Urban Water Program Case Studies: South East Queensland, Australia

Demonstration Projects:
Case Studies from South East

Queensland, Australia.
• Rocks Riverside Park
• Payne Road
• Coomera Waters
Caitlin Davis and Megan Farrelly

S OUTH EAS T QUEENSL AND
www.urbanwatergovernance.com
Demonstration Projects: Case Studies from South East ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Queensland, Australia. (Payne Road; Rocks Riverside Park;
Our appreciation goes to steering committee members for
and Coomera Waters)
their support and guidance in selecting specific demonstration
Davis, Caitlin projects. Thank you to all the interview participants who
Farrelly, Megan generously contributed towards this research project. Finally,
thank you to all those who agreed to review the case studies,
July 2009 your input strengthened the report.
Photo images courtesy of Megan Farrelly, unless otherwise cited.

DISCLAIMER:
This research was funded by the Australian Research Council, CONTACT DETAILS:
the South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, Dr Megan Farrelly – Research Fellow
Maroochy Shire Council (now Sunshine Coast Regional Dr Rebekah Brown – Program Leader
Council, QLD), the Water Corporation (WA), the Western
Australian Planning Commission, the Department of Water nuwgp@arts.monash.edu.au
(WA), City of Armadale (WA), and the Smart Water Fund National Urban Water Governance Program
(established and operated by City West Water, Melbourne Water, School of Geography and Environmental Science
South East Water, Yarra Valley Water and the Department of Faculty of Arts
Sustainability and Environment, VIC). The opinions expressed Monash University
in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily Clayton VIC 3800
represent those of the funding partners. www.urbanwatergovernance.com
National Urban Water Governance Program

The National Urban Water Governance Program (the Program) is located at Monash University, Melbourne. The Program
comprises a group of social science research projects investigating the changing governance of traditional urban water
management in Australia.
The Program is intended to facilitate progress towards achieving ‘Water Sensitive Cities’, a long-term aim of Australia’s National
Water Initiative, by drawing from a number of social theories concerning institutional and technological change processes, and by
undertaking comprehensive social research across three Australian cities: Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.
Three key questions guiding the overall Program’s research agenda are:
1. What institutional factors are most important for enabling change towards a Water Sensitive City?
2. How can current reform processes be effectively informed and adapted to advance a Water Sensitive City?
3. What are the implications, and future roles, for professionals in the urban water sector?
The metropolitan regions of Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth were selected as broad case studies because they share similar
drivers for re-examining their water management options (drought, waterway degradation, increasing populations). Collectively,
the cities also represent a broad range of differing urban water governance structures and systems across Australian cities. This
is in addition to differences in traditional water supply sources. For example, Perth’s supply is predominantly sourced from
groundwater aquifers, whereas Melbourne and Brisbane’s are sourced primarily from surface, freshwater systems.
1 www.urbanwatergovernance.com
Introduction
I
t is widely recognised that conventional approaches to urban water management are unable to respond and
adapt to the emerging challenges of ageing infrastructure (Engineers Australia, 2005); increased demand
from growing populations (Birrell et al., 2005), and climate change and sustainability (Marsalek et al.,
2001; Brandes and Kriwoken, 2006; Wong, 2006). These challenges introduce great complexity and uncertainty
to urban water management; thus, many sustainability commentators are calling for transformative change
towards adopting more sustainable practices. Such an approach would emphasise adaptable, inclusive and
collaborative practices operating within supportive organisational cultures that embrace learning-by-doing (e.g.
Maksimovic and Tejada-Guibert, 2001; Pahl-Wostl, 2007; Wong and Brown, 2009). As van der Brugge and
Rotmans (2007: 259) point out: “because the road is unclear, experimentation is essential in order to learn”. In
Australia, demonstration projects are used as a mechanism to introduce, test and promote (experiment with)
new technologies and practices in support of sustainable urban water management.
Demonstration projects act as bounded experiments, trialling The case studies aim to provide a holistic overview of the
the application of structural innovations such as technology, selected projects, including not just technical aspects, but
infrastructure or science, as well as non-structural innovations also the processes undertaken, the challenges encountered
such as education or policy programs. They can occur at a range and methods for overcoming these challenges during the
of scales, and trial any number of innovations. Each project may course of project development and implementation. This set
offer new insights into how a policy or new piece of technology of case study reports contributes towards a larger research
can contribute to change or enhance current practice, and help project investigating how demonstration projects can assist
shift towards more sustainable urban water practices. in the diffusion of sustainable urban water management
technologies and practices in the Australian urban water
In a review of demonstration projects across eastern Australia, sector. This research also supports the broad research
Mitchell (2006) determined that while significant progress had agenda of the National Urban Water Governance Program.
been made in integrated water management, there was room to
improve on the ‘progressive learning experience’ of demonstration Publicly available literature, alongside interview notes,
projects. She concluded that (Mitchell, 2006: 602): form the basis of these reviews. Forty-four individuals
were interviewed across South East Queensland during
In order to allow people to build on the experience of others and enable
knowledge gaps to be filled, improved dissemination of knowledge
June and July 2008 to determine the quality and diffusion
gained and lessons learnt, including pitfalls to be avoided and
of information among urban water professionals in
processes followed is required.
relation to technical and process innovations. Interview
participants included representatives from Local
In response to this call, these case study reports have been Governments, State Government agencies, water utilities,
designed to: leading consultants, land developers and researchers.
Interviewees who had detailed experience with specific
a) raise the profile of projects involving new water supply and demonstration projects were also asked a series of
treatment technologies amongst urban water professionals, questions tailored to capture their experiential insights
and to help reveal the drivers for initiating the project and to
identify the enabling and/or constraining factors involved
b) share the key lessons and insights gained from these
in undertaking the process of design, construction, and
projects.
implementation. Implications for future adoption of new
water supply and treatment technologies and practices
arising from these case studies are also reported.
www.urbanwatergovernance.com 2
CASE STUDY OF
Rocks Riverside Park
Seventeen Mile Rocks,
Brisbane
Introduction
T
his case study provides an overview of an innovative urban park irrigation project led by Brisbane City
Council. The Rocks Riverside Park project involves a low-maintenance and low-energy water mining
system used for public open space irrigation. The project development and implementation process is
discussed, along with challenges and opportunities encountered. Finally, the implications of such a project for
future public open space irrigation are examined.
Project Overview: ROCKS RIVERSIDE PARK -

Rocks Riverside Park SNAPSHOT
n Located on a former industrial site directly adjacent to
Located on the former industrial site of the Queensland Cement the Brisbane River.
and Lime facility at Seventeen Mile Rocks, Rocks Riverside n Drivers: Provide active green space for Brisbane
Park is the largest urban park development in recent times, residents; drought; a key innovation advocate within the
and a popular spot among Brisbane residents. Materials from water utility.
the old factory have been reused within the park, echoing
the industrial history of the area, and have contributed both n Purpose: to meet the park irrigation needs during
practically and aesthetically to the recreational value of the drought periods in a sustainable manner.
park. The park covers 26ha with 800m of river frontage and n Features: low-tech sewer mining process, using a reed-
8000m2 of open grassed space. A lower, flat area on the river bed treatment system.
plain makes up half the park area, featuring playgrounds, a
“water play” area, picnic shelters, and grassed open space.
The remaining 13ha of the park consists of a steep escarpment
partially covered by natural eucalypt woodland (Towndrow and
Krumins, 2005).
treating wastewater before discharging into receiving waterways

(Towndrow and Krumins, 2005). The submerged wetland
system was chosen due to its low environmental footprint, its
minimal maintenance requirements, and its cost effectiveness
based on a triple bottom line assessment (Towndrow and
Krumins, 2005).
The treatment facility is located on top of the escarpment

overlooking the park and is situated unobtrusively below the
crest of the ridge (see Figures 1 and 2). The treatment system
is only clearly visible from one of the minor entrances to the
park. The system is fed from the nearby pressure sewer main,
with any substandard or excess treated wastewater able to be
returned to the sewer via a return gravity line. Wastewater is
Figure 1: View of Rocks Riverside Park from escarpment. initially delivered via a flow control valve to a three pass septic
tank fitted with cartridge filters, where it is designed to be held
Brisbane City Council wanted to provide a functional, green for 24 hours (Towndrow and Krumins, 2005). The wastewater
open space area for local residents that adhered to the principles is then fed via a wet well to a subsurface horizontal flow filter
of sustainability and recognised the limitations of water with an area of 1700m², where the water is treated for 40 hours.
availability. Given the large expanse of grassed area, a number Filter media include 20-30mm of gravel and a proprietary active
of options were considered to help irrigate the park. The final media developed by Rootzone Australia, chosen as a result of
decision was to source water using a form of wastewater its high surface area and hydraulic conductivity (Towndrow
recycling, known locally as “water mining”, or “sewer mining” and Krumins, 2005). The filter bed is planted with Phragmitis
in other Australian States. The low-tech treatment method Australis, a local reed. The semi-treated wastewater then flows
selected for Rocks Riverside Park involves a subsurface flow to a vertical flow constructed wetland to be aerobically treated
wetland and is used extensively across villages in Europe for to a Class A standard, using the same filter media and reeds
Case study of Rocks Riverside Park

Seventeen Mile Rocks, Brisbane www.urbanwatergovernance.com 4
as the horizontal flow filter (Towndrow and Krumins, 2005). Due to the extensive drought period experienced by South East
Finally, the treated water flows through a UV disinfection unit Queensland, water has been considered to be an important
and an online turbidity measuring device to a storage tank, focus of the development. Thus, the need to minimise potable
before being pressurised for use in the Park (Towndrow and water use was a priority consideration for the Rocks Riverside
Krumins, 2005). The system is capable of providing up to Park project, while at the same time recognising the need to
360kL per day, and excess water can be returned to the sewer or maintain a green open space that matched public expectations
potentially supplied to local customers for fit-for-purpose uses. and requirements. Several water source options were explored
and the water mining project was selected (see below). The
The treatment system was built under a licence agreement from idea for the sewer mining project was driven by a water
the University of Copenhagen, where it is used to treat chemical innovation advocate within Brisbane Water, who was aware
waste. The system is monitored closely but requires very little of the technology being used for sewage treatment in various
maintenance. Much of the system management can occur European countries for over 20 years, and became a champion
remotely, including wastewater flows into the system. for the project during its implementation.
Drivers and Purpose for Key Aspects of the

Rocks Riverside Park Implementation
The rapid expansion of Brisbane over the last few decades has
placed increasing pressures on land availability, resulting in low Process
priority being placed on creating and maintaining green space
The implementation process for Rocks Riverside Park was
within the city boundaries (BCC, 2000). In the late 1990s,
relatively smooth in comparison to other demonstration projects
however, the multiple functions and inherent value of green
(see other case studies in this volume). This was reportedly a
space in a city became increasingly recognised and valued by
result of high levels of internal Brisbane City Council support
the BCC. The Brisbane Green Space System is an important
and minimal road blocks from participating stakeholders.
component of the BCC’s City Plan 2000, acknowledging the
role of green space as “an integral part of the City’s character
and livability such as landscape, recreation, protecting
ecological functions, providing for economic growth and
defining the edge of the City.” (BCC, 2000: 13).
BCC’s acquisition of the Queensland Cement and Lime site

provided the perfect opportunity to redevelop the area and
contribute a significant amount of open space to Brisbane’s
south-western suburbs. The Park is nestled amongst other light
industrial sites and has provided for increased public access to
river frontage. The need for open space around this area had
been identified in land-use planning documents in the 1990s
(Towndrow and Krumins, 2005).
In accordance with the Brisbane City Plan 2000, sustainability

was a key focus for the project. The underlying vision for the
park was “to create a significant, contemporary riverside park
that showcases innovative design and sustainable management
to the enjoyment of all residents” (BCC, nd.). Environmental,
economic and community considerations were taken into
account throughout the planning and development processes,
recognising the importance of ensuring efficient resource use
and long term public appreciation (BCC, nd.). Sustainability
measures included the recycling of on-site materials (industrial
artefacts), minimal resource inputs, robust stakeholder
engagement, use of native and endemic plants and retaining Figure 2: L
ooking back towards the escarpment, and location
existing native vegetation (BCC, nd.). of the treatment facility (beyond the ridge).

5 www.urbanwatergovernance.com Seventeen Mile Rocks, Brisbane
BCC’s Environment and Parks department engaged planning The second option, involving a low-tech water mining process,
and design firm Hassell to undertake the Master Plan for the was chosen due to its low environmental impacts, maintenance
park, with a first draft being completed in early 2000 (AILA, requirements and triple bottom line-assessed cost efficiency
2008). Due to changes in budget, land acquisition and design (Towndrow and Krumins, 2005). This technique was highly
direction, however, the initial Plan had to be revised (AILA, advocated by a water innovation leader at Brisbane Water,
2008). This was undertaken by City Design – Landscape who had thoroughly investigated the technology based on its
Architecture (a Brisbane City Council business) in conjunction extensive use in towns across Europe and the United States for
with Hassell. decades. The background and possibilities of the approach were
presented to the Brisbane Water Board in a pledge for funding
Throughout the park’s planning and development, much and support. Parks and development approvals process had to
emphasis was placed on community involvement in the be undertaken, and were granted with the support of the Board
project. From the outset, community ownership of the park Chairperson.
was considered a vital component to ensure its future success
(BCC, nd). Community engagement was undertaken in the At the time of the planning and development of the project,
form of open days, bus tours, and consultation sessions, as well there were no laws on building a treatment plant of this type,
as assigning a project officer to develop community programs, nor any water quality guidelines in Queensland to direct
volunteer groups, and interpretive activities (BCC, nd.). Public planners. The South Australian Guidelines for Reclaimed Water
facilities were built to accommodate community events such (1999) were used instead, as they were considered the most
as concerts and fairs, and a community gardening area with stringent in Australia (at the time). Given the lack of precedent,
individual allotments available for tending. The park is highly the Rocks Riverside Park Water Mining Project was labelled a
utilised by Brisbane residents, with an estimated 500 000 people demonstration project in order to allow scope for the experiment
visiting the park in its first year (BCC, nd.). to fail, as opposed to building it as permanent infrastructure.
The question of irrigation sources was approached by Brisbane External, state approval for the project was required through the
Water, and a number of potential options were presented to the Queensland Environment Protection Agency (EPA). Aware of
project committee, established to oversee park planning. The the innovative nature of the project in the Queensland context,
options presented included (Towndrow and Krumins, 2005): project participants were reportedly initially concerned that
this process would prove difficult, given the average lengthy
1) Using existing drinking water supplies;
approvals timeframes for other sewage treatment plants. BCC
2) Water mining with a low-tech reed bed treatment process; appealed to the EPA to work in collaboration with the project
3) Water mining using a high-tech microfiltration/reverse team, highlighting the need for a speedy approvals process
osmosis process; given the relatively small scale of the project. The EPA was
4) Treatment and pumping effluent from the Oxley Wastewater (reportedly) open, willing and supportive of the trial, ensuring
Treatment Plant; the approvals process was timely.
5) Desalination of river water. The park was officially opened in 2003; however, construction
of the treatment facility was not completed until September
2004, and finally commissioned in early 2005. A cautious
approach was taken to the introduction of the system, beginning
with low wastewater flows that were slowly increased as the
capabilities of the facility were better understood (Towndrow
and Krumins, 2005). Monitoring of the water quality output and
function of the system is undertaken, and the reliability of the
facility to operate with very little maintenance was highlighted
by interviewees. Fail-safes have been included in the design,
with the capacity to monitor function and send out an alert if a
breach occurs (Towndrow and Krumins, 2005). There is also
some remote control over plant functions, and if a problem
occurs, water and wastewater can be diverted back to the sewer
if necessary (Towndrow and Krumins, 2005).
Figure 3: F
amilies enjoying the park

Challenges and The issue of cost was raised by a number of interviewees who
noted that the capital costs of the project were quite high and
Opportunities within
not predicted from the beginning of the project. Towndrow
and Krumins (2005) relate this to the difficult area in which
the plant was constructed. The facility is located on top of the
the Project ridge overlooking the lower part of the park, away from the
highly utilised areas, yet still accessible by a path that climbs
Interviewees reported few challenges with the Rocks Riverside the ridge from the river flats. During planning a number of
Park project. Planning, development and approvals processes prerequisites determined the location of the plant, including
encountered few problems. This can be attributed to the limited that it must be “visually unobtrusive”, blend in with the natural
number of stakeholders involved in the project. The majority landscape, and disturb very little existing vegetation (Towndrow
of approvals processes required internal acceptance from BCC, and Krumins, 2005). These requirements, combined with the
which (at the time) had jurisdiction over water (supply and rocky terrain on which the facility was built, contributed to a
waste), parks and development. In addition, as BCC owned the more complicated design, thus more expensive construction
land, this reduced the necessity for inter-agency communication costs (Towndrow and Krumins, 2005). Furthermore, by nature
and joint decision making. The EPA’s support was also an of it role as a demonstration project, it was noted that there
important contributor to ensuring a timely development process, were extra costs associated with additional features for research
with one interviewee indicating that this was because “our goals and development purposes (Towndrow and Krumins, 2005).
are the same”. Despite the initial capital costs, the operational and maintenance
costs are regarded as virtually nil. Towndrow and Krumins
(2005) reported that from a sewage treatment cost and capacity
AWARDS WON perspective, the water mining project performed comparably to
n Year of the Built Environment Award from the alternative nutrient removal processes operating in plants such
Australian Institute of Project Management, 2003 as the Oxley and Sandgate Treatment Plants. The project was
n The “Waterplay” area won the award for still considered to be a commercially viable option as a sewage
Innovation from the Recreation and Parks treatment alternative (Towndrow and Krumins, 2005).
Association of Victoria, 2004.
Unfortunately, one innovative aspect of the project has been
n Australian Institute Landscape Architects Merit removed, due to unforeseen circumstances. Initially, the project
Award for Planning, 2004 included a satellite tracking system which was designed to
n Australian Government Community Water Grants assess the irrigation requirements of the area. The Park area was
- Water Saving, 2006. scanned approximately every 75 mins using infra-red technology
and data integrated with local weather station information,
resulting in a system which can reportedly determine which
areas of the park require irrigation. Unfortunately, the company
providing this service has since retracted to the United States,
Public consultation was further considered important due to its rendering the system unavailable in Australia at present.
innovative nature, with the project receiving extensive public
exposure, not only through traditional statutory requirements The water mining technology allows Brisbane City Council to
such as public advertisement or invitations for submissions, but continue to water the grassed areas (responsibly) even during
through months of meetings with community interest groups the extensive drought period. It is expected that once the new
such as Rotary clubs, local action groups, and local, state and trees and other plants in the area are better established, the
federal political representatives. Project participants, including park’s water use requirements will decrease. There is also an
the project champion presented the idea at the meetings, along opportunity to supply water for other fit-for-purpose uses, with
with examples of what was occurring elsewhere in the world an outlet point with a truck connection fitted to the plant during
and the various other options available for the same purpose. construction. Aside from the energy used during construction,
Key project participants were available to answer questions, the treatment system remains passive and does not require
which reinforced community confidence in the project. The energy to produce water for irrigation. This is an important
reed bed proposal reportedly received “universal acceptance”, consideration when assessing sustainable water supply options.
contributing significantly to an uncomplicated project
application process. The project continues to have community
support, with interviewees reporting that community responses
to the project since implementation had been positive, and no
complaints have been recorded.

7 www.urbanwatergovernance.com Seventeen Mile Rocks, Brisbane
Case Study
Implications
The Rocks Riverside Park water mining project is generally
considered a positive example of a successful demonstration
project which highlights the viability of a new water
treatment technology option. However, to date, there has been
no replication of the system. According to one interviewee,
potential sites for the implementation of a similar system have
been identified, but as yet no action appears to have been taken.
However, based on the success of the Rocks Riverside Park water
mining project, another water mining project has been recently
trialled at New Farm Park to irrigate a rose garden and sporting
field in the park. This project has employed a more advanced
technological approach, using Eimco Water Technologies’
ReAqua Membrane Bioreactor (Brisbane Water, 2007).
Importantly, a number of interviewees raised concerns regarding

the recent industry reforms in Queensland’s water governance
arrangements and the advent of the Western Corridor Recycled
Water Project, suggesting that interest in and support for water
Figure 4: V
iew of the nearby Brisbane River from Rocks mining projects such as Rocks Riverside Park and New Farm
Riverside Park. Park will potentially decrease.
References and Further Information

Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA) (2008) 2004 AILA award winners, available at
www.aila.org.au/awards/2004/planning/rocksriverside/rocks.htm
Brisbane City Council (BCC) (2009) City Plan 2000 (amended January 2009), available at
www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE:1293101355:pc=PC_3054.
Brisbane City Council (undated) Sustainability in Action: Rocks Riverside Park Case Study.
www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/environment/documents/case-study-rocks-riverside-park_final.pdf
Brisbane Water (2007) New Farm Park Research and Development Trial Report, July 2006-April 2007, available at
www.localgovernment.qld.gov.au/Docs/local_govt/grants_subsidies/funding/awtt/Brisbane-Water-Clereflo-MBR-Final-Report.pdf
Department of Trade & Industry (United Kingdom) (2007) Water recycling and reuse in Singapore and Australia. Global Watch
Mission Report. November 2006, UK. Available at Virtual Library of Sustainable Development and Environmental Health,
Panamerican Health Organisation, www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd65/water-recycling/water-recycling.html
Hassell, website www.hassell.com.au/en.html
Rootzone Australia, website: www.rootzone.com.au/index.html
Towndrow, A., and Krumins, A. (2005) “Water Mining and Treatment by Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands: Rocks Riverside
Park, Brisbane” Presented at the AWA Ozwater Watershed Conference, Brisbane, 2005.

CASE STUDY OF
Payne Road
The Gap, Brisbane
Introduction
T
he Payne Road project (Silva Park Estate) provides an example of a residential-scale attempt at an
integrated water cycle system. The project was developed through a collaborative partnership between
private industry, State and Local Government agencies, and placed significant emphasis on the
opportunities for monitoring and evaluation of an alternative water system. This case study outlines the project’s
drivers and implementation process, and provides an overview of the technical systems in operation. Furthermore,
the challenges and opportunities encountered, and the implications arising from such a project are explored.
Project Overview: PAYNE ROAD - SNAPSHOT

Payne Road - Silva n Also known as Silva Park Estate
n Located in Brisbane’s western suburbs
Park, The Gap n Drivers: Characteristics of the location; sustainability
advocates.
The Payne Road development, also known as the Silva Park n Purpose: Up-market residential developmenrat
Estate, is located in Brisbane’s western suburbs, approximately demonstrating Integrated Water Cycle Management.
10km from the CBD. The development area is situated on the
urban fringe, and is bordered to the west by the Brisbane State n Developed through a partnership between private
Forest and Enoggera Reservoir Reserve (Figure 1), and to the industry, Brisbane City Council, and State Government
north-east by the Enoggera Creek. Aimed at the high-end of the agencies.
property market, the 3.75ha subdivision is divided into 22 lots, n Features: Water Sensitive Urban Design, including
with homes ranging from 800m² to 1800m² in size. rainwater plumbed to homes, greywater recycling and
stormwater treatment and control systems.
The project aimed to demonstrate an integrated water cycle
approach to household water supply, including both individual
and communal rainwater tanks for potable water supply, a
household-scale greywater recycling system for garden watering,
and bioretention basins for stormwater treatment and discharge.
Drivers and Purpose

for Payne Road
Accommodating the bio-physical characteristics of the Payne
Road site was a primary driver for the alternative water supply
and sewerage approach. For example, the steep slope (20% for
¾ of the site, with a 40m drop) contributed to significant water
supply challenges, as supply mains were some distance away
and would have required boosting to ensure adequate pressure
to service the development (Tanner and King, 2005; Diaper
et al., 2007). Furthermore, the development is situated at the
edge of an established residential area, outside the boundary
of current BCC water supply and sewerage reticulation
Figure 1: V
iew of nearby Enoggera Reservoir from the
services. Thus, the distance to and flow capacity restraints on
Payne Road development area.
existing sewerage services presented a challenge for any new
The Payne Road project is the result of a collaborative development occurring in the area. As BCC were not prepared
partnership between the Department of Natural Resources and to extend the water supply and sewerage mains, this presented
Water, Brisbane City Council (BCC), the Department of Energy, an opportunity for designing and implementing an alternative
the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), water management approach (Tanner and King, 2005).
Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Water Quality and
Treatment, and a team of consultants including design engineers
Bligh Tanner, planners PMM (now Conics), and project
managers Urban Blueprint.
Case study of Payne Road

The Gap, Brisbane www.urbanwatergovernance.com 10
The proximity of the Payne Road development to several Ex-house water supply
watercourses, including the Enoggera Creek, meant that
Greywater is treated by an aerobic vermiculture composting
stormwater runoff from the site needed to meet BCC water
system developed by Biolytix. The systems are installed on
quality objectives. Furthermore, stormwater management
individual lots and they deliver treated water to gardens via
during storm events was to be managed to ensure no increase in
subsurface irrigation (Gardner et al., 2006). Moisture sensors
peak flow up to the 100 year ARI incidents (Tanner and King,
detect saturation levels, and excess treated greywater is
2005). As a result, bioretention systems were installed at the
discharged into the sewer via a solenoid valve (Gardner et al.,
base of the development for flood management and to enable
2006). A 22kW diesel pump attached to the communal tanks
stormwater treatment and discharge.
ensures compliance with fire-fighting regulation for flow and
Although the environmental and service provision contexts pressure (Diaper, et al., 2007).
were considered primary drivers for the water management
approach at Payne Road, the development would not have Sewerage
been implemented without the commitment of several key Although not included in the integrated water cycle approach,
sustainability advocates within both the private and government council limitations on sewerage connection for the development
organisations. Furthermore, the owner/developer of the meant that an innovative approach to sewage conveyance was
subdivision was dedicated to demonstrating a sustainable required. Wastewater from kitchens and toilets is conveyed via
approach to residential development. Overall, the project aims low-infiltration, reticulated gravity sewerage to a communal
to demonstrate the technical, economic and environmental sewer pump well (Gardner et al., 2006). As the BCC sewer
viability of a decentralised, integrated alternative approach main already operates at peak flow capacity, sewage from the
to water and energy management within a subdivision, in Payne Road development is withheld in a pump well until it can
accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable be discharged during off-peak (between 12am-6am) into the
development (Tanner and King, 2005). main sewerage trunk (Gardner et al., 2006).
Stormwater
Summary of Technical Each rainwater tank is divided into 3 zones: the bottom zone
Features (Water) provides for household water supply (1/5 of the tank), the
middle part of the tank provides the working storage volume
A brief summary of the technical aspects of the Payne Road for the communal tanks (3/5 of the tank), while the top 1/5 of
water management system is provided below. Figure 2 provides the tank is used as a stormwater surge detention zone (Hamlyn-
a schematic overview of the Payne Road features. For further Harris, 2006; Gardner et al., 2006). The bulk of the stormwater
detailed information regarding the technologies (addressing runoff not captured by rainwater tanks is captured in swales
both water and energy) and modelling tools employed in the and treated in a bio-retention system at the bottom of the
development see Gardner et al., 2006 and Tanner and King, 2005. development. Stormwater sensitive landscape and road design
ensures that runoff drains to an 80m long by 25m wide swale,
In-house water supply including a 0.6m deep by 1m wide bio-retention system filled
with sandy loam to treat water before it is discharged to the
Each household is equipped with an 18kL to 22kL rainwater Enoggera Creek via a stormwater pipe (Gardner et al, 2006).
tank to supply all household uses (see Figure 3). Two In addition, two 0.5m rock weirs assist flood management for
75kL communal tanks are also located at the bottom of the flows during a 2 year storm event (Gardner et al, 2006).
development to store excess flow from household tanks, and
to provide emergency supply for extra household and fire-
fighting needs. A float valve and trickle feed from the BCC
mains ensures supply security. All tank water is treated through
a 1mm mesh screen, a geotextile filter sock (to prevent leaves
and sediment entering the tank), a 1μm carbon filter, and a UV
disinfection unit for treatment to potable standards (Gardner et
al., 2006). The water supply is pressurised by a 0.45/0.75kW
submersible pump, triggered automatically when pressure drops
below 350kPa (Diaper et al., 2007).

11 www.urbanwatergovernance.com The Gap, Brisbane
Rainfall Rainfall Evapotranspiration
Potable water from BCC
Community water
storage tank
Rainwater
tanks Figure 2: Water Schematic for Payne
Road (ource: Payne Road Project, n.d.,
www.payneroad.com.au)
Bioretention
Greywater filter
treatment
plants Irrigation areas
To creek
Hydraulic Circuit Schematic of Payne Road,

To sewer
including Rainwater and Greywater Systems.
Deep drainage
Key Aspects of the Initial research was undertaken to ascertain the market
opportunities and the demographic interested in buying
Implementation
sustainable housing designs (Egerton, 2006). The planning
process involved a detailed physical survey of the site, including
mapping the opportunities and constraints of the natural features,
Process as well as access and service arrangements, as well as an informal
consultation process with residents in the greater area (Tanner
The Payne Road area had previously been used for market and King, 2005). Based on certain limitations the development
gardening and some residential dwellings before being site posed (i.e. lack of access to trunk sewerage), a number
purchased by a local Brisbane businessman for development of solution scenarios were considered, such as the potential
(Tanner and King, 2005). The aim was to develop the land for sewage recycling. The outcomes and implications of this
into sustainable housing lots focusing on water and energy solutions process were discussed with BCC, whose feedback
efficiencies. The sustainability emphasis of the development were incorporated into the initial plans for the development,
engaged the interest of key individuals who had previously which were then forwarded through to the standard council
worked together on similar projects, such as the Healthy Home Development Assessment and Operational Works approvals
project (see Gardner et al., 2002). Interested stakeholders process (Tanner and King, 2005). Due to the innovative nature
included representatives from development/consulting firms of the development, the approvals process within BCC took
and the scientific research and development branch of the significantly longer than for a conventional housing development;
Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water (then almost 3 years passed before building approval was given for the
Department of Natural Resources and Mines). construction of display homes (Egerton, 2006).
Beginning July 2001, a team of consultants were engaged For civil works construction, tenders were invited from
to undertake a preliminary site analysis and master-planning contractors who had previously worked with the design
process. From the beginning, an emphasis was placed on ensuring consultants, Bligh Tanner (Tanner and King, 2005). As noted
there was a collaborative approach amongst individuals and by Tanner and King (2005), the same water and sewer sub-
firms (particularly with BCC). For example, prior to submitting contractor was nominated by each civil contractor in their
the development application, the developer and consultants application as there were few who were capable and willing to
undertook an extensive consultation process with BCC. This led undertake such a project (Tanner and King, 2005). A tendering
to the Payne Road development gaining principle support from process was also undertaken in early 2004 for the supply
BCC, who labelled the development a demonstration project of water and grey water systems on each lot. This was to
in line with ecologically sustainable development principles ensure cost efficiency and common infrastructure in terms of
emphasised in the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the Brisbane maintenance and management (Tanner and King, 2005).
City Plan 2000 (Tanner and King, 2005).

Extended timelines
Interviewees identified time delays during the project as a
significant challenge for the Payne Road development. This was
primarily related to the difficulties in securing Council approval
for development. Although early consultation with BCC had
established high level support for the project amongst department
heads, (particularly from the water division) the planning
and development approvals officers had not been involved
in these discussions, and hence lacked the understanding and
capacity to assess the new technology and processes required to
implement the unconventional development. As a result, officers
were initially reluctant to take responsibility for approving the
‘unknown’, and required extended periods to review the different
development approach. Further compounding the delays included
the application being transferred back and forth between different
divisions and the difficulty of staff turnover and having to ‘re-
educate’ new officers who were not familiar with the project. For
example, one interviewee pointed out, “we literally came up with
the concept in 2-3 months…but then it took 5 years to implement
it, bashing it through the back end of Council…there was a major
Figure 3: E
xample of rainwater tanks for household disconnect…”. Interestingly, a number of interviewees noted
supply. that there were fewer problems with the water management
infrastructure proposed than there were with the Community
Funding for the project came from a variety of sources; Management Schemes, road infrastructure and other planning
however, the majority of costs were covered by the developer. aspects proposed.
Interviewees indicated that a number of different organisations
and government departments had also made relatively small The development assessment and operational works approvals
contributions to assist with project funding. An application for process lasted approximately three years, from project
funding from the Australian Government’s Coast and Clean beginning in 2001, to when sales began around 2005 (Egerton,
Seas Initiative was granted, however, due to timeline delays the 2006). Such delays also contributed to cost issues; for example,
money had to be returned to the Government. the need to pay for extra development consultants during the
Council’s development approvals process (Egerton, 2006),
Extensive monitoring and evaluation has been incorporated and a loss of federal government funding due to time restricted
into the Payne Road development undertaken at both the spending requirements.
community and household scale. This includes chemical and
microbiological monitoring for rainwater, greywater and
stormwater quality, as well as total water use per home, internal/
external water use, hot water use, greywater production, toilet Capacity deficits – construction &
water use, and amount of water sourced from rainwater tanks
and mains (Gardner et al., 2006). Energy use is also measured
maintenance
and logged every ten minutes via separate circuits for power and The construction of homes and infrastructure was reportedly a
light outlets, air conditioning, rainwater and greywater systems smooth process (Tanner and King, 2005); however, a number of
(pumps) and gas hot water (Gardner et al., 2006). issues related to industry capacity were raised. The integrated
nature of the water system placed increased and unexpected
demands on the project designers and planners who were
Challenges and required to provide extensive supervision and coordination
to ensure builders and fitters followed the established plan
Opportunities requirements, and did not employ conventional implementation
practices when something appeared unfamiliar. For example,
The very nature of the project as a ‘trial’ involving unconventional many plumbers involved in the project were not familiar with
technologies inevitably led to interconnected challenges such as the concept of rainwater as a potable household supply source
lengthy approvals timelines, building and maintenance capacity and were often reluctant to sign off on them. Maintenance
issues, cost increases, and technological challenges. However, of the system was handled by those who had been involved
these have provided important insights for future developments with the project throughout the design, implementation and
looking to create a point of difference from conventional practice.

monitoring process. However, this meant only a small number has provided some invaluable information, despite not all
of individuals were familiar with the water systems, resulting in homes being sold and occupied. A summary of the important
delays to maintenance during busy or inopportune times. Such project results will be outlined below, but for more detailed and
an approach, however, did ensure project participants became comprehensive analysis of the technical outcomes of the Payne
a close part of the community at Payne Road, and they went to Road development, see Gardner et al. (2006).
considerable efforts to ensure residents understood the purpose
and operation of the various technologies. A common issue associated with proposed alternative water
systems is the need to meet supply regulation for fire fighting
Brisbane City Council was unwilling to take on the responsibility needs. Through the design and consultation process, this
for certain aspects of the development, such as public areas issue was overcome with the provision of a 150kL storage
and the communal water tanks and sewerage pump. Therefore, capacity in the communal rainwater tanks (see Figure 4) and
community management schemes, based on experiences at the an automatic diesel pump to provide adequate pressure when
Pimpama Coomera developments on the Gold Coast, were to be required (Gardner et al., 2006). To date, between 50-80% self-
established to manage and maintain the infrastructure once 50% of sufficiency for household water supply has been recorded as a
homes had been sold (Egerton, 2006; Diaper et al., 2007). result of the reliance on rainwater; a significant sustainability
gain in comparison to the conventional supply approach
Cost issues (Gardner et al., 2006). Once all lots are sold, developed and
In addition to the cost issues identified by respondents related occupied, it is expected that the subdivision will reduced the
to time delays in the approvals process, other cost increases demand on mains water supply by 190kL per household/year,
were associated with the implementation of unconventional while sewerage discharge volumes would be reduced by 100kL
technologies in a traditional regulatory framework which per household/year (Gardner et al., 2006).
required extensive upfront costs. For example, the developer
has responsibility for providing the necessary infrastructure,
and the installation of water supply and treatment technologies
cost $16 000 per lot for greywater treatment systems and around
$20 000 for the communal rainwater tanks and supply systems
(Egerton, 2006). Feasibility studies demonstrated these costs
were lower than projected rates for extending BCC water and
sewerage infrastructure to the development. Despite the reduced
demand on council infrastructure as a result of the alternative
systems, full headworks fees were still charged (Egerton, 2006).
Marketability
Research was undertaken to determine if a market existed for
sustainable housing; preliminary data suggested there was
a market and thus the houses were designed to incorporate
multiple sustainability features (Egerton, 2006). However,
sales in the subdivision have been relatively slow in the years
following the completion of display homes, and a number
of lots in the development remain unsold. A number of Figure 4: C
ommunal rainwater tanks.
interviewees attributed the low sales to a shift in the housing
market which resulted in increasing the price of such homes, The monitoring program has revealed several “teething
beyond the price range of the target demographic identified problems” such as the irrigation control settings not taking
through the initial research. weather conditions into account resulting in over-watering (this
was addressed by introducing saturation sensors). An important
Technology, monitoring and point revealed by the monitoring system found the decentralised
evaluation supply and sewerage systems at Payne Road were less energy
The Payne Road project placed an early emphasis on efficient in comparison to the energy embodied in conventional
monitoring and evaluation during and after lot completion supply and sewerage (Gardner et al., 2006). This was attributed
and sale. Throughout the course of the project, the monitoring to the fundamental inefficiencies of small motors on the
systems provided timely opportunities to fine-tune the system rainwater pumps, combined with frequent start-ups and the
and rectify any problems that arose. The Department of Natural relatively high energy requirements of the UV filters (Gardner
Resources and Water were responsible for monitoring, which et al., 2006). However, Gardner et al. (2006) were confident

that the extra 3.5kWh per day required could easily be offset number of process-oriented challenges which could be faced by
by increasing energy efficiencies elsewhere in the home, by other innovative projects. For example, the case study reveals
measures such as installation of a solar hot water system. the importance of engaging with key stakeholders early in the
design and planning stages (i.e. the need to engage development
Another challenge associated with comprehensive monitoring approvals process people) and highlights a disconnection
approach raised by interviewees was “over-instrumentation” in amongst divisions within key organisations that need to be
the homes and on site. The many different monitoring systems addressed in future projects.
have generated excessive amounts of data, which have proved
unnecessary in hindsight. Furthermore, “over-instrumentation” Interviewees also expressed some concern about the monitoring
was also linked to the issue of increased costs required to results which highlighted the limited energy efficiency of this
maintain monitoring and evaluation systems. particular integrated water system. Concern was raised about
the potential for detractors to use the data to lobby against
Overall, despite the challenges associated with the Payne Road future development of decentralised water supply solutions. In
project, the results reveal a constructive learning experience particular, a number of respondents were concerned the data
of stakeholders involved and beyond. Interviewees considered could be used by the State Government to justify regulating
the lessons learned at Payne Road could contribute towards against or rejecting approvals of such systems (there is no
building confidence amongst developers and regulators alike, evidence of such a response to date). The Payne Road project’s
by demonstrating that “the Payne Road water systems are monitoring and evaluation component is an important element
biophysically robust and provide a net sustainability gain” of the case study. Although there were concerns expressed about
too much data being collected, this information led to refinements
(Gardner et al., 2006: 224).
(learn-by-doing) in technologies and processes. Often there
is limited scope and support for undertaking such extensive
Case Study monitoring and evaluation; indeed many interviewees across
Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth commented on the insufficient
Implications resources allocated to meaningful, long-term monitoring.
Despite its unique bio-physical location, there are many

Incorporating an innovative approach to urban water servicing positive aspects of the Payne Road project that are applicable
at Payne Road has revealed a number of challenges and to similar future projects. For example, the measures employed
opportunities for the broader urban water sector. A number of to meet fire-fighting requirements, the significant water savings
interviewees labelled the Payne Road project as “boutique”, recorded, the integrated nature of the water systems and the
due to its small size, unique geographical features and location, reported net sustainability gain. Also, the case study revealed
infrastructure issues and the high-end targeted customer group. an important commercial lesson regarding the dynamism of
It was suggested that as a result of the project’s unique features the real estate market and the need to ‘sell’ sustainability as a
there was little opportunity for replication. However, there are a secondary feature to ‘liveability’ or ‘lifestyle’.

Biolytix® (2008) www.biolytix.com
Diaper, C.; Tjandraatmadja, G.; & Kenway, S. (2007) Sustainable Subdivisions – Review of Technologies for Integrated Water
Services, Research Report, Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, June 2007.
Egerton, P. (2006) “Residential Case Study: Silva Park Estate”, Paper for the Understanding Sustainable Development Workshop
Series, Australian Green Development Forum, July-October, 2006.
Gardner, E.A.; Millar, G. E.; Christiansen, C.; Vieritz, A. M.; & Chapman, H. (2006) “Energy and Water Use at a WSUD subdivision
in Brisbane, Australia”, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Urban Drainage and the 4th International Conference on
Water Sensitive Urban Design, Volume 2, Melbourne, Australia, April 2006.
Gardner, T.; Hyde, R.; Millar, G.; & Vieritz, A. (2002) “The Healthy Home® - A Step Towards Greening Paradise”, Proceedings of the
4th Queensland Environmental Engineering Conference, Australia, April 2002.
Payne Road Project Website (undated) http://www.payneroad.com.au
Tanner, C. and King, A. (2005) “Integrated Water Management at 599 Payne Rd, The Gap”, Presented at the Institute of Public Works
Engineering Institute of Australia Queensland (IPWEAQ) Annual Conference, Australia, 2005.

CASE STUDY OF
Coomera Waters
Coomera, South East
Queensland
Introduction
T
he Coomera Waters housing development is a good example of a master-planned development
incorporating best practice planning and management for stormwater sensitive design, as well as water
supply and sewerage innovations. Coomera Waters is located within the larger Pimpama-Coomera
Waterfutures Project led by Gold Coast Water and supported by Gold Coast City Council. This case study
describes the Coomera Waters Village and Resort development and the processes involved in achieving a
successful outcome. Further, the challenges encountered throughout the process and the ways stakeholders
addressed these are highlighted. Finally, implications arising from this case study are presented.
Project Overview: Coomera Waters – Snapshot

Coomera Waters n Located within the Pimpama Coomera Waterfutures
Master Plan area, Gold Coast.
Coomera Waters is a large-scale residential development n Drivers: Environmental settings; drought; sustainability
incorporating best practice integrated planning and objectives; developer initiated.
management, and leading edge water sensitive urban design n Purpose: Best Practice planning and management
(WSUD). Valued at over $570 million, the project area is in urban development demonstrating no additional
496 hectares, and will include over 1,200 homes. Located environmental/water quality impacts.
in the northern part of the Gold Coast region in South East
Queensland, the development area is adjacent to several n Features: Best Practice stormwater management, dual
significant aquatic ecosystems, including RAMSAR-listed reticulation scheme for outdoor and some indoor uses.
wetlands, the Moreton Bay Marine Park and McCoys Creek.
From a broad sustainability perspective, the Coomera

Waters development has not only addressed water issues,
but also broader social and environmental health objectives. • nergy: Employment of energy efficient measures to reduce
E
Recognising these efforts, Coomera Waters has achieved greenhouse gas emissions, including use of renewable energy
Category 5 accreditation with the Urban Development Institute sources such as solar power where possible.
of Australia’s (UDIA) EnviroDevelopment program in the areas • ater: Water efficiency measures, as well as provision of
W
of Ecosystems, Waste, Energy, Water and Community (Coomera alternative sources such as rainwater for household use.
Waters Ltd, 2009; see also EnviroDevelopment, 2009).
Category 5 accreditation was achieved through incorporating • ommunity: Attention paid to good community design,
C
initiatives that addressed (Coomera Waters Ltd, 2009): including accessible housing, community facilities and
services, security, networks, events, and transport options.
• cosystems: Protecting and improving the health of natural
E
systems, including emphasis on native biodiversity and This case study will focus specifically on the water and
rehabilitation of degraded areas. associated ecosystem initiatives employed in the development.
Over six years of research and planning has resulted in the
• aste: Development of comprehensive measures to reduce
W implementation of the project’s vision to protect such natural
waste to landfill. assets, including (Water by Design, 2009: 105):
• B
est practice management of stormwater runoff through
swale bioretention systems, bioretention raingardens, and
constructed wetlands. Each of these features has been
integrated with existing native vegetation, as well as
streetscapes and public open spaces.
• A
constructed wetland and lake system designed to provide
multiple benefits including flow retardation and flood
management, water quality treatment, and amenity and
educational value for local residents and visitors (see Figure 2).
• D
ual reticulation, smart sewer systems, rainwater tanks,
and demand management measures as part of Gold Coast
Figure 1: C
oomera Waters’ EnviroDevelopment Water’s Pimpama Coomera Waterfutures Master Plan
accreditation. (Coomera Waters Ltd, 2009; (PCWFMP) (See Box 1).
EnviroDevelopment, 2009).
C a s e s t u d y o f C o o m e r a Wa t e r s
17 www.urbanwatergovernance.com Coomera, South East Queensland
supply of the Hinze Dam for its primary source of drinking
water (Hamlyn-Harris, 2003). However, with the population
of the region predicted to grow from 400, 000 to 1.1 million
by 2050, in combination with the severe water scarcity
crisis experienced for the majority of the last decade, it was
deemed important to consider alternative approaches to water
management (Hamlyn-Harris, 2003). As a part of this strategy,
the Pimpama Coomera Waterfutures Master Plan (PCWFMP)
project was established (see Box 1), in order to test the
application of a more integrated approach to water management
at a “reasonable” scale, rather than starting at a city-wide level.
Coomera Waters is one of the key developments within the
Pimpama Coomera region, and participants of both projects
Figure 2: B
est Practice constructed wetland. worked closely together during planning and development.
Coomera Waters was often used to test the ideas put forward
The Coomera Waters project demonstrates the successful
in the PCWFMP process, which were then fed back into the
implementation of leading-edge integrated urban water
strategy. The strategy allowed expansion of the water sensitive
management. The focus of the project leaders on collaboration
features of Coomera Waters to include dual reticulation and
and communication throughout and beyond the project has
smart sewer systems.
ensured that the lessons learned through the Coomera Waters
development have fed into local and regional best practice
guidelines, approvals processes and capacity building programs Pimpama Coomera Waterfutures
to the benefit of the industry. Master Plan: Innovation at the
Planning level.
Drivers and Purpose The Pimpama Coomera Waterfutures Master Plan
for Coomera Waters (PCWFMP) is a significant example of a demonstration

project at a policy and planning level. The PCWFMP
demonstrates an innovative and integrated approach to
The Coomera Waters site was not initially situated in the Gold
sustainable urban water management, and is one of the first
Coast City Council’s designated development area. Previous
of its kind in Australia.
land uses have included a golf course and a pine plantation,
however, in the early 2000s, developer Austcorp considered The Pimpama Coomera area is one of the newest
the potential for housing development in the area. Part of the development precincts of the Gold Coast Region, one of the
site’s attraction was the significant natural assets that traverse most rapidly expanding areas of South East Queensland.
and bound the development area, including RAMSAR-listed In recognition of the need for future development to be
wetlands to the north and the east of the site, significant habitat undertaken in a more sustainable fashion, and in response to
areas, and regionally important waterways such as McCoy’s the worst drought on record in the early 2000s, the PCWFMP
Creek and the Moreton Bay Marine Park. It was clear that was developed over several years to deliver urban water
standard development approaches would result in unacceptable services that produced environmental, economic and social
impacts to sensitive aquatic and habitat areas. Gold Coast City benefits to the community and the broader region (Gold Coast
Council’s consideration to approve the site for development Water, 2004). Located in an ecologically sensitive area,
depended on the condition that the developer could demonstrate managing the impacts of such services on local environmental
no additional impacts to the area would occur. Extensive base- health was a key objective of the project (Gold Coast Water,
line and feasibility studies were carried out by a multidisciplinary 2004). However, while drought, environment and population
design team on behalf of the developer, in order to provide an growth were amongst the contextual drivers, a number of
indication of what was required to protect the natural systems. interviewees identified the key roles played by passionate and
This resulted in the design of stormwater drainage and treatment visionary individuals involved in the project, who worked
solutions that include Best Practice WSUD Planning and hard to bring community members, politicians and council
Management principles (Water by Design, 2009). and utility staff along with the plan.
Within the broader region, the implications of prolonged Planning began in mid 2002 with a number of workshops
drought, water shortages and predictions of rapid population held amongst stakeholders from State Government, Gold
growth were beginning to be recognised by the governing Coast City Council and other Local Governments to discuss
authorities, prompting the Gold Coast City Council to undertake the sustainability issues associated with water service
more strategic future planning, with water and environment provision for new developments (Gold Coast Water, 2004).
at the centre. The Gold Coast has relied on the surface water
(continued next page)
Coomera, South East Queensland www.urbanwatergovernance.com 18
(continued)
By late 2002 the first step of community consultation and
engagement was undertaken, with the establishment of
an Advisory Committee which included representatives
from resident associations, landholders and developers,
environmental groups, industry associations, relevant State
Government departments and Gold Coast City councillors
(Gold Coast Water, 2004). The Committee worked with the
council to develop an overall objective for the project, and
discuss the environmental, economic and social outcomes
required in order to meet this objective (Gold Coast Water,
2004). Features of the project outcomes include (Gold Figure 3: P
urple fittings to identify recycled water
Coast Water, 2004): supply (Source: Gold Coast Water, 2009,
www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/gcwater/).
• H
ousehold water supply sources: Rainwater
(bathrooms, laundries, hot water systems); Recycled amount of sustained energy from project leaders was
Water (toilet flushing, outdoor uses); Potable Water required to keep momentum going within the organisation,
(kitchen, rainwater tank top-up). and particular effort required in those areas (both inside
• S
tormwater Management: Water Sensitive Urban and outside government organisations) often perceived
Design (WSUD); rainwater tanks. as “resistant” to new approaches, such as development
approval, engineering and maintenance departments,
• W
astewater systems: “Smart Sewers” (reduces plumbers and developers. Furthermore, a number of
stormwater inflows to system). interviewees acknowledged (and admired) the willingness
• D
emand Management mechanisms and Education: and strength of the project director to take direct
water saving appliances, targeted education and responsibility for the risks associated with trialling a new
communication programs. and innovative approach to water management.
A key aspect of the project’s success was the Project Although project participants acknowledged there were
Team Alliance, formed to undertake the technical design significant challenges in undertaking the project, the
and planning aspects required to roll out the Master overall process and finished product (the Master Plan) was
Plan. Individuals from various consultancies and other considered highly rewarding. One interviewee considered
organisations were seconded to work under Gold Coast that the project had the profound effect of encouraging
Water for the planning duration. Interviewees indicated Gold Coast Water to take more innovative approaches as an
this was an effective strategy designed to eliminate the organisation overall.
client-consultant mentality, and to keep all members on
The PCWFMP is now in the process of being implemented,
an equal level. Team members were “hand-picked” to
with the Coomera Waters subdivision providing the
participate in the project planning based on their vision and
leading example of the embodiment of the Master Planning
desire to create change and make a difference, and were
principles. With the recent completion of the Pimpama
encouraged within their jobs to push boundaries and ask
Recycled Water Plant in late 2008, residents connected to the
questions. A combination of conceptual thinking and the dual reticulation system in the Pimpama Coomera region are
cognitive intelligence to translate broader concepts into expected to receive recycled water by mid-late 2009.
milestones and actions, and “make it happen” amongst
the team leaders was considered beneficial to the project’s The PCWFMP has won the International Water Association
implementation outcomes. Furthermore, an effort was (IWA) Global Grand Prize for Water Planning in 2006, and
made to emphasise the “innovativeness” of the alliance the United Nation’s (Australian chapter) World Environment
approach, including locating the team in a separate building Day Awards for ‘excellence in water management’ in 2007.
to the rest of the Gold Coast Water staff. In 2008 the Master Plan was awarded second place in the
IWA Water Congress’s “Practical Realisation of Sustainable
However, contact with stakeholders, including interaction Urban Water Management” prize category.
with the Advisory Committee, was still considered a vital
component of a robust consultation approach, and was Following the PCWFMP process, two other alliance
considered a factor in the project’s success. An effort was projects were initiated: the Coombabah and Merrimac
made to ensure technical information was communicated Water Future projects, which largely involve up-grading
in a manner that could be understood by all stakeholders. wastewater treatment plants and developing recycled water
Political buy-in from councillors and the mayor was also sources. The PCWFMP approach has also been expanded
considered vital. Nevertheless, this was not achieved to the broader Gold Coast region, with the Gold Coast
without challenges. As one key project participant pointed Waterfuture Strategy adopted in 2005, aimed at providing
out, “it was difficult keeping the organisation’s chin a sustainable and adaptive approach to water supply
up, working people through it was hard.” A significant management in the Gold Coast City Council area.
Key Project capacity within that organisation in relation to the innovation
and alternative approaches. This was particularly evident
Implementation
in the area of stormwater conveyance and treatment, where
project participants and council employees worked together to
address many of the concerns typically expressed by councils in
Processes relation to alternative approaches to stormwater management.
Such an approach ensured the support of the council for the
A great deal of consideration has gone into planning the project, and was central to overcoming many of the regulatory
Coomera Waters approach to project implementation. Lessons and approval barriers reported by others involved in similar
of past projects, as well as on-the-go experience (learning-by- projects. Furthermore, such an approach had the added effect
doing) have been incorporated into the design and execution of equipping council officers with the confidence to become
of the project. Coomera Waters is a large-scale, multi-staged catalysts for change within their organisation.
development, which has been implemented over a number of
years, and continues to be developed. The long timeframe has Project leaders for Coomera Waters linked quickly with those
allowed design, assessment and construction teams to review leaders involved with the PCWFMP project, providing the
and refine their approach, and adapt to the challenges presented. opportunity to work together to establish a vision for the broader
This has resulted in new approaches that overcome the many region. Consultation between the groups was useful to test
hurdles also identified through past industry experience, such ideas and options in relation to the combined, regional impacts
as regulatory issues, unclear roles and responsibilities, poor of water supply and wastewater discharge to the environment,
communication, a lack of monitoring and evaluation and many resulting in the dual reticulation and smart sewer systems across
others (for example, see Water By Design, 2005; Brown and all developments in the Pimpama Coomera region.
Farrelly, 2009).
New approaches to construction and
Collaboration and communication establishment of WSUD systems
A multidisciplinary design team was established early in The construction phases of new developments are understood
the process to scope out the potential low-impact housing as critical periods in the establishment and lifespan of WSUD
development options for the area. A team of engineers, systems (Lloyd, 2001; Leinster, 2006). The construction
landscape architects, ecologists, urban designers and water and of WSUD systems is generally initiated in the subdivision
soil experts were brought together to interpret the site and map construction phase of development as part of the landscaping
the opportunities and constraints to development. This process works prior to construction of individual allotments (Leinster,
was considered vital for establishing an integrated vision and 2006). The responsibility for implementing the WSUD asset
design for the project. design lies with civil/landscape contractors and site managers,
The formation of a team of talented and committed individuals whose capacity and understanding of the system delivery and
was seen as a key aspect of a successful design approach. operation has generally been reported as poor (i.e. Leinster,
Key members of the team remained with the project from 2006). Furthermore, construction activities pose a substantial
conceptual design through to construction and compliance. risk to the assets, both during the subdivision construction
Project participants considered the continuity of stakeholder phase, and the establishment of individual allotments. Damage
engagement throughout the entire process was a fundamental typically occurs through high sediment loads in stormwater
reason for the project’s successful implementation. The multi- running off building sites, which clog the infiltration systems
stage development process, in combination with the continuity and kill vegetation, and use of the space for vehicle parking
of the project teams involved, has helped ensure the reflexive and equipment and materials storage (Leinster, 2006). This
and adaptive approach undertaken over the course of project can result in partial or complete destruction of the systems
timeline, resulting in excellent outcomes on the ground. through the prevention of soil and plant establishment required
for water treatment, or changes in the form and gradient of the
A central aspect of the project’s approach was the emphasis systems (Leinster, 2006). The risk exposure in the subdivision
placed on building relationships and collaboration amongst construction phase is considered easier to control, as works
a variety of stakeholders. Deliberate efforts were made to are undertaken under the supervision of a site manager
form relationships between individuals and the relevant and principle contractor (Leinster, 2006). However, as the
organisations, including developers, industry associations, construction of individual allotments can involve any number of
capacity building organisations and council. Early and regular builders and sub-contractors, this phase poses the highest risk
collaboration with the Gold Coast City Council was established to the WSUD systems (Leinster, 2006). In order to manage the
for the duration of the project, with the effect of developing risks to the systems during all phases of development, strategies
the design in cooperation with the local authority and building were developed for Coomera Waters to ensure such challenges
could be overcome. System designers worked in collaboration
with landscape and civil contractors to review the systems and
identify possible risks (Leinster, 2006). This further assisted
in building the capacity of the contractors to contribute to the
supervision and guidance of the asset construction, in addition
to the continued involvement of the designers. As a result, a
three-staged approach to construction and establishment was
developed to ensure the timing of the WSUD system application
complimented that of the construction phases (Leinster, 2006:
323; Figure 4):
Stage 1: Functional Installation – Construction of the functional
infrastructure elements of the WSUD systems at the end of
Sub-Division Construction (i.e. during landscape works), and
the installation of temporary protective measures. For example,
protection of bioretention systems can been achieved by using a
temporary arrangement of suitable geofabric covered with shallow Figure 5: B
ioretention system protected with geo-fabric
topsoil (e.g. 25 mm) and instant turf, in lieu of the final basin and instant turf during housing construction
planting (see Figure 5). period.
Stage 2: Sediment & Erosion Control – During the Allotment
The application process of the three stages varies depending
Building Phase the temporary protective measures preserve the
functional infrastructure of the WSUD systems against damage on the WSUD asset being constructed (see Leinster, 2006; or
whilst also providing a temporary erosion and sediment control Water by Design, 2009 for further details). In addition to this
facility throughout the building phase to protect downstream aquatic process, accountability for the compliance of the systems was
ecosystems. ensured through the development of compliance checklists,
which required system designers and site managers to sign off
Stage 3: Operational Establishment – At the completion of the on the installation and function of the systems in accordance
Allotment Building phase, the temporary measures protecting the with the Stormwater Management Plan required prior to and
functional elements of the WSUD system can be removed along
post- construction.
with all accumulated sediment and the system planted in accordance
with the design planting schedule. In order to ensure completion of the systems over this extended
period, the developer is required to pay a bond to the Council in
order to provide financial security to ensure works are maintained
Years 1yr 2yr 3yr 4yr during the specified establishment and maintenance periods, and
to cover uncompleted works (see Gold Coast City Council, 2009).
Sub-division Construction
Civil Works Body corporate approach to asset
management and risk
Landscape Works
Allotment Building
Stage 1: Functional Installation

The issue of asset maintenance, particularly regarding capacity
and long term costs for stormwater/WSUD features, is considered
Stage 2: Sediment & Erosion Control
a major concern for local governments. This was identified in the
Stage 3: Operational Establishment
practitioner interviews and is also reflected in recently published
papers (see for example, Lloyd, 2001; Alam et al., 2008; Alam and
Hossain, 2009; Murphy et al., 2009). In order to address some of
Figure 4: T
he timing of the three stages of construction
the concerns held by the Council, any assets beyond the road curb
and establishment in relation to the Construction
were included in a community title scheme, managed by a body
Phases. (Source: Leinster, 2006: 323)
corporate, for the Coomera Waters development. A percentage of
the Body Corporate fee paid by residents (for a range of services
including security services and recreational events) is allocated
to the maintenance of the stormwater treatment systems, such as
road-reserve swales, bioretention basins and constructed wetlands.
The Body Corporate responsibility does not extend to the dual-
reticulation scheme and sewer system, except for the maintenance
of sewerage operating systems in gated precincts (Coomera
Waters Body Corporate, 2009).
There was significant concern at Gold Coast City Council about Monitoring and evaluation
rate payers bearing higher costs for the alternative stormwater
Monitoring and evaluation of the stormwater systems has also
treatment systems in comparison to more conventional
been a central aspect of project implementation. Monitoring
approaches to stormwater conveyance (Alam et al., 2008; Alam
is co-funded by the Department of Natural Resources and
and Hossain, 2009). As the costs would have to be spread
Water (DNRW) and Gold Coast City Council, and is being
over the whole Gold Coast community, this was considered an
carried out through DNRW and the Queensland University of
unattractive option for the Council. With the Body Corporate
Technology. Water quality monitoring occurs at three types
approach, the cost of the asset management is “quarantined”
of WSUD features: a bioretention basin, a bioretention swale
within the Coomera Waters community. The Council pays a
and a constructed wetland (for further details see Parker et al.,
minor rebate to the Body Corporate in acknowledgement of
2008; Parker et al., 2009). Water quantity is also measured in
their reduced responsibility.
the bioretention basin and the constructed wetland. Instruments
The community title arrangement is seen to provide the benefit are installed in the stormwater pits or the entry and exit pipes
of enabling the community to participate in determining of the WSUD systems, and samples are collected automatically
property and asset standards and maintenance, as well as the via an Isco water sampler (Parker et al., 2009). An SMS alert
facilities available for residents (Coomera Waters Ltd, 2009). In is sent to a mobile phone from the sampling stations when the
particular, it provides the ability for the developer and community automatic sampler is activated. Within 24 hours, the sample
to regulate the landscaping and architectural standards of the must be moved to cold storage at GCCC, and the following day
development, thereby having control of the quality of the sent by courier to NRW for processing and storage (Parker et al.,
aesthetic and functional aspects of the stormwater treatment 2008). The water samples are tested for total suspended solids
devices in public areas. The high quality maintained through (TSS), pH, electrical conductivity, total nitrogen (TN), nitrate and
these arrangements was considered to contribute to high levels of nitrite, ammonia, total phosphorus (TP) and orthophosphate, as
pride in the estate on behalf of the developer and community. well as a range of dissolved and total metals (see Parker et al.,
2008; Parker et al., 2009). Although the many of the systems
Furthermore, a number of interviewees suggested that the still require planting (due to swale protection measures employed
Body Corporate approach had been a key element of success during the construction phase), monitoring has shown that the
for Coomera Waters, as it contributed to increased confidence WSUD systems are operating reasonably well, significantly
in the systems within the local government as they were not reducing pollutant loads
required to bear the risk of system failure and associated costs. and providing a flood
More recently, WSUD is being implemented throughout many protection function.
divisions within the Pimpama-Coomera Masterplan area, However, there is room
and through their experience with Coomera Waters and other for improvement in certain
developments, Gold Coast City Council have developed a areas, such as TP reduction
framework for the implementation of WSUD (see Alam et al., in the wetland (37%),
2008; Alam and Hossain, 2009). The principle of WSUD has which was under the 60%
recently been made a statutory requirement as part of the Gold South East Queensland
Coast City Council Planning Scheme (see Planning Scheme performance criteria (see
Policy No. 11, Land Development Guidelines, Gold Coast City Parker et al., 2009). The
Council, 2009). The Scheme includes comprehensive risk monitoring and evaluation
management requirements for design, planning, construction is not only important for
and establishment, which have built on the Coomera Waters maintaining and improving
experience. Stormwater treatment systems required to be the function of the systems,
maintained by developer for specified “on-maintenance” period but it also provides data
(minimum 12 months) and are then assessed for compliance that is relevant for the Gold
before being handed over to the council (Gold Coast City Coast region of South East
Council, 2009; Alam and Hossain, 2009). Responsibility for Queensland. Data collected
more complex systems is typically held for longer periods, for in the Brisbane City
example, constructed wetlands are maintained by the developer Council region has existed
for 60 months before asset handover (Gold Coast City Council, for some time, however, it
2009; Alam and Hossain, 2009). In addition, internal training is important that local data
programs have been undertaken to ensure capacity exists for Gold Coast now exists.
within the approvals and maintenance departments to deal with
alternative stormwater technologies. Figure 6: M
onitoring station,
Coomera Waters.
Water quality monitoring in the highly sensitive water Challenges and Opportunities
environments adjacent to the development area has occurred
Such has been the process of and attitude to implementation by
since 2003 (i.e. McCoys Creek) (Alam and Hussain, 2009).
the project participants, that very few challenges were reported
Samples have been taken by the developer at various locations
in relation to the Coomera Waters project without being
on a monthly basis, as well as following storm events, and basic
followed by the description of a response initiated to overcome
analysis has reportedly shown that water quality in the receiving
them. It appears that when and where challenges arose, project
waterways has not deteriorated as a result of the Coomera
participants and other interested parties such as Gold Coast
Waters project (Alam et al., 2008; Alam and Hussain, 2009).
City Council worked together to transform such issues into
opportunities to learn and enable change. This can be seen
Dissemination of lessons learned in relation to the construction phase of the WSUD systems
As key part of the part of the Coomera Waters project has outlined above, where potential risks to the WSUD systems
been to ensure the key lessons of the project (both positive and during the construction phase were identified, and solutions
negative) have been accurately relayed to the industry. This has designed in order to overcome them in collaboration with the
been facilitated by the close, collaborative approach undertaken, stakeholders involved.
the willingness of those involved to share their experience
through presentations, capacity building and contribution to However, the relative success of the Coomera Waters project
the development of standards and guidelines. Within Gold at overcoming many of the commonly experienced barriers
Coast City Council the lessons have been incorporated into should not be misinterpreted to assume the project was easy.
standards and guidelines (i.e. Land Development Guidelines), On the contrary, project leaders encountered resistance at many
and have resulted in significant changes and improvements stages throughout the project, often being required to “argue
to the recommended process for undertaking planning, the way through the process”. Significant amounts of time and
design, construction, and maintenance of Stormwater Quality energy were spent explaining the alternative technologies and
Improvement Devices (see Alam et al., 2008; Alam and addressing the concerns and perceived risks of council officers
Hossain, 2009). and other stakeholders. One particular challenge, identified
during the early stages of project implementation, related to
The Healthy Waterways Partnership’s Water by Design staff changes within the council. Project leaders sought to
program has been an important organisation for supporting the maintain consistent contacts within the local authority and
dissemination of key insights gained from the Coomera Waters build their capacity and acceptance of the alternative approach;
development. The Program has supported project leaders to however, if such a person was replaced this process would begin
present at capacity building workshops, often on a monthly again, occasionally resulting in delays as new staff members
basis, to share their knowledge and expertise with the planning, were updated. This problem was largely overcome as the project
design, development and construction sectors. Furthermore, gained momentum and reputation as best practice.
project leaders have worked with the Water by Design team
on the development of manuals, standards, specifications and It has been widely acknowledged that many of the barriers
guidelines for best practice WSUD in South East Queensland, to more sustainable urban water management are socio-
from the conceptual design level through to construction, institutional, rather than technical (i.e. Marsalek et al., 2001;
establishment and maintenance (i.e. Water by Design, 2007; Vlachos and Braga, 2001; Brown, 2005; Wong, 2006; Brown
2009a; 2009b). and Farrelly, 2009). In 2005 the Water by Design capacity
building program undertook a review of the barriers and
opportunities for the implementation of WSUD in South East
Queensland (Water by Design, 2005). Table 1 provides an
indication of the methods employed by the Coomera Waters
project participants (and the associated PCWFMP project) in
responding to and/or overcoming these barriers. A number
of interviewees also identified other improvements to the
process that may have further contributed to overcoming some
barriers including greater State Government support and better
budgeting for PCWFMP. However, Table 1 provides a good
indication of the significant achievement the two nested projects
in addressing the diverse and persistent barriers.
Table 1: Barriers to adoption of WSUD (adapted from Water by Design, 2005)
Barriers Response
• H igh levels of inter-organisational collaboration – continual involvement of Gold Coast City Council
(GCCC) and Gold Coast Water (particularly through the PCWFMP process).
1. Policy, regulations • Time spent defining roles and allocating responsibility where it was not apparent.
and approvals • Collaborative, open learning approach with GCCC enabled adaptive forms of management to evolve:
i.e. lessons from the Coomera Waters (and PCWFMP) project were fed into the local and regional
planning schemes, technical guidelines, regulatory requirements etc.
• Project helped establish information around the cost of such projects and alternative systems.
2. Finance and costs • Council concerns about increased costs from stormwater treatment systems allayed by Community
Title approach to asset management (assisted by community ability and willingness to pay).
• Methods to feed information back into the project and broader region.
• Emphasis on clear, open and continual processes for communication between stakeholders.
3. Awareness and • Capacity building for council approvals and maintenance officers; site managers; construction
training workers; plumbers etc for Coomera Waters and PCWFMP.
• Project participants regularly working with Water By Design/Healthy Waterways Partnership to distil
information, technique and learning.
• Internal WSUD Awareness Program undertaken by specialist consultants for GCCC officers (see
Alam and Hossain, 2009).
4. Social demand • Market receptivity existed for the project.
and consumer • Location and facilities aimed at mid-high end of market, affordable for some.
affordability
5. Technology and • Participation of industry in design and implementation.
design (including • A careful approach to design and implementation: compliance checklists and sign-off procedures.
expertise and
• Concept designer follow-up on asset construction.
performance
monitoring) • Emphasis on the need and importance of monitoring and evaluation.
• Clear (non-negotiable) environmental objectives dictated the need for innovative approaches.
6. Lack of incentives • Council support of the project helped ensure an innovative approach could be undertaken by the
developer.
• R isk management undertaken at all stages of WSUD development – planning, design, construction,
establishment and maintenance, with particular attention paid to public safety and system function
(Alam and Hossain, 2009).
7. Risk management • Collaborative and Best Practice approach to minimise risk.
and assessment
• Community title/Body Corporate approach reduces risk to Council.
(including public
health) • Effective communication with stakeholders to minimise risk, including community education and
consultation.
• PCWFMP – robust risk management strategy – early identification of risks enables responses to be
planned in advance.
8. Political and senior • Efforts undertaken to ensure support of local government and water utility – collaborative approach.
management • High levels of organisational commitment as project gained momentum; the co-evolution of
support PCWFMP could also have contributed to this.
9. Peer cooperation • T
eam of highly passionate and skilled individuals/industry leaders, who were also willing to spend
(such as sharing the time to transfer/share their knowledge and skills with others.
ideas and • High levels of collaboration amongst organisations, including various consultants.
information)
Case Study expressed some concern that replicating such projects may
no longer be possible, due to changes in the institutional
Implications
arrangements as a result of the recent Queensland water sector
reforms. Interviewees suggested that dividing responsibility
for different areas of the water cycle could act as a disincentive
“…this is the ideal project – you’re involved early, you’re for integrated approaches. Furthermore, concern was also
collaborating with everyone including the public sector, expressed that once there was distance established between the
you’re involved in all the design phases and construction water utilities and the local government authority, innovative
of the systems, and now we’re researching the systems. I stormwater initiatives may cease due to a lack of pressure to
don’t know if there’s any other project around at such a continue something still perceived as “costly” to maintain.
scale, certainly not in Queensland or New South Wales…”
(Developer/Consultant)
AWARDS WON
Over all, Coomera Waters, along with the Pimpama Coomera
Waterfutures Master Plan, has provided cutting edge examples Coomera Waters has won numerous awards for design and
of best practice in integrated water planning and management project management. Examples include:
that will continue to have wide-reaching implications for n Named “Champion Project” by Qld EPA/UDIA, 2002
the water and development industries in Australia and
n UDIA Awards for Excellence – Consultants
internationally. Indeed, the co-evolution of the two projects
Excellence 2005 (Cardno and PMM), 2006
may have contributed to their success in overcoming numerous
(V2i Pty Ltd)
potential barriers, as they provided mutually reinforcing drivers
for change within the local government and water utility. n Stormwater Industry Association QLD Stormwater
Excellence Awards 2006 – Stormwater Management
An important aspect revealed through the Coomera Waters Projects (>$1 million) Category (Ecological
case study is the need for stakeholders to perceive challenges Engineering/Cardno MBK and DBI Design)
as “hurdles to be overcome”, rather than “unmovable barriers”.
This approach led to the advancement of a number of practices
and techniques regarding the adoption and implementation of
stormwater treatment technologies.
The Coomera Waters project has made a significant contribution Successful projects such as Coomera Waters often involve a
to local, regional and international standards, manuals and lengthy process which incurs high personal transaction costs,
guidelines and provides an example of how such projects can be particularly on behalf of “project champions”. Therefore, it
leveraged to contribute to learning and advancement (change) is critical the key lessons from such projects are effectively
within the industry. Interviewees also reported that aspects of diffused throughout the sector so that support systems are
the work were now beginning to appear in State policy and developed to encourage future projects, involving a range of
planning documents. Certainly many of the processes developed industry representatives. Furthermore, whilst the personal
as a result of the Coomera Waters project, particularly in the transaction costs can be high, many key interviewees
areas of construction, establishment and system compliance, acknowledged that without persistence and commitment
have gained both interstate and international attention. to the project, the many hurdles faced may not have been
overcome. Many interviewees expected that next time around,
Despite the relative success of the project and its subsequent the processes involved will be shorter and smoother, as the
influence through industry guidelines and standards, interviewees mechanisms are already in place.

Alam, K., Hossain, S. and Dalrymple, B. (2008) “WSUD in Gold Coast City Council.” Proceedings of Stormwater ’08 – Joint Annual
Conference of the New South Wales and Queensland Stormwater Industry Associations, Surfers Paradise, Australia, 8-11 July 2008.
Alam, K. and Hossain, S. (2009) “Implementation of WSUD in Gold Coast – Case Studies” Proceedings of 6th International Water
Sensitive Urban Design Conference and Hydropolis #3: Towards Water Sensitive Cities and Citizens, Perth, Australia, 6-9 May 2009:
673-682.
Brown, R. (2005) “Impediments to Integrated Urban Stormwater Management: The Need for Institutional Reform.” Environmental
Management, 36(3): 455-468.
Brown, R.R. and Farrelly, M. A. (2009) “Delivering sustainable urban water management: a review of the hurdles we face”
Water Science and Technology, 59(5): 839-846.
Coomera Waters Ltd (2009) www.coomerawaters.com.au
Coomera Waters Body Corporate (2009) www.coomerawaters.org.au
EnviroDevelopment (2009) www.envirodevelopment.com.au, Urban Development Institute of Australia.
Gold Coast City Council (2009) Gold Coast Planning Scheme 2003: Policy 11 - Land Development Guidelines (amended 2008/2009)
available at http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/gcplanningscheme_0509/policy_11.html
Gold Coast Water (2004) Pimpama Coomera Waterfuture Master Plan, March 2004, available at www.goldcoastwater.com.au
Gold Coast Water (2009) www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/gcwater/
Hamlyn-Harris, D. (2003) “Integrated Urban Water Management ad Water Recycling in SE Queensland – recent developments”,
Proceedings of the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia Queensland Division (IPWEAQ) State Conference, Mackay,
Australia, 5-10 October 2003.
Leinster, S. (2006) “Delivering the Final Product – Establishing Vegetated Water Sensitive Urban Design Systems”, Australian
Journal of Water Resources 10(3): 321-329.
Lloyd, S. (2001) Water Sensitive Urban Design in the Australian Context: Synthesis of a conference held 30-31 August 2000,
Melbourne, Australia. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne.
Marsalek, J., Rochfort. Q. & Savić, D. (2001) Urban water as a part of integrated catchment management. In Frontiers in Urban
Water Management: Deadlock or Hope, Č. Maksimović and J.A. Tejada-Guibert (Eds), 37-83. London: IWA Publishing.
Mitchell, V.G. (2006) “Applying Integrated Urban Water Management Concepts: A Review of the Australian Experience”
Environmental Management 37(5): 589-605.
Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership (2006) Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Guidelines for South East
Queensland, Version 1 June 2006, South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, Brisbane.
Murphy, C., Barker, T.I. and Thompson, P. (2009) “Barriers and Catalysts in Wanneroo (or, how we learned to stop worrying and love
the WSUD)” Proceedings of 6th International Water Sensitive Urban Design Conference and Hydropolis #3: Towards Water Sensitive
Cities and Citizens, Perth, Australia, 6-9 May 2009: 86-91.
Parker, N., Giglio, D., Gardner, T., Goonetilleke, A., Egodawatta, P., Thomas, E., Gardiner, R. and Khun Tan, C. (2008) “Measuring
the effectiveness of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) treatment trains” Proceedings of Stormwater ’08 – Joint Annual
Conference of the New South Wales and Queensland Stormwater Industry Associations, Surfers Paradise, Australia, 8-11 July 2008.
Parker, N., Gardner, T., Goonetilleke, A., Egodawattab, P. and Giglio, D. (2009) “Effectiveness of WSUD in the ‘real world’
Proceedings of 6th International Water Sensitive Urban Design Conference and Hydropolis #3: Towards Water Sensitive Cities and
Citizens, Perth, Australia, 6-9 May 2009: 293-304.
Vlachos, E. & Braga, B.P.F. (2001) “The challenge of urban water management”, in Frontiers in Urban Water Management:
Deadlock or Hope?, Maksimovic, C. & Tejada-Guibert, J. A. (Eds), IWA Publishing, London: 1-36.
Water By Design (2005) Water Sensitive Urban Design: Barriers to Adoption and Opportunities in SEQ (Summary Report), South
East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, Brisbane.
Water By Design (2007) Water Sensitive Urban Design: Developing design objectives for urban development in South East
Queensland, Version 2 November 2007, South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, Brisbane.
Water By Design (2009a) Construction and Establishment Guidelines: Swales, Bioretention Systems, Wetlands, Version 1 February
2009, South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, Brisbane. Available at http://www.waterbydesign.com.au/CEguide
Water By Design (2009b) Concept Design Guidelines for Water Sensitive Urban Design, Version 1 March 2009, South East
Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, Brisbane.
Wong, T.H.F. (2006) “Water Sensitive Urban Design: the journey thus far.” Australian Journal of Water Resources, 10(3): 213-22.
Summary
T
he purpose of reviewing three demonstration projects in detail was to reveal any similarities and/or key
differences amongst the case studies in relation to the drivers for each project, the processes involved
in designing, creating and implementing the on-ground innovation and to reveal the key implications
arising from each case study. Furthermore, the case study outcomes were also designed to help verify the
general interview dataset.
The projects reviewed in South East Queensland were all driven to address the obstacles identified, as well as other issues
by issues of water scarcity and sustainable planning, supported associated with undertaking an innovative project. Those key,
by the strength and dedication of key individuals and advocates inter-related processes included:
working within the project teams. The case studies showed that
while there was a lack of replication of projects such as Rocks • pproaching demonstration projects as opportunities for
A
Riverside Park or Payne Road, South East Queensland has learning
developed a strong culture of experimentation in some areas, The South East Queensland case studies show that
and has been relatively successful at incorporating the lessons approaching innovative projects as an on-going learning
from such projects into future planning and implementation. opportunity was effective at enabling participants to adapt
Both Brisbane and Gold Coast City Councils had made their approach as problems arose and to build capacity
significant changes in their approach to water management in amongst participating organisations. For example, the
recent years, placing particular emphasis on moving towards learning approach undertaken at Coomera Waters allowed
integrated, total water cycle management. project leaders to make the necessary technical changes
to systems as the development grew, as well as provide
The challenges encountered during implementation were
the opportunity to simultaneously build capacity amongst
largely project specific, and related to the contexts in which the
council officers and construction workers.
project was developed and situated, i.e. marketability at Payne
Road; high capital costs at Rocks Riverside Park due to the • Stakeholder engagement and collaboration
system location. The two most common challenges reported by
interviewees included: All case studies demonstrated the importance of early
engagement and collaboration throughout the process.
• C
apacity deficits in asset construction, maintenance and Public consultation was considered extremely important by
approval; interviewees involved in projects such as Rocks Riverside
• Cost issues. Park and the Pimpama Coomera Waterfutures Master
Plan. In addition, the early and continuous engagement of
In comparison to Melbourne and Perth there were fewer policy local council officers during the Coomera Waters project
and regulatory barriers mentioned from a State perspective. was noted as being one of the key aspects of the project’s
Furthermore, many of the challenges identified were discussed learning approach and success. Furthermore, the continuity
in relation to strategies aimed to overcome them. Two potential of key stakeholders was also considered important. This
reasons for this were acknowledged: was ensured through the development of mechanisms such
1. As noted in the Coomera Waters case study, the attitude as approvals checklists or developer bonds which guarantee
of those involved in project design and implementation collaboration and shared responsibility from design through
towards problems that arose during the project appeared to implementation and function of WSUD systems.
to have a significant effect on the success in tackling those
issues. Problems were often spoken about as “hurdles” • Emphasis on monitoring and evaluation
rather than “barriers”. Projects such as Payne Road and Coomera Waters display
2. At the time of project inception, supply, sewerage and the value placed on monitoring and evaluation in South East
stormwater were all managed within a single institution for Queensland – an essential ingredient of a learning approach.
that particular region (i.e. Brisbane City, Gold Coast region, • Body Corporate approaches to risk management
Sunshine Coast region, etc).
While sometimes criticised as adding “yet another layer of
However, interview respondents clearly indicated that the bureaucracy” to the management of water systems, the issues
recent structural water reform undertaken in Queensland, and ‘fear’ associated with managing the risk of innovative
which removes the control of water supply and sewerage from systems in housing developments were overcome through
local governments, had introduced significant uncertainty Body Corporate (community title) arrangements. Although
surrounding an integrated approach to urban water management. the Body Corporate approach may not be suited to all
situations, it certainly demonstrates a positive approach to
While not all problems have been overcome, a number of
addressing the obstacle of risk in a constructive manner.
process lessons emerge through the development of strategies
27 www.urbanwatergovernance.com
• Communication and dissemination of project lessons opportunities in terms of integrated, sustainable urban water
management. Indeed, in recent years, many of the Local
An important aspect emerging from the case studies was the
Governments in the South East Queensland region actively
recognition of the importance of and value in the effective
sought to connect policy and planning with some of the
dissemination of the lessons learned from such experiences.
lessons derived from such projects (and several others around
For example, number of interviewees had visited the
South East Queensland). While major changes cannot be
Rocks Riverside Park on an organised tour. Furthermore,
made overnight, many interviewees reported significant
many interviewees spoke of the vital role played by
advancements in total water cycle management approaches over
capacity building programs organised through the Healthy
the last few years. However, overshadowing the discussion of
Waterways Partnership (i.e. Water by Design), particularly
these achievements was the uncertainty surrounding the new
in relation to stormwater sensitive urban design and projects
institutional arrangements for the management of water supply
such as Coomera Waters. Lessons learnt from Coomera
security. A number of interviewees expressed concern that the
Waters (and other projects such as Bellvista Estate,
fragmentation of the water cycle responsibilities, along with
Sunshine Coast) have fed into regional guidelines such as
the centralised supply system focus, could lead to potential
the Concept Design Guidelines for Water Sensitive Urban
barriers to the implementation of more decentralised, integrated
Design (Water by Design, 2009a) and the Construction and
water management projects in the future. Further adding to this
Establishment Guidelines: Swales, Bioretention Systems
uncertainty, considerable rainfall in the region (including severe
and Constructed Wetlands (Water by Design, 2009b).
flooding events in some areas) since the time of interviewing
The importance of these processes is reflected in key themes has created a situation of water supply abundance, rather than
revealed through interviews with other professionals in South scarcity. This has significantly altered the direction of State
East Queensland, Melbourne and Perth, who were not directly Government decision making, including plans for a “closed loop”
related to the projects. Indirect Potable Reuse scheme. Indeed, the future trajectory of
urban water management and the role of demonstration projects
The case studies reviewed demonstrate the potential for in South East Queensland, particularly in the area of decentralised
demonstration projects to provide significant learning water supply and sewerage systems, remains unclear.
References
Birrell, B., Rapson, V. & Smith, T.F. (2005) Impact of Demographic Change and Urban Consolidation on Domestic Water Use. Water
Services Association of Australia, Melbourne, Australia, 24.
Brandes, O.M. & Kriwoken, L. (2006) Changing Perspectives - Changing Paradigms: Taking the "Soft Path" to Water Sustainability
in the Okanagan Basin. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 31(2): 75-90.
Engineers Australia (2005) Australian Infrastructure Report Card, August 2005, Engineers Australia, Canberra.
Maksimovic, C. & Tejada-Guibert, J.A. (2001) Frontiers in Urban Water Management: Deadlock of Hope? IWA Publishing, Cornwall,
United Kingdom: 416.
Marsalek, J., Rochfort. Q. & Savić, D. (2001) Urban water as a part of integrated catchment management. In Frontiers in Urban
Water Management: Deadlock or Hope, Č. Maksimović and J.A. Tejada-Guibert (Eds), 37-83. London: IWA Publishing.
Mitchell, V.G. (2006) Applying integrated urban water management concepts: A review of Australian experience. Environmental
Management 37(5): 589-605.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007) Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change, Water Resources
Management, 21: 49-62.
Van der Brugge, R. & Rotmans, J. (2007): Towards transition management of European water resources. Water Resources
Management, 21(1): 249-267.
Water By Design (2009a) Construction and Establishment Guidelines: Swales, Bioretention Systems, Wetlands, Version 1 February
2009, South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, Brisbane. Available at http://www.waterbydesign.com.au/CEguide
Water By Design (2009b) Concept Design Guidelines for Water Sensitive Urban Design, Version 1 March 2009, South East
Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, Brisbane.
Wong, T.H.F. (2006) Water Sensitive Urban Design: the journey thus far. Australian Journal of Water Resources, 10(3): 213-22.
Wong, T.H.F & Brown, R.R. (2009) The Water Sensitive City: Principles for Practice. Water Science and Technology – submitted.
www.urbanwatergovernance.com 28
National Urban Water Governance Program
Monash University, School of Geography and Environmental Science
Building 11, Clayton Campus, Wellington Road, Clayton / Postal - Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
Phone + 61 3 9905 9992 / Fax + 61 3 9905 2948 / nuwgp@arts.monash.edu.au / www.urbanwatergovernance.com

Urban Water Program Case Studies: South East Queensland, Australia

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Urban Water Program Case Studies: South East Queensland, Australia

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Demonstration Projects:

Case Studies from South East

Caitlin Davis and Megan Farrelly

Photo images courtesy of Megan Farrelly, unless otherwise cited.

National Urban Water Governance Program

Project Overview: ROCKS RIVERSIDE PARK -

treating wastewater before discharging into receiving waterways

The treatment facility is located on top of the escarpment

Case study of Rocks Riverside Park

Drivers and Purpose for Key Aspects of the

BCC’s acquisition of the Queensland Cement and Lime site

In accordance with the Brisbane City Plan 2000, sustainability

Case study of Rocks Riverside Park

Case study of Rocks Riverside Park

Case study of Rocks Riverside Park

Importantly, a number of interviewees raised concerns regarding

References and Further Information

Hassell, website www.hassell.com.au/en.html

Rootzone Australia, website: www.rootzone.com.au/index.html

Case study of Rocks Riverside Park

Project Overview: PAYNE ROAD - SNAPSHOT

Drivers and Purpose

Case study of Payne Road

Case study of Payne Road

Hydraulic Circuit Schematic of Payne Road,

Case study of Payne Road

Case study of Payne Road

Case study of Payne Road

Implications resources allocated to meaningful, long-term monitoring.

Despite its unique bio-physical location, there are many

References and Further Information

Case study of Payne Road

Project Overview: Coomera Waters – Snapshot

From a broad sustainability perspective, the Coomera

for Coomera Waters (PCWFMP) is a significant example of a demonstration

Stage 1: Functional Installation

References and Further Information

Potrebbero piacerti anche