Here Today - Could Be Gone Tomorrow

Council soon to make a decision on Hardie Holdings' shocker of a development and the accompanying untested and unproven S**t Pit proposed to be situated on state significant, prime agricultural land.

A second council workshop was held on Tuesday 27th May at council chambers regarding Hardies development proposal for Dunoon. At the previous workshop on 29th April, councillors told planning staff that they had little information on the sewerage treatment plant (STP) proposed for the Dunoon development and requested them to compile a report on the Econova system which was in operation at Noosa. Prior to the workshop council had organised for DCG members and councillors to inspect a working system at Manly West in Brisbane. It was cancelled at the last minute when the operator advised that in fact, this system was not up and running at that time.
Because of the lack of accurate information presented to councillors at the first workshop in April, they requested that council staff research the Noosa plant and report back at the workshop held on Tuesday 27th May.
Members of the DCG who attended the workshop were given the impression that the planning staff were being selective as to what facts and data they presented to councillors. They appeared to be finding solutions to accommodate the developer proposal rather than requiring the developer to comply to the councils own Development Control Plan (DCP) and zoning objectives.
Because of our concerns regarding our perceived lack of transparency in the presentation by planning staff, and our concerns of their interpretation of Lismore City Council planning documents, two DCG committee members took it upon themselves to take a trip up north on a fact finding mission to Noosa and Brisbane and actually look at these STP systems in operation to assess their suitability for the Dunoon development.
At the workshop held last Tuesday night planning staff presented developer changes to the January 08 DA which included:
• 7 community lots near Sports Club carpark have been reduced to 1 torrens title lot
• Recreation area to the west of the Sports Club was deleted due to the fact that the Sports Club septic trenches are located in this area. Another recreation/park area was not allocated within the development.
• All residential lots sitting on the boundary of the village zone and encroaching onto agricultural land were pulled back to fit within the village boundary. Which resulted in 2 lots being lost due to lots being resized, and the road being narrowed to accommodate this resize. As a result, these lots will be somewhat smaller than first proposed.
• The STP has been moved from below the Sports Club onto the boundary of this estate and Avondale.
Councillors are most concerned of not only the STP and lack of risk management, but also the lack of amenity of the village and planning staff disregarding everything in our own DCP for the village. Planning staff do not consider the unanimous village opposition to this development as being against public interest. Councillors, and the DCG, could not understand how going through the expense and considerable consultation with the community to develop a DCP, that it could be ignored.
Council staff engaged the Dept of Commerce to review the proposed STP. Their report identified 14 concerns which needed to be addressed. We considered Hardie Holdings response only addressed 3 of the concerns expressed by the Dept of Commerce, and the others were white washed over to be addressed at final design stage. The DCG considered this to be most unsatisfactory and therefore commissioned a local independent engineers report regarding the Sewerage Treatment Plant. This report questioned in depth the report submitted to council on behalf of Hardies. Because of this report presented to the workshop, councillors grilled the planning staff with questions and in most cases, the questions were not answered to their, or our, satisfaction. The planning staff had obviously not done their homework on such an important piece of infrastructure.
Planning staff gave a brief report on the Manly West development which they said was now up and running. They also gave a report on the Noosa system. Councillors grilled planning staff with many valid and specific questions about the Noosa’s STP, and it’s comparison to the system proposed for Dunoon.
Councillors also had deep concerns about the lack of risk management assessment and most importantly the capability of the residents of a community title development to manage the system - physically and financially.
Hardies have advised council that these matters would be addressed prior to the release of the construction certificate (which is well after the development approval)
Going against normal protocol , Councillors agreed to a motion put forward by Cr David Tomlinson at the beginning of the workshop for a representative of the DCG to address councillors after the staff report. This gave us the opportunity to provide accurate information on the Manly West and Noosa systems and developments. This first hand report showed up the inaccuracy of planning staffs’ report due to their lack of research.
The Noosa resort which planning staff was using as a working model was actually for tourist accommodation including some cabins, a camping ground and 24 five star time share accommodation houses ($1.2 million each, plus $7K strata fees - per year). These houses were only connected to the STP in December 2007 - less than 6 months ago. At the time of the DCG visit there were only 3 houses occupied and both the camping ground and cabins were at minimum occupation levels due to the off season. On talking to the resort manager this is not unusual and the only time of full occupancy was at the December/Jan holidays and 2, maybe 3, weeks at Easter. Weekdays are generally very quiet with only a moderate increase at weekends.
On visiting the Manly West community title development, we discovered that it was comprised of one display home which had only been opened for one week. This clearly showed that neither of these developments could be considered as a working model on which councillors could draw information from to make an informed decision regarding the approval of Hardies proposed development and STP in Dunoon.

Hancock Farms & Local Farmer Concerns

(Editors note: Hancock Farms are a large American company and have invested millions of dollars into macadamia farming in Dunoon and they are the areas biggest employer.)

The General Manager of Hancock Farms Australia put in a second submission last Friday to Lismore City Council asking why their first had been ignored. They had many concerns about the STP, operational issues and the possibility of contamination to Numulgi Creek, which runs through their Duncan Road property and other maca farms downstream and could have a major economic impact on these local farms if it’s perceived that raw sewerage is being irrigated on their crops. In addition it may have an impact on the reputation on Lismore as a producer of quality produce. Their other major concern was why a certain LEP regulation relating to buffers to avoid potential land use conflicts was not being enforced. Being a major agriculture processor, they have to adhere to strict regulations concerning their operations which may affect the water catchment of the Lismore Source.

And so they should. So why does it appear that these regulations and buffers are being diluted for a sewerage plant placed on agricultural land, against zoning objectives, to facilitate a dense urban style development in the heart of our village?
It is envisaged that Hardies proposal will go before council at the June 10th meeting for approval.
We will inform you via a letter drop in the next week or so to confirm this date and to confirm a public meeting at the hall before hand .
We would like to organise a bus to enable as many residents as possible at low cost to attend this meeting.
For further information please call Paula on H: 6689 5954 or at work: 6621 4688

Editor's Note: As at Thursday 29th May, Lismore City Council staff advised that the Hardies proposal would not be going before council at the June 10 meeting. Council have a lot more work to do on their report.