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