PM Submission Object - Sallie Strang - MCU18/0084

Page 2

graze along the drive which is gated to the road and around the outbuilding. As a part of training we tether
the horses in this area as well as lunging them which is not restricted to inside the round yard.

My house on this property relies on solar power whereas my rural outbuilding relies more on a small! mobile
petrol generator whenever power is required to undertake farm maintenance activities including utilizing the
council approved outbuilding’s toilet/shower and the pump for the water supply.

Photograph 1: Showing the 20
metre round yard in my property
and my daughter attending to one
of horses on my property

 

Dee eli
Rural z
a
j Cee

   

Photograph 2: Showing my

equine activities in yellow ona

proposal plan in the development
2|Page application

Page 3

Grounds of Objection

My grounds for objecting to the above proposed development and the facts relied on in identifying these
grounds include the following: -

aS The development application incorrectly identifies my adjoining land as being a residential use and
fails to acknowledge its equine uses.

My adjoining land is not a residential property as suggested in the development application. The
development application fails to acknowledge that my property is actively being used for rural uses. My
property divided into paddocks for my equine and farm management purposes. (look at Photographs 1 and 2)
| use virtually the whole of my property for the keeping, rearing, training, handling and grooming of horses.
This includes the access strip containing my driveway and my rural outbuilding that immediately abuts the site
of the proposed motel villas.

Ironically the planning report claims that the proposal will not compromise the ongoing agricultural value of
the development property but fails to consider how the proposal could compromise my ongoing rural use of
its adjoining land which is within 26 metres of the closest proposed cabin. One of the specific outcomes in the
Noosa planning scheme is to protect agricultural pursuits from incompatible uses. The development
application fails to protect my lawful rural use of the adjoining property.

2 The proposal is more akin to detached motel villas (70m2 each) in a themed rural setting than a farm
stay in eco cabins which are ancillary to the continued operation of a farm as being claimed in the
development application.

The development property is not currently used for commercial farming or as a farm as stated in the
development application.

The development property was purchased by the current landowner several months ago and is not currently
used for rural purposes which the development application is claiming as one of the central reasons that
visitors will be staying in the proposed cabins. The limited animals, (4 horses), currently on the site belong to
other people. They are just agisted. The development application states that, ‘the site will continue to be
used for rural production and the proposed accommodation will be an ancillary operation that will help to
underpin this primary use of the land’. The applicant is confirming that the property will continue to be
agisted for a few horses and that the 12 proposed bedrooms which could possibly accommodate up to 24
people is ancillary to the continued agistment of several horses.

It would appear that the introduction of animals as suggested in the development application is being
proposed to create the illusion of farm life with the proposed two (2) guinea fowl, two (2) pygmy goats, two
(2) dexter cattle, two (2) sheep and six (6) chickens. The development application suggests that the proposed
development will allow visitors to appreciate basic farming practices. It is suggested that the proposal is in
effect offering large motel styled villas with token animals in a rural themed setting. In reality it would be my
property that is providing the authentic rural experience.

The proposed claimed eco cabins with their basic design, glaring stark white-painted roofs and no eaves will

present more as detached motel villas or even dongas than as residential accommodation as expected in a
legitimate farm setting.

3[Page Council Reference: MCU18/0084

Page 4

 

Bs The development application fails to acknowledge the potential for noise nuisance on my equine use
of the adjoining property which is as close as 25 metres from the proposed cabins.

To have people who create unexpected noises is disruptive to our horses’ focus when training and endangers
our safety as horses are easily spooked. We utilize the area adjacent to the proposed site for our training and
horse related activities.

Being a rural area there are limited background noises levels in the evening and nighttime periods and as
such, my horses are accustomed to such low noise levels. The development application will definitely
generate additional noise which will exceed background noise levels and potentially disturb my horses. The
development does not include any noise assessment but rather makes reference to my house which is about
300 metres away but fails to acknowledge my nearby equine uses. My horses can graze within 26 metres of
the proposed cabins in which up to 24 people may be enjoying some recreation and relaxation.

The existing house on the development site is understood to function also as the reception and where the site
manager will reside. The existing house is about 150 metres from the proposed motel villas and behind
established trees and a watercourse and as such will offer limited direct monitoring or supervision.

| remain seriously concerned about the ability for me to continue my lawful rural use on my rural land if the
development application is approved for a proposed non-rural use against my boundary and the site manager
is located about 150m away and separated by established vegetation and a gully.

My adjoining

Photograph 3: Showing the
ee] sles) ol- 1 A mea existing landscaping on my
property and the minimal existing
landscaping in the proposed
buffer area on the development
site

 

4. The proposed communal car parking area is not appropriately designed or positioned and as such
will be a potential to create a nuisance for my equine use of my rural property.

The proposed communal car parking area within the development site to be used by all six (6) proposed
cabins with a total of twelve (12) bedrooms and accommodation up to say potentially 24 people. The
proposed carparking area is exposed and in close proximity to my fenced paddocks where my horses can
graze continually night and day. (look at Photograph 2). When vehicles using this proposed parking area
enter the parking area at night their car lights will sweep through my horse paddocks. These lights together
with the slamming of car doors night and day can spook my horses and cause them to panic and become

4|Page Council Reference: MCU18/0084

Page 5

 

unsettled. There are other noises that are commonly associated with multiple car parking spaces that can
disturb my horses. These other noises can include the starting of car engines, music, people talking at the cars
and as they make their way to and from their cabins night and day. The operational plan included in the
development application confirms that this is likely to occur late at night. The use of solely a vegetation
screening on the development site even when eventually established will have very limited noise attenuation
properties in such a situation. In fact, the existing branched tree canopy can potentially exacerbate it.

The proposed communal car parking area is considered to be too close to the boundary of my land and where
my horses continually graze. It is noted that the plans show 6 spaces including the disabled space and its clear
space as required by the applicable standard. It is noted that the town planning report/operational plan
references 7 spaces and up to 8 spaces. The 150 metre distance from this proposed communal parking area
to the main house on the development property may mean that the proposed parking of other vehicles near
this house may not in fact occur and other areas around the proposed carpark area will most likely be utilized
for overflow parking.

There would be a need for night lighting to be provided to assist in pedestrian access between the communal
carpark and individual cabins and possibly the site mangers’ residence around which overflow parking is
proposed. The development application fails to provide sufficient information on such a design and
operational element which could potentially have an impact of my equine uses on my adjoining rural land. It
is therefore not possible to comment on such an important consideration because of the poorly documented
development application.

5S: The development application fails to provide adequate visual buffers to my rural property.

The development application does not adequately indicate how an effective landscaped screen buffer would
be established in such a narrow boundary setback as being proposed and how such a buffer will be
established before the proposed use lawfully commences. Mention is made in the development application
of joining the local landcare group and also land for wildlife, however such membership does not guarantee
appropriate landscaping is designed, installed, established and maintained and that this proposed landscaping
does not result in a potential fire hazard. The information provided within the development application on
proposed landscaping is disappointing and complicates my ability to make informed responses to the
proposed development.

The development site is currently devoid of suitable vegetation that would provide an effective vegetated
screen (look at Photograph 3). It should be noted that the existing pine trees on the subject site (as evident
from Photograph 2 and 3) in reality provide poor visual screening at ground level and the vegetation at the
required height is limited solely to the odd trunks of several trees. The majority current vegetated screening
that the development application is relying on is that vegetation established on my property and not that on
the development site. Horse paddocks commonly do not include low shrubs or trees with low branches for
obvious reasons. It is not considered fair that now | need to landscape my property so that | can screen off
the proposed detached motel villas.

It is considered that the vegetated screening should be provided and maintained wholly within that site that
requires the screened buffer. This should be a major consideration when a non-rural use such as being
proposed in a rural area with cabins as close as 26 metres from the boundary fence of an ongoing rural use.
Further it is considered that the adjoining landowners, such as myself, should not be required to maintain a
vegetated screen to provide the level of amenity expected in a rural zone.

Alternative screens such a long solid fencing, are not considered acceptable for rural settings such as within
the development property along my boundary fence.

5|Page Council Reference: MCU18/0084

 

Page 6

 

The development which will enable up to 24 persons to park their vehicles and be accommodated in 6 cabins
within say 26 to 50 metres from my fence line. One of the main reasons that these people will be
accommodated in these cabins will be to experience the rural lifestyle and its setting. The rural setting
includes my property which is just across the fence. The proposed accommodation of these people and their
sampling of the rural setting will erode my privacy regardless of whether | am attending to the nearby equine
activities or other activities in or near my rural outbuilding or just traveling down my access driveway. The
resulting loss of privacy is a serious concern to myself.

6. Loss of Privacy and Loss of Amenity

Leading on from above, in performing my rural activities, | believe there is a significant concern that the
people staying immediately next door would watch our activities and we would have no privacy. Movements
and unexpected behaviours so close to our pursuits is disruptive to the horses’ focus and a danger to
ourselves. The area adjacent to the proposed cabins is where we enjoy our time, have a camp fire and boil
the billy. All of this would be curtailed by having this development.

In regards to unexpected behavior so close to us, an example follows. In May, the neighbours set fire to a pile
of cut bamboo along with bamboo that was still standing which was near the fence line near the outbuilding.
It burnt 16m of the fence down, melting the wires, along with some of my trees. At the time, we had three
horses out in this vicinity around the outbuilding. My farrier was trimming one of the horse’s feet. The fire
caused the horse to rear, almost bowling him over. All three horses went crazy and there was a fear they
would run into the fences if not into my daughter or the farrier. My daughter managed to get one horse into
the round yard thinking it was safer and he even kept trying to jump the 6ft round yard fence. It was a very
dangerous situation.

ae The large dam and water ways so close to the cabins is dangerous for small children

The development application states that the market for this development is families. This would include
families with small children. The unprotected large dam and waterways, situated on the proposed
development site, as close as 25m from the cabins. Therefore, the site is unsuitable as there is a potential
drowning hazard with small children wandering and falling into the dam and waterways. It would only take a
minute or two of not supervising a child, for that child to have time to wander to these hazards.

8. The existing vehicular access into the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development.

The existing vehicular access into the proposed development site is considered to be dangerous for those
motorists that are unfamiliar with this particular access and/or who do not regularly use country roads. The
speed limit at the entrance is 90km/h. The visibility to the north from the proposed access can be restricted
at times due the shadows of surrounding trees and vegetation often growing along the cutting against the
roadway. The visibility from this access to the south can actually pass through the development site (i.e. not
along the public road) and can also be through fencing (depending on height of eye) which can at times
restrict visibility to the south.

9. The development application provides limited information on the two proposed land application
areas which are sited against my boundary fence and uphill from the cabins, that they service and
within landscaped buffers.

It is understood that the two land application areas for the onsite sewerage facilities are proposed to receive

in pressurized spraying of aerosols containing advanced secondary treated effluent over land immediately
adjacent to my land and where my horses graze. These land application areas appear to be within that strip

6|Page Council Reference: MCU18/0084

 

Page 7

 

of narrow land where landscaped screen buffer may or may not be proposed and within that narrow strip of
land where a fire break may or may not be proposed. It is acknowledged that the installation of these land
application areas will have to meet the applicable codes. But it is also acknowledged that the current
development application provides limited direction as to whether this area will be landscaped to provide a
buffer or take up aerosols or neither so as to offer asset protection. The land application areas are located 2m
from my boundary fence. The wind direction that occurs in that area is towards my property. So, the
potential of aerosols of the effluent and odour would cross over into my property and my enjoyment of my
property. It is adjacent to our pizza oven area.

Consequently, it is suggested that the development application is considered to be scant on detail on such
matters where there appears to be overlying and potentially conflicting activities proposed for critical
elements of a proposal whereby a non-rural use is proposed to be inserted into a rural area.

10. The development application fails to provide sufficient information so as | can establish if the
proposal will increase the potential for bushfire hazards

Following on from 9 above, there is a suggestion in the development application that that narrow strip of land
between the cabins and my property boundary will be landscaped with the assistance of the local landcare
group and by joining land for wildlife. It is assumed that this landscaping will be tiered planting so as to
potentially create a visual screen and that there may or may not be mulch so as to assist in the establishment
and ongoing maintenance of this vegetation. It is also assumed that the two proposed land application areas
against my fence will include mulch of some description and low vegetation will be established and
maintained so as to assist in absorbing the aerosols of pressurized treated effluent. Both the finer dead and
green plant material below the canopy of trees contribute significantly to bushfire fuel loading and can
dramatically increase the potential bushfire hazard.

The development application discusses a seriously basic emergency plan for guests in the case of bushfires
events. The development application also shows gas BBQs on the decks of the proposed cabins.

All my horse paddocks are enclosed with fencing suited for equine uses and these uses rely on such fencing
being constantly effective. The development application fails to document how asset protection will be
provided to my common fencing within the development property.

Any incident such as fires or falling branches can breach the integrity of my fencing which is essential to the
continued operation of my equine uses.

As mentioned earlier, already, the neighbours proposing the motel villas have started a fire that burnt a
section of our common boundary fence in the few months that they have owned the proposed development
property. See Photographs 4, 5 & 6, below which shows the fire after it had died down.

There has been limited need for me to maintain a fire break along our common boundary fence because there
is limited fuel hazard loading in the proposed site.

It is common that a fire break of up to 10 metres wide is established along both sides of such boundary
fencelines so as to minimise the chances of such incidents occurring.

If my neighbours were to establish a vegetated screen and land application areas along that area of the
proposed site between the proposed motel villas and my property, the potential fuel hazard loading would
increase to the extent that a fire break (asset protection strip) of up to 10m wide should be established on
both sides of the common boundary fence. The establishment of such fire break would in turn reduce that
land potentially available for landscaped buffers and land application.

7|Page Council Reference: MCU18/0084

 

Page 8

It is therefore considered that, from the information provided by the applicants, the development application
has failed to properly consider the need for asset protection in the case of bushfires.

Photograph 4: Showing the
bushfire (near my outbuilding),
after it had died down, that was
started on the development site
and entered onto my land and
damaged the common fence and
vegetation within my property and
scared my horses.

Photograph 5: Showing the
damaged fence and melted wires
that reduced the integrity of my
fences that contain my horses.

 

Council Reference: MCU18/0084

8|Page

Page 9

Photograph 6: Showing the new

A adjoining fence that replaced that fence
damaged by the fire in
rural property ; Photograph 4 above.

 

11. The proposal does not sufficiently identify where either the potable or non-potable water supply.

It is assumed that the 4000 litre tank proposed to be plumbed to each cabin will rely on roof water collected
on the small roof of each respective cabins for both potable and non-potable supply. The potential peak
population of say 24 people will therefore rely on water collected from possibly 37 square metres of the roof
of each cabin. It is assumed that each tank will be independently plumbed to the motel villa that it services
and possibly each with their own pressure pump. It is suggested that depending on occupancy rates, that this
proposed source and associated storage of potable water may not be sufficient. For example, 4 people in a
cabin for a week, would require 3220L just to have the septic system operating properly which is 80% of the
tank’s capacity. Therefore, potable water may or may not need to be trucked in and therefore water tanker
access may need to be possible to all proposed water tanks. | suggest that that would also require a hard
surface for accessing each cabin as the ground can become boggy. This proposed hard surface would then
encourage visitors to park adjacent to their unit rather than in the proposed car park.

It is therefore suggested that the development application does not provide sufficient details on yet another
critical design and operational element.

12. |The development application does not clearly indicate where the refuse bins/skip will be stored and
whether any screening is proposed.

The development application explains the waste management is “work in progress” as the applicant does not
know what to expect until the proposed development starts operating. There should be sufficient
information and science available to enable any applicant proposing 6 cabins with a potential peak occupancy
of say 24 person (in 2 stages) to be able to provide proposed waste management details. Unfortunately, once
again the limited information has been provided in the development application on yet another often
important design and operational element.

9|Page Council Reference: MCU18/0084

Page 10

13. The development application could compromise public safety by encouraging pedestrian access
along a section of Pomona Kin Kin Road which is not suited to such access.

The applicant quotes the close proximity to the Noosa trail (2) as a reason that people may want to stay in the
proposed motel villas. The development property does not front the trail and access to this trial would
require walking or riding mountain bikes or perhaps horses along Pomona Kin Kin Road to the north. Given
the alignment and nature of the existing verges along this section of roadway it is suggested that such access
should not be utilized by pedestrians on in the interest of public safety.

14. ‘The proposed development will increase my current concerns that | have in relation to security of my
rural outbuilding.

My rural outbuilding which is essential to my equine use, is located about 30 metres away from my boundary
fence which is about 26 metres from the closest proposed motel villa. | have already had 3 recent incidents of
intruders on my property attempting to break into my outbuilding. The positioning of six (6) motel villas
within such a short distance of this outbuilding with my house 280 metres away will increase the chance of
more intrusions.

| am concerned about security around my rural outbuilding with up to say 24 itinerant people staying within
such a short distance of my rural outbuilding.

15. The proposed use may result in a reverse amenity situation whereby visitors in the adjoining non-
rural use, if approved, may complain that my current rural uses are creating a nuisance.

My house on my property relies on solar power whereas my outbuilding adjacent to the proposed motel villa
relies on a small mobile quiet petrol generator as it main source of power. There can be a number of reasons
why | may need to use my outbuilding night or day in association with my rural uses. The applicant’s house is
located about 250 metres from this outbuilding. Already these neighbours have complained about the small
mobile generator operating at 3pm. | utilize the generator to charge the batteries connected to my
inadequate solar system at the outbuilding so | can maintain my rural uses, lights, water pump for water and
for the toilet which is connected to an advanced septic system.

| also use that area between my outbuilding and the proposed motel villas for the farrier working on my
horses.

It is reasonable to assume the potential for such complaints would increase dramatically if visitors paid to stay
in motel villas that were between 50 and 75 metres away from my rural outbuilding when the landowners
who suggest that they operate a farm, complain about my small quiet generator operating at 3pm of an
afternoon when they are 250 metres away. We were told by the neighbor, that we can run that generator at
the outbuilding in between the hours of 10 or 11am and 2pm. | believe they want to curtail our use of the
generator to hours that are between potential future checking out and checking in times.

They have not been approved for the development yet but they are already telling us how we need to modify

our behaviour to accommodate their proposed non-rural use of rural land and affect my ability to continue to
operate on my rural land.

16. There is a concern that the people visiting the proposed motel villas could decide to enter my
property and as a result | will face increased liability in the case of trespass.

10|Page Council Reference: MCU18/0084

Page 11

The boundary fence separating my farm from the proposed motel site has been constructed/adapted so as to
suit my keeping of horses. It is not a security fence. There may be a number of reasons why visitors to the
proposed motel villas may decide to enter my property. Under law | am forced to accept a certain level of
liability even if these people trespass and therefore are not invited onto my property or even crawl through
the boundary fence to gain access to my property. The proposed motel villas will increase the potential for
this to occur and therefore increase my exposure to such liability.

a7) Amended Proposal without amending relevant supporting documents

The applicants’ response to the council request for further information, altered their proposal considerable
from what was originally proposed. Their altered proposal has increased the floor area by 50%. However,
amended supporting documents such as site and soil assessment and the site plan have not been updated.

18. Council’s approval of the development application will be in conflict with the preferred outcome
and strategies for the Rural Zone in the Noosa planning Scheme

The proposal will potentially result in a non-rural use that is being proposed because it is in a rural setting,
actually adversely impacting on a lawful rural use of adjoining rural lot. It is considered that the development
application is not consistent with the relevant outcomes and objectives in the Noosa planning scheme when
proposing such a development in a rural zone.

It is ironic that a non-rural development that is being proposed on rural land immediately over my boundary
fence so that visitors can experience the rural lifestyle and rural setting, will potentially complicate the
continued operations of my lawful rural uses. This is even more ironic when it is my rural uses that are
providing more of an authentic rural setting that that on the development property and in so doing are
helping to create the rural setting being used to justify the approval of the non-rural use on rural land in the
first place.

It is unfortunate that a development application has undergone public notification when it failed to provide
information that is considered critical for the public to fully appreciate and properly assess that application
without having to make assumptions on important design and operational elements of that development
proposal.

Noosa Council is urged to consider my concerns and the likely impacts of Council’s approval of the
development application will have on my lawful rural use of my adjoining rural land when assessing this
application.

| request that Noosa Council does not support the development application due to grounds which include
those listed above.

Please note that | would be happy to meet Council representatives on site to discuss my concerns and
illustrate the impacts of the proposed development on my current rural activities on the adjoining land.

Yours faithfully,

Malbt for

Sallie Strang

11|[Page Council Reference: MCU18/0084