Notice of Appeal WD Milligan

Page 2

1.       the appeal be allowed;


2.       the development application be approved subject to lawful conditions;


3.       such further or other order as this Honourable Court may require.


The grounds of appeal are:


1.       On 14 November 2012, the development application was properly made to the

         respondent.


2.       According to the respondent’s amended acknowledgment notice dated 3 December

         2012 the development application:


         (a)     required referral to a concurrence agency;


         (b)     required referral to an advice agency; and


         (c)        required impact assessment.


3.       The concurrence agency was the Department of Transport and Main Roads with

         respect to state-controlled road issues.


4.       The advice agency was Powerlink with respect to matters associated with electricity

         infrastructure.


5.       By correspondence dated 10 December 2012 the respondent gave an information

         request.


6.       By correspondence dated 13 December 2012, the Department of Transport and Main

         Roads gave a concurrence agency response advising that it had no requirements with

         respect to the development application.




Page 2

Page 3

7.       By correspondence dated 20 December 2012, Powerlink gave an advice agency

         response and requested the respondent to treat the response as a properly made

         submission.


8.       On 8 May 2013, the appellant gave the respondent a full response to the information

         request.


9.       The development application was publicly notified between 14 May 2013 and 4 June

         2013 in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

         According to the respondent, 11 properly made submissions were made with respect

         to the development application.


10.      On 14 November 2013 the respondent resolved to request further information with

         respect to the development application.


11.      By correspondence dated 31 July 2014 the appellant provided further information to

         the respondent, including, but not limited to, confirmation that in terms of the

         composting/manure stockpiles component of the development application the

         appellant is prepared to accept a condition of approval that no composting and

         stockpiling of poultry manure generated by the poultry sheds is to be undertaken on-

         site (which addressed item 3 of the Council resolution made at the Council’s ordinary

         meeting on 14 November 2013).


12.      By correspondence dated 20 October 2015 the appellant received an unsigned

         infrastructure agreement from the respondent, which contained provisions requiring

         the appellant (and it’s directors) to:


             a. Undertake road upgrade/widening/sealing works to Top Forestry Road. The

                    roadworks were to be undertaken in accordance with plans of development

                    prepared by Steve Williams (engineer) of Lambert and Rehbein. The

                    roadworks were based on geotechnical testing undertaken by David Morrison

                    (geotechnical engineer at Red Earth Engineering.




Page 3

Page 4

               b. Register a Covenant for the purpose of providing an odour buffer to the land

                   the subject of the development application on the title of the following

                   properties that are owned by the appellant and/or the director(s) of the

                   appellant (“the buffer lands”):


                       •   Lot 20 on SP226606 at 124 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood

                       •   Lot 204 on RP892484 at 146 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood

                       •   Lot 22 on SP226606 at 172 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood; and

                       •   Lot 1 on SP100785 at 224 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood


13.      A copy of the infrastructure agreement signed by the appellant and the owners of the

         buffer lands was forwarded to the respondent by email dated 21 October 2015.


14.      At the respondent’s planning and organisation committee meeting held on 10

         November 2015, the respondent considered a report prepared by the respondent’s

         officers which recommended approval of the development application subject to the

         imposition of conditions.


15.      By correspondence dated 25 November 2015 (received by the appellant on 26

         November 2015) the respondent issued a decision notice and advised that on 19

         November 2015 it had decided to refuse the development application for the following

         reasons:


         (a)       The proposed poultry farm does not comply with the Overall Outcomes of The

                   Noosa Plan’s Mary River Catchment Locality, Agricultural Uses and Transport,

                   Roads and Drainage Codes.


         (b)       The proposed poultry farm does not achieve sufficient separation distance

                   from surrounding residences and properties, so as to avoid adverse odour

                   impacts on amenity.




Page 4

Page 5

         (c)    The odour modelling carried out by the applicant does not provide sufficient

                assurance that nearby residents will not be adversely impacted by odour.


         (d)    The proposal will result in actual and perceived loss of amenity to nearby

                residents.


         (e)    Traffic generated by the development will have significant adverse impacts on

                the existing road network and on the amenity of residents living along the haul

                route, as the root traverses Cooroy’s residential streets and bird collection will

                occur during normal sleeping hours.


         (f)    The proposed sheds and earthworks necessary for shed construction are

                likely to adversely impact on the scenic amenity of the area, as the applicant

                has not demonstrated that they will integrate satisfactorily with the landform

                and landscape.


         (g)    It has not been clearly demonstrated that the proposed poultry farm will not

                generate unacceptable levels of dust, other particulates and ammonia that

                may impact on the amenity of nearby residents and/or have adverse

                environmental outcomes.


16.      The appellant seeks an Order that:

         (a)    the appeal be allowed; and

         (b)    the development application be approved subject to lawful conditions.




                                                                                G ANT T LE G AL
                                                                       Solicitors for the Appellant
                                                                       Dated 24 December 2015




Page 5

Page 6

If you are named as a respondent in this notice of appeal and wish to be heard in this
appeal you must:

(a)      within 10 days after being served with a copy of this Notice of Appeal, file an
         Entry of Appearance in the Registry where this notice of appeal was filed or
         where the court file is kept; and

(b)      serve a copy of the Entry of Appearance on each other party.

The Entry of Appearance should be in Form PEC – 5 for the Planning and Environment
Court.




If you are entitled to elect to be a party to this appeal and you wish to be heard in this
appeal you must:

(a)      within 10 business days of receipt of this Notice of Appeal, file a Notice of
         Election in the Registry where this notice of appeal was filed or where the court
         file is kept; and

(b)      serve a copy of the Notice of Election on each other party.

The Notice of Election should be in Form PEC – 6 for the Planning and Environment
Court.




Page 6