Properly made submission (object) Brett Kennedy MCU13/0171

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