WATER SENSITIVE URBAN DESIGN AND THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PROCESS

1 / 21
About This Presentation
Title:

WATER SENSITIVE URBAN DESIGN AND THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PROCESS

Description:

Project facilitated by Shelley Shepherd, Essential Environmental Services. Dr Mike Mouritz ... Australian Standard. 6. Findings ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:204
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: WATER SENSITIVE URBAN DESIGN AND THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PROCESS


1
WATER SENSITIVE URBAN DESIGN AND THE DEVELOPMENT
APPROVALS PROCESS
  • Identification of Issues Potential Solutions
    for Better Implementation
  • Project facilitated by Shelley Shepherd,
  • Essential Environmental Services
  • Dr Mike Mouritz
  • Department for Planning and Infrastructure

1
2
Introduction
  • Project initiated as a result of discussions held
    at the Swan Canning Catchment Drainage Management
    Forum in November 2003
  • WSUD is one tool in a suite of mechanisms to
    reduce nutrients and sediment entering the rivers
  • Management of urban stormwater has a significant
    role to play in improving water quality
  • The benefits of WSUD are acknowledged but
    implementation is limited for a range of reasons

2
3
WSUD Study
  • Aims
  • Identify the land use and development control
    mechanisms available to implement WSUD
  • Assess their adequacy
  • Identify barriers to implementation
  • Propose solutions to issues identified

3
4
Study Process
  • Stage 1 Desk-top Analysis
  • Assessment of the WAPC/DPI policy framework and
    the local government planning system
  • Discussions with key players in Local and State
    Government and the private sector
  • Stage 2 Workshop
  • Information gathered from Stage 1 used to scope
    issues for further discussion and resolution
  • Attendees at the workshop from varied agencies
    including DPI, DoE, Local Government, the water
    engineering fraternity and the development
    industry
  • Stage 3 Report Preparation

4
5
Findings
  • State and local government planning approval
    system has the largest statutory role to play in
    the implementation of WSUD
  • The planning tools, both statutory and strategic,
    exist to incorporate WSUD into new developments,
    BUT have no impact on existing areas

5
6
Map of Statutory Approvals Process
6
7
Findings
  • The existing policy framework provides support
    for urban water management and WSUD at all levels
    of the process, however, improvements can be made
    (and are being made) to strengthen the statutory
    basis
  • The benefits of WSUD are acknowledged but
    implementation is limited.why?

7
8
Key Overarching Issues
  • Institutional arrangements complicate the
    implementation of WSUD as no one agency is
    responsible for urban water management
  • Limited technical assessment of on-ground
    performance of WSUD Best Management Practices
    (BMPs) in Western Australia
  • Technical information specific to WA is limited
    as most BMPs are derived from experiences in the
    eastern states. Therefore there seems to be no
    agreed approach to best practice that works well
    in WA.
  • Can and will WSUD actually achieve a good outcome
    for the Swan Canning Catchment? How much impact
    will changing the water management of new urban
    areas actually affect the river system?

8
9
Development Approvals Process
  • The top 5 tools regarded by the Workshop
    attendees as having importance for implementation
    of WSUD through the development approvals process
    are
  • Design and implementation (construction)
  • Maintenance
  • Subdivision Approval and Conditions
  • Statements of Planning Policy
  • Regional Structure Plans

9
10
Detailed Design and Implementation (Construction)
  • Barriers
  • Lack of performance standards for design and
    implementation
  • Lack of criteria for design eg nutrient
    stripping, infiltration
  • Cost/economic implications of complicated
    treatment trains
  • Solutions
  • Develop agreed management practices to achieve
    required performance
  • LG State capacity building to ensure WSUD
    standards are enforced/complied with
  • Set responsibility for monitoring and reporting
    of performance against conditions

10
11
Maintenance
  • Solutions
  • Use demonstration projects to inform both LG and
    designers
  • Full cost/benefit analysis of WSUD treatments
    compared with conventional treatments is
    required. If this information exists, it needs to
    be collated and presented in a more effective
    manner.
  • Review funding arrangements and transfer
    mechanism to ensure adequate resources for
    management over the long term
  • Barriers
  • Lack of funding (LG)
  • Implementation cannot be enforced
  • Lack of performance standards with regards to
    design
  • High cost of maintenance to LG

11
12
Subdivision Approval and Conditions
  • Solutions
  • Update conditions
  • Set management targets based on receiving
    environment requirements (i.e. a range of targets
    may be developed for the different biophysical
    zones or receiving water requirements it will
    be harder in some locations than others).
  • Assess what is achievable from installation of
    individual BMPs. This can be used to back-up
    targets in conditions.
  • Incorporate clear, quantifiable water quality and
    quantity WSUD targets in conditions
  • LG ( State) capacity building to ensure WSUD
    standards (ARQ) are enforced/complied with
  • Barriers
  • The existing standard conditions are inadequate
  • Conditions lack specificity/currency
  • Clearing of conditions without adequate technical
    expertise supported by approved guidelines,
    criteria and data
  • Lack of quantifiable, binding WSUD conditions
    that can be imposed (threat of overturing by
    TPAT)
  • On-going conditions (post development) dont
    exist

12
13
Statements of Planning Policy
  • Barriers
  • Generic or generalised policy measures - not
    specific enough to achieve outcomes on the ground
    at subdivision level
  • ENR SPP contains words like encourage and
    where possible. This makes it easy to discount
  • SPPs are not holeproof as they are only required
    to have due regard for may be considered and
    dismissed
  • Solutions
  • Need to be more specific (include water quality
    objectives)
  • Need to ensure incorporation into TPS
  • Involve stakeholders in development
  • More technical rigor

13
14
Regional Structure Plans
  • Solutions
  • Need to optimise WSUD and water quality
    outcomes in planning policy make
    targets/objectives clearer and specific
  • EPA/Water agencies to set targets
  • Monitor water quality
  • Need investment for monitoring and implementation
    identified at regional levels
  • A prioritised program of developing regional and
    sub-regional structure plans to ensure
    incorporation of water management plans
  • Setting appropriate and clear guidelines to
    achieve required outcomes (LG, WAPC/DPI, EPA,
    SRT) with each party contributing funding based
    on its benefit
  • Barriers
  • Current planning practice and existing RSPs dont
    adequately consider the water issues
  • Lack of knowledge, information and data to
    provide the context for an urban water management
    strategy
  • Lack of targets for performance assessment and
    monitoring of effectiveness of outcomes

14
15
Summary of Findings
  • Barriers outside the system
  • lack of water quality targets, standards and
    criteria
  • lack of regional perspective with respect to
    drainage Need for Regional land/water structure
    plans
  • confusion with regards to who does what within
    Government (ie no clear decision to developers
  • lack of commitment to implementation exhibited
    through a lack of effective funding

15
16
Summary of Findings
  • Key tools for implementation available
  • Planning policy framework
  • Structure plans
  • Subdivision conditions
  • Barriers inside the system
  • Perceived cost of installation and maintenance
  • Lack of data on existing and ongoing performance
    of treatments
  • Lack of effective and agreed detailed
    (engineering and planning) design guidelines

16
17
Recommendations
  • Clarification of the roles and (most importantly)
    responsibilities for implementation of WSUD
    across Government, focusing on the lower end of
    the process, particularly as it relates to the
    roles and responsibilities of referral agencies
    (ie who makes what decision)
  • Develop appropriate water quality (and quantity)
    targets on a catchment or biophysical unit
    basis for key threatened environments such as the
    Swan and Canning Rivers
  • Improve the WAPC/DPI policy framework through the
    finalisation of the Water Resources SPP and the
    incorporation of water issues more firmly into
    Liveable Neighbourhoods review

17
18
Recommendations
  • Develop new standard conditions (both specific
    and general) to enable statutory planners to
    impose WSUD conditions more easily
  • Develop or modify the water quality monitoring
    framework to incorporate appropriate feedback
    systems to ensure that there is a process of
    continuous improvement with regards to
    implementation.
  • Review and consolidate information on
    cost/benefit analysis of WSUD treatments in
    comparison with conventional drainage structures
    and release the information to key stakeholders

18
19
Recommendations
  • Implement demonstration projects and ensure that
    their performance is reviewed over the medium to
    long-term The projects must involve monitoring,
    assessment, evaluation and extension of results
    to ensure ongoing learning within the profession.
  • Develop an easy-to-read brief summary of what
    WSUD means to a statutory planner to aid in the
    imposition of appropriate and effective
    conditions.
  • Undertake work and/or consolidate information on
    infiltration and nutrient export rates of WA
    soils and nutrient uptake of soils and grasses

19
20
Recommendations
  • Review the appropriateness of the Australian
    Rainfall Quality (ARQ) Guideline for their
    applicability to the Western Australian context.
  • Development of a Communication Strategy for the
    new ARQ and training for LG engineers to ensure
    effective capacity building
  • Further develop specific, technical guidance for
    local government engineers consistent with the
    draft ARQ Guidelines and the up-dated Stormwater
    Management Manual

20
21
Recommendations
  • Increase focus on planning and design of WSUD
    treatments particularly the demonstration and
    review of Best Planning Practices design
    solutions.
  • Develop a Communication Strategy to raise the
    awareness in the general community of the
    importance of WSUD in urban areas
  • Until stormwater is looked at as a resource
    rather than a waste, we will be unable to achieve
    significant progress.

21
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)