Properly made submission (object) Brett Kennedy MCU13/0171

        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.