2184Response_OM13_222

Mr David Milligan, W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd                                   29 November 2013
Re: Response to Sunshine Coast Regional Further Information Request of 19 November 2013 – Noise,
      Dust & Odour Issues - Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds, Ridgewood
                                                                               L26013/BH/12-002



2.   In regard to estimating the emissions from the sheds, Pacific Environment note that the
     K factor used for the modelling of 2 should have been 2.2 to follow the
     recommendations in the Queensland Meat Chicken Guideline. This would increase
     predicted impacts by 10% assuming that the impacts of potential changes with the
     clarifications required above do not change the model results further. Please amened
     your modelling to include the appropriate K factor.

In accordance with PEL request, the broiler emission rate model has been updated in
accordance with the method presented in the Best Practice Guidance for the Poultry
Industry – Plume Dispersion Modelling and Meteorological Processing (PAE Holmes
for DEEDI, May 2011). Specific updates were to consider a ‘K Factor’ of 2.2 (i.e. with
10% factor of safety) and a maximum ventilation rate of 10m3/hour/bird.

The odour emission rates are lower when calculated in accordance with the PEL
recommendations (i.e. Best Practice Guidance document method) due to the
conservatively high maximum ventilation rates that were previously adopted by MWA
Environmental.


3.   The sensitive receptors used in the report, do not take into consideration the impacts on
     146 (which includes a house), 124, 172 or 224 Top Forestry Road. These lots could be
     sold off by the applicant and a house constructed on each of them. Please either indicate
     whether the applicant is willing to accept a condition about amalgamating the lots in to
     the larger lot (136 Top Forestry Road), otherwise include appropriate modelling
     indicating that these separate lots ‘sensitive receptors’ will not be affected by the
     cumulative odour impacts.

The results of the updated odour modelling (refer to Attachment 2 and response to
issue 4. below) indicate that odour impacts may exceed the Queensland odour
guideline on several adjacent properties owned by the applicant.

Advice from Gantt Legal is that a lawful condition can be imposed to address odour
impacts at the abovementioned adjoining lands, specifically that:

     “A condition could be imposed to the effect that the poultry farm can only operate as
     long as the adjoining lands are owned and occupied by the operator or an employee of
     the poultry farm. In the event that the adjoining lands are not owned and occupied by
     the operator or an employee of the poultry farm, then a condition of approval could
     require odour limits not to be exceeded at those adjoining lands. “




                                               4