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. 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 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 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 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 WWTP site). 2011 • Media release updating planning activities. • Direct mail letter and information sheet to 100 residents adjacent to the site about planning. • Website information. • Project information sign on site. 2012 • Letter to 100 adjacent residents advising of project deferral for four years. 2013 to No activity 2015 2016 • Media release on wastewater servicing strategy for PDAs and other Council-approved development areas. 2017 • Direct mail letter and information sheet to 300 • Engagement with elected adjacent residents and community groups representatives about the project’s advising of project re-start. community engagement process. • Media release about project re-start. • Project page on website. • Four community meetings to address community concerns. 2018 • Media release announcing a statutory public • Direct mail letter to 10,000 residents notification period (for a development and property owners announcing a application). community consultation period. • Direct mail letter to 900 Cedar Grove • Media briefing. residents about statutory notification period, a • Media release announcing the community information day and how to community consultation period. • Social media posts inviting feedback. Year Cedar Grove WWTP WWTP B

nominate for a Community Reference Group • Direct emails to community groups (CRG). inviting feedback. • Media release and social media posts about • ‘Have your Say’ online consultation community information day and CRG. site. • Project information signs on site. • Project web page and updates. • Community information day and tours of the • Three drop-in community information WWTP site. stalls. • Formation of CRG and commencement of • Stakeholder meetings. CRG meetings. • Media release announcing close of • Direct mail letter to 900 Cedar Grove initial consultation period. residents with a project update and offer of • Use of community feedback to develop tours of other WWTPs. selection criteria and assess potential • Tour of other WWTPs in south east WWTP sites. Queensland for the CRG and other Cedar • Public release of community Grove residents. consultation report. • Works notification to 1,000 Cedar Grove • Media release announcing shortlisting residents announcing start of construction, of two potential sites. • Community tree planting / revegetation day on • Direct engagement with land owners site to mark the start of construction. affected by two preferred sites. 2019 • Ongoing meetings of CRG. • Public announcement of selected site • Involvement of community, environment and (planned at time of writing paper). training organisations in site activities. • Direct engagement with land owners to acquire land.

Figure 4: Have your Say online site for Logan South WWTP (left) and drop-in information stalls (right)

Figure 5: Residents visit a WWTP (left) and community tree planting at Cedar Grove WWTP (right) Summary of outcomes and measurable impacts Both community engagement programs resulted in a large volume of written and verbal feedback to Council about the development of WWTPs in Logan. Formal and informal feedback was provided via a range of media (traditional and social media, letters, emails, phone calls, the Have your Say online site, online and hard copy petitions, drop-in information events and town hall style meetings). Some outcomes, such as residents’ concerns about impacts of a WWTP in their area on property values and lifestyle, were expected by the project team. However, some outcomes were quite unexpected: • Both programs attracted negative publicity, misinformation campaigns on social media, community protests and petitions (refer to Figure 6) despite the Cedar Grove WWTP engagement program being information-oriented and the WWTP B program being consultative. • Multiple offers to sell private land to Council for the purposes of establishing WWTP B including sites not previously known to Council. • The value of (often-avoided) town hall style meetings for providing aggrieved community members with opportunities to present and issues of concern to elected representatives and project team members. These meetings were most effective when no time limit was applied, enabling participants to cover all concerns, and address issues multiple times if desired. • The speed in which misinformation can spread via social media (even by well intentioned parties) and the difficulty in correcting this. It was often challenging to identify and quickly contact site / page administrators or people posting comments to correct facts. • Community members’ commitment to, and competence in, mounting effective community information or action campaigns in short timeframes using inexpensive, easily accessible tools such as phones, printers, signs, flyers, YouTube videos and Facebook pages. • Some apparent reluctance to post comments online if there is a requirement to register contact information with a government organisation (for example 907 people visited Council’s Have your Say site for WWTP B but only 38 pinned comments to the interactive map and 70 completed an online survey).

A turning point for the Cedar Grove WWTP community engagement program occurred in early 2018 ahead of a statutory public notification period for the WWTP development application. The project team took the opportunity at this time to: • publicly release design and other technical information about the WWTP • offer to respond to any and all questions about the WWTP including planning, design and future operation • offer information or clarification of technical information to community members to enable them to complete submissions about the WWTP development application to the Queensland Government • hold tours of the WWTP site where interested people could view the locations and sizes of infrastructure and ask questions of the project team (refer to Figure 7) • call for nominations for a community reference group which would provide social input on aspects of the WWTP’s design and construction.

These actions improved relationships and trust between Council and the affected community. Project team members began to notice a change in community messages about the WWTP; changing from “we don’t want this and will fight it” to “if this has to go ahead, we want the best possible outcomes for the community”. Protest signs also began to disappear from properties around the WWTP site, and complaint levels reduced. In fact, since the start of construction of the WWTP in September 2018 until January 2019, only six community complaints were received by the project team.

The Cedar Grove WWTP Community Reference Group has developed a ‘wish list’ of improvements to the site, such as revegetated areas, community-based enterprises and recreational facilities. These are being assessed and progressed. The project team is also using the site for training, research and community development opportunities, with initiatives to date including work experience and ongoing paid work for conservation and land management trainees.

“…my concern all along is this WWTP siting was a forgone conclusion just like that of the Cedar Grove debacle, where residents were consulted only after the fact, too late in the process for any meaningful influence.

From what I have uncovered / read this week, it appears developers to date have had more meaningful long term input to the site selection by being included in a steering committee. It also appears that the decision on the preferred site is already complete and just another poorly kept LCC secret”.

Figure 6: Mistrust, misinformation and protests were a feature of both engagement programs as illustrated by these newspaper headlines (full articles at www.jimboombatimes.com.au), written complaints to Councillors and protestors at project information events

Figure 7: Community members tour the Cedar Grove WWTP site as part of an information day

For WWTP B, the initial (2018) phase of the community engagement program enabled the project team to identify a ‘long list’ of 24 potential sites for the plant. These sites were then assessed in a formal siting study, which included: • A screening process to assess the feasibility and practicality of the long list of sites, creating a short list of sites. • Detailed assessment of short-listed sites including a review of the community, environmental and economic impacts of each site. • A comparative assessment of short-listed sites using a multi-criteria assessment (MCA) to identify the highest ranked locations. The social criteria used in the MCA was based on community feedback, and had the highest weighting at 40% compared with environmental criteria at 30% and cost criteria at 30%. • Identification of two preferred sites; one of which had been nominated by a group of property owners during the initial community engagement phase.

At the time of writing this paper, Council had consulted property owners potentially affected by the two potential WWTP sites and their buffer zones. A combination of feedback from owners (such as their willingness to sell land to Council) and property values / acquisition costs is being used by Council to determine the site for the WWTP. The site is expected to be announced in the first half of 2019.

Sustainable outcomes While the first stages of Logan’s two new WWTPs are likely to be of a similar size and design, community involvement in the selection of a site for WWTP B has the potential to deliver more socially and environmentally sustainable infrastructure. This is largely as community feedback was used to identify potential sites, and to develop non-cost criteria for assessing sites and nominating a preferred site.

Both WWTPs involve / will involve a community reference group during the design and delivery stages of the plants. These groups provide community members with opportunities to help identify, and oversee delivery of, community amenities and environmental improvements to the sites which will benefit current and future generations.

Lessons learned and critical success factors The two different approaches to community engagement for Logan’s newest WWTPs offer many lessons learned for similar projects. They include: • A lack of community involvement in major infrastructure decision-making can amplify existing mistrust between community members and government. • Openly sharing information with the community about infrastructure drivers, planning processes and technical criteria used to select infrastructure locations (traditionally confidential information) can lead to more useful / practical feedback. • Transparency in government decision-making may initially be viewed with scepticism by some community members; particularly if the approach is a departure from ‘business as usual’ and there are broader socio-political issues at play. • Community engagement officers need to understand planning and approvals processes, and schedule engagement activities accordingly. Any misalignment can lead to ‘surprise’ releases of information which may result in community mistrust or outrage. • Misinformation on social media spreads quickly, and can be difficult to address. • Community members may need support to review, interpret or comment on planning reports and development applications. Openly offering this support can enhance project delivery, even though this may be a departure from the norm for government project teams.

Overall, Council’s experience delivering two different community engagement programs for similar WWTPs demonstrates that the more consultative approach enhances outcomes for government and communities.

References International Association of Public Participation. (2018). About IAP2. Retrieved January 2019 from https://www.iap2.org/page/A3