTP B program also including an online ‘Have your Say’ site. Outcomes of the programs demonstrated the benefits of a consultative rather than an information-based approach to engagement. A key outcome was community members’ identification of a WWTP site not previously considered by Council. However, both programs featured community-driven misinformation campaigns, mistrust of government and protests. CASE STUDY DETAIL The issue The last regional WWTP to be commissioned in Logan was in 1983, when the Loganholme WWTP was built to service growth in the city’s central and northern suburbs. At that time, the terms ‘community engagement’ and ‘community consultation’ were relatively unknown, and programs of this type were rarely part of Australian government infrastructure projects. It wasn’t until 1990 when the International Association of Public Participation was founded (IAP2, 2018) that a coordinated approach to involving community members in government projects began to emerge. For many local government authorities, a commitment to community engagement remained informal until much later. For example, Council introduced its first Community Engagement Policy and Community Engagement Strategy in 2009. It was around this time that Council’s water business began planning a new regional WWTP at Cedar Grove to service the city’s fast growing southern suburbs including the Queensland Government’s Greater Flagstone PDA. A complicating factor associated with the development of this WWTP was the transfer of Council’s water business to a separate statutory authority called Allconnex Water in 2010, and the subsequent return of the water business to Council in 2012. Planning of a second regional WWTP to service Council’s Park Ridge and Logan Village development areas and the Queensland Government’s Yarrabilba PDA began in 2016. Council acknowledged that community engagement was required to support the planning and development of both WWTPs (though at different points in the process), and that appropriately experienced personnel were needed to plan and deliver these programs. The approach Council’s direction to undertake a community engagement program for the Cedar Grove WWTP was part of a confidential decision to acquire 204ha of private property for the facility. A preferred site for the WWTP had already been selected, mainly on technical grounds via a siting study. The study considered some social issues such as odour impacts on existing residents and buffer distances between WWTP structures and residents. The subsequent community engagement plan for the WWTP identified 12 potential issues of concern to key stakeholders with the top two being: “objections to the compulsory acquisition of private land to form the preferred site…” and “lack of community consultation undertaken by the State Government and / or Logan City Council regarding potential sites…”. Proposed engagement activities listed in the plan were mostly information- driven although a community reference group was recommended to enable community members to provide feedback on the design of the facility. The community engagement program for WWTP B was developed after preliminary planning studies but before any decision was made about a preferred site for the plant. Council was asked to approve a community engagement approach which would offer community members in the development corridor from Park Ridge to Yarrabilba (about 10,000 households) with the chance to provide feedback on issues Council should consider when selecting a site for WWTP B. Engagement would then continue throughout the design and development of the facility, mostly via a community reference group. The approach was debated and ultimately accepted by Council (though not unanimously). It is shown in Figure 2. WWTP siting Community Consultation on Council Community study prepared Reference issues to consideration of Community feedback based on Group formed consider when siting study consultation on collated and technical criteria to inform design selecting a outcomes and preferred site(s) considered and community and delivery of WWTP site preferred site(s) feedback the WWTP Figure 2: Approach to consultation for WWTP B A factor influencing the community engagement approach for WWTP B was a period of negative publicity, community protest and media commentary about the previous engagement process for the Cedar Grove WWTP (refer to Figure 3). More broadly, the engagement program for WWTP B occurred during a period characterised by increased availability of online consultation tools, greater use of social media for communication between Council and constituents, and community mistrust of government decision-making at all levels. Figure 3: Editorial in the Jimboomba Times, 2 November 2017 Summary of activities and their implementation Both community engagement programs were guided by formal management plans. Under these plans, Council’s corporate and project-based (Logan Water Infrastructure Alliance) community engagement officers delivered a range of communication activities. The nature and timing of these activities to date are summarised in Table 1. Community engagement for the Cedar Grove WWTP occurred intermittently over a decade, while engagement for WWTP B was linear from 2017 to the present. Not all engagement activities for the Cedar Grove WWTP were implemented as originally envisaged, particularly the sequence and scope. In part, this was due to the transfer of Council’s water business to a separate statutory authority called Allconnex Water in 2010 and subsequent return to Council in 2012. It also occurred when the project team submitted a development application for the first stage of the WWTP to the Queensland Government and this was made accessible online. The project team had not anticipated this, and it meant that previously unpublished, detailed technical studies and a preliminary design of the WWTP had been released without adequate community engagement. A key difference between the two engagement programs was the use of online tools and social media by Council and community members for WWTP B. This included Council’s hosting of an online ‘Have your Say’ site including project information, a survey and an interactive map where visitors could ‘pin’ comments (refer to Figure 4). In contrast, early engagement activities for Cedar Grove WWTP was limited to media statements and delivery of letters to a small group of property owners directly surrounding the site. Some online tools and more face-to-face engagment with community members were added later in the program (refer to Figure 5). Table 1: Comparison of key community engagement activities for the two WWTPs Year Cedar Grove WWTP WWTP B 2010 • Media release and website information No activity announcing planning of the Cedar Grove WWTP (on a preferred site). • Direct engagement with land owners to acquire the site. • Queensland Government information campaign about declaration of PDAs (showing the Cedar Grove