Pacific Environment Peer Review R1-1

2     REVIEW

2.1        Farm Information
Based on the information in the report, it is understood that the original farm (eight sheds) holding
approximately 230,000 birds is still proposed. However, the number listed in the report is “in the order of
230,000 birds”.

The number previously proposed was 253,358 birds. This represents a decrease of 23,358 birds. This
decrease is consistent with the change from 18 birds per square metre to 16.75 birds per square metre
as detailed in the report. A summary of the bird numbers as calculated based on information provided
is shown in Table 2-1.

                                     Table 2-1: Summary of Bird Numbers
Density           Original Bird Numbers at 18   Original Bird Numbers          Proposed in MWA 2014
                  birds/m2                      converted to 16.75             Report
                                                birds/m2
Total Birds                253,358                        235,763                        ~230,000



Although there are subtle differences in the bird numbers (original vs proposed), it is likely that this would
not significantly alter the outcome.

2.2        Receptor Selection
A suitable definition of sensitive receptors is contained in the Guideline: Odour Impact Assessment from
Developments. (DEHP, 2013). For the purposes of the assessment for proposed farm, the relevant
receptor type would be “a dwelling, mobile home or caravan park, residential marina or other
residential premises”. In other words, the dwellings around the subject site should be classified as
sensitive locations.

In Figure A1 in Attachment 8 of the report, 18 receptors were marked. Of relevance to this review is the
following:

      1.    One receptor between Receptor 10 and Receptor 11 appears to have been missed.
      2.    Receptors on land not associated with the development have not been included in the
            assessment.

The points above are discussed further below.

First, with regard to point 1, it would appear that a receptor is located on land described as Lot 5 on
RP810738. We note that the inclusion of this receptor may not see an exceedance at this location
based on the model results shown in Figure A1 in Attachment 8 of the report.

With regard to point 2, it would appear that there are a number of lots not associated with the
development that are either fully or partially enclosed by the C99.5 1hr = 2.5 ou contour. We have seen
lots used as a buffer for a development be sold off if they are not controlled by the owner of the
development.

Based on experience elsewhere, we are of the opinion that to minimise the risk of a buffer being
eroded by the sale of adjacent properties, lots that are impacted by the chicken farm and owned by
the applicant should form part of the application. We understand that these include Lot 22 on
SP226606 and Lot 204 on RP892484.




9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx                                                                                 2
Job Number 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230