SEPP (Waters) ReviewClauses 32-34

EPA / DELWP

Workshop Summary, December 2016

PrivacyCapire 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 info@capire.com.au or in writing to: 96 Pelham Street Carlton VIC Australia 3053.

Introduction

Workshop details

Workshop purpose

Workshop outline

Summary of discussions

Discussion #1: Issues relating to Clauses 32-34

Discussion #2: Feedback on revised Clause 32

Discussion #3: Feedback on revised Clause 33

Discussion #4: Feedback on revised Clause 34

SEPP (WATERS) REVIEW, DECEMBER, 2016

Introduction

Workshop details

Date: Wednesday 30th November 2016

Time: 12.30-4.30pm

Location: EPA Victoria; 200 Victoria Street, Carlton

Organiser: DELWP/EPA

Facilitator: Capire Consulting Group

Attendees: ?

Workshop purpose

This workshop is focusing on review of Clauses 32, 33 and 34. The aims of the workshop include to:

present the interim position on the new directions for clause 32.

develop a shared understanding of how the proposed changes have been identified and developed.

seek input from stakeholders on the issues and opportunities around the implementation of this clause.

The purpose of these notes is to provide a summary of discussion during the workshop.

1 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

SEPP (WATERS) REVIEW, DECEMBER, 2016

Workshop outline

ITEM PROCESS

Welcome Open, introductions, housekeeping & agenda

Context DELWP presented the context for the SEPP (Waters) review and review of Clauses 32-34

What we have heard so far

Presentation of engagement findings to date in relation to Clauses 32-34

Discussion #1 Discussion to check that all issues relating to Clause 32-34 have been captured

Revision of Clauses 32-34

DELWP present the intentions behind revision of the draft clauses 32, 33 and 34, and how that delivers on the statements of intent

Discussion #2 Feedback on revised clause 32 and how we can make the clause happen

Discussion #3 Feedback on revised clause 33 and how we can make the clause happen

Discussion #4 Feedback on revised clause 34 and how we can make the clause happen

Closing A plenary discussion followed by evaluation of the workshop, next steps and closing statements

2

SEPP (WATERS) REVIEW, DECEMBER, 2016

Summary of discussions

Discussion #1: Issues relating to Clauses 32-34

During this session, participants were asked whether or not all the issues relating to Clauses 32-34 had been captured. Discussion focused on additional issues or suggestions that need to be considered during the refinement of the clauses. Participant responses are summarised in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Summary of participant responses from Discussion #1

Theme Key points

Barriers - There is limited tools to achieve improvements to onsite systems.

Community and Stakeholder Engagement

- Provision of information on what the issues are regarding water management planning and risks to the environment are necessary to bring community on side and have informed discussion.

- SEPP is government focused but not community. It’s very difficult for community to understand rules and obligations.

- SEPP needs to build on the principles of Water for Victoria around transparency and stakeholder engagement.

Concepts/Framework - Transparency of all instruments is necessary.

- Governance around LCAs are risk based rather than a (historic) planning based approach.

Resourcing - Cost allocation is unclear e.g. Water agency customers subsidising sewer costs for a small town; land owners; State Government; hardship consideration.

- Budgeting is important to get a funding commitment from Government.

Knowledge/Research - Planning staff in council have limited knowledge of sewerage management.

Regulation - Clarification is needed re. enforcement of connection to a sewer

3 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

SEPP (WATERS) REVIEW, DECEMBER, 2016

Theme Key points

system once it is built.

- A code of practice could work better than or alongside permits.

Responsibilities/

Collaboration

- There have been many instances of shifting responsibilities between council and water corporations.

- Clarity is needed over where decision making lies.

- An overarching definition is needed re. who is responsible for priorities across the state, not at an individual council level.

- There is no visibility of this work, no drivers to getting things done.

- There are varying levels of commitment to fixing issues.

- Not all councils are knowledgeable about related policies and processes (e.g. councils not in catchment areas).

- EPA could give more tools and legislation to councils.

- There is a role for CMAs to bring Councils and water corporations together.

Risk Assessment - A consistent process or program for identifying risks and conducting risk assessments is important.

- A tool to determine/assess permit eligibility for housing/developments is needed (to ensure sustainability).

- It is unclear who manages risk and if training is adequate (e.g. Environmental Health Officers have many responsibilities, and are not always trained in septic tank management which poses risks).

4

SEPP (WATERS) REVIEW, DECEMBER, 2016

Discussion #2: Feedback on revised Clause 32

During this session, participants provided feedback and their input on the statement of intent and revised Clause 32. Participant responses are summarised in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Summary of participant responses from Discussion #2

Theme Key points

Barriers - Lack of prioritisation.

- Lack of resourcing.

Concepts/Framework - A state-wide approach is leading to complacency in implementation. Priority issues should be the focus.

- A refined and obligatory process is needed for ongoing management of onsite systems.

- Use SMART objectives in plans to make sure they're effective and achievable.

- EPA have some definitions of other viable options. A guidance note with decision tree is needed.

- A process to provide maintenance or replacement of systems especially for pre-1990 (no permits) is needed.

- Options need to include whole of life and community cost.

Resourcing - Council priorities are informed by competing interests from government/community, a declining rate base and resource availability.

- The ability to charge outside of the rate capping system is needed.

Knowledge/Research - It is unclear if knowledge from events, case studies, data, the online portal captured by EPA and/or how it is being used.

- There is a lack of science behind the guidelines e.g. the 40 HA zoning component in particular.

Regulation - Too much emphasis is placed on Ministers’ Guidelines, and some areas aren’t covered by guidelines.

- Water corporations should work with community to come up with the solution.

Reporting - SEPP should have a requirement to collate data and report on it.

- Formal agreement between councils and water corporations

5 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

SEPP (WATERS) REVIEW, DECEMBER, 2016

Theme Key points

about sharing data on systems is needed.

- There is no legal requirement to report but agencies want accountability and transparency.

- Mechanisms that require reporting on deliverables is needed for local government, water corporations, government.

- Establish a reporting requirement for councils (DWMPs). This could be given to Government to report publicly.

- Auditing DWMP should be in legislation as well as transparency about data.

Responsibilities/

Collaboration

- Ownership and management of septics is unclear. Clarify responsibilities of the owner, water corporations and local government.

- Investigate co-ownership or recognition of shared responsibilities.

- The EPA Act needs to authorise EPA's role in collating DWMPs, providing and coordinating technical advice with councils and water corporations.

- Systems ownership/responsibility needs to be clearer.

- Sharing knowledge and expertise between local government and water corporations is needed. Local government is poorly resourced to implement. They could leverage off each other.

- There is complexity in the system (e.g. Many Planning Ministers).

Risk Assessment - A standard process is needed for use by EPA/DELWP/local government/water corporations to assess risks and impacts.

- It is not possible to standardise a "risk" assessment process across council areas. There is issues with water corporations accepting/agreeing with the 'risk' assessment.

- Shift the role of CMA from a scientific risk based assessment of pathogen risks to catchment focus. There is a need to focus on the risk to surface water from pathogens and less about groundwater.

- Resourcing should go to high risks.

- A state wide analysis of assessing risk and impact is needed (risk and impact are different).

- Change emphasis and include a framework to support scientific risk based assessment rather than historical planning based

6

SEPP (WATERS) REVIEW, DECEMBER, 2016

Theme Key points

controls.

7 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

SEPP (WATERS) REVIEW, DECEMBER, 2016

Discussion #3: Feedback on revised Clause 33

During this session, participants provided feedback and their input on the statement of intent and revised Clause 33. Participant responses are summarised in Table 3 below:

Table 3: Participant responses from Discussion #3

Theme Key points

Barriers - Resourcing

- There is disagreement between water corporations and councils of where the need lies.

Concepts/Framework - The problem is a lack of knowing what the problem is, not competing priorities.

- The management of dumps/SMP is fragmented.

- SEPP needs to allow for innovation so that other solutions besides septics are implemented.

- Reticulation is the preferred option, especially if the water agency isn’t engaged during the DWMP.

- Councils should limit focus on OSDWM as an issue unless it effects development rather than the focusing primarily on the water group.

Resourcing - Economic priorities exist for local government and water corporations but water corporations probably have more options to fund work in the space.

- The cost of providing conventional solutions can be really high, especially for small towns. Local governments and others need to balance environmental impact with the price impact on communities.

- If government is committed to cost sharing, then water corporations would find it easier to prioritise places.

- To enable efficiency of services to existing property there is a need for an onsite cost.

Knowledge/Research - There is not enough information to show that all options have been adequately investigated.

- There is a knowledge gap and ignorance in identifying cause and effect both in council and the community.

8

SEPP (WATERS) REVIEW, DECEMBER, 2016

Theme Key points

- More clarity on responsibilities and roles is needed.

Regulation - Permits are messy, too old, non-existent, not enforceable or have a lack of enforceability.

- Sometimes councils are "too friendly" when giving out planning permissions.

- There is no ability for council to stop inappropriate development leading to property being unable to contain wastewater once septic is upgraded.

Responsibilities/

Collaboration

- It is unclear who funding comes from and for what purpose. Legislation needs to determine this.

- It is unclear if the assessment that reticulated sewerage as the preferred option was robust. Risk mitigation and management is needed.

- Funding applications for councils sometimes relies on the work of agencies to be completed. This requires collaboration throughout the process.

- Local governments and/or water corporations should pool their resources and expertise and then target the most significant high risk areas in the state.

- Consolidate DWM and "SMP" processes and develop them via a defined local agency.

- Council and water corporations should work together on risk based evaluation and SEPP could enforce it.

- Accountability needs to be clear otherwise nothing will happen.

Risk Management - There is variation in the standard of risk identification.

- Develop a committed process that defines how to risk assess.

- There is a capacity issue in local government to engage stakeholders in risk assessment processes.

- The linkage with CMA’s is unclear.

9 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

SEPP (WATERS) REVIEW, DECEMBER, 2016

Discussion #4: Feedback on revised Clause 34

During this session, participants provided feedback and their input on the statement of intent and revised Clause 34. Participant responses are summarised in Table 4 below:

Table 4: Participant responses from Discussion #4

Theme Key points

Community Engagement

- Promote “good news” stories.

- A letter could be distributed to residents with tools, rules and guidelines.

- The sewerage scheme will be most cost effective for a community if all community members take part.

Concepts/Framework - Outcomes should be a focus throughout the entire document and don’t mention sewerage as "the solution".

- The Planning and Environment Act also includes provisions regarding connection to the sewer and this needs to be consistent.

Economics - We don’t build sewerage infrastructure to make a profit; it’s for community benefit.

Knowledge/Research - The "twinning is winning" program to team up CMAs around topics of expertise to foster knowledge exchange is a good example and it might also work to link councils that do good ODWHPs with those who struggle.

Responsibilities/

Collaboration

- EHO and water corporations can work independently of the EPA and they don’t always need EPA and DHHS.

- Who assesses whether the system is failing needs clarifying.

Risk Management - Conflicts of interest exist.

- Risk assessment provides transparency.

- Councils need to look at impacts of getting people to connect to sewerage.

- It is not sufficient to understand the risks posed by all properties in all areas. A very high level evaluation is need, not tailored.

10