Subject Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group meeting # 4. Date 20 April 2010 Our ref

Transcription

1 Minutes Subject Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group meeting # 4 Date 20 April 2010 Our ref Location Time Functions room Comfort Inn, Cessnock 6.15pm 7.45pm Prepared by Hunter Water Corporation Attendees Apologies Agenda items Appendix John Drayton - Hunter Valley Country PID Frank Johnson Marrowbone Road resident Alex Stuart - Hunter Valley Wine Country Tourism Greg West - Hunter Valley Wine Industry Association Brian Garland - Johnson Property Group Jamin Tappouras - Johnson Property Group Max Moore & Deane Moore - Bellbird resident Kara Reid-Giltinan Hunter Water Corporation Victor Prasad Hunter Water Corporation Scott Liddell Hunter Water Corporation Anne Connors Hunter Water Corporation Barbara Campany - Independent Facilitator Frank Fulham - Austar Coal Mine Sandra Rumble Bellbird resident Ted Jackson Resident Agenda items presented in the meeting are noted as bold headings on the attached pages CWG # 4 presentation

2 1 Objectives Barbara Campany began the presentation by welcoming attendees and identified the objectives of the meeting. These included: To provide an overview of the additional studies which have been undertaken over the last 3 months. Additional studies included: design geotechnical environment visualisation impact 2 A way forward would also be presented at the end of the meeting Outputs from the previous community working group Scott provided an overview of the outputs that came out of the previous working group. This is outlined in the presentation Appendix 1. 3 Design and geotechnical components considered as part of the study Key design and geotech components which were considered as part of the additional studies included: General site layout and civil works required to bury the structure Lead in main length Access route Availability of site power Geotech constraints (desktop and site visit only) Environmental considerations Scott explained that a preliminary environmental assessment was undertaken and considered a number of environmental aspects, these included:

3 3 Visualisation impact assessment A visualisation impact assessment was developed for each of the 4 short listed sites. As part of the assessment a number of stages were implemented to determine the extent of the visual impact n surround property owners for each of the short listed sites. A view-shed analysis was developed to assess, through satellite imagery, key receptors which could potentially see the reservoir based on a 1.5km radius around the proposed reservoir. This process identifies key hot spots, which the LiDAR imagery picks up as potential locations that may see the reservoir. The second stage required is to ground truth the information to confirm whether the outputs generated from the receptors is accurate. A photo is taken from the identified hot spot to develop a photomontage (to scale). A photomontage is an artist impression of what the reservoir would look like from that particular position. The photomontages were developed without any vegetation plan, and are noted as worst-case scenario. Question: Have all adjacent property owners have been consulted with? All adjacent property owners have been consulted with about this project except one. After several visits, we have still been unable to contact the property owner immediately to the north of site 21. Question: Have adjacent property owners seen these studies? They have seen the LiDAR and map imagery; they have not seen the photomontages. We agreed with adjacent property owners that we would send them out the photomontages. 4 Site assessment for 3A were made from a design, social and environmental point of view. This is outlined in Appendix 1. Question: How will you manage the storm water? It will be designed appropriately and in consultation with the property owner. Question: What does landscaping mean? Does it mean earth bunding and trees? Landscaping could include both bunding and vegetation to soften the visual impact. Question: Would it be concrete or steel, and would there be maintenance undertaken to prevent rusting or leaching? We are looking at both steel and reservoir at the moment Rust would be a major concern for Hunter Water and therefore a number of design measures will be taken to eliminate rust. Leaching will also be undesirable and all measures will be taken to ensure it does not occur.

4 Question: Is there a membrane inside the reservoir that ensures it is 100% waterproof. Reservoirs are designed to be 100% waterproof to prevent leaching and depending on the material of the reservoir (steel or concrete), an appropriate waterproof mechanism is used. Question: So I assume that the property owner of site 3A has no problem, given he has gone this far and has given Hunter Water an agreement in principle. Yes, that s correct. Question: How do the adjacent property owners feel about the project? There are varying levels of acceptance and objection for the project. Property owner to the immediate north understands and accepts that the project needs to go ahead. Property owner to the immediate west does not support the project, due to the visual impact on his property and siting of the structure within zone 1(v). Property owner to the east accepted the project and has provided agreement in principle to locate the access and lead-in main within his property. Property owner to the immediate south was accepting of the project and site 3A. Scott asked all if there were anymore questions relating to site 3A Response: No. 5 Site assessment for 3B were made from a design, social and environmental point of view. This is outlined in Appendix 1. Question: given the visual impact associated with this site, did adjacent property owners prefer site 3A or site 3B? There was more preference given to site 3A than site 3B. Question: Is there any noise associated with the reservoir? No, the pump station is located next to the show ground, so this is merely a holding tank. No mechanical noise would be associated with the reservoir. Question: Hunter Water have noted in the report that there is an electrical panel, is there electrical noise or alarm systems on site that could be heard. Any alarm associated with the reservoir would be automated and sent back to head office for operations staff to be alerted. Question: Is there lights on the site.

5 Hunter Water prefers not to light the site, due to vandalism. In the event operations staff need to attend to the site they would prefer to have a portable spotlight, which they would use. Question: Are the adjacent residents aware of a 2 nd reservoir? Yes. Scott asked all if there were anymore questions relating to site 3B? Response: No 4 Site assessment for 21 were made from a design, social and environmental point of view. This is outlined in Appendix 1. Question: is Sandra Rumble happy with the proposal? In principle, yes Question: How do the adjacent property owners feel about the site? Property owner to the immediate south is against the project, due to the visual impact associated with his property. He is also opposed to the land being utilised for any other reason aside from Viticultural purposes. Property owner to the south west is also opposed to the project, as he feels the visual impact associated will be detrimental to his business. We have been unable to consult with the property owner to the immediate north. Question: You say that site 21 has hydraulic issues associated with it. Yes, given it is further away from the pump station. These can be engineered, at a cost, in such a way to minimize this impact. Question: Would additional visualisation images be produced to indicate battering, vegetation and fencing? Yes, once a preferred site has been determine this would be incorporated into the REF. Scott asked if there were any other questions associated with site 21. Response: No. 5 Site assessment for 26 where made from a design, social and environmental point of view. This is outlined in Appendix 1 Question: Is Austar happy with the proposal? In principle, yes

6 Question: Is there a reason why the report doesn t indicate what Hunter Water s preferred option is? The intention of the report was to present facts. We are drawing conclusions in this meeting given we can provide commentary around those conclusions. 6 Overall conclusions Study confirmed sites 3A, 3B and 21 are feasible. Study confirmed site 26 will not achieve strategic system efficiencies due to: cross connections are not workable reduced hydraulic capacity to back feed the system fire fighting capacity within Kitchener & Abermain are not addressed high pressure issues from Bellbird pumping station and Pelton reservoir are not addressed Therefore site 26 has been discounted given it cannot feasibly work with the overall strategy as well as achieve the projects primary objectives. Question: So what is Hunter Water s preferred option? At this point and until negotiations have been completed, we can t provide a preferred site given we still don t know what the overall costings will be for each of the sites. Comment: Well we can assume, given what has been presented tonight that site 3B is out, given property owner is not keen on that site, site 26 has been discounted, which leave site 3A and site 21. Question: Does Johnson Property group have right of purchase over site 21? Yes Question: Do you see this to be a conflict of interest? No, we have been upfront about the process and we will follow the same process with the property owner as with any other property owner Hunter Water needs to negotiate with. Regardless of what site, Hunter Water needs to demonstrate transparency. 7 Victor provided an outline for moving forward with the project. Way forward in the event site 3A, 3B and 21 are unsuccessful The project team will advise CWG members via if Hunter Water has not been able to secure any of the above sites. The project team would then undertake the same additional studies on site 24. In the event Hunter Water cannot secure site 24 either, another community working group

7 would be convened to determine the best way forward in securing another potential site. Way forward in the event Hunter Water can secure site 3A, 3B or site 21 Hunter Water would follow the below process. Hunter Water, Board of Directors will endorse decision before being made public. Adjacent property owners will be notified As requested by the CWG members, another community working group would be held to communicate the preferred site. A Review of Environmental Factors will be developed for the preferred site. This document will be available on public display, once complete. Information session for the wider community will then take place Question: do you have a timeframe for reaching a decision? We expect to have an outcome if one of short listed sites (3A, 3B or site 21) is successful, by the end of July. (Approx three months by the time negotiations are finalised and the Board have approved the decision). We will keep you updated on the progress as more information comes to hand over the coming months. - Meeting closed 7:45pm -