Properly made submission (object) Brett Kennedy MCU13/0171

Page 2

        Proposed comparisons with traffic levels and noise levels with what was there when
the site was an active brickworks have no validity and should not be made even though they

have been used to show the development in a comparatively better light. The brickworks

are gone. This is a new commercial    industry proposed for land that is zoned as rural.

        Mine is a rural residential property and I have a right for privacy, quiet and to feel

safe in my own property. It defies explanation that there could be a factory and tourist

attraction adjacent to a waterway with a history of flood events on land that is zoned as

rural and that is surrounded by other rural and rural settlement properties.


       The brickworks was a relic from times past. It did not fit well with the land use

practices of the area at the time of its closure and numerous residents were glad to see it
closed. To replace it with more industry would be objectionable to a number of residents for

the same reasons that the brickworks was.


       The new soft drink factory would very much appear to be the tip of the iceberg in

the process of industrial development this rural site. Repeated mention has been made in

media releases, in planning documents, in the mass produced note points in the letters of

support for the development and by a representative of the development that development
of the site would continue for uses other than and extra to the establishment of a soft drink

factory on this rurally zoned site.

       A waste transfer station, a base station for grey nomads, a home for weekend

markets and an industry "like a rum distillery" have all been suggested so far. In considering

this application, the indication that further development of the site for various other

industries is a crucial point. Every new industry would be out of character with the rural

zoning and the rural settlement zoning of the properties that surround the site and line the
length of Lake Macdonald Dive and the roads that are tributaries of it.

       As it is clear that there is intention to further develop this land and that the softdrink

factory is only the first part of the development of the site, I put forward that this
development submission is not extensive enough. A development proposal should have
been submitted for the entire site and not just the parcel of land that the proposed factory

would sit on. As such, concerned residents, myself included, would have a better

understanding of the long term effects these entire group of developments would have.

       Various meetings have been held with regards to possible uses of the site. I have

only become aware of some of these meetings after they have occurred. As my property is
literally across the road from the development and that each and everyone of the uses of
the rural property across the road is put to will have a cumulative effect on my life on my

property and the value of my property, I feel that I should have been included in these
                                                                             ~
meetings. At no time was I contacted. This clearly demonstrates                      lack of

regard for residents of properties that surround the proposed development.

Page 3

        Industry is already impacting on the residences and properties here. Water trucks fly
in like noisy, slow moving, heavy march flies and fill up at the water station across the road

from my property and then groan out. Soil is to be extracted from behind the proposed

development’s site and will be noisily and for an extended period of time transported from
the access road that is adjacent to the old office building on the proposed site of the new

factory, along Lake Macdonald Drive to fill land for a housing estate.

        As I have learnt (through my study at Charles Sturt University), catchment

management is a complicated business. A core concept to remember is that any
modification to a waterway and its surrounds has the potential to have impacts on

properties both up and down the stream. This is further complicated by the fact that
waterways cross borders and boundaries. Mistakes need to be recognised and rectified for
the good of all stakeholders.


        I am not a hydrologist and the comments that I make in this submission with regards

to the floods that have occurred are those only of a resident who has lived through and

observed numerous flood events here. I have been ’stuck" on all three sides of these

floodwaters and as such have observed the path of flood waters from different angles. I am

not an expert in this field, just an observer and a participant.


        The effects of the extensive modifications to the natural watercourse in the

Wimmers site on the flow of floodwater through my property and properties further

upstream and downstream needs to be carefully studied. If these modifications to the
natural profiles are shown to have the negative effects on water flow, I ask that these

modifications be undone and that the watercourse be returned as much as possible to its

natural state. This can only serve to protect property and to improve safety. I ask that any

such study and modifications be done before any development proposals for the property

be considered. The past tenant of the proposed development site has left large, poorly

considered {I feel) modifications to the soil profile and to the watercourses. The

watercourse is only partly shown on schematics of the proposal. Only one arm of the

watercourse is shown and it is labelled as ’drain’. It is in fact part of a creek. There are in fact

two arms to this creek and they converge just inside the Wimmers property. There are also

two drains under the road, not one.



        These modifications, along with the damming effect of Lake Macdonald Drive not

only pose an often demonstrated threat to myself, my property and the public but also to
any development that is built on the site. It is stunning that such a major development could

even be considered when     it is in such close proximity to a watercourse that floods so

regularly and with such force and that the developer knows about the linear miss" that the
building had in 2012. I will further address some of my legitimate and very real concerns on
the flooding later in my submission and offer some suggestions and hope that they will

hopefully be well considered.

Page 4

             In addition to these points, there are major flaws in figures used in the noise study

and effects need to be recalculated using more exact figures before any proposal can be

considered.


         Lake Macdonald and the Botanic Gardens are a show piece for what will soon again

be the Noosa Shire Council. The properties on Lake Macdonald Drive are of a larger size and

are for the most part zoned as rural settlement or rural.     Clearly, the residents here enjoy
space and peace and quiet. An industrial precinct would clash with the look and feel ofthe

area and with the values of the      people who live in this rural settlement area. The brickworks
was a remnant from times gone         by. It is gone. A community that is at odds with the
commercial use of this rurally zoned site has grown up and the around the site. Industrial

areas no     longer fit with the other uses of the area. Lake Macdonald Drive is populated now.
The increased traffic and noise pollution and increased risks of other types of pollution that

an industrial    precinct would pose in this area and on a watercourse need to be carefully
considered.


         Given the;


         -
             contentiousness of this plan, an industrial development on land in a rural zone and

surrounded by land zoned as rural and rural settlement


         -the demonstrated need for further, careful, necessary and much more accurate

study of a number issues (flooding, Noise Study) to be carried out,

         -the long term negative effects on residents,


         -
             the showcase nature of the area for Noosa Shire Council {Lake Macdonald, The

Botanic Gardens and the majority of the development in the area being residences on rural,

rural settlement propertiesL


         -the fact that the area will very shortly revert to Noosa Shire Council’s control and

will therefore be under the responsibility of Noosa Shire Council.


I suggest and request that a decision on this proposal be left until all necessary and adjusted

studies are completed and be left for such a time so as that Noosa Shire Council can decide

on any   proposals for the site in question.

         I would like to further discuss some of the points that I have already raised.


Flooding

         Flooding of my property has been made worse by the raised level of the road, the
existing changes to the soil profile, the angle and height of the land that the proposed new
factory would sit on,the extent of the modifications to and in the yards of the old
brickworks and through the culverts under the road’s inability to effectively handle the

volume of water that can occur during floods.

Page 5

          I have observed and have had to live through these flood incursions on numerous

occasions in the more than 11 years that I have lived here. The comments I am about to

make are based on my observations of the numerous flood events that have occurred in

that time.


         Essentially, the changes that I have already mentioned dam the floodwaters and the
water backs up into my property. There is a "threshold level" to the flooding. The road and

poor drainage under it act as that threshold level and backs up water into my property.

Water is pooled on my property. My property has effectively become the equivalent of a

flood mitigation dam for the property across the road. Lesser flooding means that the

floodwater is dammed in my property by the raised road profile and the inability of the

drains under the road to convey the volume of water. This pooling of water is clearly

evidenced by the fact that firew~od and other wooden items have been lifted by floods and

when the floodwaters recede they have been left stranded closer to my house (uphill). In

effect, the confluence of the natural meeting of the two creeks has been moved from the
Wimmers property into mine through the damming effects that occur.


         By the time that the water gets over the level of the road, the narrow, steep man-
made courses for the creeks in the Wimmers property cannot effectively handle the volume

of water. All other soil profiles on the other side of the road in the Wimmers property have

clearly been modified from their original levels. Even though the other side of the road (the
Wimmers property) is downstream of my property, the huge majority of it has been made

to be higher than the land that is on my corresponding side of road. (Soil testing, comparing

the soil on my side of the road to that on the Wimmers property side of the road may

possibly confirm the extent and depth of any modifications that have been made.) This is
especially so in the areas that are accessed through the gates currently marked as gate 3
and gate 4. There is no sign of the natural shape, history or levels of the watercourse. There

are no   signs of the flood terracing or meander scars that are clearly in evidence on my
property and on the other properties through which the two arms of the creek flow.

         An attempt has been made to contain the arms of the creek in steep-sided drains on

the Wimmers property. This has failed on numerous occasions and flood waters have

regularly spread out also over the areas at gates 3 and 4. The past tenant of the Wimmers
property has clearly raised low lying land in an attempt to make it more flood-proof and
more usable to them. This however has in effect    appeared to have added to the damming
effects of the road. It appears to slow the flow (escape)of water and also then to contribute

to and cause the high level of flooding on my property experiences.



         Before I bought the block of land that I have built on, I contacted the Noosa Council

by phone and was told that the whole block was above the hundred year flood line. This has
proven to be dangerously wrong on a number of worrying occasions. The knowledge of
flood level history and threat, as is reflected in the information in the Noosa Plan, by Council

was   (is) seriously flawed.

Page 6

          The changes to the profile of the property across the road may not have been

considered and the damming effects of the road may also not have been considered.

Otherwise, enough information has not been sourced to make a properly informed decision.
Any resident who has either of the two arms of this creek in their property has been made
painfully aware on a number of occasions of the extent and frequency of flooding that can
and does occur around these watercourses. They would have, like me, had to adjust the

usages of their properties in accordance to the levels of the floods and have quite possibly
learnt from painful experience like myself. As the bulk of my property is or has been made

prone to flooding, truly "useful," "safe" land is minimal.


          Floodwater has been within meters of my house on a number of occasions and the

bulk of my property has been under flood waters, most worryingly so in 2012. At a

conservative estimate, at least 90% of my property has been under flood waters in the time

that I have owned it. Worried neighbours have telephoned me at work to tell me that

floodwater is near my house. A swift water rescue of a woman has been executed on the

proposed new factory side of the road (successfully thankfully) after she became trapped in
flood waters between our properties. Flooding of the road regularly blocks Lake Macdonald

Drive and I have regularly seen people putting their lives at risk by driving through

floodwaters in their desperation to get through. As I have said, the modifications to the soil

levels on the Wimmers property side of the road and the poor provision for floodwater

under/through Lake Macdonald Drive clearly appear add to the severity of the road’s
flooding.

          The Adams and Sparks prepared proposal for the new factory includes a figure

(Figure 18) that, in their words "illustrates that the subject site contains identified Streams &
Rivers and Drainage Lines, the subject site is not affected by flood hazard and therefore is

not required to address the applicable provisions of the Natural Hazards Overlay Code." This

is such a dangerously incorrect statement. As already stated, my property is clearly shown

on this   figure. No sign of flooding is indicated on this figure for my property when flooding is
in fact a too regular event. This is so stunningly wrong. An absolute and complete overhaul

of the Noosa Plan’s flood level hazard overlay is clearly critically and immediately required.

Flood waters have all but entered the building that is proposed to be the site of the

proposed new factory. The driveway to this building has been under water. All the land at
gates 3 and 4 are have flooded on numerous occasions. The site very much is subject to
flooding and most certainly therefore does need to address the applicable provisions of the
Natural Hazards Overlay Code.


          I believe that the Adams and Sparks reliance on the flood hazard schematics from

the Noosa Plan has been demonstrated to be a flawed process because the information on

that plan is in fact flawed. This sole reliance on a single piece of information could be seen

to be a dangerous practice. I would suggest that they contact long term residents in the

future to be able to confirm or improve on the information that is contained in the Noosa

Page 7

Plan. Surely, this plan must be seen is only one tool. Given the absolute threat to life and to

property that floods pose, it is incumbent upon them to adopt a more accurate and
informed (safer)practice when assessing flood threats when developing proposals for

developments.

          The proposed factory site sits on land that has clearly been extensively filled and

raised.


          Given;

          -
              that this expansive building is adjacent to a watercourse and not a drain,


          -that the walls of the now man-made watercourse are narrow and steep (as

confirmed by the gradient lines in the schematics of the proposal plan),


          -
              that the constructed drains cannot contain the volume of flood water that occurs,

as I   have repeatedly observed


          -that there is an artificially (unnaturally)high profile of the huge majority of land

where the floodwaters enter the Wimmers property


          -and that the extended profile of lifted land of the proposed factory site and the

parking areas at the rear of the factory juts out at an angle to floodwaters as they enter the
property forming an artificial weir

I am concerned about the effect that the current, modified soil levels that the factory and

yards would sit on has on the severity and frequency of flooding in my property. It lays out
and into the path of floodwaters as they enter the property. Floodwaters cannot rise and

spread out as they naturally would have done on the proposed factory side of the
watercourse. The "threshold" level of flooding, caused by the damming of the road is then

added to. Once the water clears the road there is not enough low lying land to lower the

levels ofthe flood waters. Bottlenecking of flood water backs water into my property.


          The fact that the constructed drains built to carry the water of the creeks are

inadequate to carry the volumes of water that occur is clear. This not only puts my property
at risk. The proposed factory building itself is at risk from flooding. I have been told by a

Wimmers factory representative that the February 2012 floods came within six inches of

flowing into the building. My memory ofthe debris that was left after this flooding event,
puts the puts the flood levels as coming even closer. Even though the floor level of the
proposed building is to be raised, it is clearly perceivable, given its absolute proximity to the
creek, that the building is at serious risk in a major flood event. Such an event would put the
waterway at risk from the contents of the building. I remember an occasion when workers
at the brickworks were sent home due to concerns over flooding.

Page 8

        I am concerned that the level of the area around the proposed factory may also be

raised and not just the factory floor itself. Given the very near miss that my house had in the

major floods in 2012, I am concerned that any lifting of soil profiles downstream of my
house, even by as little as l5cm, may be enough to increase the very real risk of my house
being flooded. As such, to ensure my safety and the safety of my property, I ask that the
exact height of the level of the floor of my house be surveyed by council and that
                                                                                      any land
that is below that level on the Wimmers property never be built up in any way. This is a

reasonable request given that the property is downsteam in the path of a watercourse that

regularly floods. I also request that the past steps that have been undertaken to raise the
soil levels of extensive areas in the now Wimmers property be undone. I feel that they also

are a real and present   danger to my safety and property in flood events. This is also a very
reasonable request. Wimmers did not cause these problems but they have inherited them.


       The proposed building itself is also of concern to me. The current structure is open in

that it is unwalled. This means that any floodwaters that broach the level ofthe wall that it

is built on could then spread out.


        The proposed building is a walled and enclosed structure. Given its expansively tall,

broad and lengthy dimensions and the angle that it sits at with regards to the angle that

flood waters enter the property, it is entirely conceivable that it would also act as a weir or

buffering wall and slow the flow of such floodwaters. As such, the building itself could very
conceivably increase the risk of flooding in my property and in so doing also threaten my
safety and the safety of my property.

       I have seen floodwaters roar into the Wimmers property on many occasions. Debris

has in the past choked the fence at the front of the property and the weight of the water

and debris has at times tipped parts of this fence over. Bricks in the storage yard at Gate 4

have been washed from the top of pallets that were stacked on top of other pallets. The

brick safety railings for the bridge at the back of this storage yard have been washed away

by the force of the floodwaters. One interesting piece of debris very near to the "subject
site" came from my property. A piece of wood became stuck in the bottom of the metal

bridge that crosses the creek from the area at gate 3 and leads to the proposed new factory
site. It lodged there in one of the first floods that occurred just after I moved in to my

property. This piece of wood bears the axe marks that I put in it when I cut it up for fire
wood. Floodwaters have very nearly broached the levy/rock wall at the foot of the building

that is referred to as the "subject site." Floodwaters have blocked the driveway that is

marked as the main access to the site and left debris on the driveway near the floor level of

the current building.


       Flood debris can still be found in the barbed wire in my fence and I am happy to

show anyone where this debris is. Had a neighbour not come down when I was building my

house and told me to move the positioning of my house markedly to the south, it would

have been flooded on a number of times. I will be forever grateful to them for sharing their

Page 9

knowledge of the true extent of flood events with me. Local knowledge has saved my house
so far. I am    counting on the Council to ensure the safety of my property and myself.

          Mine is not the only property that has been adversely affected by flooding events on

the watercourses that flow through my and the Wimmers property. Murphy and Nolan’s

wholesale nursery shares the watercourse that runs through the western side of my

property. They have suffered extensive losses of stock in flood events. Pots, plants and plant
trays have on a number of occasions washed into and through my property. A search of the
watercourses in the Wimmers property would surely show that there are pots and possibly

trays from Murphy and Nolan’s Nursery. In speaking with Kevin from Murphy and Nolan I
have learnt that they lost approximately 30 000 plants in the major flood in early 2012. Hoy

Road is regularly blocked in flood events when the watercourses in question flood.


          The figure (Figure 18)that Adams and Sparks refer to is quoted as being from ’The

Noosa Plan." If this is so then this plan is so wrong that it is almost criminal. If this plan is

the basis for other planning decisions then something seriously needs to be done to

safeguard safety to people and property. Flooding in the area is unfortunately a too regular
event. This plan, as shown in the development proposal, is in fact in error and needs to be

revised as soon as possible. I put to you that council needs to conduct another in depth

(accurate)flood survey of the waterways that run through my property and into and
converge in the precincts of the proposed new factory. This exhaustive study needs to be
conducted before a final decision can be made on the success of the development proposal.

This clearly needs to be done for safety reasons and to protect property. Of key concern is

the way that man-made modifications alter (bottleneck)floodwaters.


          If the watercourses are not returned to their natural state and the modifications are

not removed, any more "lifting" ofthe soil profile in the Wimmer’s property would surely

make flooding of my property worse.        Given, the near misses that my house has had with
floods, any further lifting of the soil profile would be disastrous. In particular, I ask that the
"V" shaped piece of land at "Gate 3" between the creeks and the old brick storage yard at

"Gate 4" never be built up or on in any way.


          I recently outlined my concerns over flooding to a representative for the developer. I

thank him in that I felt that he listened genuinely well to my concerns and attempted to help

by offering a solution to the problems. The fact that he saw the value of my concerns is
evidenced in the way that he saw the problem posed by flooding. This he reduced to two

concepts,

          -
              the damming effect posed by land around the road and the poor drainage through

it, and

          -
              the speed at which the floodwaters escaped from the site.

Page 10

A suggestion was made that a direct drain could be cut from below the brickworks to one of

the creeks further downstream in an effort to speed the flow of floodwaters from the area. I

did not understand the proposal as I would have needed a map to understand it better. I

feel that this proposal has very real merit and that if the factory is given approval, this

proposal definitely needs exploring as it may be a way of safeguarding both of our
properties and other properties upstream.

       This proposal however would not solve the immediate problems of the bottlenecking

of floodwaters to the level of the road or the flaws in the Noosa Plans assessments of flood

hazards here.




Multiple Uses

       Of real concern is the possibility that the old CSR site may house more industries in

the future. The proposed Wimmer’s site is in a neat rectangle and leaves plenty of room and

building space for other activities. When I asked a Wimmer’s representative about the
chances of other industries occupying the site I was told that they would be industries

where a local product would be developed. An example that was given was, "a rum

distillery." This horrifies me as it would add the word "smells" to my list of concerns. As I
work at Yandina State School, I am well aware of some of the effects of being in the vicinity

of such an industry. The stench that has rolled and continues to roll into the school from the

Ginger Factory is at times overpowering. A number of parents of prospective students for
the school have been put off by the smell of the factory when walking around the school

and have as a result elected to take their children to other schools. At least, at present, I can

go home at the end of the day and get away from the smells. The thought of living next to

an industrial   precinct is unacceptable for this reason. Other industries on the site would
further impinge on my right to quiet and privacy as well. More industries would also

increase traffic levels through what is essentially a residential area. Lake Macdonald Drive is

already busy enough.

        It needs to again be said that the land is zoned as rural. How could an industrial

precinct be allowed to develop on land that is zoned as rural? It is surrounded by rural and
rural settlement properties.


        I have been told that Peter Lavner is also considering buying the turf Farm property

as well.   If this is true I can only wonder at the purpose for this. Much of this property is very

low lying and is prone to flooding.


        Other proposals for the site also are of concern for me. In media releases, Mr Lavner

has suggested that some of the possible uses for the buildings at the site include opening

the extra shed space for weekend markets or as a base for the grey nomad set.

Page 11

         The house that I grew up in in Yandina is one street back from the Yandina Markets.

My mother still lives there. As such, I am very much aware of negative effects that such
markets have on residents. Mum is virtually a prisoner in her home of a Saturday morning

from before daylight to just after lunch. The "world" passes by, parks at and looks into her

yard. She locks herself in and closes the house up every Saturday morning. The ongoing and
relentless petty theft on a Saturday morning from her yard and from around her house and

shed is annoying, frustrating and at times a heartbreaking. To have a market on my

doorstep would be unacceptable. After working all week, surely I am entitled to some peace
and quiet on weekends. Surely there are enough markets around the Sunshine Coast

already. The grey nomad proposal would also mean that the site is active on weekends. This
is simply unacceptable.


Access


         If the proposal was to go ahead I would ask that access for this facility would be via

the existing entrance at the southernmost corner of the site or at the gate currently marked

as "Gate 2." The area of   gallery forest and bush that is on the south western corner of my
property would help to create a better visual, noise and privacy screen for the bulk of my
property than the proposed entrance to the Wimmer’s site. Given that there appears to be
plans to develop the site as a tourist attraction, attention needs to be given to limiting the
negative effects that such operations would have on my property and my way of life. I did
not invite the world to my doorstep and am incredibly unhappy about this turn of events

and angrily unsupportive of them.


Noise


         In addition to the points raised above with regards to noise pollution from the new

development, I am stunned by some major flaws in the "Environmental Noise Level Study
for Proposed Manufacturing Facility, 271 Lake Macdonald Drive, Lake Macdonald" that was

conducted for Cooroy Property Trust Ltd c/- Lavin Trading by David Moore Associates Pty

Ltd.


         My house is listed as the "closest southeast residence" and it is listed as being
"approximately 230m" from the proposed new factory. Using a 1m trundle wheel I have
measured the distance from my house to the proposed factory’s front gate and have

measured it as being 123m. This is almost half of the "approximated distance." Given that

the driveway that would service the new factory and that traffic would be entering and

exiting to and from Lake Macdonald Drive here I put to you that some of the components
that are calculated for valuing noise pollution from the factory should in fact be calculated

from Lake Macdonald Drive. I measured this distance to be 101m.This is less than half of

the "approximated distance." The distance to the house that is marked as "the nearest

eastern residence" is estimated at being "approximately 220 metres" from the factory. The

distance from the factory front gate to the gate of this house I measured to be 189m (along

Page 12

Lake Macdonald Drive). This residence is within metres of the gate. Given that the proposed

new   factory is at such an angle to the road and the length of the building, the real distance
from this residence is most definitely less than this and I would approximate that it is only

around 175m from the factory. The residence marked as the nearest southern residence is

estimated as being 350 m from the factory. It is in fact only (as measured by myself) only

185 metres from the front gate of the proposed new factory’s gate to the mail box of this

residence.


        Given the huge variance between the approximated distances of residences from the

proposed new factory and the measured distances, I ask that a new and more accurate
survey be undertaken before any decisions are made about.


        Other components perhaps have not been but also need to be included in the noise

study calculations. Water trucks fill up across the road from my property. Given the
"seasonal hectic" nature of their usage of the filling facility, they may not have been

factored into the ambient noise levels. Multiple numbers of vehicles queue to fill at once

and regularly can leave engines running while they wait and refill. On one occasion on

Monday the 21st of October this year, the line consisted of six trucks. They perform a
particularly valuable and important service for the community. They are also particularly
noisy as they groan away slowly after refilling. As they are a pre-existing contributor to
noise levels, the noise of at least six idling trucks on the verge of Lake Macdonald Drive

needs to be factored into equations. Trucks run seven days a week. They are regularly there

before 6am and the latest truck that I remember filling up at the station was from memory

after 8pm. (P.S. Council needs to consider reducing the speed limit in the Area from 80km to

60km in this area to ensure the safety of the truck drivers and the public at large.)


        CSR will be moving multiple loads of soil and trucking this soil along Lake Macdonald

Drive to be used as fill for an estate. These trucks have not started yet but need to be

included in ambient noise level measurements as approval has been given for them and as

such their contribution to noise levels has to be recognised, assessed and included as

baseline. They will be operating for an extended period. They will be exiting the turf farm

exit and entering and exiting Lake Macdonald Drive at the entrance that is adjacent to the

old CSR office building. Hours of operation of these trucks and their frequency will need to

be included in the noise study. Noise level calculations for the property that is marked as the,

"nearest residence to the south/’ will undoubtedly and dramatically rise. Given that

approval has been given to CSR for the removal and transport of this soi" it is reasonable to
assume that such   operations could be approved again in the future.

        The testing site for the Noise study is also questionable with regards to my house.

The site was some metres back from the road. Noise travels easily from the proposed

factory site to my property. From my house, I have in the past heard entire jokes and
conversations from the front of the building that would house the new factory. Perhaps the

low lying, mainly open land between the two properties, the raised level of the building and

Page 13

the huge building itself help to carry noise easily to my property. The front gate of the

proposed site is in fact the source (other than their vehicles on the road) where noise from
their activities begins in relation to affecting my property. Given the points that I have here

raised, the testing site should have been at the front gate of the property.

         I would like to further argue the distances from which the report’s distances were

calculated. The business of measuring to the residences is flawed. Perhaps in an urban

situation where houses have smaller yards, this would be a reasonable proposition. Such a

proposal is unfair in a rural settlement area. The area of my property that is not occupied by
my home is in the process of becoming a garden. I in fact utilise my whole property.
Calculations of extrapolated noise levels as a result of the operations of the proposed

Wimmers factory need to be calculated for the point of my entire property that is closest to

the factory. This would mean that calculations should be taken from my property boundary

that is closest to the factory. Anything else would be unfair and unreasonable




         If the proposal were accepted, noise would be an area of primary concern and the

developer needs to improve efforts to control noise pollution. The proposal shows a six
metre, landscaped buffer along the length of the front boundary. I put to you that this
would not be enough of an effective sound and privacy buffer, particularly so when the

proposed tourist buses are considered. I can jump further than that. I would like to see this
buffer at least doubled and would expect that the existing trees would be left as they would

afford some buffering and to replace them with something else would take too long. The

current buildings are cavernous and sound travels terribly from them. In addition to the

landscaping that is proposed for the site front, I ask that a solid wall also be built to deflect
sound back into the site. This wall would ideally be in front of the factory itself and continue

all the way back towards the old office building. This wall would need to be and should be

built before further destruction and construction work is carried out on the site. Clearly, the

development of this site would be a lengthy process and as such a wall would be needed to
deflect as much noise as is possible. I would expect that destruction and construction work

for this proposal and any other future developments would be carried out in weekdays only

(9am-Spm).

        Comparisons to noise levels that existed when the site was a brickworks are
irrelevant. This is a new development and I am entitled to peace and quiet in my own

property and in my own home. Anything less than this is not good enough. It is incongruous
that industrial noise pollution from a rurally zoned property could be allowed to assail me. I

am   happy to supply some trees towards the buffering zone at the front of the property. I
would suggest that some taller growing trees such as hoop pine and kauri pine, that are

native to the area, would be useful in that their height will act also as a high visual screen as

well as a noise screen in the years to come. Chatter and voices from workers and tourists

Page 14

(don’t forget that buses for tourists are catered for on the plans) is of particular concern and
I would object to any provision for street parking for this reason.


Values


         The Development Application prepared by Adams & Sparks states that "the fa ade of

the factory is designed with the appearance of colourful’bubble-like’ protrusions." This

hardly fits in with the "rural" setting of the area, nor does the building that will house the
factory. There is nothing "rural" about the existing building or what it is proposed to be
turned into. Given the visual pollution of such commercial buildings in the rural setting and

the chimneys, it is hoped that if the proposal is accepted that the previously mentioned

request for planting a tall screen of trees in the landscaping buffer.


         Again, I say, I occupy my whole property. I have already put years of effort into my
property. As a keen gardener who is approaching retiring years, I expect and look forward to
being able to spend enjoyable more time in my garden. Industrial noise, chatter from
tourists and workers and increased traffic noises are real threats to my enjoyment of my

property and way of life. All forms of noise pollution from the new factory have the
potential to adversely affect my enjoyment of my property and right to quiet in the process.
I actively avoid crowds and crowded places. My entire property is mine to use and this use

should not be infringed upon in any negative way by the proposed new factory. The

thought of having a commercial industry/tourist attraction across the road is abhorrent to
me.



         So far, noise made in the clearing up of the site has from my perspective been

unacceptable. Last weekend was particularly noisy with the bore crew drilling. In the end, I
left my property, on a Saturday, solely because I had to escape the noise. Negative impacts

have already started.


         The Noise Study recommendation that there be "no noise control measures for 24

hour operation" is simply unacceptable. Having lived across from the previous industry I

know how the sound travels so clearly from the site. All windows on the northern and

western sides of my house were permanently closed of a night in an attempt to limit the

noise so that I could get some sleep. Even so, the constant hum pervaded my house at all

hours and limited hours of decent sleep. Cross flow of air on summer nights was sorely

missed. When the past industry closed the silence was in fact deafening and so very much

enjoyed.

         The proposed Wimmers factory site is in the building that is closest to my house.

The proposed driveway that is to service the factory is the one that is closest to my house.

The building to house the factory is the one that is closest to my house. As a long term

resident I am more than entitled to ask for restrictions on hours of operation for this new

factory and any machinery. I was told by a representative of the Wimmers company that the

Page 15

Factory would only operate on weekdays. The proposal however asks for six days of
operation (Mon-Sat).I ask that if the proposal is successful that operational times be limited
to hours as 9am-Spm, weekdays only. "Normal working" hours (7am -Spm)as applied for do

not apply to all of the rural settlement properties that overwhelmingly neighbour the

proposed new factory. The site is zoned as rural. Nearly all properties on Lake Macdonald
Drive and the roads that branch from it are zoned as rural or rural settlement. "Normal

business hours" do not apply in the area that the proposed new factory would sit if plans

were   accepted. Lake Macdonald is peopled by residents who enjoy space and peace and
quiet. As my property is a rural residential one I ask that my right to a quiet environment be
respected. No noise pollution from the factory/commercial industry/tourist attraction is
acceptable to me at any time but this is especially so in my time away from work. Weekends
are for   recuperating. As I have already said, I am a keen gardener. I spend a lot of time in my
yard. I do not wish to listen to operational noises from the property across the road at any
time let alone in my time away from work, nor should I ever have to.


          This decision is for a lifetime, my lifetime. Imagine that you lived on a rural

residential property for over eleven years and planned to live there for the rest of your life.

How would you feel if a factory moved in across the road from your home on a rurally zoned

property? How would you feel if the first factory was only the tip of the iceberg and that
other industries are likely to follow? Forklifts, trucks, tourists, buses, chatter, machinery

and the like have no place in this rural setting and even more especially so, on a weekend

(Saturday and Sunday). How would you feel floodwaters threatened your house and
property and possibly your life? The floodwaters that come at night are the worst. I have
lost count of the times that I have stacked items valuable to me in the roof and grabbed the

pliers, just in case I have to cut the barbed wires on the fence line, throw my pets in the car
and drive into my neighbours paddock to escape the flood waters.


          I am not someone who enjoys the taste of Wimmers soft drinks and has just added

their name and address and signature to a mass produced letter of support when they have

been asked to do so as they enter the Cooroy RSL or to sign the form as they leave the

Pamona IGA. I am well aware of the negative effects this development would possibly cause.


          I have been approached on five separate occasions and been asked to sign the mass

produced submission of support form. Some of the points listed as positives on the mass
produced form need addressing.

          Point 2 states


          ’The traffic report shows that traffic flow from the proposal will be far lees (less?)

than the traffic flow from the original brickworks’. Could be countered with the statements;

Page 16

       -The proposal will significantly add to the current traffic flow on Lake Macdonald

Drive which is already set to increase as trucks transport soil for a housing estate. Traffic

flow from the property will also partly consist of heavy vehicles.


       -The proposal is suggested as being only the first of the industries for the site at large.

Each additional use for the site will increase traffic flow along Lake Macdonald Drive. The

total volume of traffic that would be generated by the entire site being occupied needs to

be considered.


       Point 6 states


       ’The proposed museum featuring both Wimmers and Cooroy Bricks could develop a

tourist venue associated with Lake Macdonald and the Botanical Gardens.’ More traffic on

Lake Macdonald Drive could be expected.


       A tourist attraction across the road from me is unacceptable, particularly when you

consider that the entrance to the facility is as close as you can get, on the proposed site, to

my residence.


       Point 7 states


       ’Subject to community participation, the further uses on the site could be important
in the economic development and employmentfor the region.’ This statement only serves to

support the statements that I have already made about traffic above. It also points at a flaw
in the developer’s methodologies. "Community participation" has not at any time included

myself, as the long term resident who shares over a quarter of a kilometre of road frontage
with the developer, in any way in the development of this proposal and I doubt that it has

included any of my neighbours. Nor have I been included in any meetings to discuss the

future uses of the site. I find out about them after the fact, from hearsay and in media

releases.




In Conclusion




       Wimmers’ history is in the town itself. There are spaces in industrially zoned

developments where the company could be accommodated should they need more space
to expand.



       I speak against the development proposal (Council reference Number MCU13/0171)

and ask that my objections and suggestions are well considered. I would be eager to discuss

further any of the points that I have raised were it to help in any way, particularly with

Council with regards to more accurately evaluating the flood threat in the area.

Page 17

       I feel that the points that I have raised have validity.


       I have nothing to gain from this proposal and much to lose.


       There are numerical values given to various components of this proposal but what

value is given to privacy? Should the development go ahead I would have to consider selling

and moving. What price do you put on more than eleven years of work on a property? What

price do you put on the loss of plans and hopes for a property?

       What price would someone else be willing to pay for a flood-prone block of land that

has an industrial precinct over the road?


       This really is a lose/lose proposal.




P.S. I have been told that the old roof ofthe proposed new factory contain asbestos? If it

does, how will the roof be replaced? Given that my property is so close, this is clearly of
concern to me.