Cessnock Performing Arts Centre seniors room Corner of Vincent and Aberdare Road, Cessnock

Transcription

1 Minutes Subject Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group meeting #2 Date 30 September 2009 Our ref HW Location Time Prepared by Attendees Apologies Withdrawals Cessnock Performing Arts Centre seniors room Corner of Vincent and Aberdare Road, Cessnock 6pm 7.30pm Hunter Water Corporation Alex Stuart - Hunter Valley Wine Country Tourism Greg West - Hunter Valley Wine Industry Association Frank Fulham - Austar Coal Mine Jamin Tappouras - Johnson Property Group Deane Moore Bellbird resident Sandra Rumbel Bellbird resident John Drayton - Hunter Valley Country PID Kara Reid-Giltinan Hunter Water Corporation Scott Liddell Hunter Water Corporation Anne Connors Hunter Water Corporation Dean McInnes Hunter water Corporation Barbara Campany - Independent Facilitator Ted Jackson Cessnock community Frank Johnson Marrowbone Road resident Victor Prasad Hunter Water Corporation Nil Agenda items Agenda items presented in the meeting are noted as bold headings on the attached pages

2 1 Progress Update Barbara Campany began the presentation by welcoming attendees and giving an overview of the agenda for the meeting. Barbara noted changes to the CWG. New members Deane Moore (Bellbird resident) replacing Teresa Moore, and Anne Connors (Hunter Water) replacing Rennie Ferguson. Barbara also acknowledged the apologies, being Ted Jackson and Victor Prasad. Kara-Reid Giltinan acknowledged the previous IT issues causing a delay in individuals receiving the CWG # 1 minutes. Barbara requested that all CWG members check their means of contact - mail or address, listed against their name on the attendance sheet. CWG members reviewed their contact details and signed or amended accordingly. A CWG member wanted to clarify the turn around time available for suggested amendments to future meeting minutes. All agreed that any amendments would be sent back to Hunter Water no later than 7 days of receiving a draft copy of CWG # 2 minutes. Members were reminded again that the Hunter Water address had changed and requested that any correspondence in relation to the CWG or the project be ed to this address: cessnock_upgrade@hunterwater.com.au

3 2 Criteria Overview Dean McInnes provided an overview of Hunter Water s decision making process, incorporating social, design, environmental and cost considerations. Scott Liddell discussed how the social criteria had been developed from feedback gathered in CWG# 1, and together with the social criteria, Hunter Water had also developed a design and environmental criteria. A detailed explanation was presented about how the eight summarised issues that came from CWG # 1 had been incorporated into the criteria. A CWG member mentioned that the comment made about the 400m distance from residents, business and operations, was purely a nominal number and did not want Hunter Water to in anyway take it as a definitive or accurate measurement to assess each site. Hunter Water noted that the distance was only a suggestion and was taken in that manner. The proposed criteria did not include this specific separation distance. A comment from a CWG member as to why the criteria item - local access to reservoir, was not incorporated into the criteria. The member believed that this was the main purpose of the reservoir. Hunter Water noted that it is not applicable to the selection criteria, given the location of this reservoir will not change the fact that a water supply is readily available to the community through Hunter Water s standard practices, should they require it. CWG members agreed with Hunter Water s response. Scott Liddell explained to CWG members how each of the criteria would be measured. No questions from the CWG were asked. Social A CWG member commented that vandals could access the site regardless of its location. Scott Liddell explained that the criteria is a combination of the accessibility to the site (off a road) and the visual impact, the result being a likelihood of being subject to vandalism. Scott commented that the impact on land value was difficult to quantify and explained Hunter Water s reasoning. CWG member asked is the impact on land value applicable only to the sites or surrounding sites. Hunter Water commented that both the site and surrounding sites had been taken into account. CWG member made a comment stating that the design and size of the structure will have a roll on effect to some of the social criteria as an impact on visual impact. Scott explained that a base case size was to be tested (10m high, 25m in diameter) to determine a suitable site and that the design process would be flexible. Further review of the dimension ratios would be considered during the design phase. Barbara asked the CWG if they thought that the issues that had been raised in CWG # 1 had been properly captured by this criteria. CWG response - yes it has. Design CWG members commented on the flexibility of design criteria, namely the dimensions, and if they could be changed to suit a particular site. Scott Liddell noted that the same reservoir site footprint would be applied to all 18 potential sites when applying the criteria. However, the dimensions of the reservoir may change to suit a particular site (and minimise visual impact) during the detailed analysis of the shortlist of sites. Environmental CWG member commented that they had identified some sites to be European Heritage listed. Action: member agreed to pass on this information to Hunter Water.

4 3 Criteria Weighting Scott Liddell explained the proposed weighting of each of the three categories. Social 40%, Design 40%, and Environmental 20%. Barbara commented that in her opinion 40% weighting of social criteria was more than usual. CWG member noted that social criteria has become more important these days. Hunter Water response that social impact is an important part of the decision making process. CWG members had no objection to the proposed 40/40/20 criteria group weightings. Scott Liddell explained in detail of how each aspect of the three criteria would be weighted. CWG agreed that the proposed weight of each of the social, design and environmental criteria was acceptable. Scott Liddell noted that the environmental criteria impact from pollution, was a low risk item and was also applied to satisfy feedback from CWG # 1. Barbara prompted comment from CWG members pointing out that this was the time to challenge weightings presented by Hunter Water. There were no issues raised. CWG member noted that some were representative of larger groups and would take the criteria back for feedback. Hunter Water acknowledged that group responses would be made within the 7 day timeframe allocated to reviewing minutes. CWG member expressed concern that the criteria weightings could be skewed to deliver a preferred outcome. Response from Scott noted that the proposed weightings were intended to be fair and would be applied across the board to all sites. CWG member acknowledged that it was not Hunter Water s intention to skew results however the member felt the point had to be raised. Hunter Water acknowledged the member s concern, CWG member expressed concern regarding the split between the visual impact on residents and businesses stating that the residential impact is greater than business impact. Hunter Water and the CWG acknowledged the member s concern and that the proposed weighting would remain. All CWG members agreed that the proposed criteria weightings seemed fair. Scott then used a hypothetical example site to further explain and run through how the proposed criteria would be applied. Handout material was issued including the scoring Criteria. Design No comment was raised in relation to the design criteria. Environment CWG member commented that a pollutant spray drift of 200m and if following correct spraying procedures, potential pollution of the reservoir should almost be a non-issue.

5 4 Social Barbara commented that at the heart of the social criteria is the visual impact and prompted comment from the CWG. No further issues were raised. CWG members thanked Hunter Water for developing a fair and comprehensive criteria. CWG member acknowledged that the final decision of the reservoir site could not please all involved however, Hunter Water are intending to be fair using facts and figures to determine the site that best suites the Cessnock community as a whole. Barbara again prompted response from CWG regarding criteria and weightings. CWG members all agreed that the criteria developed was acceptable and had no additional comments or issues, 5 Way forward Scott Liddell noted that the assessment criteria would be applied to all 18 sites over the next 6 weeks. Property owners will be contacted to arrange a suitable time to discuss the process. Barbara thanked all members for their attendance and contribution. She encouraged all working group members to inform the wider community of project updates, and encouraged any community members who have questions to Hunter Water. Next meeting is tentatively planned for Monday 14 December This is yet to be confirmed, and would be dependant on how much of the detailed site work is completed for the presentation. CWG member noted that there was no point meeting until site work was undertaken. Please return comments on the CWG # 2 meeting minutes no later than Friday 9 th October If no comments are received by COB on the 9th, Hunter Water assumes no changes are required and will post minutes on the website on Monday 12 th October Meeting close --