Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community working group # 3 Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3 December 2009 2 Meeting overview Agenda • objectives • applying the non cost criteria to the proposed sites • eliminating sites based on the non cost criteria ~ supper served ~ • Hunter Water’s method for applying cost • applying the cost component to the remaining sites • way forward - work to be undertaken to reach a preferred site
11
Embed
Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community working group · PDF fileCessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3 December 2009 3 Tonight’s objectives • present the...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Cessnock Water SupplyUpgrade
Community workinggroup # 3
Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3
December 2009 2
Meeting overview
Agenda
• objectives
• applying the non cost criteria to the proposed sites
• eliminating sites based on the non cost criteria
~ supper served ~
• Hunter Water’s method for applying cost
• applying the cost component to the remaining sites
• way forward - work to be undertaken to reach a preferred site
Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3
December 2009 3
Tonight’s objectives
• present the non-financial criteria results
• present the cost application rationale
• identify the shortlisted sites
Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3
December 2009 4
Project drivers
• this project is the first of a 4 stage upgrade in response to the2006/07 Department of Planning’s Lower Hunter RegionalStrategy. This report identified specific projected growth aroundCessnock - 21,000 lot connections by 2031.
• objectives of stage 1 aim to:
• improve the current water network by eliminating pressureissues within the area
• address the projected growth in the area
Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3
December 2009 5
Applying non cost criteria
• individual site assessments were undertaken with eachproperty owner
• each site was scored against the agreed non cost criteria
• a summary of each site assessment has been captured inthe report provided
Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3
December 2009 6
Summary graph of non cost criteria
Sites that score lower than 60 will therefore be discounted.
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
We
igh
ted
Sc
ore
(/1
00
%)
Site
1A
Site
1B
Site
2
Site
3A
Site
3B
Site
4
Site
5
Site
6
Site
11
Site
12
Site
13
Site
16
Site
21
Site
22
Site
23
Site
24
Site
25
Site
26
Site
27
Proposed Reservoir Site
Cessnock water supply - stage 1 - reservoir site selection analysis
SOCIAL (40%)
ENVIRONMENTAL (20%)
DESIGN (40%)
Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3
December 2009 7
Summary graph of non cost criteria
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
Weig
hte
d S
co
re (
/100%
)
Site
1A
Site
1B
Site
2
Site
3A
Site
3B
Site
4
Site
5
Site
6
Site
11
Site
12
Site
13
Site
16
Site
21
Site
22
Site
23
Site
24
Site
25
Site
26
Site
27
Proposed Reservoir Site
Cessnock water supply - stage 1 - reservoir site selection analysis
SOCIAL (40%)
ENVIRONMENTAL (20%)
DESIGN (40%)
Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3
December 2009 8
Site 6
Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3
December 2009 9
Key findings of short listed sitesSite 3a
•visual impact – 4 propertyowners (500m)•proximity to vineyard -<50m
•access easement -extensive
Disadvantages
•property operations -minimal impact on current andfuture operations
•submerge structure – 4m
•visual impact – > 400m fromroad
•vegetation clearance – Nil
•endangered ecologicalcommunities – no impact.
•lead-in main length -~3.6km
•submerge structure –4mAdvantages
SOCIAL (40%)Good 29.20%
ENVIRONMENTAL (20%)Good 17.00%
DESIGN (40%)Satisfactory 23.60%
Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3
December 2009 10
Key findings of short listed sites
Site 3b
•visual impact – < 300m fromroad•proximity to vineyard -<50m
•access easement -extensive
Disadvantages
•property operations -minimal impact on current,potential impact on futureoperations
•submerge structure – 4m
•visual impact – 3 propertyowner (500m)
•vegetation clearance – Nil
•endangered ecologicalcommunities – no impact.
•lead-in main length -~4km
•submerge structure –4mAdvantages
SOCIAL (40%)Satisfactory 22.00%
ENVIRONMENTAL (20%)Good 18.00%
DESIGN (40%)Satisfactory 24.80%
Cessnock Water Supply Upgrade Community Working Group # 3