Clause 46: Urban Stormwater
EPA / DELWP
Workshop Summary, December 2016
report
Privacy
Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is committed to protecting privacy and personally identifiable information by meeting our responsibilities under the Victorian Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles 2014 as well as relevant industry codes of ethics and conduct.
For the purpose of program delivery, and on behalf of our clients, we collect personal information from individuals, such as e-mail addresses, contact details, demographic data and program feedback to enable us to facilitate participation in consultation activities. We follow a strict procedure for the collection, use, disclosure, storage and destruction of personal information. Any information we collect is stored securely on our server for the duration of the program and only disclosed to our client or the program team. Written notes from consultation activities are manually transferred to our server and disposed of securely.
Comments recorded during any consultation activities are faithfully transcribed however not attributed to individuals. Diligence is taken to ensure that any comments or sensitive information does not become personally identifiable in our reporting, or at any stage of the program.
Capire operates an in-office server with security measures that include, but are not limited to, password protected access, restrictions to sensitive data and the encrypted transfer of data.
For more information about the way we collect information, how we use, store and disclose information as well as our complaints procedure, please see www.capire.com.au or telephone (03) 9285 9000.
Consultation
Unless otherwise stated, all feedback documented by Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is written and/or recorded during our program/consultation activities.
Capire staff and associates take great care while transcribing participant feedback but unfortunately cannot guarantee the accuracy of all notes. We are however confident that we capture the full range of ideas, concerns and views expressed during our consultation activities.
Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed in our work represent those of the participants and not necessarily those of our consultants or our clients.
© Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.
This document belongs to and will remain the property of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.
All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without express written consent of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.
Authorisation can be obtained via email to or in writing to:
96 Pelham Street Carlton VIC Australia 3053.
Introduction 1
Workshop details 1
Workshop purpose 1
Workshop outline 2
Summary of discussions 3
Discussion #1: Other issues 3
Discussion #2: Tiered objectives 5
Discussion #3: Key considerations 7
SEPP (Waters) Review, December, 2016
Introduction
Workshop details
Date: Tuesday 29 November 2016
Time: 2-5pm
Location: Ether Conference Centre 265-281 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne
Organiser: DELWP/EPA
Facilitator: Capire Consulting Group
Attendees: 24
Workshop purpose
The aim of this workshop was to discuss the provisions related to urban stormwater management proposed for the new SEPP (Waters). The objectives of the workshop were to:
· reflect on the implementation and effectiveness of Clause 46 of SEPP
· discuss the proposal to include an urban segment in the new SEPP
· discuss options for applying environmental quality objectives to this segment
· consider the possible application of flow reduction targets as objectives; and
· consider options for a new urban stormwater clause for SEPP (Waters).
The purpose of these notes is to provide a summary of the discussion during the workshop.
Workshop outline
ITEM / PROCESS /Welcome / Open, introductions, housekeeping & agenda
Context / DELWP presented the context for the SEPP (Waters) review and review of Clause 46
What we have heard so far / Presentation of engagement findings to date in relation to Clause 46
Discussion #1 / Discussion to check that all issues relating to Clause 46 have been captured
Presentation on standard setting / Presentation on the development of standards in SEPP, focusing on the urban segment
Discussion #2 / Discussion of further considerations critical in adopting an urban segment and/or tiered objectives
Revision of Clause 46 / DELWP presentation on considerations for the revision of Clause 46 including policy principles and policy intent of the clause
Discussion #3 / Discussion of what should be considered in revising Clause 46
Closing / A plenary discussion followed by evaluation of the workshop, next steps and closing statements
Summary of discussions
Discussion #1: Other issues
During this session, participants were asked whether or not all the issues relating to clause 46 had been captured. Discussion focused on additional issues or suggestions that need to be considered during the refinement of the clause. Participant responses are summarised in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Summary of participant responses from Discussion #1
Theme / Key points /Definitions / - Definitions of ‘developed land’ and ‘stormwater’ are unclear in current regulations.
Regulation / - Planning and building codes should complement each other and need to be more integrated.
- Compliance, responsibilities and enforcement are unclear e.g. there needs to be a defined regulatory owner for stormwater.
- All issues related to stormwater should be in the one clause.
- Clear links are needed to show how stormwater relates to other clauses e.g. catchment risk assessments.
Climate change / - Climate change impacts on flow and hydrology are not captured in SEPP.
- Relationship between stormwater and exacerbation of the heat island effect should be considered.
Best Practice Environmental Management (BPEM) / - There are gaps in regards to best practice management of flow and pathogens.
- Best practice management should be included in SEPP.
- There needs to be a clear quantitative/scientific evidence base for quantifying impact.
Implementation / - Higher and more comprehensive design standards are needed to ensure successful implementation.
- Higher standards should be complemented with a coherent end-to-end framework for implementation which includes case studies and tools for stormwater management.
Point source pollution / - Point source pollution is largely forgotten in the SEPP.
Resourcing / - A direct link between financing and stormwater management is needed.
- Responsibility for infrastructure should be spread across local governments, water authorities and other polluters e.g. via polluter pays.
- The impact of design standards on housing affordability should be considered.
Urban waterways / - Clarity in the desired outcomes/ reference conditions for urban waterways is needed.
- Standards and indicators for waterways and ecosystems need to be reviewed and updated.
- It is unclear how cost is factored in the standards.
Innovation / - Stormwater can be considered as a resource i.e. soil storage is only part of the solution.
- Conventional stormwater drainage practice is harming the environment; new drainage methods are needed.
- There needs to be a greater understanding of what has prevented government from being forward thinking in the past.
- More innovative approaches to stormwater are required.
Flow / - Wetlands are not set up for low flow indicators.
- SEPP should provide greater guidance on how flow can be managed (volume and frequency).
- It is unclear how flow be used as an offset. Further exploration is needed as to how this work can be prioritised.
Infrastructure / - The long-term sustainability of assets should be considered.
Discussion #2: Tiered objectives
A presentation on the Standard Setting was provided to the participants to provide insight into scientific implications and an overview was provided of what tiered objectives could look like.
During this session, participants reflected on the standard setting presentation and discussed further considerations that could be critical in adopting an urban segment and/or a tiered objective approach. Participant responses are summarised in Table 2 below:
Table 2: Summary of participant responses from Discussion #2
Theme / Key points /Regulation / - The urban segment is useful but could be difficult to implement under existing regulations.
- Standards need to be referenced in the Victorian Planning Provisions.
- Existing policy focuses largely on greenfield areas. This focus needs to be broadened.
Standards / - It is unclear what the links are between SEPP and BPEM and whether BPEM will remain a separate document.
- It is unclear how the new standards adjust to new scientific evidence or changes in community values/needs.
Definition / - Use of the words ‘urban growth boundary’ should be reconsidered.
Implementation / - It is unclear if we have the right tools and data to implement the flow objectives.
- Examples of how to use and interpret the tiered approach are needed.
- It will be important to make sure that developers have a clear understanding of the tiered approach.
- Rigour in approach and consistency will be needed e.g. local councils should be provided with information on how to measure flow and quality.
Tiered approach / - The tiered approach should be scenario tested e.g. to test that it will not reduce the protection of streams in growth areas.
- It is unclear if the tiered approach really achieves the objectives of the Healthy Water Strategy (HWS).
- Clarity is needed on how metrics for each tier are determined e.g. nutrient numbers.
- How tributaries fit into the tiered system needs to be clarified.
- Stream erosion index should be considered in the tiered approach.
Resourcing / - A clear narrative on financing is required.
- The costs for implementation seems to fall unfairly on development.
- The Essential Services Commission (ESC) needs to look at what is built into water pricing.
Place based solutions / - It is unclear if one set of standards will apply to all metropolitan areas.
- Place based outcomes are important. A process to allow definition of particular standards for each area could be useful.
Urban segment / - The urban segment should not be based on growth corridors, but on the catchment i.e. metrics need to be based on the most stringent catchment point.
- There are urban segments outside of metro Melbourne. It is unclear how will these areas will be considered under the tiered approach.
- Clarification is required as to whether 25% flow reduction in urban areas goes far enough.
- Urban targets could provide a useful opportunity to lock up stormwater and improve water way quality.
Discharge / - Not all types of discharge are considered in the suggested standards e.g. discharge from quarries is missed.
Discussion #3: Key considerations
During this session, participants discussed key considerations that should be taken into account when revising Clause 46. Participant responses are summarised in Table 3 below:
Table 3: Participant responses from Discussion #3
Theme / Key points /Roles & responsibilities / - SEPPs role in stormwater management needs to be made clear.
- SEPP should clearly establish the roles and responsibilities of different actors e.g. clarification of local government responsibilities versus water catchment authority and landowner responsibilities.
- SEPP should support the integration of actions across organisations.
- Language used in the clause should not single people out, more encompassing language that is ‘blind to the land use’ is needed.
Climate change / - It is unclear how the revised clause will keep up with science on climate change.
Stormwater use / - Stormwater should be considered as a resource to be used rather than a waste to be managed. This is emphasised in the Water for Victoria plan.
Ground water / - The impacts of ground water are unknown; more research is needed in this area.
- To reduce pollutants, water should be treated before it enters the ground.
Resourcing / - Mechanisms for funding and maintenance need to be carefully considered. Funding options include, polluter pays, in lieu payments, investment rules, beneficiary pays.
- Care should be taken when using offsets or other practices that could potentially undermine the principle of polluter pays.
Policy intent / - SEPP needs to be clear on the desired outcomes for stormwater, and give users a clear process to achieve these outcomes e.g. by pointing to related policy clauses.
- SEPP should include mechanisms for compliance and enforcement.
- It is important that policy ensures all mechanisms are working con-currently including building codes and regulations.
- Current policy intent does not reflect environmental values.
- It is unclear if the intent of the policy is to be placed based or risk based.
- The principles of waste hierarchy need to be put into practice when it comes to stormwater management.
Sharing knowledge / - Proposed clause wording should be shared with all workshop attendees.
- There is a policy gap in how knowledge will be shared between different organisations.
- Ideas for solutions, investment and implementation should be shared.
Development / - More standards are required around implementation of SEPP at the development stage.
1 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU