Oakura sewerage scheme - social challenges - getting the locals on side

On January 18 2010 the first residents in Oakura began discharging sewage into the new Oakura sewerage scheme. Costing $23.8 million and taking over two years to construct, this was a technically challenging project. Sewage is screened before being pumped via two pump stations and over 160m head, 11 km to New Plymouth for treatment. In addition, gravity sewers had to be retrofitted into a developed township built on challenging terrain. Understandably these technical issues occupied the minds of the engineers during the feasibility and design stages of this project. However, as construction progressed, it became evident that managing the social concerns of the community would occupy as much time and effort as overcoming the technical issues. This paper focuses on the social challenges and addressing complexity in public consultation, and how better to engender community involvement.

Early during the design process, public open days were held with the aim of explaining the proposed scheme and how it would affect individuals (e.g. despite being able to service most properties using gravity, around 60 properties would need private sewer pumps to connect). Following this process, 573 of 705 properties within the township opted to connect to the scheme. Throughout the project the level of community engagement waxed and waned.

In addition, a designation was sought over the sewer reticulation and areas occupied by the pump stations. The designation process involved public consultation and a public hearing. The designation was successfully obtained. However this process was being undertaken concurrently with the detailed design of the pump stations and reticulation. Late design changes were required to the main pump station due to poor ground conditions. Again the extent of the NIMBY syndrome was not initially evident. Neighbours that had not taken an active interest in the designation process at the construction stage then decided that they had strong objections to elements of the proposed scheme. During this time letters to the editor become a defacto version of events and gained acceptance from certain sections of the community as truths. The events took a political turn when councillors then became involved even though internal Council workshops had been undertaken. This was mitigated by providing site tours for media representatives and key community personnel. A project website was also established to ensure we could publish facts without spin.

Large complex projects take time to build and time to engage with the community. As part of a good project plan, a robust communication plan that will endure for the life of the project is needed. Specific items to address include controlling the release of information. This needs to be controlled and recorded. Presentation of technical information to the public must be critically reviewed. Buy-in by councillors, and establishment of a project control group is recommended. Given the sensitivity of costs, rigorous examination of cost estimates should be undertaken before the ‘cost’ becomes public.

Finally, the best technical option might not always be the best overall option in terms of public acceptance.