[Document title] · the necessary steps to ensure an accurate document has been prepared. Readers...

Symplan Planning for People, Place, Purpose

[Document title]

Social Impact Assessment Crib Point Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Expert Witness Statement

October 2020

Crib Point Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Social Impact Assessment – Expert Witness Statement October 2020

Symplan Planning for People, Place, Purpose

Author: Bonnie Rosen, Principal, Symplan Suite 1301 9 Yarra Street South Yarra Vic 3141 Tel: (03) 9523 7538 Mobile: 0419 574 481 Fax: 9804 8884 Email: [email protected] www.symplan.com.au Disclaimer Symplan produces work of the highest professional and academic standards. Symplan has taken all the necessary steps to ensure an accurate document has been prepared. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement when applying any information or analysis presented in this report to particular issues or circumstances. © Symplan 2020

mailto:[email protected]


Symplan

Planning for People, Place, Purpose

CONTENTS

Contents ................................................................................................................................................... i

Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................... iv

Expert Witness Declaration .................................................................................................................... v

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Terms of engagement ............................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Submitter No. 3129 ................................................................................................................. 1

1.4 Scope of the SIA ...................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.6 Limitations............................................................................................................................... 3

1.7 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 3

2 The Project ...................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Project rationale...................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Scoping requirements ............................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Project components ................................................................................................................ 4

2.4 Project activities ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.5 Changes to baseline conditions .............................................................................................. 6

2.6 Rezoning .................................................................................................................................. 8

3 Project context ................................................................................................................................ 9

3.1 Strategic location .................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Environmental significance ..................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Utilisation of Project Area ..................................................................................................... 11

3.3.1 Historical ....................................................................................................................... 11

3.3.2 Current .......................................................................................................................... 11

3.4 Amenity ................................................................................................................................. 16

3.4.1 General ambience ......................................................................................................... 16

3.4.2 Visual setting ................................................................................................................. 17

3.5 Community profile ................................................................................................................ 23

3.5.1 Population and population growth ............................................................................... 23

3.5.2 Socio-economic and socio-spatial vulnerability ............................................................ 23

3.6 Community facilities ............................................................................................................. 26

4 Social impact assessment ............................................................................................................. 27

4.1 Social impact assessment framework and considerations ................................................... 27

4.1.1 Fears and aspirations regarding health and safety, and the natural environment ...... 27

4.1.2 Way of life ..................................................................................................................... 35

4.1.3 Resources ...................................................................................................................... 44


ii Symplan


4.1.4 Culture ........................................................................................................................... 45

4.1.5 Political systems ............................................................................................................ 47

4.2 Social impact assessment discussion .................................................................................... 48

4.2.1 Fears and aspirations, way of life, resources and culture............................................. 50

4.2.2 Political systems ............................................................................................................ 64

4.3 Issues raised in submissions.................................................................................................. 66

4.3.1 Local government ......................................................................................................... 66

4.3.2 Submitter No. 3129 ....................................................................................................... 68

4.3.3 Submitter No. 3088 ....................................................................................................... 72

4.3.4 Community .................................................................................................................... 73

5 Peer review ................................................................................................................................... 77

5.1 The Environmental Effects Statement .................................................................................. 77

5.1.1 The Project Area ............................................................................................................ 77

5.1.2 Project alternatives ....................................................................................................... 77

5.1.3 Evaluation objective ...................................................................................................... 77

5.1.4 Environmental Management Framework ..................................................................... 77

5.2 Social impact assessment ..................................................................................................... 79

5.2.1 Framework .................................................................................................................... 79

5.2.2 Description of Project ................................................................................................... 79

5.2.3 Compliance with scoping requirements ....................................................................... 79

5.2.4 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 79

6 Summary, conclusion and recommendations .............................................................................. 82

6.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 83

6.1.1 Potential social impacts ................................................................................................ 83

6.1.2 Peer review ................................................................................................................... 84

6.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 85

6.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 86

Appendix 1 – Request for quotation ..................................................................................................... 88

Appendix 2 – Symplan Response to request for quotation .................................................................. 89

Appendix 3 – Brief to Symplan .............................................................................................................. 91

Appendix 4 – Documents in brief.......................................................................................................... 95

Appendix 5 – Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 96

Appendix 6 – Community profile .......................................................................................................... 98

Appendix 7 - Social impact assessment framework ........................................................................... 103

Appendix 8 – Social impact assessment concepts .............................................................................. 110

Appendix 9 – Scoping Requirements Social, economic, amenity and land use .................................. 112


iii Symplan


Figures

Figure 1 – Project area ............................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 – Western Port Ramsar Wetlands Site ...................................................................................... 9 Figure 3 – Exclusion Zone, Crib Point Jetty, Western Port .................................................................... 12 Figure 4 – Indicative land use pattern, Crib Point to Hastings Township ............................................. 13 Figure 5 – Project Area and SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage, 2006 .................. 24 Figure 6 – VAMPIRE index of socio-spatial vulnerability ...................................................................... 24 Figure 7 – Overall rates of poverty, Hastings-Somers SA2 ................................................................... 24 Figure 8 – Percentage of households renting social housing, 2016 ..................................................... 25 Figure 9 – Social and community infrastructure, Crib Point and Hasting ............................................. 26 Figure 10 – Participation by activity (top 15 activities), Victorian adults, 2019 (%) ............................. 37 Figure 11 – Perceptions of neighbourhood ........................................................................................ 100 Figure 12 – AEDI other indicators (per cent) ...................................................................................... 101 Figure 13 – AEDI 2009-2018 vulnerability on two or more domains .................................................. 101 Figure 14 – Impact Assessment Process ............................................................................................. 103

Tables Table 1 – Anticipated changes to baseline conditions, construction and operation.............................. 6 Table 2 – Threats to marine values ....................................................................................................... 29 Table 3 – Key social impact assessment factors and associated social impact assessment principles 49 Table 4 – Potential social impacts - construction ................................................................................. 50 Table 5 – Potential social impacts - operation ...................................................................................... 55 Table 6 – Opinion on Submitter No. 3129’s position on relevant social impacts ................................. 69 Table 7 - Opinion on Submitter No. 3088’s position on relevant social impacts .................................. 72 Table 8 - Opinion on community’s points on relevant social impacts .................................................. 75 Table 9 – Recommended amendments to Environmental Management Framework ......................... 86 Table 10 – Population and population growth, Mornington Peninsula Shire, 2021-2026 ................... 98 Table 11 – Selected socio-economic and health indicators .................................................................. 98 Table 12 – Payments by postcode and payment type, March 2020 .................................................. 100 Table 13 – AEDI change in vulnerability on two or more domains, 209-2018 ................................... 102 Table 14 - Types of impacts ................................................................................................................ 107 Table 15 – Impact magnitude rating scale .......................................................................................... 109


iv Symplan


ACRONYMS

AEDI Australian Early Development Index

EES Environment Effects Statement

EJA Environmental Justice Australia

EMF Environmental Management Framework

EOLSS End of line scraper station

FSRU Floating storage and regasification unit

HDD Horizontal direction drilling

IAC Inquiry and Advisory Committee

IRSD Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage

LGA Local government area

LNG Liquefied natural gas

MLA Marine loading arms

MLV Mainline valve

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

PoHDA Port of Hastings Development Authority

ROW Right of way

SEIFA Socio-economic Index for Areas

SIA Social impact assessment

SLA Statistical local area

SLO Social licence to operate

ULP Unleaded petrol

UP United Petroleum

VRCA Victorian Regional Channels Authority

VTS Victorian Transmission System


v Symplan


EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION Full name and address Bonnie (Batya) Brenda Rosen Suite 1301 9 Yarra Street South Yarra VIC 3141 Phone: 9523 7538 Mobile: 0419 574 481 Email: [email protected]

Qualifications and affiliations Academic qualifications

BSc TRP - Bachelor of Science in Town and Regional Planning

MSc TRP - Master of Science in Town and Regional Planning

Practitioner’s Certificate in Mediation and Conciliation

Social Impact Assessment for Victorian Local Governments – Bell Planning Associates in association with The Hornery Institute

Professional Affiliations

RPIA – (Fellow), Planning Institute of Australia

MRTPI – Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute

MRIA - Member Resolution Institute of Australia

Judge, Planning Institute of Australia, Awards for Excellence, Social and Community Based Planning

Academic Affiliations

Sessional lecturer, Department of Urban Planning, University of Melbourne. Subjects taught:

Social Planning for Health (2005-2009)

Participatory Planning Practice (2008-2009)

Participation and Negotiation (2008)

Managing Change (2004-2007)

Delivery of lectures on impact assessment to:

University of Melbourne

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

Victoria University

Australian National University



vi Symplan


Experience I have given evidence before Planning Panels Victoria, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on proposals involving major infrastructure projects, gaming and liquor licences.

The following major infrastructure projects are of particular relevance to this Project:

• Mornington Safe Harbour, 2010

• East West Link, 2014

• Westgate Tunnel Project, 2017

Area of expertise and expertise to prepare the Report As principal of Symplan, I am a social town planner with extensive local and international experience in the fields of social planning, urban planning, strategic health planning, community consultation and engagement, facilitation and mediation. I have worked with the public sector (local and state government), educational sector and private sector.

I have specialised in the areas of impact assessment, academic and professional research, education, community needs assessment and stakeholder engagement. I have also advised local and state governments in the fields of planning for health and wellbeing, gambling policy, liquor policy and neighbourhood renewal.

Private or business relationship with Submitter No. 3129 I have no private or business relationship with Submitter No. 3129

Instructions defining the scope of the Report On 16 June 2020 Submitter No. 3129 made inquiry via email as to whether Symplan had the capacity and expertise to prepare a social impact assessment (SIA) (refer to Appendix 1). Symplan’s response to this request for quotation is attached as Appendix 2.

In a brief dated 22 July 2020 Symplan was engaged by Environmental Justice Australia (AJA) to prepare the SIA discussing the potential social benefits and harms associated with the Project on the communities within these small areas. The brief is attached at Appendix 3. A list of documents in the brief is attached at Appendix 4. This brief indicated the SIA was requested by Submitter No. 3129 which is one of the organisations EJA is acting on behalf.

Facts, matters and assumptions This social and economic impact assessment assumes the findings from the research, studies and reports I have used to prepare this social impact assessment are correct.

Identity of persons carrying out tests No tests were undertaken.


vii Symplan


Statement

A. Potential social impacts

Benefits The Project may be associated with the following benefits:

• The Project will secure gas supplies to south-eastern Australia. This will be of benefit to

the existing and future residential, commercial and industrial sectors across this region.

• The establishment of a $7.5 million community fund has the potential to increase access

to social and recreational infrastructure and thereby facilitate healthy lifestyles across the

Project area.

• The construction and operation stages of the Project will generate jobs, some of which

may be filled by the local community.

It is beyond my scope of expertise to quantify these benefits. Nevertheless, the following factors are of relevance in assessing the extent of the potential social benefits for the community:

• There is inadequate evidence to draw conclusions on the extent of the potential benefit

associated with augmented gas supply on the communities of Crib Point and Hastings,

both of which are likely to experience the most significant disbenefits arising from the

construction and operation stages of the Project.

• The EES SIA has noted the potential benefits to economic vitality associated with job

creation are limited.

• The actual social benefit of the $7.5 million community fund to the communities in

Hastings and Crib Point is likely to be minimal and may compromise social cohesion.

Disbenefits The construction stage of the Project may have a detrimental cumulative impact on the amenity of people living, working, learning and recreating in locations within the Project Area. These cumulative amenity impacts are associated with an increase in artificial lighting, dust, noise, vibration, traffic and a reduction in real and perceived safety. Other impacts associated with construction include severance and displacement due to changes in access to private property and roadways, and the removal of mature native vegetation. The amenity impacts may have a disproportionate negative impact on vulnerable interest groups such as older people and children, and people relying on public transport, and those communities experiencing elevated socio-economic and socio-spatial vulnerability.

The operation stage of the Project has the potential to have a detrimental cumulative impact on the amenity of some of the residents in Crib Point and the recreational users of the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site. This is due to the increase in noise, light pollution and waste; a reduction in air quality and the extension of the exclusion zone. Further, the permanent Crib Point Jetty infrastructure will detract from the visual amenity of the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site.

These cumulative negative impacts are likely to compromise the community’s mental and physical health and wellbeing and affect the community’s sense of attachment to an area which provides passive and active recreation facilities and is a Ramsar wetlands site. They are also likely to detract from the value the community places in the Western Port and their aspirations to safeguard the integrity of this site of environmental significance and reduce the industrialisation of the area.

Social licence to operate The discussion in the submissions indicates the Proponents do not currently have a social licence due to the submitters’ concerns with the Proponents’ past practices and safety record. Furthermore, the dissatisfaction with the stakeholder engagement process expressed by some of the submitters, and


viii Symplan


the concerns raised in the majority of submissions relating to potential social impacts associated with the Project, are likely to detract from the Proponent’s social licence to operate the Project.

The apparent lack of a social licence to operate is likely to compromise the willingness or ability for affected stakeholders to engage in future decision-making and stakeholder engagement processes. It is also likely to affect the extent to which the community accepts the changes and impacts associated with the Project.

B. Peer review The EES consists of a series of comprehensive technical reports covering a wide range of potential changes to the social, economic, physical and environmental baseline conditions in the Project Area.

EES SIA (Technical Report M and Chapter 18) has not adequately assessed some of the standard social impact considerations.

The EES SIA has relied on the residual risk ratings and findings of technical studies to determine the potential amenity and safety impacts. It has not adequately considered the community’s fears and aspirations regarding the potential impact of the Project on their mental and physical health and wellbeing, amenity, way of life, shared values and aspirations with regard the future of the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site, personal and property rights, culture and political systems. This has the effect of dismissing and minimising the overall impact of the Project on people whose physical, social and recreational environment will be permanently altered due to changes associated with the construction and operation of the Project. This is important given it is the affected community, and not the technical experts involved in preparing the EES studies who will be directly affected by the construction and operation stages of the Project.

The EES SIA has not adequately considered the affected community’s level of socio-economic disadvantage and socio-spatial vulnerability in concluding the community has adequate ‘capacity to cope’ with the potential social impacts. Further, given the significant role the amenities and facilities at Woolleys Beach Reserves North and South play in providing opportunities for both passive and active recreation, and the strong attachment to place associated with these facilities, the community’s capacity to cope with displacement and severance during construction is likely to be minimal.


ix Symplan


C. Conclusion In conclusion the IAC should recommend that the Minister for Planning does not approve the Project on the following ground.

1. The potential social disbenefits outweigh the potential social benefits due to the

following factors:

• The Project may have a negative social impact on the communities most likely

affected by the construction and operation of the Project. This is due primarily to their

levels of socio-economic and socio-spatial vulnerability which compromise their

capacity to cope with the negative impacts.

• The Project area affects a Ramsar wetlands site which is recognised internationally for

its biophysical attributes. This Ramsar site is an important asset for the local

community and visitors to the Project area.

• The lack of a social licence to operate compromises future liaison between the

proponents and the community, and therefore the overall success of the Project.

2. The social impact assessment component of the EES does not comply with some of the

standard principles and core values of social impact assessment. As a result, the

conclusions on the potential social impacts associated with the Project should not be

relied upon.

3. The following issues raised by some of the submitters relevant to a social impact

assessment reflect my opinion:

• The Project has the potential to permanently displace the community from valuable,

unique and intrinsically valuable green and blue spaces used by both local residents

and visitors to the area.

• The Project may compromise the community’s strong sense of attachment to the

Project Area which is designated as a Ramsar wetlands site. This may have a negative

social impact on their way of life, their culture, their personal and shared resources,

and their mental and physical health and wellbeing.

• The construction and operation stages of the Project have the potential to

compromise real and perceived amenity and safety of residents and visitors to the

area.

• The Proponents lack a social licence to operate given the mistrust associated with the

stakeholder engagement process and potential to prevent and mitigate potential risks

to the community’s health, wellbeing and safety.

4. The mitigation measures proposed in the EMR are unlikely to adequately prevent,

minimise or mitigate potential social impacts arising from the Project.

D. Recommendations Should the Minister for Planning approve the Project, the following recommendations should be considered:

Recommendation 1 - Environmental Management Framework The following recommended changes to selected management and mitigation measures in the EMF are required to address the community’s fears regarding the potential impact of the Project on their environment, personal and property rights, way of life, resources, culture and political systems.


x Symplan


Recommended amendments to Environmental Management Framework Mitigation measure Comment Recommendation

SO01 “for residents to make enquires, lodge complaints etc. during construction (see mitigation measure SE02)”

This needs to include all affected parties including community facilities, committees of management, users of Hastings Town Centre etc.

There needs to be a mechanism to ensure issues are adequately resolved during both construction and operation.

The use of ‘etc’ has the potential to raise concerns regarding the effectiveness of the complaints procedure in solving the complaint.

“for residents the community (including relevant Councils, government authorities, adjoining affected landowners and businesses and other community groups directly impacted by the Project) to make enquires, lodge complaints, and have their issues adequately resolved etc. during construction and operation (see SE02)”

SO05 “Detailed arrangements for the community fund will be resolved in partnership with relevant community stakeholders. In particular, there will be community led involvement in how the fund will be set-up, managed and spent.”

Given the views expressed by Submitter No. 3129 with regards the benefits of the community fund, mediatory processes will be required during the allocation of funds to ensure the community fund does not compromise social cohesion in the community.

Monitoring and evaluation of the social impact and outcomes of the Community Fund are required to assess whether this strategy is effective in addressing existing and emerging social issues in the community.

… Appropriate processes ensuring full acceptance of the allocation process by the community will guide the allocation of the community fund.

A monitoring and evaluation process will be devised and implemented in partnership with relevant community stakeholders to determine the effectiveness of the Community Fund in addressing existing and emerging social issues in the community.

SE02 “A complaints management system will be put in place that documents:”

It is important to include a line item allowing the affected party to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the complaints management system and whether the complaint has been adequately resolved.

• feedback from the affected party

regarding the effectiveness of the

complaints management system

• feedback from the affected party as

to whether the complaint has been

adequately resolved

Recommendation 2 – Community fund The value of the proposed $7.5 million Community Fund should be augmented to accommodate the social, economic, amenity and land use offset projects outlined by Submitter No. 2276.


xi Symplan


Recommendation 3 – Compensation for displaced recreation and community infrastructure The financial implications associated with adequate compensation for recreational or community infrastructure displaced as a result of the construction and/or operation of the Project are to be borne entirely by the Proponents.

Provisional opinions not fully researched The Report includes the full range of opinions that fall within the scope a social town planner’s expertise and experience.

Questions falling outside the expertise of the witness The following questions will fall outside the expertise of the witness:

Quantitative forecasts in relation to changes in business activity, traffic, noise and vibration, air quality, ground and water pollution; impacts on biodiversity, heritage, ecology and greenhouse gases

Completeness of Report This Report is complete.

Declaration I, Bonnie Brenda Rosen, declare that I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate, and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

RPIA, MRTPI, MIAMA 2 October 2020


1 Symplan


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

AGL Wholesale Gas Limited (AGL) and APA Transmission Pty Limited Group (APA) are joint

proponents for the establishment of the proposed Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project (the

Project).

The Project transverses the municipalities of Mornington Peninsula Shire, City of Casey and

Cardinia Shire. Part of the Project will be located within the eastern small areas1 of

Mornington Peninsula Shire of Crib Point, Bittern, Hastings, Tyabb and Somerville.

An Environmental Effects Statement (EES) for the Project has been prepared. The EES includes

a social impact assessment (Chapter 18) which is supported by a technical report (Technical

Report M).

1.2 Terms of engagement

On 16 June 2020 Submitter No. 3129 made inquiry via email as to whether Symplan had the

capacity and expertise to prepare a social impact assessment (SIA) (refer to Appendix 1).

Symplan’s response to this request for quotation is attached as Appendix 2.

In a brief dated 22 July 2020 Symplan was engaged by Environmental Justice Australia (AJA) to

prepare the SIA discussing the potential social benefits and harms associated with the Project

on the communities within these small areas. The brief is attached at Appendix 3. A list of

documents in the brief is attached at Appendix 4. This brief indicated the SIA was requested

by Submitter No. 3129 which is one of the organisations EJA is acting on behalf.

1.3 Submitter No. 3129

Submitter No. 3129 is a local community and residents’ organisation established in 2018

through a coalition of local environment groups. Its purpose statement is “'[Submitter No.

3129] is an independent community group that exists to safeguard Westernport Bay's critical

habitat and encourage responsible economic activity to ensure a healthy environment for all

life.” The organisation has established a campaign to represents the views and concerns of

some local residents and some Victorians on the potential social and environmental impact of

the Project on the Western Port Ramsar site.

Its digital platform consists of a website2, Facebook page3, and Twitter and Instagram

accounts. The organisation has over 7,000 followers on its various digital platforms.

Submitter No. 3129 has engaged Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) to represent their

interests before the joint Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC) which will consider the

Environment Effects Statement (EES).

1 Small areas defined by i.d consulting 2 https://savewesternport.org/ 3 https://www.facebook.com/SaveWesternPort

https://savewesternport.org/

https://www.facebook.com/SaveWesternPort


2 Symplan


1.4 Scope of the SIA

The Project is located in the local government areas of Mornington Peninsula Shire, City of

Casey and Cardinia Shire (refer to Figure 1).

The scope of the SIA covers the Project Area located in Mornington Peninsula Shire, with a

particular focus on the communities of Hastings and Crib Point - Bittern (refer to Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Project area

Source: EES Chapter 15

Indicative focus of Preliminary Opinion Report


3 Symplan


1.5 Methodology

The preparation of the report involved:

• Site inspection of selected locations within the Project Area between Hastings and Crib

Point on 3 August 2020.

• A desktop review of the following:

o Relevant literature and resources guiding the preparation of social impact

assessments (refer to Appendix 5).

o Documentation in the brief (refer to Appendix 4).

o Relevant documents in the EES.

o Material available on social media outlets and Submitter No. 3129’s website.

o Relevant community and health profiles.

• A detailed review of the following Submitters:

o Submitter No. 2276






• Broad overview of Submitters 1 to 3865 on the Engage Victoria Crib Point homepage.

1.6 Limitations

The preparation of this SIA did not involve any direct community consultation or stakeholder

engagement. Views and sentiments have therefore been extracted from social media

platforms, written documentation and submissions.

It was only possible to conduct one site inspection due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.7 Assumptions

The SIA is based on the following assumptions:

• The changes associated with the construction and operation of the Project, as described

by the suite of documents in the EES will arise.

• The findings and conclusions in the academic and scientific research reviewed are

correct.

• The quantitative data used to prepare the community profile are accurate.


4 Symplan


2 THE PROJECT This section describes the elements of the Project relevant to the preparation of an SIA.

The discussion is drawn from selected documentation in the EES.

2.1 Project rationale

The key objectives of the Project are to secure a stable, flexible and competitive source of gas

for south-eastern Australia.

This is intended to facilitate additional capacity and reliability for new residential, commercial

and industrial customers.

2.2 Scoping requirements

The scoping requirement relevant to this SIA is an examination of the effects on socio-

economic values, at local and regional scales, potentially generated by the Project, including

increased traffic movement and indirect effects of the Project construction workforce on the

capacity of local community infrastructure.

Other relevant matters listed in the Minister’s requirements are:

• effects on Ramsar sites and ecological values in proximity to the proposal

• impact of changes to seawater quality on marine environment

• effects on ground water quality

• effects on air quality and noise on nearby sensitive receptors, in particular residences

• effects on the landscape values

• potential soil contamination

• effects on Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage values

The relevant draft evaluation objective relating to social, economic, amenity and land use is

“To minimise potential adverse social, economic, amenity and land use effects at local and

regional scales”.

2.3 Project components

The Project comprises two main infrastructure components: the Gas Import Jetty Works and

the Pipeline Works. These form part of an elongated footprint traversing Mornington

Peninsula Shire, the City of Casey and Cardinia Shire. Although these components do not

traverse Bass Coast Shire, the Project has the potential to impact the community in this

municipality as its western communities border Western Port Bay.

The Gas Import Jetty Works comprise the following infrastructure, all of which will be located

in Crib Point and Western Port Bay, Mornington Peninsula Shire:

• Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU) alongside Berth 2, Crib Point Jetty in Western

Port Bay which would be approximately 50 metres high (above sea level to the top of the

exhaust stack), 300 metres long and 50 metres wide.

• Jetty infrastructure on the Crib Point Jetty including two marine loading arms (MLAs) and

gas piping to transfer the gas from the FSRU to the Crib Point Receiving Facility (CPRF).


5 Symplan


• CPRF located on land adjacent to Crib Point Jetty in Crib Point which would include one

liquid nitrogen storage tank (approximately 20 metres high and 25 metres in diameter)

and four vaporiser towers (approximately 15 metres high).

The Pipeline Works would comprise a bi-directional gas transmission pipeline approximately

57 kilometres long which would transport gas from the CPRF in Crib Point to the Victorian

Transmission System (VTS) east of Pakenham. The pipeline would be buried at a depth of

generally 1.2 metres below ground.

The Project also comprises a proposed Community Fund to the value of $7.5 million which

would be run and led by the local community to address local concerns. There is initial

agreement at least half of the fund would be spent on Crib Point and Hastings to address local

social disadvantage. Other potential causes would be wider environmental causes in the

Western Port area.

2.4 Project activities

The Project involves two main activities: construction and operation.

It is anticipated construction of the Project would commence in 2021 and be completed in

2023. Construction of CPRF would take between 18 and 27 months and between one to three

weeks for the different sections of the pipeline other than Hastings which would be up to 10

months. The construction phase involves the following:

• Establishment of laydown areas within the Project Area which would include areas for

storage of construction machinery and equipment, storage of materials for installation,

site offices, a workshop and vehicle parking areas. The laydown areas would be

constructed on land owned by PoHDA in Crib Point, BlueScope Steel (x2) and at the corner

of Railway Road and Koo Wee Rup Bypass, Koo Wee Rup.

• Approximately 40 heavy vehicle movements per day to and from the laydown areas to

deliver materials.

• Concurrent activities could lead to a total of 800 truck movements per day during peak

periods of construction activities. The construction right of way (ROW) would reduce the

Esplanade near Crib Point to one lane during the pipeline’s construction.

• Construction times as follows:

o CPRF between 6am and 6pm on weekdays, and between 6am and 3.30pm on

Saturdays.

o Pipeline works 6am to 6pm seven days a week. During pullback operations works

would likely be conducted on a 24 hour per day basis until the pipe was installed.

Operation of the Project would involve the following:

• Gas Import Jetty Works (approximately 20 years)

o Permanent mooring of the FSRU at Berth 2, Crib Point Jetty, Western Port.

o Arrival of between 12 and 40 vessels delivering liquid nitrogen gas (LNG) to the

FSRU.

o Permanent operation of the Jetty Infrastructure.

o Permanent operation of the CPRF.


6 Symplan


• Pipeline Works within an operational easement of 15 metres (with a design life of 60

years):

o Transportation of gas between Crib Point and Pakenham.

o Routine inspections.

2.5 Changes to baseline conditions

The following key changes to the baseline conditions described in Chapters 6 to 22 of the EES

are associated with the construction and operation stages of the Project (refer to Table 1):

Table 1 – Anticipated changes to baseline conditions, construction and operation

Baseline condition

Activity

Construction Operation

Wastes

Associated with transport and use of materials involving plastics, packaging, excavation materials, used materials.

Waste generated by site offices.

Associated with activities on board the FSRU including wastewater and solid waste.

Air and water emissions from the FSRU.

Terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity

Removal of approximately 17 combined hectares of native vegetation which includes significant plant species or their habitat.

Increase in noise and light.

Seawater intakes and discharges from the FSRU into the Western Port Ramsar marine site.

Surface water

Runoff and discharge of sediment to nearby waterways and deposited into the Western Port Ramsar site.

Not applicable.

Groundwater Dewatering during construction and potential change to quality of groundwater.

Changes to preferential flow paths within trenched sections of the Pipeline Works.

Impeded groundwater flow due to piles installed for the Crib Point Receiving Facility.

Air quality Dust generated by machinery and vehicles near dwellings and other sensitive receptors.

Air emissions within exclusion zone for port operations and a number of areas over water to the south and east of the FSRU and a small area of the Crib Point Jetty in Ramsar wetlands site.

Greenhouse gas

Use of fossil fuels in machinery and vehicles.

Use of fossil fuels for the operation of the FSRU’s regasification process which involves activities including the operation of the CPRF, FSRU and LPG carrier engines and generators in Ramsar wetlands site.

Traffic Approximately 40 heavy vehicle movements per day to and from the laydown areas to deliver materials.

Up to five trucks a day delivering nitrogen to the Crib Point Receiving Facility. This amounts to 900 trucks per


7 Symplan


Baseline condition

Activity


year providing nitrogen for the preparation of an LNG shipment.

The roads most heavily impacted by total daily operational traffic generation are Woolleys Road (90), The Esplanade (90), Stony Point Road (90), Frankston-Flinders Road (88).

Road closures

Road closures increasing delays and impeding access along Pipeline route for up to 48 hours (12 out of 28 in Mornington Peninsula Shire.

N/A

Noise and vibration

• CPRF between 6am and 6pm on

weekdays, and between 6am and

3.30pm on Saturdays.

• Pipeline works 6am to 6pm seven days

a week. During pullback operations

works would likely be conducted on a

24 hour per day basis until the pipe

was installed.

24 hour operation of the FSRU and CPRF in Ramsar wetlands site.

Landscape and visual

Removal of existing vegetation along pipeline route within the right of way (ROW).

Views of the FSRU and the onshore facilities such as the CPRF visible from open space areas along the foreshore (including Woolleys Beach at Crib Point and dwellings along The Esplanade), French Island, Phillip Island and recreational watercraft in Ramsar wetlands site.

Lighting Task based lighting during night time works.

Lights on FSRU and CPRF would be visible from sensitive receptors such as residential properties and foreshore recreational facilities and amenities in Ramsar wetlands site.

Aboriginal and cultural heritage

Disturbance of some of the 14 registered and unregistered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the Project Area.

Not applicable

Historic heritage

Disturbance of curtilage of the Denham Road farmhouse in Hastings which comprises the remnants of a 19th century farmhouse complex.

Disturbance of former BP refinery administration building due to vibration

Not applicable


8 Symplan


Baseline condition

Activity


from trenching and a laydown area near the building’s curtilage.

Social and community4

Creation of specialist jobs (approx. 500 jobs).

Supply contracts for local businesses.

Change in levels of noise, vibration, air quality, water quality, traffic, visual amenity resulting in temporary severance and displacement to other facilities.

Creation of specialist jobs (approx. 40 jobs).

Supply contracts for local businesses.

Increased supply of gas for residential, tourism, community and business sectors in South Eastern Australia.

$7.5 million community fund, half of which will be distributed mainly to the communities of Crib Point and Hastings in Mornington Peninsula Shire.

Change in levels of noise, vibration, air quality, water quality, traffic, views, potentially leading to permanent severance and displacement to other facilities due to changes in amenity associated with the operation and visual impact of the FSRU, CPRF and Jetty Infrastructure in Ramsar wetlands site.

Extension of Waterside Restriction Zone in Ramsar wetlands site.

Land acquisition

Temporary land acquisition associated with laydown areas.

Establishment of permanent easement on private property.

2.6 Rezoning The Project involves the following proposed amendments to the current zoning:

• Rezoning of part of Crown Allotment 2040 from Public Park and Recreation Zone to Port

Zone. This land is currently owned by the PoHDA.

• Rezoning of Part of Crown Allotment 2085 so the Port Zone applies to all of Crown allotment

2085. This land is owned by the Crown and managed by the Department of Environment,

Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).

• Map 1 and the maps in the Instruction Sheet in the Planning Report Attachment VI do not

provide clarity regarding which properties are affected by the proposed rezoning.

4 Some of these are drawn from the changes described above


9 Symplan


3 PROJECT CONTEXT

3.1 Strategic location

Crib Point and Hastings in Mornington Peninsula Shire would be affected by both of the

Project infrastructure components (refer to Figure 1).

The Shire is an important tourist destination with expenditure by domestic and international

visitors amounting to $1,277 million in March 2020. Since 2015, the number of visitors has

increased by 8.6 per cent and expenditure has increased by 11.7 per cent per annum.5

Western Port experienced an 88 per cent growth in visitor numbers and 25 per cent increase

in visitor spend between 2012 and 2018.6

The historic coastal township of Crib Point is located approximately one kilometre south of the

Crib Point Jetty. The township is largely residential in character with small dispersed pockets

of local commercial, educational, community and recreational facilities. The township of

Hastings is one of three Major Activity Centres located within Mornington Peninsula Shire. It

acts as the principal service centre for communities located on the eastern side of the

Mornington Peninsula Shire.

Crib Point and Hastings accommodate predominantly permanent populations compared with

the remainder of Mornington Peninsula Shire which contain numerous holiday homes. More

than a third (34 per cent) of visitors to Mornington Peninsula own a holiday house.7

3.2 Environmental significance

Most of Western Port Bay was designated as a wetland of international significance under the

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention) in 1982 (refer to

Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Western Port Ramsar Wetlands Site

Source: Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

5 Mornington Peninsula Regional Tourism Summary Year Ending March 2020 https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1844885/Mornington_Peninsula_Regional_Summary_year_ending_Mar_2020.pdf [accessed 21 July 2020] 6 https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/About-Us/Business-Economy/Tourism-Visitor-Economy 7 https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/About-Us/Business-Economy/Tourism-Visitor-Economy

https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1844885/Mornington_Peninsula_Regional_Summary_year_ending_Mar_2020.pdf

https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1844885/Mornington_Peninsula_Regional_Summary_year_ending_Mar_2020.pdf

https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/About-Us/Business-Economy/Tourism-Visitor-Economy



10 Symplan


Ramsar wetlands are representative, rare or unique wetlands, or are important for conserving

biological diversity. These are included on the List of Wetlands of International Importance

developed under the Ramsar convention.8

The overarching principles guiding wetland management, and the urban planning and

development of communities in and around Ramsar sites are:9

• No further degradation or loss of wetlands as a result of urban development or

management.

• Wetlands should be considered as essential water management infrastructure.

• Wetlands should be restored and created as elements of urban infrastructure in order to

optimise ecosystem service delivery.

• The wise use of wetlands should be considered as a key component within sustainable

human settlements.

Western Port is recognised for its environmental value through inclusion in the UNESCO

Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve. Western Port Bay is also part of

the Shorebird Reserve Network for the East Asian-Australasian flyway and a global network of

Birdlife International’s important bird areas. Most of the important shorebird roosting sites in

Western Port are listed as Sites of National Zoological Significance.10

Western Port Bay is a significant site conferring Australia’s obligations under a suite of

international conservation treaties and agreements including:11

• Bonn Convention for wildlife conservation

• China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

• Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

• Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

Melbourne Water describes the iconic and intrinsic environmental value of Western port in a

document entitled Understanding the Western Port Environment12 as follows:

“Western Port is a unique feature on the Victorian coast, a large, semi-enclosed embayment on an exposed coastline, formed by complex geological processes. Superficially similar to Port Phillip Bay, it is more complex than its western neighbour, with a greater tidal range, extensive intertidal mudflats, and two large islands (Phillip Island and French Island). The tidal flats are cut by deep channels, with several catchments draining (some artificially connected) into the north-eastern and eastern parts of the bay. All of this makes for complex oceanographic circulation. Much of its coastline is fringed by mangroves and saltmarshes, and there are extensive seagrass meadows on mudflats and below the low tide level.”

The primary objective of the Western Port Ramsar Site Management Plan13 is “To maintain,

and where necessary improve, the ecological character of the Western Port Ramsar Site and

8 https://www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/australian-wetlands-database/australian-ramsar-wetlands 9 https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/guide/guide-urban-e.pdf 10 Submitter No. 3129 11 Submitter No. 3129 12 https://www.melbournewater.com.au/sites/default/files/2018-02/Understanding_the_Western_Port_Environment_0.pdf 13 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2017). Western Port Ramsar Site Management Plan Summary. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne.

https://www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/ramsar

https://www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/australian-wetlands-database/australian-ramsar-wetlands

https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/guide/guide-urban-e.pdf

https://www.melbournewater.com.au/sites/default/files/2018-02/Understanding_the_Western_Port_Environment_0.pdf


11 Symplan


promote wise and sustainable use. This Plan notes the Ramsar Site supports a number of

ecological, socio-economic and cultural values. The Plan is founded on the principle that, by

maintaining (or improving) ecological character, the Site’s socio-economic and cultural values

will also be conserved.

Melbourne Water goes on to note “… some of the material entering the Bay waters may be

retained for a considerable time before entering the open ocean. Because of this, biological

systems, especially the supply of oxygen, are probably more delicately poised than in other

bays, for example Port Phillip.”14

3.3 Utilisation of Project Area

3.3.1 Historical15

The Project Area is within the traditional lands of the Bun wurrung language group which

comprises at least six localised groups.

European settlements at Western Port date back to the late 1830s. Activities in the area

included fishing and farming. Fishing was a major local industry until the early 1960s, but has

declined since the development of the Western Port Industrial area.

Many of the jetties and wharves currently located in Western Port are related to its historic

industrial activities which include the construction of BP Australia’s second oil refinery at Crib

Point, the Esso refinery and the BHP steel centre. These industrial developments, particularly

Crib Point, Hastings and Long Island have created ‘drastic changes’ to the physical

environment.16

In 1992 community opposition resulted in the withdrawal by Shell/Mobil Corporation of a

proposal involving a major oil import facility at Crib Point. Other proposals involving industrial

activities in Western Port Bay which were set aside include a container port at Hastings,

causeways and a tunnel to French Island, gas centrifuge for enriching uranium, aluminium

smelters, processing plants for paper and zinc, bitumen processing plant and an ammonia

urea plant.

Western Port has accommodated regular passenger ferry services from Stony Point to Phillip

Island and French Island even prior to the introduction of industrial activities in the Project

Area.

Western Port is not a natural deepwater port and requires regular dredging. For this reason,

many locals refer to the area as Westernport.

3.3.2 Current

Western Port and the Port of Hastings

Western Port is used by both residents and visitors for activities such as boating, walking,

fishing, commercial and industrial uses.

The Port of Hastings, which is one of four working commercial trading ports operating in

Victoria, serves international and domestic shipping movements importing and exporting oil,

LPG, ULP and steel. It also manages general cargo, project cargo, shop-go-shop transfer, pipe-

laying operations and the lay-up and repair of oil rigs and floating platforms.

14 https://www.melbournewater.com.au/sites/default/files/2018-02/Understanding_the_Western_Port_Environment_0.pdf 15 Graeme Butler & Associates, Volume 2, (2001) Hastings District Heritage Study Stage Two Environmental History 16 Graeme Butler & Associates, Volume 2, (2001) Hastings District Heritage Study Stage Two Environmental History

https://www.melbournewater.com.au/sites/default/files/2018-02/Understanding_the_Western_Port_Environment_0.pdf


12 Symplan


Given it serves approximately 150 ships per year compared to the Port of Melbourne, Hastings

is considered a minor port.

Western Port accommodates both recreational and commercial boating. The Port of Hastings

Authority (PoHDA) acknowledges the existing conflict between commercial and recreational

boating activities in Western Port and has therefore established an exclusion zone which

prohibits recreational vessels from anchoring within the commercial shipping channels located

in the Port waters (refer to Figure 3).

Figure 3 – Exclusion Zone, Crib Point Jetty, Western Port

Source: EES

The indicative land use pattern within the Project Area between Crib Point and Hastings is

illustrated in Figure 4 and discussed below.


13 Symplan


Figure 4 – Indicative land use pattern, Crib Point to Hastings Township

Source: VicPlan and Symplan

Crib Point Jetty

Crib Point Jetty was constructed in 1964 to service the BP oil refinery that operated between

1965 and 1985.

Berth 1 at Crib Point Jetty is used by United Petroleum for unloading activities which typically

take place fortnightly. The FSRU and CPRF would be located at Berth 2 of Crib Point Jetty

which was last utilised in the late 1980’s. Public Access to Crib Point Jetty is prohibited.

Since the closure of the BP refinery in 1985, there has been a reduction in the utilisation of

port infrastructure for industrial purposes. At present Berths 1 and 2 at Crib Point Jetty are not

used continuously for industrial purposes.

Signage on boundary fence of land owned by Port of Hastings Development Authority

Crib Point Jetty


14 Symplan


The northern part of the Woolleys Beach Reserve North foreshore is accessed via a pedestrian

path leading from the Woolleys Beach Reserve North car park. This section of the foreshore is

used by the public to launch kayaks, for swimming and by people walking their dogs.

Pedestrian access to northern part of Woolleys Beach Reserve North

Crib Point Township

Crib Point Township is located approximately 1 kilometre south west of the Project Area.

There are five residential properties located along The Esplanade.

The strategic vision for Crib Point is it will continue to have the look, feel and function of a

country town on the coast, closely connected with its natural environment, with well treed

streets and roads and a mix of old and new dwellings.17

The land use structure in Crib Point is as follows (refer to Figure 4):

• Land to the immediate west of the Project Area is reserved for port-related facilities,

utilities and equipment storage.

• Land to the north of Crib Point, immediately west of the Project Area is used for farming

purposes.

• Recreational activities take place within Western Port, and along the foreshore to the

immediate east of the Project Area in Woolleys Reserves North and South.

Hastings Township

The vision for Hastings is it “will be the key centre for the Western Port district, providing new

development opportunities, while retaining the character of a ‘country town on the coast’”.18

The Plan seeks to shape future growth, land use and development of the Hastings town centre

to provide a more attractive, accessible, safe and sustainable town centre.

17 Crib Point Township Structure Plan Refresh https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Building-Planning/Strategic-Planning/Strategic-Planning-Projects/Crib-Point-Township-Plan-Refresh 18 Hastings Town Centre Structure Plan 2014 https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Building-Planning/Strategic-Planning/Strategic-Planning-Projects/Hastings-Town-Centre-Structure-Plan

https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Building-Planning/Strategic-Planning/Strategic-Planning-Projects/Crib-Point-Township-Plan-Refresh

https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Building-Planning/Strategic-Planning/Strategic-Planning-Projects/Crib-Point-Township-Plan-Refresh

https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Building-Planning/Strategic-Planning/Strategic-Planning-Projects/Hastings-Town-Centre-Structure-Plan

https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Building-Planning/Strategic-Planning/Strategic-Planning-Projects/Hastings-Town-Centre-Structure-Plan


15 Symplan


Land use patterns in Hastings Township proximate to the Project Area are as follows (refer to

Figure 4 and photographs below):

• Land to the immediate east of the Project Area is used for residential purposes.

• Hastings Town Centre, which functions as an important commercial and service centre,

is located to the east of the Project Area.

• The Hastings foreshore is used for recreational purposes.

• Land to the immediate west of the Project Area is used for both industrial and

residential purposes.

Level crossings control vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access across the train line in Hastings

Township.

Industrial uses, Hastings Township

Level crossing, High Street, Hastings Level crossing, Warringine Park, Hastings

Township


16 Symplan


Hastings Town Centre Hastings foreshore

Residential properties, Hastings Township

3.4 Amenity

3.4.1 General ambience

As noted in the EES SIA (p80), “…the people who use and/or care about Western Port and its

foreshore have become accustomed to a level of amenity which reflects a relatively low level

of utilisation of existing port infrastructure and industrial land at Crib Point.”

The foreshore is generally dark at night as existing activities and the relatively undeveloped

French Island result in minimal light spill originating from Western Port.


17 Symplan


The EES SIA at page 43 notes: “The local community enjoy the vista and tranquillity the area

provides and commonly visit the location at sunset. Woolleys Beach typically offers a quiet

and tranquil setting for visitors.”

The visual setting of the coastline, as viewed from Woolleys Beach Reserves North and South,

the HMAS Otama Lookout and the five residential properties on The Esplanade/Woolleys

Road during my site inspection on 3 August 2020 may be described as serene. Close to the

foreshore, sounds include waves lapping, birds tweeting and wind rustling through the trees.

Faint sounds from light vehicular traffic are audible from Woolleys Beach Reserves North and

South, and The Esplanade.

3.4.2 Visual setting

The Project Area’s visual setting is influenced by three landscape character areas comprising

coastal, urban, agricultural characteristics. The southern foothills of Dandenong Ranges form

distant views from Western Port. Expansive open views are available across Western Port

from within the local and regional passive and active recreation facilities.

I live in Melbourne, and regularly visit Western Port Bay when visiting family in the area. Living in a busy urban environment, having these visits to Western Port Bay provide a much needed break from noise, pollution, business, and highly developed and industrialised environments. Submitter No. 3757

Specific features of the Project Area’s visual setting, as described in the EES Chapter 14,

include the saltmarsh estuary, boat masts, distant hills, low density urban settlements, dense

vegetation, low scale light industrial uses and farmland. These features were visible during my

site inspection.

Existing port infrastructure, including Crib Point Jetty, are visible from The Esplanade and

Woolleys Beach Reserve North and South. Views of industrial uses in Western Port from the

residential properties along The Esplanade/Woolleys Road are filtered by dense mature

vegetation.

The visual setting of Crib Point is influenced by the area’s local industrial history. Views of this

infrastructure are obscured to some extent by dense mature vegetation.

Crib Point Jetty PoHDA Infrastructure

Esplande

The Esplanade


18 Symplan


Visual evidence of port-related activities, Crib Point

Open views to Western Port from Woolleys Beach Reserves North and South, the HMAS

Otama lookout point and The Esplanade are interrupted by Crib Point Jetty with distant views

towards the Dandenong Ranges and mid-range views towards the BlueScope Steel

infrastructure to the north of Crib Point Jetty. Visibility of industrial or commercial activity in

Western Port is minimal When Berth 1 at Crib Point Jetty is not being used by United

Petroleum.

The Esplanade

Disney Street


19 Symplan


Woolleys Beach Reserve North, looking north with views of Crib Point Jetty and BlueScope Steel

infrastructure

BlueScope Steel industrial infrastructure


20 Symplan


Woolleys Beach Reserve South looking north towards Crib Point Jetty

The shoreline at Woolleys Beach Reserves North and South is shaded by dense mature

vegetation. The wide and flat grassed areas, which are also partly shaded, include amenities

such as barbeques and toilets. The distance between these amenities on Woolleys Beach

Reserve North and the proposed CPRF is approximately 100m.

Mature vegetation and grassed areas, Woolleys Beach Reserve North


21 Symplan


Amenities Woolleys Beach Reserve North

The path between Woolleys Beach Reserve North and South is also shaded by dense, mature

vegetation with distant views to Western Port Bay.

Dense mature vegetation on walking track between Woolleys Beach Reserves North and South


22 Symplan


The view of HMAS Otama submarine from the lookout establishes an important link to the

Royal Australian Navy.

HMAS Otama Lookout

Looking south towards Crib Point Jetty

Looking north towards BlueScope Steel

Looking east towards HMAS Otama


23 Symplan


Western Port Bay is visible from number 103 The Esplanade, Crib Point.

View of Western Port Bay from residential properties along The Esplanade/Woolleys Road

3.5 Community profile

Appendix 6 provides a summary of key socio-economic indicators of the communities likely to

be directly impacted by the Project, relative to Mornington Peninsula Shire.

3.5.1 Population and population growth

Between 2021 and 2036 the communities of Hastings and Bittern-Crib Point are projected to

experience an increase in population of 15.6 per cent and 7.6 per cent respectively. The

projected population increase in Bittern-Crib Point in this period is the largest in Mornington

Peninsula Shire. This population increase is more than double in Bittern-Crib Point (15.6 per

cent) compared with Mornington Peninsula Shire (7.7 per cent).

3.5.2 Socio-economic and socio-spatial vulnerability

Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate the Project Area transverses the communities of Crib Point and

Hastings, both of which experience elevated levels of socio-economic and socio-spatial

vulnerability (vulnerability to transport and housing costs)


24 Symplan


Figure 5 – Project Area and SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage, 2006

Figure 6 – VAMPIRE index of socio-spatial vulnerability

Source: Aurin Map

The statistical area of Hastings-Somers (SA2) has high rates of overall poverty relative to

adjoining SA2s, with 17 per cent (2,700 people) living in poverty (refer to Figure 7).

Figure 7 – Overall rates of poverty, Hastings-Somers SA2

Source: Victorian Council of Social Services Poverty Maphttp://povertymaps.vcoss.org.au/

The pipeline would be both proximate to and transverse a concentration of social housing in

Hastings (refer to Figure 8).

http://povertymaps.vcoss.org.au/


25 Symplan


Figure 8 – Percentage of households renting social housing, 2016

Source: ABS Census of Population and Housing, 2016, compiled by i.d consulting

Relative to Mornington Peninsula Shire, the communities of Hastings and Crib Point-Bittern

have high proportions of one parent families with children, Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander People, unemployment rate and low educational attainment.

Compared with Mornington Peninsula Shire, Hastings in particular displays greater

vulnerability, demonstrated by the following:

• highest level of socio-economic disadvantage and lowest median income

• higher proportions of people renting social housing, households in housing stress

• almost double the proportion of people on welfare payments

• highest proportion of children with vulnerability on two or more domains


26 Symplan


3.6 Community facilities

Section 6.2.3 of the EES, SIA, Technical Report M, discusses the location and type of the

community facilities along the alignment of the Project Area. These include a mixture of

schools, recreation facilities, community hubs, tourist facilities and aged care facilities (refer to

Figure 9).

Figure 9 – Social and community infrastructure, Crib Point and Hasting

Source: EES Technical Report M


27 Symplan


4 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT This section discusses the potential social impacts associated with the Project. Appendices 7

and 8 provide greater details on the framework and concepts underpinning the social impact

assessment in this section.

Section 4.1 discusses the various social impact assessment considerations which form the

basis for the type of impact and impact rating assigned to each potential social impact

discussed in Section 4.2.

Section 4.2 includes a critique of relevant components of the EES.

Extracts from specific submissions have been included throughout Section 4. A detailed

commentary on points raised in the submissions is provided in Section 4.3.

4.1 Social impact assessment framework and considerations

This section describes the theory underpinning the social impact assessment considerations

which form the framework of the social impact assessment in Section 4.2.

The discussion in this section is drawn from a literature review of academic and scientific

research, and the principles and values underpinning social impact assessment.

4.1.1 Fears and aspirations regarding health and safety, and the natural environment

This social impact assessment consideration focuses on the community’s fears regarding their

health and wellbeing, and their future of their natural environment.

Health and wellbeing encompass a person’s physical, mental, social and spiritual wellbeing

and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.19 Wellbeing goes beyond physical health –

it relates to physical, natural, economic and social environments supporting individuals’

physical, mental, emotional, social, cultural, spiritual and economic needs and their ability to

achieve their potential. 20 These principles underpin the social model of health which

acknowledges the human environment encompasses more than just the physical.

Mental and physical health and wellbeing are determined by the real or perceived level of

hazard or risk, and the integrity of the natural resources providing the setting for healthy

lifestyle activities.

I am a long-term permanent resident living in Cowes, Phillip Island. I have also been a registered psychologist for over 40 years, and a Fellow of The Australian Psychological Society. On the basis of my psychology qualifications and experience in dealing with mental health and wellbeing issues over many years, I write this submission with a focus on the social and human impact of the AGL proposal for the floating regasification and storage unit (FRSU) at Crib Point in Westernport Bay. More specifically, I am professionally concerned about the specific mental health status of residents living in the areas surrounding Westernport Bay that is currently being affected by Covid-19, and will continue to be exacerbated during the proposed construction and long-term operation of the FRSU. Submitter No. 1476

19 World Health Organisation Constitution https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/constitution 20 Heritage, A. Tissot, A. and Manerjee, B. (undated) Heritage and Wellbeing: What Constitutes a Good Life? International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property https://www.iccrom.org/projects/heritage-and-wellbeing-what-constitutes-good-life

https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/constitution

https://www.iccrom.org/projects/heritage-and-wellbeing-what-constitutes-good-life



28 Symplan


Environmental conditions such as pollution which sever ‘healthy’ links between people and

their environments can have a negative impact on their mental and physical wellbeing.21

Section 4.3.4 provides a detailed discussion of the community’s sentiments towards the

Project.

Community sentiment and social risk

Social risk is “both the objective threat of harm and the subjective perception of risk for

harm”.22 Although perceived risk may not be directly related to actual risk or the probabilities

of actual harm23, it influences people’s responses to proposals.

Fear of real or perceived risk is an important consideration when assessing the potential social

impacts of a project on health and safety as it can cause health issues such as anxiety and can

compromise their health and wellbeing. 24. It is therefore important to accept perceptions of

risk can have real effects on people’s behaviour and health, regardless of whether the

perceptions are grounded in evidence or supported by natural science. The impacts of risk

misperceptions must therefore be understood and quantified in terms of costs and benefits in

the same way as the physical hazard. Further, appropriate strategies must be implemented to

reduce this risk.25

In the context of the Project, social risk is understood to relate to the community’s attitudes

towards the potential impact of the Project on the integrity of the Western Port Ramsar

wetlands site, and the potential risks to their health and safety associated with the operation

of the FSRU, pipeline, LNG carriers and CPRF.

Recent events can evoke perceptions of fear when people identify with similar circumstances.

The recent explosion in Beirut which caused both death and injury to nearby residents, and

bushfires during the summer of 2019-20 have exacerbated perceptions of risk within the

communities living in and using the facilities in the Project area.

Table 2 summarises the potential threats to marine values associated with changes to baseline

conditions (highlighted in grey).

21 Albrecht, G et al (2007) “Solastalgia: the distress caused by environmental change” Australasian Psychiatry Vol 15 Supplement 22 Herek, G., Capitanio, J., Widaman, K. (2008 – unpublished draft) “Stigma, Social Risk and Health Policy: Public Attitudes Towards HIV Surveillance Policies and the Social Construction of Illness” To be published in Health Psychology 22(5) 533-540 p2 of unpublished draft 23 Herek, G., Capitanio, J., Widaman, K. (2008 – unpublished draft) “Stigma, Social Risk and Health Policy: Public Attitudes Towards HIV Surveillance Policies and the Social Construction of Illness” To be published in Health Psychology 22(5) 533-540 p2 of unpublished draft 24 Albrecht, G et al (2007) “Solastalgia: the distress caused by environmental change” Australasian Psychiatry Vol 15 Supplement 25 Ropeik D. (2004). “The consequences of fear”. EMBO reports, 5 Spec No(Suppl 1), S56–S60. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400228


29 Symplan


Table 2 – Threats to marine values

Threat class

Threat pathway/ outcome

Marine value

Bio

div

ers

ity

Sea

Co

un

try

No

n-A

bo

rigi

nal

he

rita

ge

Co

asta

l de

velo

pm

en

t

Tou

rism

an

d r

ecr

eat

ion

Fish

eri

es

Po

rts

and

sh

ipp

ing

Ene

rgy

and

ear

th r

eso

urc

es

Climate change

Altered oceanography (currents, waves, wind)

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Sea level rise ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Ocean warming ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Ocean acidification ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Increased storm frequency ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Increased hot, dry weather ● ● ● ● ● ●

Physical processes

Habitat loss/degradation ● ● ● ● ●

Trampling ● ● ● ● ●

Erosion ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Site degradation/destruction ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Corrosion/decomposition of built assets ● ● ● ● ● ●

Exposure caused by waves and wind ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Biological processes

Pathogens ● ● ● ●

Introduced species/marine pests ● ● ● ● ● ●

Overabundant native species ● ● ● ●

Range-expanding species ● ● ● ● ● ●

Food web disruption/collapse ● ● ● ● ●

Harvesting/bycatch ● ● ● ●

Behavioural alteration ● ● ●

Recruitment failure ● ● ● ●

Altered species abundance/distribution ● ● ● ● ●

Catchment processes

Altered hydrological regimes/freshwater flows

● ● ● ● ● ●

Sedimentation ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Pollution Marine debris/litter ● ● ● ● ● ●

Chemicals/heavy metals/oil ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Nutrients ● ● ● ● ● ●

Light ● ●

Noise ● ● ● ●


30 Symplan


Threat class

Threat pathway/ outcome

Marine value

Bio

div

ers

ity

Sea

Co

un

try

No

n-A

bo

rigi

nal

he

rita

ge

Co

asta

l de

velo

pm

en

t

Tou

rism

an

d r

ecr

eat

ion

Fish

eri

es

Po

rts

and

sh

ipp

ing

Ene

rgy

and

ear

th r

eso

urc

es

Community and industry demand

Expansion of industry ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Demand for tourism ● ● ● ● ● ●

Sector competition over resources ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Recreational access/crowding ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Technology development/obsolescence ● ● ● ● ● ●

Safety risk ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Access to coastal land ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Social licence ● ● ● ● ●

Complex regulatory requirements/altered controls

● ● ● ● ● ●

Commercial viability ● ● ● ● ●

Source: VEAC (2019) Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment

The use of qualifying phrases in various documents throughout the EES such as ‘where

possible’ does not allay fears various management plans would be effective in avoiding,

minimising or offsetting the risks to the potential health, safety and wellbeing of the

community or the natural environment of the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site. Further,

use of words and phrases such as ‘depend’, ‘frequent’ and ‘up to’ do not provide clarification

of the potential impact e.g. “Nitrogen deliveries would occur at frequent intervals throughout

the year to the Crib Point Receiving Facility. During these periods, it is anticipated up to five

truck deliveries would occur daily (10 two-way movements) with the potential for two trucks

to be located at the facility at one time. Odorant deliveries originating from inner Melbourne

would depend on the volume of gas vaporised by the FSRU and is not expected to be more

frequent than every two months (Chapter 15 Transport, pages 15-19).”

Western Port Bay and its surrounds were described as serene, tranquil, beautiful, unique,

pristine, diverse, complex, sacred, important, popular, precious, sanctuary, fragile, wild,

internationally significant, rare, untarnished, unspoilt, well preserved, undisturbed, special,

clean and healthy, significant, wonderful, gorgeous, raw and natural beauty, magical, happy

place, marine wonderland, free of pollution, gorgeous, irreplaceable, safe environment, iconic

and impeccable.

Particular values ascribed to Western Port Bay were that it is a special and crucial

environment, backyard, hub for community activities, home from home, jewel of the

Peninsula, deep spiritual importance, tourism dependent, calming place, source of joy, quiet

place, beating heart of the Peninsula.


31 Symplan


In many instances these expressions were emotive, conveying feelings of anger, sadness and

fear:

Anger

I was outraged when I heard a spokesman for AGL claiming that this project has widespread community support. Submitter No. 1016

How dare they. Submitter No. 1055

It’s criminal. Submitter No. 1075

This won’t end well and I truly pity any politician involved as the local anger is palpable. Submitter No. 2011

Sadness

If this were to go ahead, I would not only be incredibly disappointed but deeply heartbroken. Submitter No. 2991

The thought of our coast neighbours being literally faced with the enormous floating factory brings pain. The immediate and lasting impact on people will be a sense of loss of place, one of grief, weighing heavily and this being both strangely ignored by AGL in the EES. Submitter No. 2992

This area is close to my heart for so many reasons. An iconic part of Melbourne and a source of joy and a home for many - humans and wildlife alike. The thought of it’s [sic] beauty and the ecosystem being jeopardised breaks my heart. Submitter No. 3006

My heart breaks at the thought of the destruction the gas terminal might do to our marine life, and the wider environment. Submitter No. 3018

When I heart that AGL was proposing to build an FSRU at Crib Point, Westernport Bay with a connecting 60km pipeline to Pakenham, I was heartbroken. Submitter No. 3118

It makes me sad to think that cold, chlorinated water will be pumped into the water, to facilitate the gas. It makes me sad to think that the families who live in Crib Point will be impacted by noise, visual eyesores and living within a blast zone. It makes me sad to think that roads that are already under stress and full of pot holes will be damaged more by the huge trucks that will visit the small townships, while making chemical deliveries. It makes me sad to think small and vulnerable communities can be ‘paid off’ with promises of community grants. Submitter No. 3023

I was deeply saddened when I learnt about AGL’s Gas Import Terminal proposal. Submitter No. 3034

The thought of this terminal is soul destroying. Submitter No. 1426

Fear

I have grave fears that AGL's plans for a gas import terminal at Crib Point will cause an environmental disaster in the Bay. Submitter No. 3056

I fear this will have a severe impact on access and angling within the Port, leading to reduction in enjoyment and use of the area for many. Submitter No. 2216

For the past 50 years I have lived, sailed, walked around, and studied the pristine waters, natural bush land and the unique wetlands and mangroves that fringe our bay and I am extremely anxious that this is now going to be under serious threat. Submitter No. 958

I am a concerned parent of two adult daughters who have grave fears for the future liveability of the planet given the looming climate crisis and they are seriously considering whether they should bring children into the world. Submitter No. 1089


32 Symplan


I am very worried about Australia's animals, after the bushfires this year. I feel so stressed by the loss of our animals and nature. Please think carefully and put AGL somewhere else, not here. Think of our young Australians. What will be left for them? Submitter No. 641

This is potential for catastrophic disaster. Submitter No. 1016

Potential impacts of the Project on the community’s aspirations for the future included the

following:

What do we want to enjoy ourselves, and what do we pass on to our children… Clean water? Fresh air? Healthy earth, and produce from the earth?? Not likely with the out of control pollution and environmental changes occurring as a result of over use and abuse…Submitter No. 1085

What do we want? We want to be listened to. We want fair process. We want to address climate change for the future of our children and all living things. We want to divest from fossil fuels. We want to protect Westernport from all heavy industry. We want AGL to invest in renewable energy and not lock us into more fossil fuel use for decades to come. Submitter No. 2623

Noise

Noise is defined as unwanted sound.26 While noise is typically used to assess impacts on

amenity, environmental noise is a threat to public health and compromises human health and

wellbeing. 27,28 It can disturb sleep, cause cardiovascular and psychophysiological effects,

reduce performance and provoke annoyance responses and changes in social behaviour.”29

Noise can also affect cognitive performance30; and seriously interfere with people’s daily

activities at school, at work, at home and during leisure time.31 Noise can also result in feelings

such as resentment, displeasure, discomfort, dissatisfaction and offence.32

Planning and development activities should therefore address environmental noise and

measures should be promoted to reduce environmental noise and its health impacts.33

At present residents in Crib Point are exposed to noise associated with the existing industrial

activity at Crib Point Jetty.

Living close by to the proposed terminal, I am kept up at night by the hum of ships that currently dock there. Regularly, the hum emanates throughout the whole neighbourhood all night. Similarly at times, we can also hear the terminal in Hastings. The noise from the recent ship at Woolleys' Beach was so loud all evening that the hum permeated my room, and despite the house's insulation, could be heard under duvets and with pillows over my head. There are

26 Department of Health (2018) The health effects of environmental noise Publication 12214 Commonwealth of Australia https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/A12B57E41EC9F326CA257BF0001F9E7D/$File/health-effects-Environmental-Noise-2018.pdf 27 Department of Health (2018) The health effects of environmental noise Publication 12214 Commonwealth of Australia https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/A12B57E41EC9F326CA257BF0001F9E7D/$File/health-effects-Environmental-Noise-2018.pdf 28 http://www.euro.who.int/en/health- topics/environment-and-health/noise/publications/2009/night-noise-guidelines-for-europe 29 http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise 30 Department of Health (2018) The health effects of environmental noise Publication 12214 Commonwealth of Australia https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/A12B57E41EC9F326CA257BF0001F9E7D/$File/health-effects-Environmental-Noise-2018.pdf 31 http://www.euro.who.int/en/health- topics/environment-and-health/noise/publications/2009/night-noise-guidelines-for-europe 32 Department of Health (2018) The health effects of environmental noise Publication 12214 Commonwealth of Australia https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/A12B57E41EC9F326CA257BF0001F9E7D/$File/health-effects-Environmental-Noise-2018.pdf 33 Department of Health and Ageing (2004) The health effects of environmental noise – other than hearing Commonwealth of Australia loss” http://enhealth.nphp.gov.au/council/pubs/pubs.htm

https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/A12B57E41EC9F326CA257BF0001F9E7D/$File/health-effects-Environmental-Noise-2018.pdf




http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise






33 Symplan


many houses close to this terminal. I anticipate the sound would affect many. Submitter No. 1020

Further research indicates groups may face even greater risks from exposure to environmental

noise because of where they live, work and recreate. These groups include people with visual

or hearing impairment, babies and children and older people and people with mental health

conditions.34,35 The Project area is located in close proximity to schools, aged care facilities, a

community centre and recreational facilities.

On the other hand, natural background sounds such as wind rustling in the trees, waves

crashing on a beach and birds singing can be seen as enjoyable or wanted.36 The FSRU and

CPRF would be located in a setting which is currently characterised by these natural

background sounds.

Light pollution

Population growth and associated development and densification of urban areas increases

artificial light emissions into the environment. Sky glow is a form of light pollution.37

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating the unintended ecological and

astronomical impacts of outdoor light pollution, and the potential impacts of overexposure to

artificial light on human sleep and health.38 Disruption of the circadian clock is linked to

several medical disorders in humans, including depression, insomnia, cardiovascular disease

and cancer.39 Light pollution can alter behaviours, foraging areas and breeding cycles of fauna

in both urban centres and rural areas.40

The construction and operation stages of the Project would result in light pollution affecting

residents, passersby and fauna. The operation of the FSRU, CPRF and LNG carriers would

result in permanent light pollution in Crib Point.

Air pollution

Dust associated with construction activities includes particulate matter (PM). Principal air

pollutants from air emissions sources associated with LNG liquefaction terminals and

regasification activities typically include nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon

dioxide (CO2), and in case of sour gases, sulphur dioxide (SO2).41

Pollutants with the strongest evidence for public health concern, include particulate matter

(PM), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulphur dioxide (SO2).42

34 Department of Health (2018) The health effects of environmental noise Publication 12214 Commonwealth of Australia https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/A12B57E41EC9F326CA257BF0001F9E7D/$File/health-effects-Environmental-Noise-2018.pdf 35 Department of Health and Ageing (2004) The health effects of environmental noise – other than hearing Commonwealth of Australia loss” http://enhealth.nphp.gov.au/council/pubs/pubs.htm 36 Department of Health (2018) The health effects of environmental noise Publication 12214 Commonwealth of Australia https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/A12B57E41EC9F326CA257BF0001F9E7D/$File/health-effects-Environmental-Noise-2018.pdf 37 Missing the Dark. Health Effects of Light Pollution volume 117 | number 1 | January 2009 • Environmental Health Perspectives 38 Christopher, CM. et al (undated) “Artificially lit surface of Earth at night increasing in radiance and extent” ScienceAdvances Sci Adv 3 (11), e1701528. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1701528 [accessed Downloaded from http://advances.sciencemag.org/ on July 27, 2020] 39 Missing the Dark. Health Effects of Light Pollution volume 117 | number 1 | January 2009 • Environmental Health Perspectives 40 Missing the Dark. Health Effects of Light Pollution volume 117 | number 1 | January 2009 • Environmental Health Perspectives 41 World Bank Group (2017) Environmental, health and safety guidelines for Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/ab72db72-736a-43e7-8c81-f2d749ec3ad1/20170406-FINAL+LNG+EHS+Guideline_April+2017.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=lJuCgVs 42 https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/





https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/ab72db72-736a-43e7-8c81-f2d749ec3ad1/20170406-FINAL+LNG+EHS+Guideline_April+2017.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=lJuCgVs

https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/ab72db72-736a-43e7-8c81-f2d749ec3ad1/20170406-FINAL+LNG+EHS+Guideline_April+2017.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=lJuCgVs

https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/


34 Symplan


The health risks associated with particulate matter of less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter

(PM10 and PM2.5) are especially well documented. PM is capable of penetrating deep into lung

passageways and entering the bloodstream causing cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and

respiratory impacts. PM is classified as a cause of lung cancer by WHO’s International Agency

for Research on Cancer.

In children and adults, both short- and long-term exposure to ambient air pollution can lead to

reduced lung function, respiratory infections and aggravated asthma. Maternal exposure to

ambient air pollution is associated with adverse birth outcomes, such as low birth weight, pre-

term birth and small gestational age births. Emerging evidence also suggests ambient air

pollution may affect diabetes and neurological development in children.43 PM is therefore the

most widely used indicator to assess the health effects from exposure to ambient air

pollution.44

Water pollution

Water pollution, which refers to unwanted materials entering water sources, changes the

quality of water.

Water pollution can affect both surface water bodies such as oceans and rivers, and

groundwater. Surface water pollution occurs when industries eliminate their wastes into seas

while groundwater pollution occurs when hazardous chemicals eliminated on the surface seep

into the ground by rainwater.45 Chemicals are the most common water contaminants and

affect both surface and groundwater sources.46

Water pollution has a detrimental impact on human and terrestrial and marine fauna and

flora. It can disrupt the food chain and compromise ecosystems. 47

The construction and operation of the Project has the potential to impact human health and

the environment as a result of disturbance and inappropriate handling, storage and disposal of

groundwater and marine sediments (EES Chapter 10 Contamination and Sulphate Soils page

10-1).

Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change

Climate is an integral part of ecosystem functioning and human health is impacted directly and

indirectly by results of climatic conditions upon terrestrial and marine ecosystems. 48

Climate change, which is partly due to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, is responsible

for changes in precipitation levels and extreme heat waves. These cause events such as floods,

fires and droughts, all of which affect human health and wellbeing, livelihoods and the health

of the natural environment.

The burning of fossil fuels such as gas, and the release of carbon dioxide associated with

vehicles and industrial activities result in the release of greenhouse gases into the air.

Greenhouse gases have far-ranging environmental and health effects by causing climate

change and contributing to respiratory disease from smog and air pollution.49

43 https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/ 44 https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/ 45 https://www.fairplanet.org/story/types-and-effects-of-water-pollution/ 46 https://www.fairplanet.org/story/types-and-effects-of-water-pollution/ 47 https://www.fairplanet.org/story/types-and-effects-of-water-pollution/ 48 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/biodiversity-and-health 49 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/greenhouse-gases/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution/




35 Symplan


The Environment Protection Authority raised concerns with the predicted level of greenhouse

gases associated with the Project.

The actual impact of GHG emissions could be quite different to what is being predicted, because the final operational modes selected for the Project may be a combination of open and closed loop, the duration of each being currently undecided. EPA considers that the scenario regarding a complete loss of containment to surface waters (for example, in a catastrophic event where significant and uncontrolled LNG discharge may occur to marine waters over a short period of time) would be likely to have a corresponding amount of related uncontrolled GHG emissions and discharge to air. EPA considers that complete loss of containment and appropriate mitigation measures in relation to this element has not been adequately addressed by the Proponent. Submitter No. 2671

Biodiversity

Biodiversity provides a sense of place and is fundamental to the economic prosperity and the

physical and mental health of all Victorians.50 Interacting with nature contributes to a

reduction in chronic disease risk factors, increases social inclusion, improves mental health

and builds strong communities.51

The natural environment contributes to the liveability of our cities and communities and to

the resilience of individuals, institutions, businesses and systems.52 Healthy terrestrial and

marine environmental biodiversity provides ecosystem services crucial to human wellbeing at

present and in the future. The management of natural resources can determine the baseline

health status of a community. Land use change, pollution, poor water quality, chemical and

waste contamination, climate change and other causes of ecosystem degradation all

contribute to biodiversity loss and can pose considerable threats to human health.53

The Western Port Ramsar wetlands site in which the Project will operate is internationally

recognised due to its biodiversity.

Threats to fisheries include poor water quality, invasive species and diseases.54

Stormwater carrying nutrients, sediments and pollutants threatens biodiversity and

recreational uses of marine environments.55 Key threats to terrestrial and marine biodiversity

associated with the Project include habitat loss and degradation and pollution.56

4.1.2 Way of life

This social impact assessment consideration focuses on the potential for a project to alter

access to the local resources, services, facilities and amenities used daily by residents and

visitors to the area. It assesses how a project may affect the way a community lives, works,

engages in physical activity and interacts with one another on a day to day basis.

The extent to which a proposal will affect a community’s way of life, and therefore its health

and wellbeing, is determined by the community’s resilience to threats and change.

50 DELWP Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 51 DELWP Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 52 DELWP Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 53 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/biodiversity-and-health 54 VEAC (2019) Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC%20Marine%20Environment%20SUMMARY%20DOC.pdf 55 VEAC (2019) Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC%20Marine%20Environment%20SUMMARY%20DOC.pdf 56 VEAC (2019) Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC%20Marine%20Environment%20SUMMARY%20DOC.pdf

http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC%20Marine%20Environment%20SUMMARY%20DOC.pdf




36 Symplan


Community resilience

Community resilience is the capacity of a community to adapt to change and cope with

potential threats to their mental and physical health and wellbeing. It also refers to the

community’s ability to recover and return to normal after dealing with these threats.

Community resilience is an important social impact assessment consideration in a context

where the proposal is likely to have significant impacts on disadvantaged communities

experiencing multiple and complex vulnerabilities, and where the resources available to

address their vulnerabilities are scarce.

The following factors determine a community’s resilience:

• Physical and environmental context i.e. the relative proximity to factors potentially

strengthening or jeopardising their mental and physical health and wellbeing.

• Socio-spatial and socio-economic vulnerability which affects their social mobility,

economic participation and opportunities to replace what is potentially compromised by a

project.

Community resilience is facilitated through the following means:

• Provision of information about the nature of changes and possible impacts.

• Protection, as far as practicable, of existing resources, services, programs and facilities

supporting their daily lives, social inclusion, and health and wellbeing.

• Minimising the impact of proposed changes to their physical, social and economic

environment.

The communities of Crib Point and Hastings are currently experiencing socio-economic and

socio-spatial vulnerability. Hastings and Crib Point – Bittern have a higher population density,

with Crib Point-Bittern projected to experience the highest population growth in Mornington

Peninsula Shire. Socio-economic and socio-spatial vulnerability compromises a community’s

resilience and capacity to cope with threats to their health and wellbeing and community

resources as they are likely to be experiencing stressors such as unemployment, reduced

income, compromised physical health, reduced mobility, lower educational attainment and

low proficiency in English. Overall, these factors demonstrate the importance of access to high

quality public open space as a means for optimising health and wellbeing.

I grew up in the sleepy seaside town of Hastings on the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria….My mum took me to the mangroves to teach me that there is more to our natural world than the burgeoning local housing developments. Additionally, these mangroves were particularly important to us as we lived in a housing commission area. Playing out the front of our house was sometimes unsafe due to the unpredictable nature of our neighbours who were often violent or sought conflict, so naturally, having a local retreat to the mangroves nearby helped my Mum to know we would be able to play safely just a few blocks away in our local Warringine Park. Submitter No. 2872


37 Symplan


Physical activity

Time spent in natural spaces is linked to positive long-term health outcomes. Visits to parks

are estimated to save Victoria between $80 million and $200 million per year from avoidance

of disease, mortality and lost productivity. 57 Physical activity enables people to recover from

injuries and illnesses, and has been found to address mental health issues such as

depression.58

I walk on the shores of Westernport Bay every day and I am filled with calm and delight. This time is a large part of my daily mindfulness practice. Submitter No. 1767

In 2019, recreational walking was the most popular form of adult recreation in Victoria, with

44.9 per cent of adults reporting they had engaged in recreational walking. Bush walking was

the sixth most popular form of recreation in Victoria with 6.1 per cent of adults reporting they

had engaged in bushwalking (refer to Figure 10).

Figure 10 – Participation by activity (top 15 activities), Victorian adults, 2019 (%)

Source: Sport Australia (2020)

The natural environment contributes to the liveability of our cities and communities and to

the resilience of individuals, institutions, businesses and systems.59

Perceptions of risk and reduced amenity may discourage residents and visitors to the Project

area from using the recreational infrastructure. This may reduce physical and leisure activities,

and negatively impact health and wellbeing.

The potential loss of natural environments and access to green spaces contribute to psychological distress and grief experienced by communities who place significance on these areas. This is particularly relevant to local Indigenous groups who place significant spiritual significance on this area. To go ahead with this project could detrimentally impact on the long-term mental health of a community which already experiences a significant burden of health due to psychosocial challenges. Submitter No. 2001 (medical practitioner)

It would be bad for the health of the crib point [sic] community particularly those living nearby: noise and light pollution have both been shown to significantly impact human mental health; stress-reducing recreational visits to Woolleys Beach and Warrangine Park would be prevented. Submitter No. 907

57 DELWP Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 58 https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/physical-activity-its-important 59 DELWP Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037

44.9%

37.8%

16.7% 14.1% 12.8%6.1% 5.6% 5.6% 4.7% 4.5% 4.4% 4.3% 4.2% 3.4% 2.9%

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/physical-activity-its-important


38 Symplan


Amenity

For the purposes of this SIA, amenity involves three distinguishable factors:

• The relative pleasantness of engaging in tasks and activities undertaken in the physical

and natural environment.

• The community’s ability and opportunity to enjoy a land use, facility or property.

• The community’s ability to move within their environment and attend to their daily

activities.

The assessment of project’s potential impact on amenity is both objective and subjective. Real

changes such as extent of land to be acquired, variations in noise levels and traffic volumes

can be quantified scientifically whilst perceived changes are described in a subjective and

qualitative way, depending on an individual’s experience, meanings and significance attached

to the changes60, and the impact on the intrinsic values and usability of the community

resource. Furthermore, perceived impacts and changes are strongly influenced by the extent

of community understanding of the likely changes and impacts associated with the

construction and operation of similar infrastructure projects.

In the context of this SIA, amenity would be determined and affected by the following factors:

• Changes to real and perceived levels of convenience, safety and security associated with

air pollution, noise and vibration and water pollution during construction and operation.

• Changes to the visual setting associated with views and light spill.

In the submissions, the amenity characteristics of Western Port Bay were described as serene,

tranquil, beautiful, unique, pristine, diverse, complex, sacred, important, popular, precious,

sanctuary, fragile, wild, internationally significant, rare, untarnished, unspoilt, well preserved,

undisturbed, special, clean and healthy, significant, wonderful, gorgeous, raw and natural

beauty, magical, happy place, marine wonderland, free of pollution, gorgeous, irreplaceable,

safe environment, iconic, impeccable

The visual setting of an area has both direct and indirect social, economic and health and

wellbeing benefits. The local community and visitors place value on the iconic nature of the

Project Area’s visual setting which provides diverse opportunities to engage in physical activity

and socialising. Visiting the beach is the top activity for both overnight and daytrip visitors in

Mornington Peninsula Shire (82 per cent and 59 per cent respectively).61

The Project involves the permanent mooring and operation of an FSRU, permanent presence

of the CPRF and regular mooring of LNG carriers. The height of the FSRU equates to a

commercial building of approximately 13 storeys and a residential building of approximately

17 storeys.62 The FSRU will therefore become the dominant feature along the horizon viewed

from the foreshore and users of Woolleys Beach North and South, and the HMAS Otama

Lookout Point. This permanent change to visual amenity is acknowledged by the EES SIA in

Technical Report M which states “The Gas Import Jetty Works would intensify the ‘industrial’

visual character of the immediate environs of the Crib Point Jetty. Lighting from the FSRU, LNG

60 Burge, R. et al (2004) The Concepts, Process and Methods of Social Impact Assessment Social Ecology Press, Wisconsin p95 61 https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/About-Us/Business-Economy/Tourism-Visitor-Economy 62 https://www.victoria.ca/assets/Departments/Planning~Development/Community~Planning/Local~Area~Planning/Fairfield~Gonzales/Fairfield~Growth~Survey/PDF%20How%20tall%20is%20a%20building%20storey.pdf


https://www.victoria.ca/assets/Departments/Planning~Development/Community~Planning/Local~Area~Planning/Fairfield~Gonzales/Fairfield~Growth~Survey/PDF%20How%20tall%20is%20a%20building%20storey.pdf



39 Symplan


Carrier and Crib Point Receiving Facility would result in ‘highly detectable alterations’ to views

from several vantage points near Crib Point”.

The photographs below illustrate the changes to the views of Crib Point Jetty from the HMAS

Otama Lookout Point and Woolleys Beach Reserve North associated with the FSRU. 63

View of FSRU from HMAS Lookout, before and after

63 ‘Before’ photos sourced from EES Chapter 14, Landscape and visual

Before

After


40 Symplan


View of FSRU from Woolleys Beach Reserve North, before and after

The assessment of visual amenity in the context of this SIA is based on the following factors:

• The international significance of the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site.

• The role the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site plays in the overall amenity of the

residents and visitors to the area.

• The permanence of the infrastructure to be located in the Western Port Ramsar wetlands

site.

Before

After


41 Symplan


• The geographic extent within which the Project infrastructure is likely to be visible.

• The time frame during which the permanent infrastructure will be located in the Western

Port Ramsar wetlands site.

Accessibility

In the context of this SIA accessibility refers to the relative ability of people, regardless of their

mobility or level of disadvantage, to reach essential services and facilities. It differs from

mobility which is the movement of people and goods. Accessibility is influenced by two key

factors, namely displacement and community severance.

Community severance

Community severance is the separation of residential and community access to resources and

facilities64. It is caused by compromised convenience, and real and perceived safety and

amenity65 due to changes in traffic flow, road closures or diversions and alterations to public

transport routes and timetables. Community severance affects all forms of public, private and

active transport.

Community severance also occurs when access to a public resource such as beach is removed.

This severance may be real or perceived. Real community severance occurs when a portion of

the public asset becomes privatised. Perceived community severance occurs when access to

privately owned land, which has been used by the public for many years, is removed due to

factors such as a change in land use or a change in ownership.

Community severance may be temporary or short term, occurring during construction, or

permanent or long term, occurring during the operation of the proposal. The extent of

community severance is experienced differently depending on people’s relative mobility and

changes in travel patterns attributed to the proposal.

Displacement

Displacement results when an individual or community’s ability to make use of existing

services and facilities is compromised by a reduction in safety, amenity or convenience. It may

affect individual residents and visitors’ access to community facilities, recreation areas, public

transport, or activities such as walking and cycling.66

Permanent displacement may result from the demolition or removal of a community facility,

service or resource caused by the implementation of the proposal. Temporary displacement

which may occur during construction can be reversed through the reinstatement or roads,

public transport routes, shared paths, recreational and social infrastructure.

Community severance associated with resources used by the public can result in

displacement.

An increase in traffic during construction and operation, particularly on local roads, can

detract from perceptions of safety and cause inconvenience which may result in displacement.

64 Department of Sustainability, Victorian State Government (2006) Ministerial guidelines for assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 p7 65 Mindell, J and Karlsen, S (2012) “Community Severance and Health: What Do We Actually Know? Journal of Urban Health 89 (2): 232-246 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3324603/ 12

66 Developed from Department of Sustainability, Victorian State Government (2006) Ministerial guidelines for assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 p7


42 Symplan


We have two primary schools, two milk bars, a petrol station and a post office. We have a Maritime Centre and a museum housing Royal and Merchant Navy artefacts and we have the nearby HMAS Cerberus Naval Base which supports many families who live within the community. We also have a unique railway line that is not electrified, which extends from the Frankston city suburban passenger network and has two stations in Crib Point – and also serves the steel mill at nearby Hastings. The main streets of Crib Point have path-ways, on one or both sides of the road, however most of the remaining roads are bordered only by grass verges. We do not have traffic lights, pedestrian crossings or major roundabouts in Crib Point. Young children ride their bikes to their primary school and play safely on their billie carts in the streets. We have been informed that AGL anticipate up to 900 tanker trucks per year will be travelling along Eastlink motorway, Coolart and Frankston/Flinders Roads, into Crib Point, carrying Nitrogen and other chemicals required in the processing of gas at the proposed beach-side site at Crib Point. The safety risks involved in this venture are completely inappropriate and unacceptable to the Crib Point community and surrounding neighbourhood - not only concerning initial construction but also the future management of the project. Submitter No. 1852

EES Technical Report M Social acknowledged on page 59, “The operational phase of the Gas

Import Jetty Works would result in permanent changes to the amenity of areas in close

proximity to the Works”. This document acknowledges further on page 60: “Woolleys Beach is

a locally significant foreshore area and there are no other foreshore reserve locations in the

local area which offer comparable amenity”. Mitigation measure MM-SO02 indicates the

operation of the Project will result in displacement of recreational activity from Woolleys

Beach North. These factors have implications on the potential impact of the Project on

displacement and amenity.

Place attachment

Place attachment is defined as ‘human bonding to a specific physical environment.67 Place

attachment is not static, varying over time as communities grow and change. It is a function of

what matters to people about their community, and the physical attributes connecting people

to the place and each other. Place attachment is therefore influenced by the relative amenity

of an area or resource.

Place attachment develops through personal interaction and involvement with the physical

environment68. It results in places creating meanings at an individual and community level,

and allowing people to feel comfortable and secure within their physical environment. It is a

fundamental component of a person’s quality of life.

Environmental changes can result in solastalgia which is the distress associated with

compromised place attachment and a sense of powerlessness over the unfolding change

process.69

The concept of place attachment has two overlapping dimensions:

• Emotional or social dimension. The emotional or social dimension comprises memories,

ideas, feelings, attitudes, values, preferences, emotions and conceptions of behaviour and

67 Vorkinn M. and Riese, H. (2001) “Environmental Concern in a Local Context: The Significance of Place Attachment” Environment and Behavior Vol 33 p249 68 Vorkinn M. and Riese, H. (2001) “Environmental Concern in a Local Context: The Significance of Place Attachment” Environment and Behavior Vol 33 p250 69 Albrecht, G et al (2007) “Solastalgia: the distress caused by environmental change” Australasian Psychiatry Vol 15 Supplement


43 Symplan


experience related to the physical environment.70 This dimension refers to the role a place

plays in providing opportunities to meet and bond with people who share the space.71

Social attachment is greater than physical attachment.72 The Western Port Ramsar

wetlands site has a strong social and emotional dimension due to its environmental

values. Any further threats to this environmental asset are therefore likely to threaten the

community’s sense of place attachment.

• Functional or physical dimension. The functional or physical dimension is determined by

the ability of a place to provide appropriate and necessary day-to-day services and

facilities in comparison with other places or the place prior to the implementation of the

proposal.73 Access to recreational areas and safe places to play results in higher feelings of

place attachment.74 The facilities and resources in the recreational and leisure facilities

and amenities along the Western Port foreshore satisfy specific health, social and

wellbeing needs of residents in and visitors to the area, and therefore result in strong

place attachment.

People who are attached to a place may be more sensitive to site impacts.75

Particular values ascribed to Western Port Bay by the submitters were that it is a special and

crucial environment, backyard, hub for community activities, home from home, jewel of the

Peninsula, deep spiritual importance, tourism dependent, calming place, source of joy, quiet

place, beating heart of the Peninsula.

The following extracts from some of the submissions demonstrate the attachment to place

experienced by some of the residents in and visitors to Western Port Bay:

This is our home and a dear part of our country. My family and myself have a strong emotional and physical connection to the Westernport Bay. Submitter No. 2518

It has always held sentimental value close to my heart, and you can imagine how many others hold it dearly to their hearts too. Submitter No. 3045

The reason it is so close to our hearts and many others is the connection to the unique natural environment it offers us all. It must be protected. Submitter No. 2956

It provides me with a sense of community and helps me maintain my physical and mental health balance. Submitter No. 1947

I have lived and grown up in Westernport Bay my entire 30 years and its natural coastline and unique wetlands have given me not only many great memories, adventures and experiences but it has allowed me to gain a special connection, relationship and sense of place and belonging. Submitter No. 2929

70 Vorkinn M. and Riese, H. (2001) “Environmental Concern in a Local Context: The Significance of Place Attachment” Environment and Behavior Vol 33 p251 71 Hidalgo, M. and Hernandez, B. (2001) “Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions” The Journal of Environmental Psychology Vol 21 p275 72 Hidalgo, M. and Hernandez, B. (2001) “Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions” The Journal of Environmental Psychology Vol 21 p279. 73 Pretty, G., Chipuer, H., and Bramston, P. (2003) “Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity” Journal of Environmental Psychology Vol 23 p275. 74 Scott, M et al (2020) Community Ties. Understanding what attaches people to the place where they live Knight Foundation and Urban Institute 75 Hidalgo, M. and Hernandez, B. (2001) “Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions” The Journal of Environmental Psychology Vol 21 p279.


44 Symplan


Connection to Western Port Bay started as a child as I visited the area during the summer months. As i grew older my connection to country and biodiverse area is incredible. I live, work and play in the area. Submitter No.1751

Westernport Bay has become a home for me, healing me physically and mentally, just when I needed it. Submitter No. 1066

It's beautiful and holds so many wonderful memories of childhood coastal visits! It would sadden me greatly to see the AGL Gas Terminal wreak havoc on the local ecosystem. Submitter No. 1584

It is the centre around which this community lives and plays. The bay is our most valuable asset, environmentally, aesthetically and economically, and will be for generations if it is maintained. Submitter No. 1248

This place is so special to me and has been for many years. Submitter No. 1031

It’s my home, I feel connected to the animals and the plants that live here. I won’t stand to see it destroyed just so that some gas company can make more money. Submitter No. 687

The poems, photographs and paintings included in some of the submissions further

demonstrate both the emotiolan and physical dimensions of the community’s attachment to

Western Port Bay.

As a result, places deemed to provide adequate alternatives to recreation activities are

unlikely to result in the same level of place attachment as they do not hold the same

emotional bonds.

4.1.3 Resources

The focus of this social impact consideration is the potential impact on private property,

shared resources and the business and local economy. Personal property rights include the

use and enjoyment of private property affected by the construction ROW and the easement

along the Pipeline alignment. Shared resources are social and recreational infrastructure used

by both residents in and visitors to the area. They include green and blue spaces, such as

parks, community facilities, tourist attractions, walking tracks, foreshore beaches and

reserves, and the ocean.

Businesses and local economies are affected by job creation, supply contracts, access to

businesses and services, and tourism. Marine and terrestrial biodiversity is vital to Victoria’s

tourism.76

Western Port is a beautiful natural area close to Melbourne that is a holiday destination for many. I visit regularly and have friends who live here also. We visit because it is a quick escape from man-made Melbourne. I wouldn’t visit a gas terminal. Submitter No. 1610

76 DELWP Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/51255/Biodiversity-2037-Summary.pdf

https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/51255/Biodiversity-2037-Summary.pdf


45 Symplan


4.1.4 Culture

This social impact consideration focusses on the affected community’s shared beliefs, heritage

values, character and social cohesion.

Heritage values

Culture and cultural heritage determine what makes life meaningful. They embody a

community’s historic and present way of life, customs and beliefs, and influence the level of

social cohesion.77 Safeguarding items of heritage values enhances people’s lives and the

environment, and facilitates sustainable development.78

Local communities are the ‘arbiters’ of what they value, and should therefore be an integral

part of decisions affecting their heritage.79

Marine and terrestrial biodiversity is fundamental to the cultural values of all people,

particularly the cultural practices of Aboriginal Victorians.80 The health of marine resources,

and the ecosystem as a whole, is the foundation of the Indigenous economic system.81 Sea

Country is a significant aspect of the community’s values, beliefs and customs given the

Project Area is located in a coastal and marine environment. Sea Country refers to the

cultural, social and spiritual meaning and values attributed to the inhabited coastal and

marine environments. Sea Country includes all living things, beliefs, values, creation stories,

spirits and cultural obligations associated with a physical place.82 Sea Country is demonstrated

in historical and contemporary accounts of Aboriginal dreaming stories which date back many

thousands of years and are firmly situated in the ecological and social contexts of south-eastern

Australia.83 Any negative impact on biodiversity and pollution affect the health of Sea

Country.84

Community identity, social cohesion and place based stigma

Communities with high levels of socio-economic disadvantage are often also close to industrial

activities and service infrastructure servicing the needs of the wider rather than the local

communities. These cumulative factors have the potential to give rise to what is referred to as

‘neighbourhood or postcode stigma’.85

It seems no accident that this proposal is on the doorstep of the lower SES area of Mornington Peninsula, where inequality is much higher, rather than in Port Phillip Bay and the Port of Melbourne. Clearly, given my points above however, I am not suggesting the project requires

77 Heritage, A. Tissot, A. and Manerjee, B. (undated) Heritage and Wellbeing: What Constitutes a Good Life? International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property https://www.iccrom.org/projects/heritage-and-wellbeing-what-constitutes-good-life 78 Heritage, A. Tissot, A. and Manerjee, B. (undated) Heritage and Wellbeing: What Constitutes a Good Life? International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property https://www.iccrom.org/projects/heritage-and-wellbeing-what-constitutes-good-life 79 Heritage, A. Tissot, A. and Manerjee, B. (undated) Heritage and Wellbeing: What Constitutes a Good Life? International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property https://www.iccrom.org/projects/heritage-and-wellbeing-what-constitutes-good-life 80 DELWP Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/51255/Biodiversity-2037-Summary.pdf 81 National Oceans Office (2002) Sea Country – an Indigenous perspective The South-east Regional Marine Plan Assessment Reports https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/271c0bfc-34a2-4c6c-9b02-01204ebc0f43/files/indigenous.pdf 82 https://www.greeningaustralia.org.au/projects/working-together-to-heal-sea-country/ 83 VEAC (2019) Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC%20Marine%20Environment%20SUMMARY%20DOC.pdf 84 VEAC (2019) Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC%20Marine%20Environment%20SUMMARY%20DOC.pdf 85 Warr, D. Victorian Council of Social Services Insight Issue 1 Cities in Crisis? Stigma Hits Home








https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/271c0bfc-34a2-4c6c-9b02-01204ebc0f43/files/indigenous.pdf




46 Symplan


relocation to Port Philip Bay but emphasise the point that inequality in Australia is also being reinforced in this instance. Submitter No. 3100

Stigmas around such neighbourhoods can compromise opportunities for residents to

transition out of place based disadvantage and establish social connections which can in turn

compromise self-esteem and self-confidence. 86 This outcome, referred to as ‘socio-spatial

polarisation’ can reduce life chances. It can also result in the implementation of policies that

disregard and underestimate the impact of proposals on the health and wellbeing of

communities, since this is already compromised by existing social, economic and

environmental factors. To the contrary, this can be avoided if policy makers emphasise rather

than understate and disregard the “disadvantages, disorders and defects of poor

neighbourhoods”. 87

The EES proposes a $7.5 million community fund. While this has the potential to be a benefit,

research conducted by one of the submitters has raised concerns regarding the potential for

community funds to compromise social cohesion.

As a great deal of peer-reviewed and independent research has demonstrated, these sorts of community compensation funds frequently cause significant disruption to communities and organizations… Different groups have varying levels of financial capacity and varying attitudes toward proposed development projects. Corporate and industrial developers exploit these variations, often deploying a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy to induce support and suppress opposition. The extraneous funds distort local economies and create significant divisions between individuals, socio-economic and interest groups, and community organisations who are favoured by the inducement.

Our own consultation with Crib Point and a range of affected local communities uncovered significant social tensions and division between community organizations and groups that were attributed to AGL’s stakeholder engagement strategy. AGL had targeted community groups in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage with information about the possible availability of funding - contingent on development approval. In particular, we found that information from AGL vastly inflated the proposed benefits of the development, while minimizing the negative consequences. Significant community tensions evolved between groups within a previously cohesive, regional community sporting code. So, if funds were eventually distributed according to the proposed Community Engagement Management Plan, AGL’s financial intervention will further divide communities - financially and morally - intensify community tensions, exacerbate social inequalities and undermine social cohesion. Submitter No. 2530

Similar concerns were raised in further submissions.

The offer to contribute $7.5 million to the community, to ‘overcome’ their intrusion is admitting guilt. This fund will lead to problems with dispersing and monitoring monies, creating divisions in already damaged communities. Submitter No. 2992

The mitigation of the Community Fund, which will not have a long-term benefit to the households in the area, is totally inadequate to compensate the large number of communities this project will negatively effect. Funds already given to the community by AGL since the proposal was announced have been divisive and disruptive amongst the communities of Crib Point and Hastings. Submitter No. 1554

86 Warr, D. Victorian Council of Social Services Insight Issue 1 Cities in Crisis? Stigma Hits Home 87 Warr, D. Victorian Council of Social Services Insight Issue 1 Cities in Crisis? Stigma Hits Home


47 Symplan


4.1.5 Political systems

This social impact consideration addresses the political systems and decision-making

processes which influence the extent to which the community is engaged in decisions and

plans affecting their health and wellbeing.

Potential threats to political systems may affect a proponent’s social licence to operate a

proposed project.

A social licence to operate (SLO) may be defined as ‘the ongoing acceptance of approval of a

[project] by local community members and other stakeholders’ and a means by which

proponents can seek legitimacy.88 The SLO reflects the beliefs, perceptions and opinions held

by the community and stakeholders about the project, and is therefore granted by the public,

not the proponent.89

Community opposition to expanding port operations in sensitive environments is common. 90

Concern with an SLO demonstrates a proponent’s willingness to mitigate social and

environmental harm and effect benefits through means beyond their statutory requirements.

SLO has become an important consideration for proponents, communities and governments

as it has the potential to effectively identify and address social and environmental impacts.91

“It is vital that the IA community purposefully considers the implications of SLO and potential

consequences for IA practice”.92

One of the key principles of social impact assessment is people have a right to be involved in

decisions on proposals affecting their lives.

A social licence to operate is dependent on acceptance and approval of both the project and

the proponent. 93 The key components of a social licence to operate are legitimacy, credibility

and trust. These components are acquired sequentially94 and through deliberative community

consultation and engagement processes. An SLO is a means for community members affected

by a project to define and enforce their expectations for a proponent’s behaviour and

activities 95 at the stage when the project is introduced and throughout its implementation. 96

A key threat to an SLO is a lack of understanding of the community’s socio-economic

characteristics, and their fears and aspirations. Other threats to an SLO include real and

88 Sara Bice & Kieren Moffat (2014) Social licence to operate and impact assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32:4, 257-262, DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2014.950122 89 http://socialicense.com/definition.html#:~:text=What%20Is%20the%20Social%20License,most%20frequently%2C%20as%20ongoing%20acceptance. 90 VEAC (2019) Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC%20Marine%20Environment%20SUMMARY%20DOC.pdf 91 Sara Bice & Kieren Moffat (2014) Social licence to operate and impact assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32:4, 257-262, DOI:10.1080/14615517.2014.950122 92 Sara Bice & Kieren Moffat (2014) Social licence to operate and impact assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32:4, 257-262, DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2014.950122 93 http://socialicense.com/definition.html#:~:text=What%20Is%20the%20Social%20License,most%20frequently%2C%20as%20ongoing%20acceptance. 94 http://socialicense.com/definition.html#:~:text=What%20Is%20the%20Social%20License,most%20frequently%2C%20as%20ongoing%20acceptance. 95 Sara Bice & Kieren Moffat (2014) Social licence to operate and impact assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32:4, 257-262, DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2014.950122 96 http://socialicense.com/definition.html#:~:text=What%20Is%20the%20Social%20License,most%20frequently%2C%20as%20ongoing%20acceptance.



48 Symplan


perceived safety, cultural sensitivity, proponent’s reputation, community consultation and

engagement process, and impact on cultural and environmental values. Specific threats to the

Project’s and proponents’ social licence are therefore the potential impact of the Project on

the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site and climate change.

Proponents may lack an existing social licence to operate due to past practices. While some

proponents may carry an existing social licence to operate, this may not be carried over to

proposed projects due to dissatisfaction with stakeholder engagement processes leading up to

and during the project’s implementation, or poor practices associated with the project’s

implementation.

4.2 Social impact assessment discussion

This section discusses the potential social impacts arising from the Project. It integrates the

theoretical concepts discussed in Section 4.1.

The section first assesses the potential impacts on the community’s fears and aspirations, way

of life, resources and culture associated with the construction and operation stages of the

Project. The tables describe the documented changes associated with these stages, the

potential social outcomes, and the relevant social impact assessment consideration described

in Section 4.1. The assessment of the type and rating of each impact is based on the matrices

presented in Appendix 7.

For the sake of brevity, the following should be assumed:

• Potential impacts during construction are considered temporary and potential impacts

during operation are considered permanent for the lifetime of the Project.

• Cumulative impacts are likely to arise from the sequential and simultaneous changes to

the baseline conditions associated with noise and vibration, traffic, air and water quality

and views.

• Unless otherwise specified, all impacts are likely.

The section then discusses the Project’s potential social impacts on existing political systems

through an examination of the stakeholder engagement process, affected local governments’

positions, and Submitter No. 3129 and Submitter No. 3088’s positions. This leads into a

discussion of the proponents’ licence to operate.

The final components of this section are an evaluation of relevant aspects of the EES

documentation, in particular the Chapter 18 and Technical Report M.

The SIA discussion focuses on the following key factors and associated SIA principles (refer to

Table 3 and Appendix 7):


49 Symplan


Table 3 – Key social impact assessment factors and associated social impact assessment principles

Context Principle

The Project involves an intensification of industrial activities in the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site which is internationally recognised for its environmental values.

There should be a focus on socially sustainable development, with SIA contributing to the determination of best development alternative(s). Precautionary principle: In order to protect the environment, a concept which includes people’s ways of life and the integrity of their communities, the precautionary approach should be applied. Where there are threats or potential threats of serious social impact, lack of full certainty about those threats should not be used as a reason for approving the planned intervention or not requiring the implementation of mitigation measures and stringent monitoring. It is generally preferable and cheaper in the long run to prevent negative social impacts from happening than having to rectify damage after the event.

The Project involves the transportation and processing of a substance associated with risks to human health and safety, and marine and terrestrial biodiversity.

People have a right to live and work in an environment which is conducive to good health and to a good quality of life.

The communities most directly affected by the potential negative impacts are currently experiencing elevated levels of socio-economic and socio-spatial disadvantage.

Promoting equity and democratisation should be the major driver of development planning, and impacts on the worst-off members of society should be a major consideration in all assessment.

A large number of submissions have been made, including from local governments directly affected by the Project and environmental groups.

Development projects should be broadly acceptable to the members of those communities likely to benefit from or be affected by, the planned intervention. The opinions and views of experts should not be the sole consideration in decisions about planned interventions. The primary focus of all development should be positive outcomes. In all planned interventions and their assessments, avenues should be developed to build the social and human capital of local communities and to strengthen democratic processes.

The proposal involves potential benefits including job creation and the establishment of a $7.5 million community fund.

In all planned interventions, but especially where there are unavoidable impacts, ways to turn impacted peoples into beneficiaries should be investigated.


50 Symplan


4.2.1 Fears and aspirations, way of life, resources and culture

Stage 1 – Construction

Table 4 – Potential social impacts - construction

Activity/change Outcome Social impact consideration

Type of impact

Impact rating

Increase of 500 jobs and supply contracts

Increased jobs and supply contracts have the potential to stimulate the local economy if the jobs created align with the skill set of those experiencing unemployment and socio-economic disadvantage.

Chapter 18, Social page 18-9 acknowledges: “Most positions would be filled by a specialised workforce”. Technical Report M (Section 10.1.1) notes: “The Project’s potential to create employment for residents of communities located on the Mornington Peninsula and around Western Port is relatively small and therefore the resulting impact on the economic vitality of these areas would be minimal”.

Resources (local economy) Positive

Possible Marginal

Use of materials during construction

There will be an increase in waste products associated with the transport and use of materials such as plastics, packaging, excavation materials, used materials. Waste including office materials will also be generated by site offices. These impacts may be experienced throughout the Project Area.

Way of life (amenity)

Fears (social risk) Negative

Minimal to low

Establishment of laydown areas

The establishment of construction laydown areas in limited sites along the Pipeline corridor may detract from the visual amenity of the surrounding residential properties, Maritime Centre and industrial areas and may lead to an increase in traffic dust, noise and vibration.

Two of the large laydown areas are located in private property, one of which is owned by the PoHDA and the other of which is owned by BlueScope Steel.


Resources (personal property rights)

Negative Minimal to

low

Establishment of construction ROW

Removal of approximately 17 combined hectares of native vegetation which includes significant plant species or their habitat may reduce biodiversity in the ROW. Runoff and discharge of sediment to nearby waterways and

Fears (biodiversity and climate change)


Negative Significant


51 Symplan



Type of impact

Impact rating

deposited into the Western Port Ramsar site. The residual risk rating has been assessed as high.

Construction of the Pipeline may result in temporary severance from recreational activities in Warringine Park, resulting in displacement of recreational activities for residents and visitors. These changes may compromise overall amenity of the users of Warringine Park which may result in a reduction in physical activity.

Fears and aspirations (social risk)


Negative Low to

moderate

The temporary exclusion from the right of way will result in land severance and/or relocation of infrastructure from the privately occupied area for between three and four months. The residual risk rating for loss of land for agricultural use due to the construction of the pipeline is medium.

This has the potential to compromise the land owners’ rights to use and enjoy the land subject to the encumbrance during this period. This potential disbenefit may be experienced to a greater extent where the Project Area is not located alongside property boundaries. Affected property owners may require legal advice to assist with negotiations. This could result in stress, anxiety and financial burden. These factors may compromise mental and physical health and wellbeing.


Resources (private property rights)

Negative Moderate

to high

The construction of the ROW will involve the disturbance of Aboriginal artefacts.

The residual risk associated with disturbance of Aboriginal artefacts is rated high.

Cultural and political systems (heritage values


Operation of construction vehicles and machinery along pipeline

The main air quality impacts would be through the creation of dust (PM10). Chapter 12 Air Quality (12-20) indicates sensitive receptors near the construction works may be exposed to nuisance dust.

Chapter 13, Noise and Vibration (13-12) states sensitive receptors such as residences (200), community facilities and parks and recreation spaces are

Fears and aspirations (social risk, air pollution)

Way of life (amenity, community resilience)



52 Symplan



Type of impact

Impact rating

route (6am to 6pm seven days a week; during pullback operations works would likely be conducted on a 24 hour per day basis until the pipe was installed)

expected to experience noise disturbance above the relevant noise criteria during the day and at night. This document also indicates some rural properties are also likely to experience noise disturbance above the noise criteria.

The community facilities are used by particularly vulnerable groups such as older people and children who are also likely to experience these impacts at their residences outside of school hours.

These impacts will be disproportionately experienced by people with elevated levels of socio-economic and socio-spatial vulnerability and visitors to the regional recreational facilities in Warringine Park.

Consumption of fossil fuels associated with the operation of plant and equipment during site clearing and construction site establishment will result in the release of greenhouse gas emissions. The residual risk rating has been assessed as medium.

Fears and aspirations (social risk, air pollution,

climate change) Negative

Low to moderate

The movement of materials used to construct the pipeline will result in an increase in traffic. The residual risk rating is medium.


Way of life (amenity, displacement, community

severance)

Negative Moderate

to significant

The use of artificial light at certain sites has the potential to compromise the amenity of the users of recreational facilities and residents along the Pipeline corridor. The use of artificial may also compromise the health and wellbeing of fauna.

Fears and aspirations (light pollution, biodiversity)

Negative Low to

moderate

Lack of lighting in the vicinity of intersections between the construction access tracks and the road network could increase the risks of collisions in isolated rural intersections where anticipated construction traffic


Negative Moderate


53 Symplan



Type of impact

Impact rating

movements would be entering and egressing the ROW in high-speed areas (Chapter 15, Transport, p 15-17.)

There is an increased crash risk with school and public buses due to interactions with plant and heavy machinery and non-conforming intersection layouts.

Construction activities associated with Jetty works (between 6am and 6pm on weekdays, and between 6am and 3.30pm on Saturdays)

Residences along the Esplanade may hear construction activities on Crib Point Jetty when outdoors during peak work periods (Chapter 13, Noise and Vibration). These residences are located between 1.5 kilometres and 1.65 kilometres from Berth 2 at Crib Point Jetty. This document also indicates cumulative noise impacts are likely to be experienced as a result of simultaneous upgrades to Crib Point Jetty by the PoHDA.

Given the noise may be audible and cause disturbance at this distance, local residents and visitors to community facilities in closer proximity i.e. Victorian Maritime Centre, Woolleys Beach Reserve North and South, HMAS Otama Lookout Beach are likely to experience significant disturbance from this noise.

Users of these community and recreation facilities may result in displacement which in turn may result in a reduction in physical activity.

Way of life (physical activity, amenity,

accessibility)

Resources (community facilities, recreation areas)


Road closures and detours

Bus routes 782 and 783 would be impacted with potential delays, route detours and temporary closures of bus stops. These routes provide access through the Project Area between Frankston and Flinders, through Hastings and between Frankston and Hastings respectively.

Cyclists, pedestrians, private and public transport routes would be affected by the detours and delays associated with the road closures in the vicinity of construction sites along the Pipeline route.

The compromised amenity is likely to detract from the liveability of the Hastings Town Centre. Although Hastings Township is the primary activity

Way of life (physical activity, amenity,

accessibility, community resilience, accessibility)

Resources (business and local economy)



54 Symplan



Type of impact

Impact rating

centre for the communities to the east of Mornington Peninsula, the severance and displacement may compromise business activity in the township. This could compromise the economic vitality of the business and service sectors in the town centre.

Disturbance of Aboriginal sites

Construction will result in the disturbance of some of the 14 registered and unregistered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the Project Area.

The absence of registered and unregistered sites does not render the remaining Project area devoid of cultural heritage significance. This dismisses the Bunurong connection to country which is formed by a connection to all land, and not just individual sites.

The residual risk ratings are medium to high.

Culture (heritage values) Negative Significant

Disturbance of heritage listed artefacts

Vibration from trenching and a laydown area near the curtilage of former BP refinery administration building will result in disturbance of the former BP refinery administration building.

Construction activities in the curtilage of the Denham Road farmhouse in Hastings will compromise the remnants of a 19th century farmhouse complex.

Culture (heritage values) Negative Low to

moderate


55 Symplan


Stage 2 – Operation

Table 5 – Potential social impacts - operation

Activity/change Outcome Social impact consideration Type of impact

Impact rating

Rehabilitation of the area cleared along the Project ROW

The introduction of some new plant species and permanent removal of native vegetation within the Pipeline easement will compromise terrestrial diversity.

Fears and aspirations (biodiversity)

Negative Moderate

Permanent easement on private property

The permanent easement on private properties will restrict how this land can be used, potentially compromising personal property rights. The easement may also have a perceived impact on property values.

Property owners would be financially compensated for the land occupied during construction and operation of the Project. However, this process may result in increased stress and anxiety and use of resources such as time and legal fees. This may compromise the property owners’ mental health and wellbeing, particularly those who are already experiencing socio-economic hardship and vulnerability.

Resources (personal property rights)


Negative Moderate to

high

Increase of 40 jobs

The increase in jobs and supply contracts has the potential to stimulate the local industry if created to align with the skill set of those experiencing unemployment and socio-economic disadvantage. Chapter 18, Social page 18-9 acknowledges: “Most positions would be filled by a specialised workforce”.

Technical Report M (Section 10.1.1) notes: “The Project’s potential to create employment for residents of communities located on the Mornington Peninsula and around Western Port is relatively small and therefore the resulting impact on the economic vitality of these areas would be minimal”.

Resources (business and local economy)

Positive Possible

Marginal


56 Symplan



Impact rating

Access to augmented gas supply

The Project will increase the supply of gas for residential, tourism, community and business sectors in south-eastern Australia.

These communities currently have access to gas.

There is inadequate information to quantify this impact.

Way of life Resources

Positive

One of the key SIA principles is people directly negatively affected by the Project should be beneficiaries.

The extent to which the additional gas supplies will augment gas supplies in the communities of Crib Point, Bittern and Hastings i.e. the communities negatively affected by the Project, has not been documented. It is therefore not possible to assess the potential social benefit of the augmented gas supplies to these communities.

Way of life Resources

Positive Possible

Not applicable

Availability of $7.5 million through community fund

The proposed $7.5 million community fund is intended to cover the entire Project Area but is likely to be focussed on the provision of community facilities in Crib Point and Hastings. Other communities potentially affected throughout the Project Area are therefore likely to limited social benefit.

The actual social benefit of the $7.5 million community fund to the

communities in Hastings and Crib Point is further questioned given the

cost of the following standard community facilities:97

• multi-purpose community centre: $6.4 million - $10.3 million

• sport and recreation pavilion: $1.6 million to $2.7 million

• sport and recreation reserve (per reserve): $7.2 million to $10.3

million

Way of life (amenity) Resources (shared resources)

Culture (social cohesion) Neutral

Not applicable

97 Cardno Review of Benchmark Infrastructure Costings, 2018


57 Symplan



Impact rating

The allocation of the community fund to the development of infrastructure such as community facilities, sport and recreation pavilions and recreation reserves is highly unlikely to compensate for the compromised amenity of a natural and internationally significant resource such as the Western Port Ramsar marine and terrestrial site.

One of the key SIA principles is people directly negatively affected by the Project should be beneficiaries. Some stakeholders are unwilling to accept funds from this Community Fund as they deem it to be a ‘bribe’. Two submitters have raised concerns regarding the potential negative impact on social cohesion.

Permanent presence of Pipeline infrastructure

The Pipeline infrastructure will result in changes to preferential flow paths within trenched sections of the Pipeline Works.

Fears and aspirations (biodiversity)

Negative Low

The operation of the Pipeline will not result in permanent severance from recreational activities in Warringine Park.

Resources (shared resources)

Way of life (amenity, accessibility and place

attachment)

Neutral Not

applicable

The Pipeline will not alter existing views as it will be located underground.

Way of life (amenity) Neutral Not

applicable

The permanent easement will compromise landowners’ ability to use the land affected by the easement. The residual risk rating is medium.

Resources (private resources) Fears and aspirations (social

risk) Negative

Moderate to significant

Transport of gas through Pipeline

Risks and accidents may lead to the closure of the recreational activities in recreational amenities and facilities such as Warringine Park and an increase in air pollution.

Fears and aspirations (social risk, air pollution)

Negative Moderate

Occupation of and access to land and

The CPRF will be located on land which is owned by the PoHDA. As a result, the occupation of this land by the CPRF will not require the closure or displacement of community resources.

Way of life (accessibility)

Resources (public resources) Neutral

Not applicable


58 Symplan



Impact rating

marine areas by CPRF

Occupation of and access to land and marine areas by FSRU and Jetty Infrastructure

The FSRU and Jetty Infrastructure will be located Crown Land which is administered by DELWP. At present access to Crib Point Jetty by the public is prohibited. As a result, the occupation of this land by the FSRU and Jetty infrastructure will not require the closure or displacement of community resources.

Way of life (accessibility)


Not applicable

The active enforcement of the existing waterside restriction zone around Crib Point Jetty and the FSRU may have a negative impact on recreational boaters who currently use this portion of Western Port Bay. However, this part of the Bay is currently legally out of bounds.

Way of life (amenity, accessibility)

Resources (public resources)

Culture (place based stigma)

Neutral Not

applicable

The extension of the waterside restriction zone around Crib Point Jetty will reduce the area available to users of recreational watercraft. This may either lead to congestion in the remaining area, or a reduction in the recreational boating. Both of these outcomes would compromise the community’s access to shared resources.

Way of life (physical activity, amenity, accessibility)

Resources (public resources) Negative Moderate

The rezoning of the northern ‘strip’ of Crown Allotment 2040 from Public Conservation and Resource Zone to Port Zone which is owned by the PoHDA would address an anomaly.

This land would be occupied by the CPRF and would not be accessible to the community.

Way of life (amenity, accessibility)


Not applicable

The Project involves the rezoning of the northern extremity of Woolleys Beach Reserve North from Public Use Zone 7 to Port Zone.

There is inadequate information in the EES documentation to determine which parcels of land this rezoning will affect.

The rezoning will result in community severance and displacement as the public will no longer have access to the northern portion of

Way of life (physical activity, amenity, accessibility)

Resources (public resources) Negative Significant


59 Symplan



Impact rating

Woolleys Beach North which is a natural extension of the continuous strip of the foreshore along Woolleys Beach Reserve North. This is acknowledged through mitigation measure SO02 which indicates the operation of the Project will result in displacement of recreational activities from Woolleys Beach Reserve North. It is assumed this activity will be permanently displaced given the intention to identify suitable alternative foreshore location/s and this impact will be experienced during operation and not just construction of the Project. It is unlikely a suitable alternative foreshore location will be identified given the intrinsic significance of the foreshore values associated with the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site.

Increase of industrial activities associated with FSRU

Port of Hastings is recognised as a location of highest risk of shipping accidents and spillages as it has one of the greatest levels of nearshore shipping activity.98

Risks and accidents may lead to the closure of the recreational activities in Western Port.

Fears and aspirations (social risk, noise, light pollution,

physical activity, air pollution, water pollution,

biodiversity, climate change)

Way of life (physical activity, amenity, place attachment,

accessibility)


Culture (social licence to operate, place based stigma)


The Project involves a significant intensification of the commercial and other port-related/industrial activities of Crib Point Jetty given the FSRU will be permanently moored and the Jetty Infrastructure and CPRF will operate permanently.

Fears and aspirations (social risk, noise, light pollution,

physical activity, air Negative Significant

98 VEAC (2019) Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC%20Marine%20Environment%20SUMMARY%20DOC.pdf



60 Symplan



Impact rating

The Project also involves additional industrial related shipping movements into Western Port past the communities of Flinders, Shoreham, Point Leo, Merricks Beach, Balnarring Beach, Somers, HMAS Cerberus and Crib Point.

These changes intensify industrial uses in Western Port Bay. This is acknowledged in the EES SIA: “The people who use and/or care for Western Port and its foreshore have become accustomed to a level of amenity which reflects a relatively low level of utilisation of existing port infrastructure and industrial land at Crib Point”. The EES SIA also concludes: “While commercial shipping and other port related/industrial activities are an existing use of the Jetty, such uses are not necessarily compatible with the use of adjacent areas for social activity and active and passive recreation.”

The Western Port Ramsar wetlands site has developed unique iconic status for residents and visitors. The recreational, social and leisure activities carried out in the Western Port Ramsar Wetlands Site are unique and cannot be replaced or replicated elsewhere. This is likely to result in a strong “attachment to place” which may be compromised by the intensification of use and compromised amenity within Western Port and the foreshore recreational areas. The significant reduction in amenity for users of these facilities of a unique wetlands site is likely to result in permanent displacement and a reduction in physical activity.

The large number of submissions indicates the community’s aspirations for the protection and enhancement of the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site, and the value it has for providing social, leisure and recreational activities.

The Project will impact Aboriginal heritage and Sea Country.

pollution, water pollution, biodiversity, climate change)

Way of life (community resilience, amenity, place attachment, accessibility)


Culture and political systems (heritage values, social

licence to operate, place based stigma)


61 Symplan



Impact rating

The intensification of industrial uses and associated compromised amenity in the Western Port Ramsar Wetlands Site may result in stigma. This may have a negative impact on business confidence, tourism and residential markets.

Increase in noise levels associated with FSRU and LNG carriers

Noise emissions resulting from the permanent FSRU operations and during the arrival and departure of the LNG carriers would “have potential to result in a material reduction in amenity of users within approximately 600m to 800m of Berth 2” (The EES Technical Report M, Page 59). This distance covers users of part of Woolleys Beach Reserve North and Western Port Bay, and part of the walk towards the HMAS Otama Lookout.

The users potentially affected by this noise include recreational boaters and local and regional visitors to Woolleys Beach Reserve North and the Victorian Maritime Centre.

This could result in community severance and a reduction in physical activity.

Fears and aspirations (social risk, noise, physical activity)

Way of life (physical activity, community resilience,

amenity, place attachment, accessibility)


Culture (heritage values, social licence to operate,

place based stigma)


Air emissions from FSRU

The consumption of fossil fuels for electricity generation, operation of plant and equipment and transportation of materials and equipment during operation of the FSRU will result in the release of greenhouse gas emissions. These air emissions will occur within the exclusion zone for port operations and a number of areas over water to the south and east of the FSRU and a small area of the Crib Point Jetty. There will be some exceedances for air quality criteria over water within approximately 50 metres of the FSRU for NO2.

The emission of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and in case of sour gases, sulphur dioxide (SO2) has the potential to compromise physical health and wellbeing.

Fears and aspirations (social risk, air pollution,

greenhouse gas and climate change)




place based stigma)



62 Symplan



Impact rating

The residual risk rating has been assessed as high.

The community’s fears regarding the potential for gas to increase greenhouse gases and contribute to climate change have the potential to compromise their mental health and wellbeing and the Proponents’ licence to operate.


Culture (social licence to operate)

Negative Low to moderate

Light spill from FSRU, LNG carriers and CPRF

Continuous illumination of the permanently moored FSRU and CPRF surfaces will result in illumination of the water and potential sky glow.

Technical Report M of the EES acknowledges lighting would result in ‘highly detectable alterations’ to views from several vantage points near Crib Point including Woolleys Beach Reserves North and South, dwellings along The Esplanade, French Island99, Phillip Island and recreational watercraft.

Fauna attracted to light sources may be vulnerable to collision with infrastructure or predation on the ground.100

Way of life (community resilience, amenity, place attachment, accessibility,

biodiversity)



place based stigma)

Negative

Permanent Significant

Views of FSRU, LNG Carrier and CPRF

The United Petroleum vessel is not currently permanently moored at Berth 1 of Crib Point Jetty.

The Western Port Ramsar wetlands site currently presents as a marine landscape with low intensity industrial uses in the distance.

The height of the FSRU equates to a commercial building of approximately 13 storeys and a residential building of approximately 17 storeys.101 The FSRU will therefore become the dominant feature



Culture (heritage values, social licence to operate)


99 Refer to submission 2937. 100 VEAC (2019) Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC%20Marine%20Environment%20SUMMARY%20DOC.pdf 101 https://www.victoria.ca/assets/Departments/Planning~Development/Community~Planning/Local~Area~Planning/Fairfield~Gonzales/Fairfield~Growth~Survey/PDF%20How%20tall%20is%20a%20building%20storey.pdf





63 Symplan



Impact rating

along the horizon viewed from the foreshore and users of Woolleys Beach North and South, and the HMAS Otama Lookout Point.

Wastes generated by FSRU

One of the key priorities for the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning is maintaining and enhancing world class protected areas such as the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site.102 The protection of Ramsar sites is a legal obligation. Ports located in sensitive ecological locations i.e. Ramsar wetlands limit opportunities for expansion of industries in these areas. 103

Seawater intakes and discharges from the FSRU will take place into the Western Port Ramsar Wetlands site.

Fears and aspirations (social risk, water pollution,

biodiversity, climate change)




place based stigma)


102 DELWP Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037 https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/51255/Biodiversity-2037-Summary.pdf 103 VEAC (2019) Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC%20Marine%20Environment%20SUMMARY%20DOC.pdf




64 Symplan


4.2.2 Political systems

Democratic processes

Development projects should be broadly acceptable to the members of those communities

likely to benefit from, or be affected by, the planned intervention.104

The Project is not supported by Submitter 1007; Submitter 71, and Submitter1888.

Should this proposal be approved, the Victorian Minister for Planning will be flying in the face of every opposing voice, which vastly outnumber those in favour, and further erode the democratic processes put in place to safeguard Victorians from poor governance. Submitter No. 1017

Social licence to operate

The lack of social licence is demonstrated by the following points raised in submissions made

by Submitter No. 3129 and Submitter No. 3088:

• Submitter No. 3129 and Submitter No. 3088 collated 41,236 recorded expressions of

opposition to the proponent’s plans for Crib Point:

o 27,538 signed petitions o 6,001 signed petitions tabled in the Victorian Parliament o 6,703 pledges to boycott AGL should the project continue o 902 post cards calling on AGL’s CEO to stop the project

• A petition against the project organised by Submitter No. 3129 attracted 17,000

signatures.

• A petition Submitter No. 71 in 2018 and 2019 attracted 6,000 signatures.

• Submitter No. 3129 and Submitter No. 3088 questioned the veracity of the Project’s

rationale that the most appropriate way to address Victoria’s energy demand is through

the provision of additional gas supplies.

• There are concerns relating to an increased reliance on gas rather than a transition to

renewable energy sources

• Concerns with, and opposition to, the Project extends to Greater Melbourne and regional Victoria, and includes local communities in Mornington Peninsula Shire including Balnarring, Somers, Merricks, Port Leo and Shoreham.

• The community have been involved in public meetings, blockades and protests.

• The EES was exhibited during the coronavirus pandemic with a suspicion this was done to

reduce the time the public had to have a say. The EES and participation processes are

therefore flawed and inadequate. There are reservations regarding the methods and

techniques used by the Proponent to gauge the community’s views on the Project.

• The proponents have not complied with the Scoping Requirements.

• There is a lack of transparency in the Project rationale with respect to Proponents’

objective to maximise a return on their investment.

• Some community organisations are reluctant to accept funds from the Proponent.

104 IAIA International Principles for Social Impact Assessment https://www.iaia.org/pdf/Sections/SIA/IAIA%20SIA%20International%20Principles.pdf

https://www.iaia.org/pdf/Sections/SIA/IAIA%20SIA%20International%20Principles.pdf


65 Symplan


• AGL has acknowledged the lack of community trust in their operations which are due to

the numerous breaches and fines dating back to 2003, some of which were incurred just

prior to the exhibition of the EES. (Submitter No. 3129 Section 1.5)

• The Project rationale is flawed on the following grounds:

o the Scoping Requirements relate to demonstrating energy efficiency, security,

affordability and safety of Victoria’s natural gas supply whereas the Project

rationale focuses on the benefits to the eastern states, with just over a quarter of

the proponent’s retail gas customers coming from Victoria

o AGL has been accused of driving gas prices up by exporting its supplies overseas

rather than retaining it for domestic use (Submitter No. 3129 Section 2.2.5)

• Submitter No. 3088 stated “There is demonstrable, visible, significant, broad and deep

community opposition to this project. AGL’s quest to operate with social licence has

failed”

Some submitters’ attitudes towards the Project were that it is abhorrent, unacceptable,

unnecessary, wrong, disastrous, completely illogical, disgusting, appalling, inappropriate,

ethically perverse, economically unsound, absurd, reckless and unconscionable.

Many of the submitters question the Project’s legality given the discharge of waste water into

a Ramsar wetlands site is prohibited under the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters).

One of the key aspects of this proposal that confuses and angers me is the fact that that the project is dependent on the proponents securing a change of existing Victorian environmental protections that weakens them. Submitter No. 1269

Some submitters’ opinions on the EES were that it is inadequate, demonstrably wrong, based

on questionable assumptions and does not evoke confidence in the findings and conclusions.

Stakeholder engagement process

The following core values and principles of social impact assessment demonstrate the views,

sentiments and experiences of those directly affected by a proposal are fundamental to

decision making: 105

• “SIA builds on local knowledge and utilises participatory processes to analyse the concerns

of interested and affected parties”

• “Local knowledge and experience are valuable and can be used to enhance planned

interventions”

• “The opinions and views of experts should not be the sole consideration of decisions

about planned interventions”.

• “It [SIA] involves stakeholders in the assessment of social impacts, the analysis of

alternatives, and monitoring of the planned intervention”

Submitter No. 3129 expresses its concerns with respect to the community’s experience of the

stakeholder engagement process. In particular, these concerns related to decisions made

before the community was informed, unsatisfactory communication and information

105 Vanclay, F. (2003) “SIA principles. International Principles for Social Impact Assessment” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 21, number 1, March 2003, pages 5–11, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/IAIA-SIA-International-Principles.pdf

https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/IAIA-SIA-International-Principles.pdf


66 Symplan


processes and sessions, opportunities for engagement were limited to information

dissemination and did not involve having input into alternative generation and evaluation and

lack of transparency with regards the potential impact of the Project on amenity and safety.

Cardinia Shire Council also raised concerns with regards the level of consultation with owners

and occupiers of land holdings potentially affected by the Project.

4.3 Issues raised in submissions

4.3.1 Local government

Submitter No. 2276

Submitter No. 2276 strongly opposes the Project. It contends:

• The EES:

o Is manifestly inadequate to enable credible predictions to be made about the likely

risk of certain events occurring.

o Falls short of demonstrating significant environmental effects of the Project can be

acceptably managed having regard to legislation, policy best practice and the

principles of environmentally sustainable development.

o Fails to provide any objective or independent expert assessment of the Project

against the evaluation objective regarding ‘Energy efficiency, security, affordability

and safety” being: To provide for safe and cost-effective augmentation of Victoria’s

natural gas supply in the medium to longer term.

• The Proponent has not demonstrated sufficient experience in operating an FSRU.

• Key areas of concern relating to the Project include:

o Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

o Marine ecology and biodiversity, including impacts on the

internationally significant Western Port Bay Ramsar wetlands and

UNESCO biosphere

o Terrestrial ecology, biodiversity and native vegetation.

o Groundwater, including potential impacts on aquifers and

groundwater dependent ecosystems.

o Amenity, particularly noise impacts during construction and operation

on nearby residences.

o Inadequate assessment of the potential transport and traffic impacts

of the Project.

Submitter No. 2805

Submitter No. 2805 does not support the exhibited EES in its current form. It also identifies

the following issues which need to be resolved:

• Inconsistency with The Renewable Energy (Investments and Jobs) Act 2017, the Climate

Change Act 2017, the Victorian Reductions Emissions Targets, and incorrect and

insufficient data relating to gas demands and sustainability of the proposal.


67 Symplan


• Impacts on groundwater have not been satisfactorily addressed and may exceed

acceptable levels.

• Inaccurate traffic impact data and the need for a traffic management strategy to be

prepared based on accurate information.

• Refinement of the pipeline alignment to reduce impacts on the future viability of

agricultural land in the Green Wedge Zone.

• Insufficient information relating to the ongoing impacts on all types of land holdings

within the 640 metre Measurement Length of the proposed pipeline.

• No direct consultation with owners and occupiers of land holdings within the 640 metre

Measurement Length of the proposed pipeline.

Submitter No. 2663

Submitter No. 2663 endorsed a submission prepared by its officers indicating its overall

position is the Project must be assessed as a project of national concern and the best

approach is for all options relevant to the future energy supply needs of Victoria to be

evaluated holistically. This submitter submits further the singularity of the process involved in

repreparing the EES is ineffective to determine the overall justification of the Project from a

future energy supply basis. One of the recommendations is that a ‘no build’ option is

considered as part of the feasibility assessment for the Project, including a detailed analysis

and comparison of environmental, social and economic impacts and benefits. The submission

acknowledges there are several concerns and other issues associated with the proposed

Project. Some of these concerns, as outlined in the submission, include:

• The overall rationale for the Project.

• The terrestrial and marine environments.

• Agricultural land in the Western Port Green Wedge.

• Landowners affected by the pipeline alignment.

• Greenhouse gas emissions associated with a new long-term gas supply.

Submitter No. 2665

Submitter No. 2665 opposes the Project which involves the further industrialisation of, and

development of fossil fuel assets on Western Port. This submitter also rejects the Project

rationale as it is not based on demonstrable need for additional gas and has the potential to

exacerbate climate change. Other concerns with the Project include:

• Inadequate time in which to consider the EES.

• The Project has the potential to have serious impacts on the marine environment and

integrity of the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site. Further, the Project has not

adequately considered the potential environmental impact on water quality and

significant fauna and flora.

• The Project has the potential to have significant detrimental economic effect on the visitor

economy on Philip Island which may compromise the economy of the municipality.


68 Symplan


• The Project is contrary to the objectives and strategies of the Victoria Planning Provisions,

particularly those relating to the protection of distinctive areas and landscapes,

biodiversity, protection of coastal areas, minimising natural hazards and climate change.

The Project is contrary to the objectives of particular declarations.

4.3.2 Submitter No. 3129

Overall, Submitter No. 3129 opposes the Project ‘in the strongest possible terms’ and should

be assessed as having an unacceptable level of environmental effects. Submitter No. 3129 is

therefore of the opinion approvals and consents should be refused by the relevant statutory

decision makers. The reasons for this position can be summarised as follows:106

• The EES methodology, including proposed mitigation measures are inadequate,

inappropriate and outdated, and do not represent best practice.

• The statutory EES process is flawed and has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

• The findings and conclusions underestimate the risks and impacts from the project.

• The proponents fail to demonstrate they would be capable of managing the risks and

impacts.

• The EES does not satisfy the draft evaluation objectives in the Scoping Requirements.

• The Project does not meet the requirements for approval under applicable legislation,

policies, guidelines and standards.

• The Project rationale is unconvincing.

• The Project location in an internationally recognised wetland is unjustifiable.

• Gas consumption has a negative impact on global warming.

• Negative impacts on marine ecology and biodiversity particularly due to increased night

light; terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity.

According to Submitter No. 3129 (page 20) “The close of the BP refinery in the 1980s and the

subsequent decrease in commercial shipping movements led to a noticeable improvement in

water quality and condition of the local foreshore. This improvement was reflected in a

marked regeneration in seagrass coverage and mangrove systems in Westernport that have

been observed by Deakin University and Melbourne Catchment Authority studies in recent

years”.

My opinion on Submitter No. 3129 position on the potential social impacts of the Project

within my expertise is presented in Table 6.

The following sentiments are beyond my expertise and I have therefore not provided an

opinion.

• The appropriateness of the EES process, particularly in the context of the COVID-19

pandemic situation and restrictions.

• Lack of a business case.

• ‘Waste’ of shareholder funds producing the EES.

106 Submitter No. 3129


69 Symplan


• Misrepresentation on the Project’s ability to reduce the cost of gas, provide energy

security and make use of existing infrastructure.

• The Project is likely to become obsolete due to the ‘demise of the dying fossil fuel’s

industry’.

• The Proponent is an irresponsible operator.

• Gas product is dangerous.

• AGL posts record profits from trade and mismanagement of Australia’s essential

resources.

• AGL has a poor safety record.

• The provision of LNG, as proposed by the Project, would result in a higher production of

carbon emissions than locally produced gas.

• Decrease to local property values or difficulty insuring properties near the facility.

• The Project does not meet the requirements for approval under applicable legislation,

policies, guidelines and standards.

• The Project may compromise tourism opportunities.

Table 6 – Opinion on Submitter No. 3129’s position on relevant social impacts

Submitter No. 3129 position

Comment

No social licence. Discussions regarding allocation of the proposed community fund which take place before the Project’s approval are considered ‘bribes’. The proposed community fund divides the community.

There is a lack of confidence with regards decision-making on the allocation of the community fund.

The points raised which are beyond my expertise demonstrate the joint proponents do not have a social licence in all sectors of the community to proceed with the Project.

The lack of a social licence has the potential to cause mistrust which may jeopardise the success of compensation negotiations. This may in turn cause stress and anxiety which can compromise mental and physical health and wellbeing.

The lack of social licence demonstrated in these sentiments has the potential to compromise social cohesion.

The Project will ruin a Ramsar listed wetland in Victoria.

The intensification of industrial uses in a Ramsar Wetlands Site is considered inappropriate given its uniqueness and environmental sensitivity. Further the community has developed a strong sense of place attachment to this environmental resource. Any further intensification may therefore jeopardise the place attachment.


70 Symplan



Comment

The new industrial facilities will compromise visual amenity.

Infrastructure associated with existing industrial uses do not currently dominate the visual setting of Western Port in the vicinity of Crib Point Jetty. This is because the UP vessel is not permanently moored at the Jetty and the BlueScope infrastructure does not dominate the horizon, as viewed from Woolleys Beach Reserves North and South.

The continuous mooring of the FSRU and CPRF will permanently alter the visual setting of Western Port, resulting in a significant impact on the visual amenity of all users of Western Port.

Increased industrial development will restrict economic and tourism opportunities for Crib Point and the Mornington Peninsula.

The marginal increase in jobs may have a limited positive impact on local businesses.

However, the permanent alteration to the visual setting resulting from the new infrastructure associated with the Project is likely to compromise the overall amenity of Western Port and detract, to some extent, from the area’s tourism appeal.

The Project is associated with the following risks and concerns:

• Disruption to

private

properties

along the

Pipeline route

The Project will disrupt properties along the Pipeline route both during construction and operation. Disruptions during construction include dust, noise, vibration, vegetation removal and severance.

Disruptions associated with operation include reduced capacity to utilise land encumbered by the easement.

The potential stress and anxiety associated with any compensation negotiations, together with the amenity impacts and impacts on property rights, have the potential to compromise the health and wellbeing of the affected landowners.

• Destruction of

‘wilderness

areas’ such as

Warringine

Park

The proposed Pipeline alignment follows the existing rail corridor in Warringine Park. Construction activities will result in the removal of existing vegetation. The Project Area will be rehabilitated following construction.

Although the Project will not result in the permanent destruction of the Project Area in Warringine Park, construction activities have the potential to compromise the amenity of walkers in Warringine Park.

• Impact on up

to 100 private

farms

Construction activities have the potential to displace farm activities affected by the right of way. The operation of the Project involves a permanent easement over private property.

• Risk of leakage,

explosion, spill

or accident

from human

error or

equipment

failure

The visual presence of industrial infrastructure and activity associated with the importation, conversion and transportation of a flammable substance therefore has the potential to compromise the community’s perceptions of safety, which in turn can compromise their mental health and wellbeing.


71 Symplan



Comment

• Threat of

bushfire due to

a potential

ignition source

and storage of

gas and other

substances

The large expanses of area covered by dense mature vegetation increases the threat of bushfires along the Project Area.

The risk register does not explicitly assess the residual risk associated with bushfires.

However, the threat associated with a potential ignition source and storage of gas and other substances in an area already susceptible to bushfires has the potential to compromise the community’s perceptions of safety which in turn has the potential to compromise their mental health and wellbeing.

• Disturbance to

nocturnal

wildlife due to

new light

source

The presence of the permanent light source has the potential to compromise the wellbeing of the nocturnal wildlife.

• Noise, dust,

vibration and

air emissions

from the FSRU

in excess of

EPA safe levels

The noise, dust and vibration during construction is likely to have a significant impact on the amenity of the residents adjoining the Project Area through Hastings.

These residents are also likely to be affected by other impacts such as severance and an increase in traffic.

These cumulative amenity impacts are likely to have a significant impact on their mental and physical health and wellbeing of a community displaying high levels of socio-economic disadvantage and socio-spatial vulnerability. Their capacity to cope with these amenity impacts is therefore likely to be significantly compromised, particularly those occurring after hours.

• Release of

waste from

Project’s

operations and

previous

industrial

activities into

Western Port

There is inadequate information in the EES for me to form an opinion on the cumulative impact of waste discharge associated with past industrial activities and the Project into Western Port.

However, the discharge of waste associated with the Project into the Western Port Ramsar site is counter to the community’s aspirations to safeguard the integrity of this site of environmental significance.

• Risks

associated with

potential

mooring

failures and

collisions

during bad

weather events

The EES has dismissed the potential for mooring failures and collisions associated with the FSRU.

However, the presence of the FSRU and LNG carriers during severe weather events has the potential to cause fear in the community. Perceptions of fear can have a detrimental impact on mental and physical health and wellbeing.

• Risks to marine

and land

animals,

The risk register has identified some medium residual risks on terrestrial and freshwater ecology during construction and a medium residual risk on marine ecology associated with contamination spills from the FSRU.


72 Symplan



Comment

damage to

mangrove beds

and resultant

impact on

birdlife, water

quality and sea

levels

These risks compromise the community’s aspirations to safeguard the integrity of the Western Port Ramsar site.

They also are detrimental to perceptions of safety and amenity.

• Economic,

social

psychological

and health

impacts to the

community

Construction and operation of the Project has the potential to stimulate the local economy through job creation and local supply contracts.

The assessment of the potential social impacts presented in Section 4.2 align with the opinion the Project may compromise the mental and physical health and wellbeing of the community.

• The

stakeholder

engagement

process was

inadequate.

The stakeholder engagement process follows engagement processes informing EESs for other large infrastructure projects I have been involved in previously.

The community’s perceptions they have not had the opportunity to engage sufficiently in the development of the Project demonstrates the Project lacks a social licence.

4.3.3 Submitter No. 3088

The following points raised in Submitter No. 3088 are beyond my scope of expertise:

• The Australian Energy Market Operator’s forecasting approach is missing the big picture.

• A demand reduction strategy is more appropriate to future reliance on gas.

• AGL failed to consider an already approved alternative.

• Legal compliance of the Project’s Wastewater discharges.

Nevertheless, these points indicate the Proponent does not have a social licence to operate.

My opinion on other points raised in this submission is as follows (refer to Table 7):

Table 7 - Opinion on Submitter No. 3088’s position on relevant social impacts

Submitter No.

3088’s position Comment

Climate change is a present threat.

There is evidence demonstrating climate change is a threat to humans and the natural environment. The Project is associated with greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change.

Victoria is particularly exposed to the impacts of climate change.

There is evidence climate change contributes to bushfires. The bushfires of 2019-2020 in Victoria had a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of Victorians and Victorian biodiversity.


73 Symplan


Submitter No.

3088’s position Comment

The project will compromise the value of green space and blue space which will result in the loss of recreational space.

The social impact assessment has demonstrated the potential negative social impacts of the Project on the value of green and blue space, and the loss of recreational space.

AGL’s proposal lacks social licence.

The social impact assessment has demonstrated the Project lacks a social licence to operate.

The Project will result in cumulative impacts on public health.

The social impact assessment has demonstrated the Project has a potential negative cumulative impact on public health and wellbeing.

The EES does not provide sufficient information to conclude AGL can manage the significant risks associated with the construction and operation phases of the Project.

The lack of confidence in the proponent’s capacity to adequately prevent, minimise or mitigate risks demonstrates the proponent lacks a social licence and the Project will result in perceptions of risk which compromise the community’s health and wellbeing.

4.3.4 Community

Community sentiment

Submissions were received from a wide range of members of the community, including

business owners, residents, local and regional visitors, state government bodies, energy

industry representatives, non-government organisations, peak bodies, sport and recreational

community organisations, politicians, animal welfare organisations, conservation

organisations, planning authorities and responsible authorities.

Some of the submitters are experts in the fields of mental and physical health, fire protection,

animal and environmental conservation, economics and energy.

Submitters included both children and adults ranging from six years to over ninety years of

age.

Not only do I feel sickened at the potential impacts this project could have just 4km away from place I’ve called home for most of my life, but as a young person living on this earth I feel so incredibly frustrated by governments and corporations ignoring the sheer importance of reducing the impacts of climate change. Being 20 years old, I find that I spend a lot of my time thinking about the impending doom of Climate Change. I find myself growing frustrated that young people like myself are forced to stand aside while those in charge take it upon themselves to continually pollute the earth, before eventually leaving it in the hands of my generation to clean up. Submitter No. 2020


74 Symplan


I wish to submit my reasons against AGLs dirty big gas import terminal. I'm a teenager and I'm absolutely terrified about climate change, we are in a climate emergency with rising temperatures, bushfires and extreme weather. We will be moving away from fossil fuels, so having a big gas terminal at Crib Point is extremely irresponsible to the environment and for future generations. Submitter No. 2058

It is the year 2020, climate change is a major concern. A huge concern for the youth of today. There is so much destruction, the environment needs to be looked after. it seems the youth of today have to clean up the mess from those who don’t understand Climate Change. Submitter No. 94, 14 year old.

I am scared with your plan of AGL in our area…. What will you do when there is an explosion? It will kill me, my family and my friends… We are kids, I don’t won’t [sic] to look at your ships in Western Port Bay. I don’t want to clean up your mess, dead birds, marine life. Why do you have to destroy everything? Submitter No. 95, 11 years old.

Six of the 3,835 submitters support the Project. Eight submitters were neither in favour of nor

in opposition to the Project but requested further information and confirmation that issues

raised by those in opposition to the Project can be effectively addressed. Some of the

submissions opposing the Project were signed by multiple parties.

Some of the submitters in favour of the Project made recommendations regarding the

operation and management of the infrastructure (see for example Submitter No. 113, 1357,

2671).

The Project will be a helpful and low-risk component of a wider strategy to moderate risks to gas users; and that the Project is not inconsistent with a successful Victorian and Australian transition to net zero emissions by 2050. Submitter No. 365.

On balance, however, the overwhelming majority of submitters expressed their concerned

with the potential social, economic and environmental impacts associated with the

construction and operation of the Project.

As a very concerned resident I implore you to heed the objections of the community that would have to live with this. 1034

I’ll keep this simple. No one on the peninsula wants this to go ahead. If it does you will be going against the majority of residents wishes. I’m saying NO to this project and I’m sure you have received many more emails like mine. Please don’t ruin our beautiful bay. Submitter No. 1780

I feel fortunate to be a part of a dedicated and stoic community group who are reflecting the values of our natural habitat that is home to us. Submitter No. 2872

I hope that you will listen to what I and countless others have expressed, and our collective disapproval of this development. I am afraid of my future and what developments such as this will mean for my personal wellbeing, and professional ability as a vet. Submitter No. 1008

It is against the community’s wishes: already thousands of individual submissions against the proposal have been sent. AGL’s proposal threatens the local community with the risk of fire and explosion. Submitter No. 907

Specific issues

The following points raised in the submissions are beyond my sphere of expertise and I

therefore provide no comment:

• Wetlands are a protective factor against climate change.


75 Symplan


• There is no need for additional gas supplies.

• The potential scientific and environmental impact of water and air pollution on terrestrial

and marine biodiversity.

• The extent to which the Project meets legal requirements.

• The potential and desirability of renewable energy sources replacing gas.

• Potential for Project to increase competition.

• Potential for Project to deliver cheaper gas.

• Potential for Project to support Australia’s economic recovery.

• Potential for the Project to provide back-up capacity to support a renewables dominated

electricity system.

My comments on points main raised in the community submissions within my sphere of

expertise are provided in Table 8.

Table 8 - Opinion on community’s points on relevant social impacts

Issue Comment

Project will address demand for gas.

The Project will increase the supply of gas to the residential, business and industrial sectors in south eastern Australia. This is a benefit to those sectors who will source this augmented gas supply.

Project will increase job opportunities.

The Project will result in increased job opportunities. The extent to which these additional jobs will be filled by the community affected by the construction and operation stages of the Project is unknown.

The environmental impact on the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site affect the mental and physical health of communities who access them.

The social impact assessment has found the potential impacts on the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site associated with the construction and operation of the Project may compromise the mental and physical health and wellbeing of local residents, and local and regional visitors to the area due to the potential impact on the community’s way of life, amenity, perceptions of risk and culture.

The Project has the potential to compromise tourism.

Although I am not qualified to comment on the economic impact of tourism, the community’s perception that the Project may compromise Western Port’s tourism appeal may have an impact on visitation levels to the Project Area.

The Project has no social licence.

The concerns raised in the submissions reviewed relating to the potential social impacts of the Project, democratic processes and stakeholder engagement processes are likely to detract from the Project’s social licence. This may compromise the willingness or ability for affected stakeholders to engage in future decision-making processes. This could undermine the Proponents’ efforts to effectively and successfully negotiate agreed compensation agreements and Pipeline alignments. It may further compromise the stakeholder engagement component of the various construction and operation management plans. This could detract from the Proponents’ capacity to allay the community’s fears and further their aspirations regarding the potential impact on their health and wellbeing, and the environmental integrity of Western Port.

The stakeholder engagement process was dissatisfactory.

The stakeholder engagement process reflects stakeholder engagement processes undertaken during the preparation of EESs for other large infrastructure projects for which I have prepared social impact assessments. Although the community has been involved in the process,


76 Symplan


Issue Comment

there is a general consensus that their views and concerns have not been adequately addressed. Therefore, given the community’s dissatisfaction with the process, the stakeholder engagement process cannot be deemed to align with a core social impact assessment principle that development projects should be broadly acceptable to the members of those communities likely to be affected by the Project.

The community’s attitudes towards the stakeholder engagement process may have an impact on their health and wellbeing.


77 Symplan


5 PEER REVIEW This section provides my opinion on the EES and the social impact assessment approach used

to prepare Chapter 18 and Technical Report M of the EES.

5.1 The Environmental Effects Statement

5.1.1 The Project Area

The alignment of the Pipeline component of the Project seeks to minimise the potential

impact on the community’s amenity, both during construction and operation.

The location of the Jetty Infrastructure, including the FSRU and CPRF compromises the

intrinsic environmental values and integrity of the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site.

Overall, the Project Area is considered inappropriate.

5.1.2 Project alternatives

Section 3.4 of the Minister’s Scoping Requirements state the EES should document and

evaluate feasible alternatives, and the likely social, environmental or economic effects of

these alternatives (refer to Appendix 10).

Section 2.4 of Chapter 2 Project rationale provides an overview of the LNG import options

considered during the development of the Gas Import Jetty Works, in particular the rationale

for selecting the proposed site in the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site.

However, the discussion of environmental effects in Table 2-3, which evaluates the LNG

import sites, does not address any social impact considerations. In particular, the site selection

process did not consider the socio-economic and socio-spatial vulnerability of the

communities of Hastings and Crib Point impacted by the two main components of the Project.

It is acknowledged there are industrial uses in Crib Point and Hastings, and the Project Area at

Crib Point Jetty is zoned for industrial purposes. Nevertheless, the existing land use character

of the communities of Crib Point and Hastings comprises predominantly residential,

recreational, community and service components. Further, the Project involves an industrial

use associated with significant potential safety and amenity impacts for both residents and

local and regional visitors.

The selected alternative is therefore considered inappropriate.

5.1.3 Evaluation objective

The evaluation objective relating to potential social impacts seeks is “To minimise [my

underlining] potential adverse social, economic, amenity and land use effects at local and

regional scales”. However, other evaluation objectives seek to go beyond minimising impacts

by avoiding them – see for example evaluation objective for biodiversity and cultural heritage.

This is considered a significant flaw in the EES considering the range, scope and duration of

potential social impacts associated with the construction and operation stages of the Project.

5.1.4 Environmental Management Framework

The purpose of the Environmental Management Framework (EMR), as stated in Chapter 25 of

the EES, is “To clarify how the management of potential environmental impacts of the Project

that have been identified in this EES will be captured within the statutory approvals and


78 Symplan


consents that are required”. In principle, it encapsulates the mitigation measures developed in

the EES to avoid, minimise or offset potential environmental, social and safety impacts.

The proposed mitigation measures pertaining to potential social impacts involve consultative

mechanisms (MM-SO01-3), sourcing local workers (MMSO04) and the provision of a

community fund (MM-SO05).

Two mitigation measures are proposed:

• Stakeholder Engagement Management Strategy which would scope affected stakeholders

and residents, provide them with information regarding construction and upcoming

works, and an inquiries and feedback system.

• Complaints management system which documents the details of the complaint, and

actions regarding mitigation and prevention.

Risk assessments were not undertaken as part of the social impact assessment, suggesting

these mitigation measures are not derived from actual or predicted risks.

These strategies are likely to be ineffective in preventing or minimising the potential social

impact. They are likely to function predominantly as an information exchange process.

The Environment Protection Authority has raised concerns regarding mitigation of noise (refer

to Submitter No. 2671). Further, a registered psychologist has raised similar concerns.

There is some minor mention in the EES of the impact of noise on local residents living close to the Crib Point facility and a so called ‘mitigation strategy’ of warning residents 24 hours in advance of a LNG tanker arriving at the FSRU at night. What does AGL expect residents to do in the event of such advance notice? Are they expected to vacate their homes for the period? Will they be issued with ear plugs? Or are they simply expected to roll over and take the noise in their stride? Sleep disturbance has consistently been shown in high quality research to have significant negative effects on 7 mood states, mental health status, concentration, work performance and relationships. Submitter No. 1476

The EMR proposes to compensate affected landholders for the acquisition of the easement

required to construct the pipeline (MM-SO03 and MM – AG03). There is inadequate

information in the EMR indicating how this compensation will be negotiated or mediated. This

is likely to cause concern amongst potentially affected parties.

APA has contacted me multiple times during the last two years while they were conducting surveys to discuss compensation, but the discussion was always just from their point of view. I (along with my spouse and mate) bought the property three years back. Our intention for this purchase is to have an asset for our kids in 20 years down the line. We have spent all our lifetime savings on this and are also paying a chunk of our earning as mortgage. The compensation suggested by APA is a joke. We have provided a lot of feedback on telephone conversations and emails, but they are falling on deaf ears. They always talk about compensation based on current valuation, but they are not willing to accept that the impact will be much worse in 20 years down the line when our children want to utilize the asset at which time there will be 20-30% loss in property value when compared to e.g. next lot which is neat without any easement. As part of multiple discussions with APA, we have provided various compensation options for which they either have rejected straightaway or said that they will get back to me but they never did and I get call from various staff of APA who don't have any context of the previous discussion I already had on email and telephone and so I have to start discussions all over again. This is causing a lot of psychological stress and I finally requested them to not to contact us with letters and emails till they can be in a position to


79 Symplan


clearly discuss the options I have proposed for compensation. I have also read many articles regarding the environmental impacts like fuel spills and impacts to aquatic life this project will cause. I also had plans for farming which I am presently unable to as I am not sure about the impact this pipeline may cause as I am not in a financial position to bear further losses so this is farm land is just lying around at the moment and not benefitting me or community in any way. APA took three years to publish an 11,000-page environmental effects statement and it is just not fair to expect feedback from me in a couple of months. I already have to cope with extreme stress of coronavirus pandemic thinking about my family's health and wellbeing and I am not in a position to thoroughly review the other impacts caused by this project. Due to lock down in Victoria, I don't even have an option to visit exhibitions and discuss the impacts with APA face-face which, as you already are aware, is more fruitful. Based on the above, I strongly object to construction of the pipeline and I request the Committee to please consider my feedback. If APA are approved to go ahead without considering my feedback, I will be in a very difficult position. I am paying a big chunk of my earning as mortgage and I will not have an option other burying myself next to pipeline. Submitter No. 1303

The proposed mitigation measures pertaining to providing alternative access arrangements

(MM-AG02) uses the phrase ‘where practical and desirable’. Similarly, the phrase ‘wherever

practicable’ is used under MM -AG05. This is likely to raise concerns amongst affected

landholders that their interests may not be adequately considered.

As discussed in Section 4.1.4, the potential benefits derived from the community fund may be

offset by the potential negative impact on community cohesion.

5.2 Social impact assessment

5.2.1 Framework

The framework used to assess the significance of the social impacts is adequate.

5.2.2 Description of Project

The EES SIA provides an adequate description of the Project and its components.

5.2.3 Compliance with scoping requirements

The relevant component of the Scoping Requirements is provided in Appendix 8.

The EES SIA does not identify options for mitigating or managing visual or landscape impacts

of the Project for both residents living near the Project and for visitors to the locality. This is

likely because it would be practically impossible to mitigate or manage the visual and

landscape impacts due to the size and scale of the physical industrial infrastructure associated

with the Project. A further probable reason is this infrastructure will make permanent changes

to a visual setting comprising predominantly natural features and small scale industrial

infrastructure.

5.2.4 Methodology

The methodology guiding the preparation of the EES SIA reflects standard SIA methodology

applied in the preparation of EESs for major infrastructure projects.

The following specific aspects of the methodology are relevant to rigorous social impact

assessment processes.


80 Symplan


Evidence base

One of the principles of social impact assessment is evidence should be drawn from both

scientific and non-scientific sources.

One does not have to be an engineer, a development expert or a scientist to understand the ever growing body of knowledge that attests to the insanity of any expansion or extension of our use of fossil fuels. Submitter No. 3515

Some of the conclusions in the EES SIA differ substantially from experts involved in preparing

Submitter No. 3129 and Submitter No. 3088, and from research on the role gas plays in

climate change.

The assessments and conclusions in the EES SIA, Technical Report M Social draw heavily on

the quantitative and qualitative data and findings presented in technical reports A to L, and N

to Q. However, there are instances where the findings and conclusions within these technical

reports are inherently contradictory and unclear. For example, the assessment of visual

impacts in Technical Report I, at page 116 firstly states “The view point [of the FSRU and LNG

carriers] is located in an area of high landscape sensitivity..” and then goes on to say “The

sensitivity of this viewpoint is considered to be medium”. The author of the EES SIA has not

adequately reconciled such contradictions in the conclusions and findings.

In certain instances, the assessment of social impacts is not informed by adequate evidence.

For example:

• The community profiling data does not include Mornington Peninsula which is an

important benchmark.

• Assessment of construction impacts of the Pipeline Works on access (page 71, Technical

Report M) concludes “Residents of Crib Point and Bittern are not highly dependent on

roads (such as The Esplanade) where there would be notable changes to traffic

conditions”.

• The assessment of potential impacts on the risk of injury on people’s perceptions of safety

(page 63, Technical Report M) during operation concludes “Concern [regarding safety]

would be alleviated during the ongoing safe operation and maintenance of the Works”.

The foundation of this evidence is questionable given the material presented in Submitter

No. 3129, particularly those relating to past safety breaches.

Cumulative impacts

The EES SIA has not adequately assessed the potential cumulative impacts of the Project

associated with the following factors:

• Additional impacts on amenity and the terrestrial and marine environments associated

with the existing impacts caused by past and low intensity industrial uses in the Western


• Impacts associated with the concurrent works involved with the upgrading of Crib Point

Pier.

• Combined effects on the integrity of the marine and terrestrial environments, amenity,

health and safety of the users of the Project Area associated with increases in dust, noise,

traffic and vibration together with the visual impact of the project, and severance and

displacement during both construction and operation.


81 Symplan


• Combined impacts associated with concerns regarding the physical changes to the

environment caused by the construction and operation of the Project and the latent

stresses arising out of the consultation processes leading up to the publication of the EES

and preparing submissions for the forthcoming IAC hearing.

The conclusions in the EES documentation in general, and the SIA in particular, dismiss

potential impacts such as noise, air pollution and traffic because they do not exceed

compliance levels or capacity (in the case of traffic). However, when assessing potential

cumulative impacts, any change which compromises existing baseline conditions is likely to

have a negative impact and should not be dismissed.

Disproportionate harm and capacity to cope

One of the principles of social impact assessment is that people should not be

disproportionately harmed as a result of the changes associated with the project. People may

be disproportionately harmed due to a concentration of construction and/or operational

impacts within their community or because they are currently experiencing socio-economic

and socio-spatial vulnerability. In some instances, disproportionate harm may arise out of

both factors.

As discussed in Section 4.1.2, communities experiencing socio-economic and socio-spatial

disadvantage are likely to be less resilient to negative impacts, particularly if these are the

communities most likely to be negatively affected by the construction and operation stages of

the Project. For example, horizontal directional drilling (HDD) would be used for

approximately 8 kilometres of the total pipeline alignment, more than a quarter (2.6

kilometres and five sections) of which would be within Hastings Township. Further,

construction activities in Hastings would continue for up to ten months. Given the clear socio-

economic and socio-spatial vulnerability of the communities in Crib Point and Hastings, the

capacity of these communities to cope with and absorb changes is likely to be significantly

compromised.

Similarly, the communities living in and visiting Western Port will experience disproportionate

harm during operation of the Project as the bulk of the Project’s above ground operational

infrastructure is located here.

The concept of ‘capacity to cope’, which has been adapted by the author of the EES SIA,

appears to have dismissed and misinterpreted the research in the original source107 which

states “The concept of vulnerability has been useful for assessing the sensitivity of social

receptors. People’s capacity to cope with changes ultimately reflects their vulnerability”. The

author of the research goes on to categorise receptors which are already vulnerable as having

very little capacity and means to absorb changes.

The author of the SIA EES reaches conclusions on the community’s capacity to cope with the

potential residual impacts during construction and operation. The use of the concept of

‘capacity and means to cope’ is largely derived from the author’s judgement and evaluation

rather than on the evidence expressed by the opinions of some of the interest groups involved

in the stakeholder engagement process and the existing levels of socio-economic and socio-

spatial vulnerability experienced by the communities in Hastings.

107 Marielle Rowan (2009) Refining the attribution of significance in social impact assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27:3, 185-191, DOI: 10.3152/146155109X467588 https://doi.org/10.3152/146155109X467588


82 Symplan


There are inherent contradictions in the assessment of the community’s ‘capacity to cope’.

For example, on page 60 of Technical Report M, the author states “Woolleys Beach is a locally

significant foreshore area and there are no other foreshore reserve locations in the local area

which offer comparable amenity.” However, this document states on page 60 that the

resultant displacement can be mitigated by identifying a suitable foreshore location and by

developing comparable recreational infrastructure to those found at Woolleys Beach North.

While it appears the author is referring to facilities such as toilets which are not available at

Woolleys Beach Reserve South, the author has overlooked his previous finding that the

amenity enjoyed by the users of the unique recreational area at Woolleys Beach Reserves

North and South is unique. As a result, there are limited, if any opportunities, for users of

these facilities to find suitable alternative recreational facilities.

The concept of ‘capacity to cope’ should also factor in the potential cumulative impacts on the

community’s health and wellbeing resulting from compromised visual amenity; increases in

traffic, noise, vibration, light and air pollution; displacement; and fears relating to safety and

greenhouse gas emission.

Assigning values and significance

The conclusions in the EES SIA dismiss and minimise the potential impact of people’s

perceptions on their mental and physical health and wellbeing resulting from the potential

impacts on the marine and terrestrial, physical and social environment. Regardless of the

findings in scientific quantitative studies such as those presented in Chapters 6 to 16 in the

EES, in many instances, a person’s perception of a risk and the efficacy of a proposed

mitigation measure or event becomes their reality. This is one of the fundamental social

impact assessment considerations used by practitioners and one which underpins much of the

discussion in my report.

Technical Report M page 21 states “The attribution of significance is ultimately a matter of

judgement”. While it is common for authors of SIAs to use their judgement when assessing

the likely value and significance of potential impacts, it is essential to incorporate and not

dismiss the evaluation of significance provided by the people living and using the social and

physical environment affected by the Project.

In assigning values and significance, the EES SIA assumes facilities and amenities enjoyed by

residents and visitors in Western Port affected by the Project are largely replaceable and

interchangeable. The SIA suggests people displaced from facilities affected by the Project can

use other facilities in the area. The assessment assumes firstly these other facilities have the

capacity to accommodate the additional utilisation and secondly provide the same level of

amenity and enjoyment. There appears to be inadequate evidence to substantiate these

assumptions.

There is inadequate evidence or discussion to substantiate or explain the adaptive capacity

hierarchy used to assess the potential social, health and wellbeing impacts of the Project on

the community (refer to Table 3-2, EES Technical Report M). The adaptive hierarchy is

therefore neither transparent nor objective as it is not substantiated by sufficient assessment

criteria.

6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section summarises the findings from the SIA and reaches a conclusion on the potential

social impacts of the Project on the communities in Mornington Peninsula Shire.


83 Symplan


It provides recommendations which may be incorporated in the IAC’s recommendations to

the Minister for Planning.

6.1 Summary

6.1.1 Potential social impacts

Benefits

The Project may be associated with the following benefits:

• The Project will secure gas supplies to south-eastern Australia. This will be of benefit to

the existing and future residential, commercial and industrial sectors across this region.

• The establishment of a $7.5 million community fund has the potential to increase access

to social and recreational infrastructure and thereby facilitate healthy lifestyles across the

Project area.

• The construction and operation stages of the Project will generate jobs, some of which

may be filled by the local community.

It is beyond my scope of expertise to quantify these benefits. Nevertheless, the following

factors are of relevance in assessing the extent of the potential social benefits for the

community:

• There is inadequate evidence to draw conclusions on the extent of the potential benefit

associated with augmented gas supply on the communities of Crib Point and Hastings,

both of which are likely to experience the most significant disbenefits arising from the

construction and operation stages of the Project.

• The EES SIA has noted the potential benefits to economic vitality associated with job

creation are limited.

• The actual social benefit of the $7.5 million community fund to the communities in

Hastings and Crib Point is likely to be minimal and may compromise social cohesion.

Disbenefits

The construction stage of the Project may have a detrimental cumulative impact on the

amenity of people living, working, learning and recreating in locations within the Project Area.

These cumulative amenity impacts are associated with an increase in artificial lighting, dust,

noise, vibration, traffic and a reduction in real and perceived safety. Other impacts associated

with construction include severance and displacement due to changes in access to private

property and roadways, and the removal of mature native vegetation. The amenity impacts

may have a disproportionate negative impact on vulnerable interest groups such as older

people and children, and people relying on public transport, and those communities

experiencing elevated socio-economic and socio-spatial vulnerability.

The operation stage of the Project has the potential to have a detrimental cumulative impact

on the amenity of some of the residents in Crib Point and the recreational users of the

Western Port Ramsar wetlands site. This is due to the increase in noise, light pollution and

waste; a reduction in air quality and the extension of the exclusion zone. Further, the

permanent Crib Point Jetty infrastructure will detract from the visual amenity of the Western



84 Symplan


These cumulative negative impacts are likely to compromise the community’s mental and

physical health and wellbeing and affect the community’s sense of attachment to an area

which provides passive and active recreation facilities and is a Ramsar wetlands site. They are

also likely to detract from the value the community places in the Western Port and their

aspirations to safeguard the integrity of this site of environmental significance and reduce the

industrialisation of the area.

Social licence to operate

The discussion in the submissions indicates the Proponents do not currently have a social

licence due to the submitters’ concerns with the Proponents’ past practices and safety record.

Furthermore, the dissatisfaction with the stakeholder engagement process expressed by some

of the submitters, and the concerns raised in the majority of submissions relating to potential

social impacts associated with the Project, are likely to detract from the Proponent’s social

licence to operate the Project.

The apparent lack of a social licence to operate is likely to compromise the willingness or

ability for affected stakeholders to engage in future decision-making and stakeholder

engagement processes. It is also likely to affect the extent to which the community accepts

the changes and impacts associated with the Project.

6.1.2 Peer review

The EES consists of a series of comprehensive technical reports covering a wide range of

potential changes to the social, economic, physical and environmental baseline conditions in

the Project Area.

EES SIA (Technical Report M and Chapter 18) has not adequately assessed some of the

standard social impact considerations.

The EES SIA has relied on the residual risk ratings and findings of technical studies to

determine the potential amenity and safety impacts. It has not adequately considered the

community’s fears and aspirations regarding the potential impact of the Project on their

mental and physical health and wellbeing, amenity, way of life, shared values and aspirations

with regard the future of the Western Port Ramsar wetlands site, personal and property

rights, culture and political systems. This has the effect of dismissing and minimising the

overall impact of the Project on people whose physical, social and recreational environment

will be permanently altered due to changes associated with the construction and operation of

the Project. This is important given it is the affected community, and not the technical experts

involved in preparing the EES studies who will be directly affected by the construction and

operation stages of the Project.

The EES SIA has not adequately considered the affected community’s level of socio-economic

disadvantage and socio-spatial vulnerability in concluding the community has adequate

‘capacity to cope’ with the potential social impacts. Further, given the significant role the

amenities and facilities at Woolleys Beach Reserves North and South play in providing

opportunities for both passive and active recreation, and the strong attachment to place

associated with these facilities, the community’s capacity to cope with displacement and

severance during construction is likely to be minimal.


85 Symplan


6.2 Conclusion

In conclusion the IAC should recommend that the Minister for Planning does not approve the

Project on the following grounds.

1. The potential social disbenefits outweigh the potential social benefits due to the

following factors:

• The Project may have a negative social impact on the communities most likely

affected by the construction and operation of the Project. This is due primarily to their

levels of socio-economic and socio-spatial vulnerability which compromise their

capacity to cope with the negative impacts.

• The Project area affects a Ramsar wetlands site which is recognised internationally for

its biophysical attributes. This Ramsar site is an important asset for the local

community and visitors to the Project area.

• The lack of a social licence to operate compromises future liaison between the

proponents and the community, and therefore the overall success of the Project.

2. The social impact assessment component of the EES does not comply with some of the

standard principles and core values of social impact assessment. As a result, the

conclusions on the potential social impacts associated with the Project should not be

relied upon.

3. The following issues raised by some of the submitters relevant to a social impact

assessment reflect my opinion:

• The Project has the potential to permanently displace the community from valuable,

unique and intrinsically valuable green and blue spaces used by both local residents

and visitors to the area.

• The Project may compromise the community’s strong sense of attachment to the

Project Area which is designated as a Ramsar wetlands site. This may have a negative

social impact on their way of life, their culture, their personal and shared resources,

and their mental and physical health and wellbeing.

• The construction and operation stages of the Project have the potential to

compromise real and perceived amenity and safety of residents and visitors to the

area.

• The Proponents lack a social licence to operate given the mistrust associated with the

stakeholder engagement process and potential to prevent and mitigate potential risks

to the community’s health, wellbeing and safety.

4. The mitigation measures proposed in the EMR are unlikely to adequately prevent,

minimise or mitigate potential social impacts arising from the Project.


86 Symplan


6.3 Recommendations

Should the Minister for Planning approve the Project, the following recommendations should

be considered:

Recommendation 1 - Environmental Management Framework

The following recommended changes to selected management and mitigation measures in the

EMF are required to address the community’s fears regarding the potential impact of the

Project on their environment, personal and property rights, way of life, resources, culture and

political systems (refer to Table 9).

Table 9 – Recommended amendments to Environmental Management Framework

Mitigation measure Comment Recommendation

SO01 “for residents to make enquires, lodge complaints etc. during construction (see mitigation measure SE02)”

This needs to include all affected parties including community facilities, committees of management, users of Hastings Town Centre etc.

There needs to be a mechanism to ensure issues are adequately resolved during both construction and operation.

The use of ‘etc’ has the potential to raise concerns regarding the effectiveness of the complaints procedure in solving the complaint.

“for residents the community (including relevant Councils, government authorities, adjoining affected landowners and businesses and other community groups directly impacted by the Project) to make enquires, lodge complaints, and have their issues adequately resolved etc. during construction and operation (see SE02)”

SO05 “Detailed arrangements for the community fund will be resolved in partnership with relevant community stakeholders. In particular, there will be community led involvement in how the fund will be set-up, managed and spent.”

Given the views expressed by Submitter No. 3129 with regards the benefits of the community fund, mediatory processes will be required during the allocation of funds to ensure the community fund does not compromise social cohesion in the community.

Monitoring and evaluation of the social impact and outcomes of the Community Fund are required to assess whether this strategy is effective in addressing existing and emerging social issues in the community.

… Appropriate processes ensuring full acceptance of the allocation process by the community will guide the allocation of the community fund.

A monitoring and evaluation process will be devised and implemented in partnership with relevant community stakeholders to determine the effectiveness of the Community Fund in addressing existing and emerging social issues in the community.

SE02 “A complaints management system will be put in place that documents:”

It is important to include a line item allowing the affected party to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the complaints management system and whether the complaint has been adequately resolved.

• feedback from the affected

party regarding the

effectiveness of the

complaints management

system

• feedback from the affected

party as to whether the

complaint has been

adequately resolved


87 Symplan


Recommendation 2 – Community fund

The value of the proposed $7.5 million Community Fund should be augmented to

accommodate the social, economic, amenity and land use offset projects outlined by

Submitter No 2276.

Recommendation 3 – Compensation for displaced recreation and community infrastructure

The financial implications associated with adequate compensation for recreational or

community infrastructure displaced as a result of the construction and/or operation of the

Project are to be borne entirely by the Proponents.


88 Symplan


APPENDIX 1 – REQUEST FOR QUOTATION

Name: Chris Atmore

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 0425796434

How can we help you?: Dear Ms Rosen, I am contacting you on behalf of [Submitter No. 3129] which is a community group currently awaiting exhibition of the Environment Effects Statement for a AGL/APA gas project proposed for Crib Point on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria. The project includes a Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU) to be moored to a jetty near Crib Point, with connection to a 56 km pipeline. We are seeking an expert witness on the social and economic impact. Once the EES is published (likely in the next 1-2 weeks) we will have 8 weeks to submit expert reports. Is this something you could undertake and if so for what approximate cost, or can you suggest anyone we should approach? Thankyou.



89 Symplan


APPENDIX 2 – SYMPLAN RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR QUOTATION Monday 30 June 2020 Via email: [email protected] Dear Chris,

Fee proposal expert evidence Floating Storage Regasification Unit, Crib Point Thank you for your interest in engaging Symplan to prepare and present expert evidence on the potential social impacts of the Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU) at Crib Point. With reference to your email dated 16 June 2020 and our telephone conversation on 25 June 2020, I have pleasure in outlining the scope and nature of the tasks and an indicative fee proposal. Scope of tasks Symplan would be responsible for preparing independent expert evidence on the potential social impacts associated with the FSRU at Crib Point. This would involve the following tasks:

1. Undertake one site inspection.

2. Document review including sections of the EES relevant to potential social impacts, selected

legislative and strategic documents and academic research.

3. Prepare an independent social impact assessment in the form of an expert witness

statement focussing on the following social impact assessment considerations:

• people’s way of life –how they live, work, play and interact with one another on a day-

to-day basis

• their culture –their shared beliefs, customs, values and language or dialect; their

community – its cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities

• their political systems – the extent to which people, are able to participate in decisions

affecting their lives, the level of democratisation taking place, and the resources

provided for this purpose

• their environment – the potential impact on mental and physical health and wellbeing

which is determined by the quality of the air and water people use; the availability and

quality of the food they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed

to; the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over

resources

• their personal and property rights – the potential impact on private property, shared

resources

• their fears and aspirations – their perceptions about their safety, their fears about

the future of their community, and their aspirations for their future and the future

of their children.

4. Appear before Planning Panels Victoria as an expert witness at a hearing, date to be

determined, if required i.e. evidence is not considered ‘on the papers’.

5. General project management including liaison by telephone with client and legal team

Indicative fee proposal The indicative fee proposal for the five tasks outlined above is $7,500 inclusive of GST. This indicative fee proposal is based on the following conditions:

• Two iterations of the expert witness statement will be prepared, one draft and one final.

• One site inspection will be undertaken.



90 Symplan


• Appearance as an expert witness will involve a maximum of four hours, if required.

• Any tasks completed over and above this indicated will be charged at a rate of $200 plus

GST, per hour.

• Three invoices will be lodged: 50 per cent of fees on formal engagement, 25 per cent of fees

following submission of expert evidence to client, 25 per cent of fees on appearance as

expert witness, if required OR filing of expert evidence to be heard ‘on the papers’.

Tasks excluded from this indicative fee proposal include:

• Review of expert witness statements or other documentation prepared by the proponent in

support of the proposal other than relevant documentation included in EES

• Stakeholder engagement and community consultation

• Meetings with legal team

• Any other tasks over and above those listed under Scope of tasks above.

Should the matter be heard ‘on the papers’, the fee of $7,500 inclusive of GST will still apply. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information. I look forward to working with you. Yours sincerely,

Bonnie Rosen Principal – Symplan Consulting


91 Symplan


APPENDIX 3 – BRIEF TO SYMPLAN


92 Symplan



93 Symplan



94 Symplan



95 Symplan


APPENDIX 4 – DOCUMENTS IN BRIEF INDEX – Brief to Expert (Rosen)

AGL/APA Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project at Crib Point, Victoria 22 July

2020

INDEX A – Environment Effects Documents

No. Document Title

0.

Executive Summary

1. EES Main Report (Chapters)

1.

Project description (Chapter 4)

2.

Noise and vibration (Chapter 13)

3.

Landscape and visual (Chapter 14)

4.

Social (Chapter 18)

5.

Environmental Management Framework (Chapter 25)

6.

Stakeholder engagement (Chapter 26)

2. Technical Reports

1.

Social Impact Assessment (Technical Report M)

3. Attachments

1.

Environmental risk report (Attachment III)

INDEX B – OTHER

No. Document Title Date

1.

Planning Panels Victoria, Guide to Expert Evidence

April 2019


96 Symplan


APPENDIX 5 – BIBLIOGRAPHY Albrecht, G et al (2007) “Solastalgia: the distress caused by environmental change” Australasian Psychiatry Vol 15 Supplement

Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (2005) Socio-economic Impact Assessment Toolkit. A guide to assessing the socio-economic impacts of Marine Protected Areas in Australia, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, ACT

Burge, R. et al (2004) The Concepts, Process and Methods of Social Impact Assessment Social Ecology Press, Wisconsin

Cardno Review of Benchmark Infrastructure Costings, 2018

Christopher, CM. et al (undated) “Artificially lit surface of Earth at night increasing in radiance and extent” Science Advances Sci Adv 3 (11), e1701528. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1701528

Crib Point Township Structure Plan Refresh

DELWP Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2017). Western Port Ramsar Site Management Plan Summary. Department of

Department of Health (2018) The health effects of environmental noise Publication 12214 Commonwealth of Australia

Department of Sustainability, Victorian State Government (2006) Ministerial guidelines for assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978

Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne.

Environmental Psychology Vol 21

Graeme Butler & Associates, Volume 2, (2001) Hastings District Heritage Study Stage Two Environmental History

Hastings Town Centre Structure Plan 2014

Herek, G., Capitanio, J., Widaman, K. (2008 – unpublished draft) “Stigma, Social Risk and Health Policy: Public Attitudes Towards HIV Surveillance Policies and the Social Construction of Illness” To be published in Health Psychology 22(5) 533-540 p2 of unpublished draft

Heritage, A. Tissot, A. and Manerjee, B. (undated) Heritage and Wellbeing: What Constitutes a Good Life? International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property https://www.iccrom.org/projects/heritage-and-wellbeing-what-constitutes-good-life

Hidalgo, M. and Hernandez, B. (2001) “Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions” The Journal of Environmental Psychology Vol 21

International Association for Impact Assessment (2003) Social Impact Assessment. International Principles Special Publication Series No. 2

Marielle Rowan (2009) Refining the attribution of significance in social impact assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27:3, 185-191, DOI: 10.3152/146155109X467588 https://doi.org/10.3152/146155109X467588

Mindell, J and Karlsen, S (2012) “Community Severance and Health: What Do We Actually Know? Journal of Urban Health 89 (2): 232-246 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3324603/ 12


https://doi.org/10.3152/146155109X467588


97 Symplan


Missing the Dark. Health Effects of Light Pollution volume 117 | number 1 | January 2009 • Environmental Health Perspectives

Planning Institute of Australia ((2009) National Position Statement Social Impact Assessment Statement 13

Pretty, G., Chipuer, H., and Bramston, P. (2003) “Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity” Journal of Environmental Psychology Vol 23

Rosen, B. (2008) Shire of Macedon Ranges Integrated Impact Assessment Toolkit

Sara Bice & Kieren Moffat (2014) Social licence to operate and impact assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32:4, 257-262, DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2014.950122

Scott, M et al (2020) Community Ties. Understanding what attaches people to the place where they live Knight Foundation and Urban Institute

The Interorganizational committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment (2003) US Principles and guidelines. “Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Volume 21, Number 3, September 2003, p231Beech Tree Publishing, Surrey, UK

Vanclay, F. (2003) “SIA principles. International Principles for Social Impact Assessment” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 21, number 1, March 2003, pages 5–11, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK

VEAC (2019) Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment

Vorkinn M. and Riese, H. (2001) “Environmental Concern in a Local Context: The Significance of Place Attachment” Environment and Behavior Vol 33

Warr, D. Victorian Council of Social Services Insight Issue 1 Cities in Crisis? Stigma Hits Home

World Bank Group (2017) Environmental, health and safety guidelines for Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities

World Health Organisation Constitution


98 Symplan


APPENDIX 6 – COMMUNITY PROFILE Table 10 – Population and population growth, Mornington Peninsula Shire, 2021 -2026

Area 2021 2036

Change between 2021 and 2036

Number Number Number %

HMAS Cerberus 1,057 1,030 -28 -2.6

Moorooduc - Tuerong 1,472 1,481 +9 +0.6

Flinders - Shoreham - Point Leo 1,780 1,832 +52 +2.9

Baxter - Pearcedale 2,458 2,573 +115 +4.7

Red Hill - Red Hill South - Merricks North - Main Ridge - Arthurs Seat

2,864 2,915 +51 +1.8

Tyabb 3,680 3,708 +28 +0.8

Portsea - Sorrento - Blairgowrie 4,669 5,042 +373 +8.0

Balnarring - Balnarring Beach - Merricks - Merricks Beach - Somers

4,915 5,224 +309 +6.3

Bittern - Crib Point 7,575 8,755 +1,180 +15.6

Hastings 10,801 11,625 +823 +7.6

Somerville 12,242 12,834 +592 +4.8

Dromana - Safety Beach 12,619 14,317 +1,698 +13.5

Rye - Tootgarook - St Andrews Beach 12,820 13,332 +513 +4.0

Mount Eliza 18,690 19,747 +1,057 +5.7

Mount Martha 19,776 20,778 +1,002 +5.1

Rosebud - Capel Sound - McCrae - Boneo - Fingal - Cape Schanck

24,466 27,348 +2,882 +11.8

Mornington 26,248 28,556 +2,308 +8.8

Mornington Peninsula Shire 168,134 181,097 +12,963 +7.7


Table 11 – Selected socio-economic and health indicators

Indicator Bittern -

Crib Point

Hastings HMAS

Cerberus Somerville Tyabb

Mornington Peninsula

Shire

Greater Melbourne

Population 6,586 9.654 1,040 11,274 3,374 154,999 4,485,211

Population density (persons per ha)

2.98 3.64 0.67 2.95 1.41 2.14 4.49

People who moved address in the last 5 yrs

37.3 43.8 96.3 35 35.5 38.2 40.1

One parent families with children

11.6 14.4 0 11.8 13.3 10.1 10.1

Lone person households

21.4 31 0 21.3 18.4 25.5 22

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders

1.2 2.1 5.6 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.5

People not fluent in English

0.1 0.5 0 0.2 0.2 0.6 5.6

Unemployment rate

6.2 8.1 1 4.7 4.4 5 6.8


99 Symplan


Indicator Bittern -

Crib Point

Hastings HMAS

Cerberus Somerville Tyabb


Shire

Greater Melbourne

Technicians and trade workers

21.5 21 39.6 21.1 19.9 17.9 12.6

Managers or professionals

22.7 20.2 15.8 25.2 27.7 32.7 38.1

Labourers 13.2 13.8 1 10.1 10.8 9 8.1

Volunteers 19.6 15.5 18.6 16.7 19.7 19.9 17.6

Cycled to work 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.1 0 0.3 1.4

Walked to work 0.2 2.1 68.2 1.4 0.8 2.7 3

Travelled to work by public transport

1.8 2 4.1 1.8 2.2 2.6 15.5

Households without a car

1.7 7 0 3.5 1.7 4 8.5

Low income households

16.2 27.1 0 15 12.6 19.7 16.7

Households with an internet connection

82.5 72.2 90.4 82.5 86.6 79.7 81.7

People with below Year 11 schooling

36.6 42.1 13.4 34.5 34 30.4 22.9

People with trade quals

29.1 26.5 34.5 26.7 28.2 22.2 15.2

People with no tertiary quals

41.6 46.2 46.7 43.3 40.6 39.8 38.7

Rent social housing

0.3 6.8 5 0.9 0.2 1.6 2.6

Households in housing stress

10.2 17.8 0 9.2 10.1 10 11.7

Median household income

1,324 942 1,931 1,434 1,473 1,108 1,191

SEIFA score of socio-economic disad

1,007.30

923.7

1,174.00

1,030.80

1,045.90

1,030.00

1,021.00



100 Symplan


Figure 11 – Perceptions of neighbourhood

Source: VicHealth Local Government Profiles, 2015

Table 12 – Payments by postcode and payment type, March 2020

Postcode

Disability Support Pension

Low Income Card JobSeeker Payment Populati

on

Number % total

pop Number

% total pop

Number % total

pop Pop

3915 Hastings 637 6.4 125 1.3 488 4.9 9,960

3919 Crib Point

145 4.6 42 1.3 130 4.1 3,183

3912 Somerville

356 2.3 206 1.4 311 2.1 15,157

3913 Tyabb 89 2.7 60 1.8 88 2.6 3,338


4722 3.1 2232 1.4 3880 2.5 154,199

Source: Department of Social Services

78

63.3

79.3

74.1

61

71.9

People are willing to help each other

This is a close-knit community

People can be trusted

Victoria Mornington Peninsula Shire


101 Symplan


Figure 12 – AEDI other indicators (per cent)

Source: AEDI

Figure 13 – AEDI 2009-2018 vulnerability on two or more domains

Source: AEDI

61.7

0.2

5.4

52.6

0.3

3.2

51.0

1.0

4.6

38.3

2.2

7.3

47.3

0.7

3.1

49.3

0

2.3

Completed Year 12

Single parents under 25

Unemployed

Tyabb/Moorooduc Somerville Hastings Crib Point/HMAS Cerberus Mornington Peninsula VIC

10.0 9.5 9.9 10.110.6

8.59.8 9.4

11.412.5

13.3

18.4

23.8

21.8

26.127.2

2009 2012 2015 2018

Victoria Mornington Peninsula Crib Point/HMAS Cerberus Hastings


102 Symplan


Table 13 – AEDI change in vulnerability on two or more domains, 209-2018

Locality 2009 2012 2015 2018 Change 2009-2018

Change 2015-2018

Crib Point/HMAS Cerberus 11.4 12.5 13.3 18.4 61.6 37.8

Hastings 23.8 21.8 26.1 27.2 14.2 4.3

Somerville 13.5 9.8 15.6 9.6 -28.9 -38.5

Tyabb-Moorooduc 2.9 11.9 4.9 13.8 375.9 181.6

Victoria 10.0 9.5 9.9 10.1 0.8 1.8

Mornington Peninsula 10.6 8.5 9.8 9.4 -11.4 -4.1

Source: AEDI


103 Symplan


APPENDIX 7 - SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK Social impact assessment has been defined as follows108:

Social impact assessment includes the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment.

Process

Figure 14 illustrates the stages involves in the social impact assessment process.

Figure 14 – Impact Assessment Process

Values and principles

The core values of impact assessment include:109

People have a right to live and work in an environment which is conducive to good health and to a good quality of life and which enables the development of human and social potential.

Social dimensions of the environment are important aspects of people’s health and quality of life.

People have a right to be involved in the decision making about the planned interventions affecting their lives.

108 IAIA (2003) Social Impact Assessment International Principles Special Publication Series No. 2 109 Vanclay, F. (2003) ‘International Principles for Social Impact Assessment’ Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal Vol. 21, number 1, March 2003, pp 5-11 , Beech Tree Publishing, UK


104 Symplan


Local knowledge and experience are valuable and can be used to enhance planned interventions.

The following guiding principles underpinning social impact assessment are relevant:110

Principles for development

• Respect for human rights should underpin all actions.

• Promoting equity and democratisation should be the major driver of development

planning, and impacts on the worst-off members of society should be a major

consideration in all assessment.

• Decision making should be just, fair and transparent, and decision makers should be

accountable for their decisions.

• Development projects should be broadly acceptable to the members of those

communities likely to benefit from, or be affected by, the planned intervention.

• The primary focus of all development should be positive outcomes, such as capacity

building, empowerment, and the realisation of human and social capital.

• The term, ‘the environment’, should be defined broadly to include social and human

dimensions, and in such inclusion, care must be taken to ensure adequate attention is

given to the realm of the social.

Principles for SIA practice

• Equity considerations should be a fundamental element of impact assessment and of

development planning.

• Many of the social impacts of planned interventions can be predicted.

• Planned interventions can be modified to reduce their negative social impacts and

enhance their positive impacts.

• SIA should be an integral part of the development process, involved in all stages from

inception to follow up audit.

• There should be a focus on socially sustainable development, with SIA contributing to

the determination of best development alternative(s).

• In all planned interventions and their assessments, avenues should be developed to

build the social and human capital of local communities and to strengthen democratic

processes.

• In all planned interventions, but especially where there are unavoidable impacts, ways

to turn impacted peoples into beneficiaries should be investigated.

• The SIA must give due consideration to the alternatives of any planned intervention, but

especially in cases when there are likely to be unavoidable impacts.

• Full consideration should be given to the potential mitigation measures of social and

environmental impacts, even where impacted communities may approve the planned

intervention and where they may be regarded as beneficiaries.

110 Vanclay, F. (2003) ‘International Principles for Social Impact Assessment’ Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal Vol. 21, number 1, March 2003, pp 5-11 , Beech Tree Publishing, UK


105 Symplan


• Local knowledge and experience and acknowledgement of different local cultural values

should be incorporated in any assessment.

• Developmental processes infringing the human rights of any section of society should

not be accepted.

• The opinions and views of experts should not be the sole consideration in decisions

about planned interventions.

Other principles

• Precautionary principle: In order to protect the environment, a concept which includes

people’s ways of life and the integrity of their communities, the precautionary approach

should be applied. Where there are threats or potential threats of serious social impact,

lack of full certainty about those threats should not be used as a reason for approving

the planned intervention or not requiring the implementation of mitigation measures

and stringent monitoring.

• Intragenerational equity: The benefits from a range of planned interventions should

address the needs of all, and the social impacts should not fall disproportionately on

certain groups of the population, in particular children and women, the disabled and the

socially excluded, certain generations or certain regions.

• Intergenerational equity: Development activities or planned interventions should be

managed so the needs of the present generation are met without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

• Recognition and preservation of diversity: Communities and societies are not

homogenous. They are demographically structured (age and gender), and they comprise

different groups with various value systems and different skills. Special attention is

needed to appreciate the existence of the social diversity existing within communities

and to understand what the unique requirements of special groups may be. Care must

be taken to ensure planned interventions do not lead to a loss of social diversity in a

community or a diminishing of social cohesion.

• Internalisation of costs: The full social and ecological costs of a planned intervention

should be internalised through the use of economic and other instruments, that is, these

costs should be considered as part of the costs of the intervention, and no intervention

should be approved or regarded as cost-effective if it achieves this by the creation of

hidden costs to current or future generations or the environment.

• The polluter pays principle: The full costs of avoiding or compensating for social impacts

should be borne by the proponent of the planned intervention.

• The prevention principle: It is generally preferable and cheaper in the long run to

prevent negative social impacts from happening than having to rectify damage after the

event.

• The protection and promotion of health and safety: Health and safety are paramount.

All planned interventions should be assess for their health impacts and their accident

risks, especially in terms of assessing and managing the risks from hazardous substances,

technologies or processes, so their harmful effects are minimised, including not bringing

them into use or phasing them out as soon as possible. Health impacts cover the

physical, mental and social wellbeing and safety of all people, paying particular attention


106 Symplan


to those groups of the population who are more vulnerable and more likely to be

harmed, such as the economically deprived, indigenous groups, children and women,

the elderly, the disabled, as well as to the population most exposed to risks arising from

the planned intervention.

• The principle of multisectoral integration: Social development requirements and the

need to consider social issues should be properly integrated into all projects, policies,

infrastructure programs and other planned activities.

• The principle of subsidiarity: Decision making power should be decentralised, with

accountable decisions being made as close to an individual citizen as possible. In the

context of SIA, this means decisions about the approval of planned interventions, or

conditions under which they might operate, should be taken as close to the affected

people as possible, with local people having an input into the approval and management

processes.

An important feature of social impact assessment is that social, economic and biophysical impacts are inherently and inextricably interconnected. Social impact assessment must therefore develop an understanding of the impact pathways created when change in one domain triggers impacts across other domains and the iterative or flow-on consequences within each domain.111 Social impact considerations

Social impacts are ‘the consequences to human populations of any public or private actions altering the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organise to meet their needs and in general cope as members of society. The term also includes cultural impacts involving changes to the norms, values, and beliefs guiding and rationalising their cognition of themselves and their society’.112

In the context of proposals relating to the construction and operation of major industrial infrastructure in an urbanised environment, social impact considerations include changes to the following:113

People’s way of life –how they live, work, play and interact with one another on a day to day basis, making use of available social and community infrastructure satisfying their health and wellbeing needs;

Their culture –their shared beliefs, customs and in relation to the value they place on local community resources;

Their community – its cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities;

Their political systems – the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions affecting their lives, the level of democratisation is taking place, and the resources provided for this purpose;

Their environment – the quality of the air and water people use; the availability and quality of the food they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed to; the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over resources;

111 International Association for Impact Assessment (2003) Social Impact Assessment. International Principles Special Publication Series No. 2 112 The Interorganizational committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment (2003) US Principles and guidelines. “Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Volume 21, Number 3, September 2003, p231Beech Tree Publishing, Surrey, UK 113 International Association for Impact Assessment (2003) Social Impact Assessment. International Principles Special Publication Series No. 2


107 Symplan


Their health and wellbeing –health has been defined as a state of complete physical, mental, social and spiritual wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity;

Their personal and property rights – particularly whether people are economically affected, or experience personal disadvantage which may include a violation of their civil liberties or acquisition of private property; and

Their fears and aspirations – their perceptions about their safety, their fears about the future of their community, and their aspirations for their future and the future of their children.

Nature and extent of impacts

Types of impacts Impacts or changes may be experienced by all stakeholders likely to be affected by the proposed road. These impacts or changes can be positive, negative or neutral; short term or long term; once off or cumulative. These impacts are likely to differ during the various stages of the construction and operation of the proposal. This is illustrated in Table 14 below.

Table 14 - Types of impacts114

TYPE EXPLANATION Positive/benefit These are beneficial and deemed to be helpful and constructive in a

community. Negative/ disbenefit

These are impacts may be harmful or damaging to the community.

Neutral In balance the negative and positive impacts are believed to result in no net change.

Direct/ primary impacts

Direct or primary impacts affect resources, individuals, stakeholder groups, organisations or communities immediately associated with the change or outcome.

Indirect/ secondary impacts

Indirect impacts are created at a broader level as a result of the impacts felt by people or resources directly associated with the change115. They create ‘ripple effects’ that may occur at a later date or in a different geographic area to the direct or primary impact.

Short term/ temporary

These impacts occur shortly after a project commences for a limited time period.

Medium term/temporary

These impacts occur during construction of a project which takes place over a period of time. It is confined to the construction period.

Long term/ permanent

These impacts occur once the project is operational for a prolonged period of time.

Once off Once off impacts are a single impact such as the demolition of a single structure.

Cumulative Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impacts of an action added to other impacts. These impacts could be concurrent impacts associated with other projects, concurrent impacts associated with the project in question, or sequential impacts associated with a project. Whilst cumulative impacts are

114 Adapted from Rosen, B. (2008) Shire of Macedon Ranges Integrated Impact Assessment Toolkit p52 115 Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (2005) Socio-economic Impact Assessment Toolkit. A guide to assessing the socio-economic impacts of Marine Protected Areas in Australia, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, ACT p14


108 Symplan


TYPE EXPLANATION

more difficult to identify and assess, it is important they are clearly identified and assessed.116

Residual Those impacts which have not been able to be addressed through mitigation or management measures and are irresolvable.

Impact magnitude and consequence rating

The way an impact is rated, i.e. low, moderate of high impact, will depend on the nature and quality of the impact in terms of the following criteria: (refer to Table 15)117

Geographical extent or occurrence – An impact may be considered substantial if the likely outcome and changes affect a large number of individuals or communities, or communities or individuals with special needs or high levels of disadvantage. These communities may be at the local, neighbourhood, metropolitan or regional level.

Duration– This refers to whether the effect is a once-off event, intermittent or chronic118. A change may be considered significant if its impact is experienced frequently or during the medium or long term. In addition, whereas individually, and at a single point in time, certain impacts may be minor, the combined/cumulative and incremental effect of these changes when added to other impacts over time may mean they are collectively considered significant119.

Frequency -This refers to how often the impact will occur.

Likelihood – An impact may be considered significant if it is highly likely to occur, although the consequences associated with its occurrence are relatively restricted i.e. a change may not be highly likely but nevertheless its impact could be significant, should it occur120.

Severity – This refers to the individual or community’s capacity to cope which is determined by their relative socio-economic disadvantage, socio-spatial vulnerability or disability.

Values or importance121 – Impact on an asset or resource particularly valuable to the community by virtue of its international significance, rarity, proximity, intensity of use, etc.

Intensity – Impacts such as noise or traffic may be considered substantial if there is a large increase or decrease in decibel or level of traffic volumes. Similarly decreases or increases in decibel or level of traffic volumes may also be considered substantial.

Residuality – This refers to whether the proposed management and mitigation measures have the capacity to address the residual impacts.

Reversibility – This refers to the extent to which the baseline condition may be restored.

116 The Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal Us principles and Guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA; Volume 21, number 3, September 2003, pp 231-250; Beech Tree Publishing UK p 247 117 Adapted and developed from the Department of Sustainability, Victorian State Government (2006) Ministerial guidelines for assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 which consider that significance takes into account the “magnitude, geographic extent and duration of change” (p10). 118 Council of Environmental Quality (1997) Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act Executive Office of the President accessed from http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm 8th September 2008 p44. 119 Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA http://www.uscg.mil/Systems/gse/1508.htm#1508.7 8th September 2008 Regulation 1508.7 120 Department of Sustainability, Victorian State Government (2006) Ministerial guidelines for assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 p10. 121 State Government of Victoria (2006) Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 Department of Sustainability and Environment p6.

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm

http://www.uscg.mil/Systems/gse/1508.htm#1508.7


109 Symplan


Table 15 – Impact magnitude rating scale

CRITERIA Low/minimal Moderate High/significant

Geographical extent or occurrence

Individual impact

Neighbourhood or community impact

Metropolitan or regional impact

Duration Short term Medium term Long term

Frequency Seldom Often Always

Likelihood Possible Probable Likely

Severity Impacts communities with low levels of social and economic disadvantage, socio-spatial vulnerability or special needs

Impacts communities with moderate levels of social and economic disadvantage, socio-spatial vulnerability or special needs

Impacts communities with high levels of social and economic disadvantage, socio-spatial vulnerability or special needs

Values or importance

Low community value or attachment to place

Medium community value or attachment to place

High community value or attachment to place

Intensity Limited changes in traffic volumes, noise, air pollution, visual amenity etc.

Average changes in noise levels, traffic volumes, air pollution, visual amenity etc.

Extensive changes in noise levels, traffic volumes, air pollution, visual amenity etc.

Residuality Able to address all residual disbenefits affecting amenity, community severance, health and wellbeing, community values etc.

Able to address some residual disbenefits affecting amenity, community severance and displacement health and wellbeing, community values etc..

Unable to address any or sufficient residual disbenefits affecting community severance and displacement health and wellbeing, community values etc.

Reversibility Baseline condition can be restored in its entirety

Some baseline conditions can be restored.


110 Symplan


APPENDIX 8 – SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CONCEPTS Social model of health

The social model of health is based on the principle that the health and wellbeing of an individual and the community are determined by a number of non-physiological (i.e. non-medical) factors over which built environmental professionals have control. These factors may include:

• the built and physical environment i.e. the design, aesthetics and quality of the places

within which people live, work and shop, including land use mix, location of particular land

uses, public transport, location of amenities;

• the natural environment i.e. air quality, noise disturbance;

• the economic environment i.e. access to jobs, economic viability and sustainability; and

• the social environment i.e. access to and location of community facilities, places of leisure,

entertainment, and opportunities for social interaction.

The social model of health underpins the framework within which planning for health and wellbeing occurs within Victorian local governments. It advocates for interventions that change those aspects of the environment which promote unhealthy lifestyles and cause ill health at an individual and community level.

A further principle underlying the health model is the “whole of person” approach which considers the individual in the context of the family, the community and the wider social, economic, cultural and physical environments in which they live and conduct their day to day lives. The social model of health therefore endorses the principle that changes to the physical, social and economic context within which people conduct their day to day lives has the potential to compromise overall health and wellbeing.

The conclusions reached in this witness statement are based on the notion that built environmental professionals have the responsibility and capacity to play a significant role in preventing health and wellbeing issues and promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours.

Precautionary principle

The Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 enables Councils to apply the precautionary principle if a public health risk poses a serious threat.

The precautionary principle underpins impact assessment theory and practice122,123. Application of the precautionary principle aligns with a harm minimisation approach which focuses on anticipating and preventing harm before it manifests, in circumstances where decision-makers predict some measure of risk to public health. The precautionary principle is especially relevant in instances where specific individuals or groups such as people experiencing social and economic disadvantage are particularly vulnerable to the harms being considered.

Mitigation

One of the primary purposes of an impact assessment is to propose measures to mitigate against the unwanted or harmful effects of a proposal. Mitigation includes three primary measures:

Avoiding the negative impact by not taking or modifying the action.

Minimising, correcting or reducing the impacts by generating and evaluating different design alternatives.

122 Planning Institute of Australia ((2009) National Position Statement Social Impact Assessment Statement 13 123 International Association for Impact Assessment (2003) Social Impact Assessment International Principles Special Publication Series No. 2


111 Symplan


Compensating for the negative outcomes by suggesting and providing substitute opportunities, facilities and services.

It is suggested mitigation measures attempt to avoid the negative impact. If this is not possible, the measures should and thereafter seek ways to minimise, correct or reduce the impact. If neither of these is possible, the mitigation measures should suggest ways to compensate for the potential harmful effects.

Sensitive receptor

A sensitive receptor is a fixed location /individual and/or group within the community which is more susceptible to the adverse impacts of a proposal. A land use or group within the community may be classified as a sensitive receptor if it has one or more the following characteristics:

• The physical location of the fixed location in relation to the proposal means it is more

likely to experience safety and amenity impacts such as overshadowing, noise,

pollution, visual disturbance.

• The individual and/or group within the community use the fixed location directly

impacted by works undertaken during construction of a proposal, or through

operation.

• The individual and/or group within the community have specific vulnerabilities due to

its social, economic or cultural profile.

Icon

An icon is something of importance, this may be due to its environmental values, unique features which make it easily identifiable and recognisable, something iconic has intrinsic value to those who use it and those valuing it for its uniqueness and the identity it affords a place or a community, it is worthy of preservation and protection


112 Symplan


APPENDIX 9 – SCOPING REQUIREMENTS SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AMENITY AND LAND USE Draft evaluation objective

To minimise potential adverse social, economic, amenity and land use effects at local and regional scales. Key issues

• Potential for project works and operations to affect business (including farming and tourism) operations or other existing or approved facilities or land uses.

• Potential for dust emissions resulting from construction works and activities, including dust from potentially contaminated soil.

• Potential for increases in noise and vibration levels during project construction or operation to affect amenity adversely in adjacent residential and parkland areas.

• Potential for project construction or operation to affect local air quality adversely.

• Potential for temporary or permanent changes to use of or access to existing infrastructure in the project area and in its vicinity.

• Potential for impacts on reasonably foreseeable upgrades to public infrastructure.

• Potential for impacts on recreational boating and other recreational activities from the project.

• Potential for adverse impacts on visual or landscape values.

Priorities for characterising the existing environment

• Describe the demographic and social character of residential communities near the project.

• Identify dwellings and any other potentially sensitive receptors (e.g. community centres, open spaces, etc.) that could be affected by the project’s potential effects on air quality, noise or vibration levels, especially vulnerable receptors including children and the elderly.

• Monitor and characterise background levels of air quality (e.g. dust and greenhouse gas emissions from equipment), noise and vibration near the project, including established residential areas and other sensitive receptors.

• Identify existing and reasonably foreseeable land uses and businesses occupying land to be traversed by, adjacent to, or otherwise affected by impacts from the project.

• Identify strategic plans specifying or encouraging land use outcomes for land to be occupied by the project.

• Identify existing levels of recreational boating and other recreational activities in the vicinity of the Crib Point jetty and the channels used by commercial shipping to move to and from the jetty.

• Identify visual and landscape values near the project, including public and private vantage points from which elements of the project may be visible.

Design and mitigation measures

• Identify potential and proposed design responses and/or other mitigation measures to avoid, reduce and/or manage any significant effects for sensitive receptors during project construction and operation arising from specified air pollution indicators, noise, vibration, traffic and lighting, in the context of applicable policy and standards and the anticipated increase in shipping traffic in Western Port resulting from the project.


113 Symplan


• Identify options for mitigating impacts from project construction or operation on potentially affected businesses and community facilities including open space.

• Identify options for mitigating or managing visual or landscape impacts of the project.

Assessment of likely effects

• Identify implications for communities, current land uses and businesses and immediately foreseeable changes in land use.

• Predict likely atmospheric concentrations of dust and other air pollution indicators at sensitive receptors near the FSRU or along the pipeline corridor, during project construction and operation, using an air quality impact assessment undertaken in accordance with SEPP environmental objectives.

• Assess likely noise, vibration, traffic, lighting and visual impacts at sensitive receptors adjacent to the project during project construction and operation (both with and in the absence of the proposed mitigation measures), relative to standards.

• Describe the likely extent and duration of temporary disruption to existing land uses arising from project construction.

• Describe potential impacts on public infrastructure including roads resulting from construction or operations activities.

• Describe potential impacts on recreational activities resulting from the project.

• Assess potential safety hazards to the public arising from project construction and operation.

Approach to manage performance

• Measures to manage other potentially significant effects on amenity, environmental quality and social wellbeing (including access to open spaces) should also be addressed in the EES, including a framework for identifying and responding to emerging issues, as part of the EMF. .

• Describe any further measures that are proposed to enhance social outcomes, and either manage risks to landscape and recreational values, or enhance visual amenity outcomes both for residents living near the project and for visitors to the locality, to form part of the EMF.

[Document title] · the necessary steps to ensure an accurate document has been prepared. Readers...

Documents

Transcript of [Document title] · the necessary steps to ensure an accurate document has been prepared. Readers...