MCU12/0184 - Attachment 1

ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA                                                           14 NOVEMBER 2013
7.2         REGIONAL STRATEGY AND PLANNING
7.2.1      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY TYPE 2 INTENSIVE (POULTRY FARM) AT 136 TOP FORESTRY ROAD, RIDGEWOOD
File No:                        MCU12/0184
Author:                        Development Planner
Regional Strategy & Planning Department
Attachments:              Att 1 - Site Plan and Elevations....................................................... 51
Att 2 - Traffic Route.......................................................................... 55
Att 3 - Traffic ..................................................................................... 57

Link to PD Online:
http://pdonline.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/masterview/Modules/Applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=1246601

APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant:	W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd
Proposal:	Development Permit for Material Change of Use (Animal Husbandry Type 2 - Intensive) and Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA 4 - Poultry Farming)
Properly Made Date:	21/11/2012
Information Request Date:	10/12/2012
Info Response Received Date:	08/05/2013
Decision Due Date:	14 November 2013
Number of Submissions:	12 Properly made submissions; and 118 Not properly made submissions

PROPERTY DETAILS
Division:	12
Property Address:	136 Top Forestry Rd, Ridgewood, Qld, 4563
RP Description:	Lot 21 SP 226606
Land Area:	105.017ha
Existing Use of Land:	Avocado orchard and associated sheds

STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation:	Regional Landscape and Rural Production
Planning Scheme:	The Noosa Plan (8 August 2011)
Planning Locality:	Mary River Catchment
Planning Zone	Rural
Assessment Type:	Impact
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to seek council’s determination of an application for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Animal Husbandry Type 2 – Intensive (Poultry Farm) and Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA 4 - Poultry Farming) at 136 Top Forestry Rd, Ridgewood.  The application is before council as there were 101 submissions objecting to, and 29 submissions supporting, the development proposal.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This application seeks approval for a Poultry Farm defined by The Noosa Plan as Animal Husbandry Type 2 – Intensive at 136 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood.  The applicant proposes to construct 8 large sheds (100m to 130m long x 16m wide) on the site’s ridgeline to house up to 250,000 birds, with day old chicks reared for a period of 6-9 weeks before being transported off site overnight for chicken meat production.  The sheds are then cleaned out over a 2 week period and spent litter from the sheds is stockpiled within 2 bunded areas, before being spread on the avocado tree orchard.  The cycle then starts again, with up to 6 cycles a year possible.

The site is zoned Rural under The Noosa Plan and, in this zone, a poultry farm is required to follow an impact assessment process.  Accordingly, the applicant must demonstrate the selected site is suitable for the proposed use, and that the potential impacts can be appropriately managed.

This report concludes that the site is not suitable and the proposed poultry farm will have unacceptable impacts on the traffic safety of Top Forestry Road, and adverse amenity impacts for residents living near the farm and on the transport route.

Top Forestry Road is not of a suitable standard to cater for the number of heavy vehicles expected to be generated by the poultry farm, being an unsealed road with a number of tight bends.  In any one of the 9 week batch cycles, the poultry farm is likely to generate approximately 348 heavy vehicle trips.  During peak times, the number of truck movements is anticipated to be 92 trips (in and out) a week, with the last bird collection potentially being up to 90 truck trips over 1 to 2 nights.  These truck numbers would also significantly impact on residents living along the traffic route, given bird collection is anticipated to be throughout the night and the route travels through Cooroy’s urban residential streets.  Dust generated from these movements along Top Forestry Road is also likely to cause a nuisance for residents.

In terms of potential odour impacts, Pacific Environment on behalf of council advise that no data has been provided of the emissions from manure stockpiles and manure spreading.  Therefore, they are unable to support the applicant’s submission that the poultry farm complies with the Queensland odour guidelines for rural zoned land.  Odour modelling also identifies that the closest houses are at risk of distinct odour impacts at times, with the report failing to address one of the closest sensitive receiver locations.

While a number of submissions were concerned about the proposal’s potential to adversely impact on water quality in the Mary River Catchment, council’s environmental specialist concludes this is unlikely but, were the application to be approved, ongoing monitoring of the waterways would be necessary.  Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that discussions with the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries indicates that manure should be composted for a minimum of 12 weeks before use on farms and that the proposed application rate is likely to kill the tree crop.

The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal.
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council REFUSE Application No. MCU12/0184 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Animal Husbandry Type 2 – Intensive (Poultry Farm) and Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA 4 - Poultry Farming), situated at 136 Top Forestry Rd, Ridgewood for the following reasons: 1.         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 2.         the proposed poultry farm does not achieve sufficient separation distance from surrounding residents so as to avoid adverse odour impacts on residents’ amenity, with insufficient details provided on the emissions from manure stockpiles, manure spreading, and for one of the closest sensitive receiver locations 3.         the proposal will have unacceptable impacts on the safety of Top Forestry Road and the proposed road improvements are not sufficient to provide the necessary safe environment 4.         traffic generated by the development proposed will have significant adverse impacts on the amenity of residents, given Top Forestry Road is unsealed and bird collection is likely to be through the night and 5.         the proposed sheds and earthworks necessary for shed construction is 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.

FINANCE AND RESOURCING
If council were to approve this development, the applicant would be required to pay infrastructure charges for trunk infrastructure.

Council’s Infrastructure Policy Branch has provided the following estimate of the infrastructure charges required by this development (which excludes infrastructure charges to Unitywater):

Allocation of adopted infrastructure charge to trunk infrastructure networks	Amount Payable	
Transport	$156,672	
Public Parks & Land for Community Facilities	$27,648	
Stormwater (applicable to Non-Residential development)	$500,000	
TOTAL (June 2013 index) =	$684,320	
PROPOSAL
The application seeks approval for a Material Change of Use for Animal Husbandry Type 2 – Intensive (Poultry Farm) and Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA 4 - Poultry Farming), situated at 136 Top Forestry Rd, Ridgewood.

The development involves the construction of 8 x 100m to 130m long x 16m wide sheds along the ridgeline of the site, with each shed containing 30,000 to 38,500 chickens.  On this basis, the site has the potential to carry in the order of 250,000 birds at any one time.  The applicant indicates the process involves the rearing day old chicks to chickens for a period of 6-9 weeks, before being removed from the site for chicken meat production (batch cycle).

Feed for the birds is brought onto the site throughout the batch cycle by 19m B-doubles, with an increase in frequency associated with the birds’ mass.  The applicant provided details for the feed requirements for an 8 shed farm, with 4 deliveries in the first week, increasing to 24 deliveries during week 7 of the 9 week cycle.  The grown chickens are then removed from the site by truck in weeks 6, 7 and 9, most likely at night when the bids are less active.

The applicant also proposes that, upon the completion of the bird growing cycle, the sheds are cleaned out and prepared for the next batch cycle over a 2 week period.  Spent litter from the sheds is proposed to be stockpiled within 2 bunded areas for a period of 4 to 5 weeks, before being spread onto the existing avocado orchard.  The bunded areas have a total lineal distance of 300m x 20m wide and are located adjacent to the proposed sheds.

A Preliminary Operational Management Plan has been prepared by the applicant to address the operation of the proposed poultry farm and the existing avocado farm.

The proposal plans are included as Attachment 1.

SITE DETAILS
Background/Site History
There are no existing development approvals over the site.  The owner of the farm indicates avocados have been grown on the site for the last 20 years.

A prelodgement meeting was held in December 2011 regarding the current proposal.  Advice was given about the numerous detailed reports required for council to assess the impacts of the proposal.  The applicant then approached the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, to remove the site from the Queensland Strategic Cropping mapped area.

The application was made on 21 November 2012, with a subsequent information request issued on 10 December 2012.  Further detailed information was asked of the applicant regarding visual amenity, stormwater management, site stability, traffic generation and movement.  A response to the request was given on 8 May 2013.  The application then commenced advertising for 15 business days, which was finalised on 12 June 2013.

Following a further site meeting with the applicant to clarify a number of aspects of the proposal, which were not satisfactorily addressed within the information response, council issued a further outstanding issues request on the 28 June 2013.  The applicant responded with the revisions to the proposal on 12 and 24 September 2013.
Site Description
The subject site is 105ha in size and is located at 136 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood. The site is characterised as having relatively steep sloping terraces, planted out with avocado orchards connected by farm access roads extending along the ridgelines.  There is an existing farm shed located on the ridgeline within the middle of the site, housing much of the farm equipment associated with the avocado cropping.  There are 7 dams on the site located at the bottom of each of the hillsides, which are used to irrigate the existing avocado orchard.

A 120m wide easement extends along the site’s western boundary.  This easement includes Powerlink’s electricity stanchions.

There is an existing farm house located close to the existing access to Top Forestry Road in the south eastern portion of the site. The existing access to the site is via an unsealed driveway, while Top Forestry Road is unsealed for 1.3km from the intersection with Old Ceylon Road.
Surrounding Land Uses
The site is located adjacent to 1,150ha of State Forest to the west.  The other adjoining properties to the subject site are included on the locality plan below, with a summary of each of the adjoining properties detailed in the corresponding table.

Neighbouring Property	Lot Size	House Site	Current Use
977 Cooroy Belli Creek Road	67.4 ha	There is an existing house located close to Cooroy Belli Creek Road in the north western portion of the lot. The house is 1,150m from the existing farm sheds on the subject site.	Predominantly vegetated with a single detached house.
869 Cooroy Belli Creek Road	49.3 ha	There is an existing house located in the northern portion of the lot. The house is 980m from the existing farm sheds on the subject site.	The lot is partially cleared with cattle grazing.
76 Top Forestry Road	49.4 ha	There is an existing house located in the northern portion of the lot. The house is 950m from the existing farm sheds on the subject site.	The lot is partially cleared with cattle grazing.
124 Top Forestry Road	6.47 ha	The lot is currently cleared with no houses on the site. This lot is owned by the applicant and is approximately 700m from the existing farm sheds on the subject site.	The lot is partially cleared with cattle grazing.
146 Top Forestry Road	2.04 ha	There is an existing house with shared access to the subject site. This lot is owned by the applicant and is approximately 650m from the existing farm sheds on the subject site.	Predominantly vegetated with a single detached house.
172 Top Forestry Road	2.92 ha	The lot is predominantly vegetated with a farm shed in the south eastern portion of the lot. This lot is owned by the applicant and is approximately 850m from the existing farm sheds on the subject site.	Predominantly vegetated with no detached houses.
224 Top Forestry Road	9.5 ha	The lot is currently cleared with no houses on the site. This lot is owned by the applicant and is approximately 750m from the existing farm sheds on the subject site.	Avocado cropping with the irrigation of trees from the dams on the subject site.

ASSESSMENT
Framework for Assessment
Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, the application must be assessed against each of the following planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:

State Planning Policies
the South East Queensland Regional Plan
State Planning Regulatory Provisions and
the Planning Scheme for the local government area.

Of these, the planning instruments relevant to this application are discussed in the sections that follow.
Statutory Instruments – State and Other
State Planning Policies
The relevant State Planning Policies applicable to this application have been deemed by the Minister for Local Government and Planning as being appropriately reflected in The Noosa Plan and, therefore, do not warrant a separate assessment.
South East Queensland Regional Plan
The site is located within the Regional Landscape and Rural Production designation of the SEQ Regional Plan.  The regional policies in Part D of the Regional Plan are relevant when assessing a development application.  The proposed development is consistent with the regional policies.
State Planning Regulatory Provisions
The SEQ Regional Plan Regulatory Provisions are applicable to this application.  The proposal is for a rural activity within the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area designation of the SEQ Regional Plan.  The proposed use is consistent with Division 2 of the SEQ Regulatory Provisions.
Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The applicable planning scheme for the application is The Noosa Plan (8 August 2011).  The subject site is located in the Mary River Catchment and zoned Rural.  The proposed use is identified as Animal Husbandry Type 2 – Intensive (Poultry Farm).  The proposed poultry farm, being a rural use, is identified as a consistent use in the rural zone.  However, intensive animal husbandry uses are required to follow an impact assessment process and must demonstrate that the selected site is suitable, and the potential impacts can be appropriately managed.
Local Area Provisions
The Overall Outcomes of the Mary River Catchment locality seek to maintain the rural character, lifestyle and accessibility enjoyed by residents.  Agricultural uses are to remain a significant part of the economic activities in the locality, ensuring that these uses are continued on better agricultural land on and adjacent to the valley floors.
Land Use and Works Provisions
The application has been assessed against The Noosa Plan.  The pertinent issues arising out of the assessment against the relevant codes are discussed in terms of their relevant topic below.

Traffic

The site is accessed from Cooroy township (residential streets) via Cooroy Belli Creek Road, Old Ceylon Road and Top Forestry Road.  See Attachment 2.

The applicant indicates that the use will require servicing by a mix of semi-trailers and truck and dog combinations (litter delivery, bird delivery and collection, dead bird collection) and 19m B-doubles for the delivery of feed.  During the assessment of the application, the applicant submitted a number of versions of the originally submitted traffic report prepared by Hayes Traffic Engineering, to address council’s concerns with traffic movements.

The submitted traffic report describes the number of traffic movements (trips) of the existing cropping use of the site and the potential number of traffic movements (trips) of the proposed use of the site (reduced cropping and new poultry use).  The report is based upon the assumption that the “poultry” use will be staggered through the 8 sheds to spread the traffic demands over the 8 week “batch” cycle.  However, the applicant’s MWA Environmental report, and industry advice, suggest this assumption is incorrect and that the poultry processors prefer all sheds on a property to be at the same stage within the “batch”.

The report uses methodology to calculate the yearly trip generation from the existing and proposed uses and divide the total by 365 to determine a “per day” trip rate.  This methodology does not give any consideration to:

the type of vehicle for the “trip” or
the impacts (safety, noise, dust, road maintenance) of a “heavy vehicle” trip compared to the “trip” of a passenger vehicle.  It is considered in this instance that, due to the location of the site, assessment of the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed development must go beyond “trip” numbers or
the variations in daily “trip” numbers due to the specific use.  The variations occur in the cropping use due to the seasonal requirements (e.g. picking season) and in the poultry use due to the production timeframes (e.g. bird collection).  It is considered in this instance that, due to the location of the site, assessment of the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed development must consider the daily/weekly variations in “trip” numbers.

It is noted that, while the application originally included a reduction in the cropping on the site and, therefore, a reduction in traffic movements, information supplied by the applicant on 12 September 2013 indicates an additional 3,000 trees will be planted in currently fallow areas of the site.  It is reasonable to assume that, although some cropping area would be lost to the proposed poultry use, the 3,000 additional trees would not result in any net loss in traffic movements of both passenger and heavy vehicles for the original cropping use of the site.

With regard to the potential number of traffic movements (trips) generated by the proposed poultry use, there are discrepancies between the total number of heavy vehicle trips per “batch” from the submitted Hayes traffic report (218 trips), the submitted MWA Environmental report (234 trips), and council’s calculations (348 trips) (Attachment 3).  Council’s calculations have been based on the submitted MWA Environmental report and industry advice.  The activities that appear to have been overlooked or under-estimated are dead bird collection and the collection of the birds for market.  Notably council’s traffic calculations mentioned above have not considered the removal of litter from the site which would equate to approximately an additional 20 trips at the end of each batch.  The highest number of traffic trips are created during the second half of the “batch” (days 36-63) with the trips increasing for feed deliveries and bird collection.  It is noted that industry practice is for the bird collection to occur at night.  It is also noted that the application refers to “5-6 batches” per year”.

A breakdown of council’s estimation of traffic movements to the site is included as Attachment 3.  Notably, during peak times at the end of each batch cycle, the number of truck movements is anticipated to be 92 trips (in and out) in any one week, with the last bird collection potentially being up to 90 truck trips over 1 to 2 nights.

Cooroy Belli Creek Road and Old Ceylon Road are sealed rural standard roads.  These roads are of a suitable standard to cater for the vehicle types, although there are concerns with the number of heavy vehicles proposed.

The existing formation of Top Forestry Road is gravel with variable widths and a number of tight bends, and is not of a suitable standard to cater for the number of heavy vehicles expected to be generated by the poultry farm.  The first section of Top Forestry Road extending from Old Ceylon Road to No. 101 predominately runs along the ridgeline.  There is limited opportunity to widen the formation due to the existing vegetation.  The bends along Top Forestry Road are narrow with obscured sight lines.  The most significant bend is located adjacent to the western corner of No. 101.  The bend is located in a gully with a formation width of approximately 4m.  The sight lines across this bend are obscured by vegetation located within the road reserve.  The topography of the gully at this point is such that a widening of the road at this location in either direction is not feasible.  It is also noted that the school bus travels along Top Forestry Road from Old Ceylon Road to a turnaround area adjacent to the entrance to the subject site.

In order to provide a safe environment for local road users (residents, school bus, etc.) it is considered that substantial improvements to Top Forestry Road would be required to cater for the number of heavy vehicles required to service the poultry use.  These improvements would need to be sufficient to cater for the demands during inclement weather, especially during the peak times in the “batch” and at those times when the peak times in the “batch” coincide with the seasonal peaks of the cropping use.  It is considered that the improvements suggested in the most recent Hayes traffic report are not sufficient to provide the necessary safe environment.

It is considered that, given the natural topography and the extent of works required to construct Top Forestry Road to the required standard, it is neither feasible nor reasonable to condition the developer to construct the necessary improvements.

Dust and Noise Nuisance

The operations of the poultry farm have the potential to cause dust and noise nuisance for the surrounding residential properties.  The Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment, prepared by MWA Environmental concludes that the dust dispersion and noise amenity criteria for the poultry sheds meet the relevant guidelines.  This report has been reviewed by council’s specialists who advise the proposal will meet the relevant guidelines for on-site operations.

However, the application does not address noise and dust emissions from the heavy vehicles using the 1.3km section of Top Forestry Road, which is unsealed and built into the side of a hill, and noise from heavy vehicles on the remainder of the route.  The noise pressure levels of trucks travelling along Top Forestry Road, both day and night, will affect the amenity of the residential properties adjacent to it.  Dust nuisance could only be mitigated by the frequent application of dust suppressants or the permanent sealing of the road for those houses within 50m.

The proposal is also likely to generate a noise nuisance for those residents living on the local roads, in particular for those residents on the residential streets of the route.  While the applicant’s preferred route, including Myall Street, Crystal Street, Maple Street then to Cooroy Belli Creek Road is a logical route, the second stage of each “batch” is likely to include night trips and noise from trucks is likely to be unacceptable for residents on these residential streets.

Odour Nuisance

The proposed use of the site for intensive poultry farming, including the storage and spreading of the manure, has the potential to affect the air quality of surrounding neighbours.

The applicant included an Air Quality Impact Assessment prepared by MWA Environmental, for the 8 poultry growing sheds.  Pacific Environment reviewed the report’s methodology and emissions estimations on behalf of council.  It was found the emissions estimation and modelling was calculated generally in line with standard methods.  However, there is a lack of data on the emissions from manure stockpiles and manure spreading.  Pacific Environment are, therefore, unable to support the findings by the applicant that the farm complies with the Queensland odour guideline for rural zoned land of 2.5 odour units = C99.5 1hr.  Notably, even were the applicant to meet this guideline, the odour concentration levels would be noticeable for nearby residents although classified as weak by the guidelines, but with the smell considered “distinct” for at least 44 hours/year.

Pacific Environment also describe how most new poultry farms in SEQ Queensland are not approved with litter stockpiling or spreading on site, as there is little data available about the resultant emissions.

The applicant’s Preliminary Operations Management Plan details the fertiliser stockpiles and application are an integral component of the proposed use, with a number of management practices having to be adhered to for the development not to cause nuisance, including:

litter stockpiles being covered
litter stockpiles turned at least weekly, and only when prevailing winds are below 10km/h and from the northeast to southeast sector
applying litter within 4-5 weeks of the cleanout of the sheds to avoid stockpile odours coinciding with high shed odours
minimum setback of 50m is retained from spreading areas to boundaries and waterways
litter is spread only during 6am to 6pm, and only when prevailing winds are from the northeast to southeast and
only low velocity spreading equipment is used.

The applicant submits that these management practices would minimise odour emissions, yet no modelling has been undertaken to quantify such claims.  Council’s Environment Officer recommends that this practice has the potential to be problematic and onerous on the operator, with conditions required to manage this practice unlikely to be feasible.  Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries guidelines recommend composting for a minimum of 12 weeks and, therefore, the applicant’s composting timeframes of 4-5 weeks may be unrealistic.

The applicant includes advice from an agronomist (Myriad International) detailing that all of the poultry manure compost can be utilised by the existing orchard.  Using the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry guidelines for applying poultry manure on farms, it is likely the modelling over-estimates the manure application rates, and under-counts the area of trees to which the manure could be spread.  Furthermore, in discussions with the department, officers advised that the proposed application rates may eventually kill the tree crop.

An additional shortcoming of the odour modelling report identified by Pacific Environment is the failure to include the sensitive receiver location at 146 Top Forestry Road.  This site includes a detached house and is currently a separate freehold lot under the ownership of the applicant.  As with other SEQ poultry farm applications, it is regionally acceptable for this existing house to be included in the modelling.  This sensitive receiver site would not meet the Queensland odour guidelines for rural zoned land, based on the predicted odour from the chicken sheds.

Water Quality

The Noosa Plan seeks that the water quality of watercourses within the Mary River Catchment Locality is maintained and enhanced.  A Stormwater Treatment and Water Quality Management Plan have been prepared by Callaghan and Toth, which aims to address the impacts and proposes stormwater treatments for the proposed poultry farm operations.

The report details how the proposed treatment train is capable of removing nutrients and heavy metals from the poultry shed areas.  However, it does not adequately address how the spreading of the litter will be managed with regard to nutrient and stormwater runoff.  In particular, there is uncertainty with regard to nutrient uptake from the application of litter on the avocado orchard and how this will be managed.

Guidelines used by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry indicate that approximately 38% of phosphorus in poultry litter is in the available water soluble form.  This results in the manure being more prone to being transported in a leaching or runoff event.  In addition, the orchard is of a relatively low tree density and cover on steep land, and these factors would increase the likely risk of nutrient transport in runoff events.

Callaghan and Toth’s report for the applicant indicates that the use of poultry litter to fertilise the existing avocado trees will be managed, to ensure nutrient levels do not exceed current application rates of commercial fertiliser.  However, there is uncertainty involved with the information provided about the new fertiliser regime of spreading the manure on the existing avocado orchard, in terms of the effects on water quality entering the Mary River tributary.  Council’s specialists advise that, while the receiving vegetation environment may not be significantly affected by increased phosphorous levels, there is insufficient quantitative information provided about the specific design of the catchments within the avocado orchard, to assess all the potential impacts on the adjoining waterways.  Notwithstanding this, it must be acknowledged that poultry manure could be spread on the avocado orchard now, with no approval required from council, although this is unlikely to occur as frequently compared with the proposed poultry farm operations.

Visual Amenity

For development on sloping sites and ridgelines, The Noosa Plan seeks for buildings and structures to be responsive to the natural topography and landscape character.  The proposed development is for 8 x 100m to 130m long x 5m high sheds along the existing ridgelines of the site.  Large quantities of cut and fill are required on the existing ridgelines, to accommodate not only the sheds, but also the roads for trucks to service each of them and 300m long x 20m wide bunded litter storage areas.  Retaining structures are required in some locations, which include a height difference of approximately 8m between the floor levels and the existing hillslopes.

The applicant proposes to screen the buildings and structures by finishing the sheds in muted tones, and using existing avocado trees along the sides of the slopes.  However, due to the nature of the cut and fill to accommodate the buildings, roads and bunded areas on the ridgelines, there are some locations where vegetation screening will be ineffective.
CONSULTATION
IDAS Referral Agencies
The application was referred to the following IDAS referral agencies:
Concurrence
Department of Transport and Main Roads

The department is a concurrence agency for the application, as the proposal exceeds the threshold for development impacting on State transport infrastructure (>200,000 poultry).  The department responded by letter dated 13 December 2012 stating that they have no requirements.
Advice
Powerlink

The department is an advice agency for matters associated with the Eerwah Vale Transmission Line Corridor.  The department responded by letter dated 20 December 2012 stating that all buildings shall not extend into their electricity easement area, also the proposed gravel road within the easement shall maintain a minimum 20m separation from the edge of Powerlink’s structure footings.
Third Party Advice
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

The department does not have any formal role in the assessment of this application.  At the time the application was made (21/11/12) the application involved prescribed ERA 4 Poultry Farming in which the administration and enforcement is devolved to Local Government under the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008.

On 31 March 2013, the State Government introduced the Greentape Reduction Act 2012 which resulted in changes to the prescribed Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) in the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008.  The administration and enforcement of this ERA is now devolved to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.  This means council will no longer be responsible for enforcement of the farm if it became operational.

The department’s Senior Environmental Scientist, responsible for poultry farms, provided advice to council as a third party advice agency.  The advice is of a general nature and provided links to the department’s guidelines relating to avocado growing and using poultry litter on pastures, which is incorporated into this report.
Other Referrals
Internal
The application was forwarded to the following internal council specialists and their assessment forms part of this report:

Development Engineer, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch
Hydraulics and Water Quality Specialist, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch
Landscape Officer, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch
Environment Officer, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch
Urban Designer, Planning Assessment Branch and
Traffic Engineering, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch.
Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.  12 properly made submissions and 118 not properly made (late) submissions were received.  Of the 130 total submissions, 101 are objecting and 29 supporting the application.  A map of the nearby submitters is provided below:

The following table provides a summary and assessment of the issues raised by submitters.

Issues	Comments
Operations Broiler shed production is now a synchronized operation, rather than staged. This streamlines production but means enormous volumes of odourous shed litter require processing in huge batches at each shed clean out.	The Preliminary Operational Management Plan calculates the total amount of shed litter potentially generated by a full shed cleanout to be 1,027m3 per batch. No quantitative data has been provided to estimate the odour emissions from this source.
Noise Impacts Noise impacts on neighbouring dwelling as a result of day and night operations, including ventilation, shed clean out and traffic.	No road improvements have been suggested by the applicant to suppress increased sound pressure emissions from trucks travelling along the associated roads, both day and night. All other noise impacts from the sheds are considered to comply with the relevant noise criteria.
Odour Impacts Odour impacts will adversely affect the neighbouring residents.	The odour modeling fails to account for the impacts associated with the stockpiling of manure and spreading on the existing avocado orchard. The report also does not satisfy the QLD Odour Guidelines of 2.5 odour units = C99.5 1hr for the neighbouring property at 146 Top Forestry Road.
Dust Impacts The dust problems will adversely affect the neighbouring residents.	The modeling of the dust impacts associated with the cleanout of the sheds indicates no nuisance to neighbouring dwellings. However, no modeling has been undertaken to assess the dust impacts as a result of the increased truck movements along Top Forestry Road. These movements have the potential to cause a nuisance to neighbours, especially during the second stages of the batch cycle, which involves increased truck movements throughout the day and night.
Shed Waste and Fertilizer Application Waste litter storage area massively increased from 280m2 to 5,273m2, an area equivalent to 3 more broiler sheds. Applicant now plans to remove waste litter off the property that can’t be stockpiled. Composting times of 4-5 weeks are less than half that of industry standards for full composting and therefore no thorough treatment of the pathogens. No gradient plan to determine appropriate litter spreading sites as per Department of Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) guidelines. Revised tree audit fails to account for the hundreds of avocado trees to be removed for the huge new compost litter zones. Revised agronomist’s report does not take differing ages and conditions of existing trees in composted litter application data. No information supplied of similar broiler operations that are using on-site processed litter material on tree crops.	The potential impacts associated with the reuse of spent poultry litter back on to the existing avocado orchard have not been satisfied or addressed. The proposal includes reduced composting times compared to DAFF guidelines, and there is ambiguity in the nutrient uptake of the avocado orchard from poultry manure. DAFF guidelines are only available about the reuse of this spent litter on existing pastures over large areas and infrequent spreading regimes. Furthermore, any spent litter that is not to be used on the site is planned to be removed from the site and sold to local farms. The traffic report does not appropriately consider this aspect of the proposal, resulting in additional truck movements from the site.
Traffic The roads servicing the site are inappropriate for the use of B double and other heavy vehicles, with no plan to improve the surface of Top Forestry Rd or ameliorate the dust nuisance to properties along the road. No traffic plan has been provided for heavy vehicles passing through the town of Cooroy, heading south to the Bruce Highway. Is it a true assessment of how many trucks will be using this road and will it be 7 days a week? (No accounting for the traffic generated by the heavy vehicles removing excess shed litter from the property and no accounting for any extra staff movements or dead bird removal in the traffic plan). A school bus stop is near the site and no consideration has been given to pedestrians.	The poultry use requires servicing by a mix of semi-trailers and truck and dog combinations (litter delivery, bird delivery and collection, dead bird collection) and 19m b-doubles for the delivery of feed. These types of trucks are small enough not to require an approved B Double route. A further revision to the traffic plan was received to council on the 24 September 2013, showing truck movements from the Highway to Myall St, Crystal St, Maple St, Cooroy Belli Creek Rd, Old Ceylon Rd, Top Forestry Rd and then the site. The main traffic concern involves the use of the currently unsealed and constrained Top Forestry Road. The proposal undercounts truck movements to and from the site and does not account for excess shed litter. Road improvements will be an unreasonable cost to improve the safety for all users of Top Forestry Road.
Visual Amenity The sheds and associated earthworks will have a visual impact to the surrounding houses. Too many signs will have to be erected along the roads warning of trucks etc. The proposal is completely out of scale with other agricultural uses.	The development involves substantial cut and fill on the existing ridgelines to accommodate the sheds, roads and litter storage areas. Vegetated screening is unlikely to be successful due to the sites slope and significant earthworks proposed.
Water Quality Rainfall data has been taken from Tewantin, whereas the rainfall totals in the Top Forestry area have been a lot more in the previous three years. Impacts on the tributary to the Mary River.	The water quality specialists consider the rainfall data used to be adequate for this location. However, there is uncertainty regarding the water quality impacts associated with the application of spent litter on the existing avocado orchard. MUSIC modeling does not apply to calculate the impacts, as this is predominantly an urban catchment model and assess different nutrient criteria.
Public Notification Residents along Top Forestry Road advise that there was a lack of signs along Top Forestry Road	The applicant’s consultant advises that he carried out the public notification for the application in accordance with the Act’s requirements and did maintain a sign to this road frontage.
Submissions in support The applicant has a proven track record and is a skilled operator Significant investment in local economy The proposal will create additional employment Is consistent with planning scheme and impacts are addressed appropriately	Were the application to be approved, the approval is for the site, not the operator. The proposal is not consistent with the planning scheme as the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the impacts can be mitigated appropriately.

DRAFT SUNSHINE COAST PLANNING SCHEME
The proposal is defined in the rural activity group being an Intensive Animal Industry– Poultry and located within the Rural Zone of the draft Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme.

The application would trigger impact assessment under the draft planning scheme, as the development involves more than 1,000 birds and would be affected by the following overlays:
Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands – Waterways: Stream Oder 1-2 & 3-4
Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands – Riparian Protection Area
Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands – Native Vegetation Area
Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands – Koala Habitat Area
Bushfire Hazard – High Hazard Area
Height of Buildings and structures – 8.5 metres
Landslide Hazard Area
Regional Infrastructure – High Voltage Electricity Line and Buffer and
Scenic Amenity – Scenic Route.
The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the potential adverse impacts can be appropriately mitigated in accordance with the draft Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme. However, it should be noted that on 18 March 2013 council resolved to not include the Noosa Planning Scheme area in the yet to be finalised Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme due to de-amalgamation of the Noosa area on 1 January 2014.
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the proposed poultry farm does not meet The Noosa Plan provisions.  While the site is zoned Rural, the access and location is not suitable for such an intensive animal husbandry use.  The proposed development does not achieve sufficient separation distances from the surrounding residents, so as to avoid adverse odour impacts on residents’ amenity.  The applicant has not provided sufficient details on the potential emissions from manure stockpiles and manure spreading to demonstrate that the poultry farm complies with the Queensland odour guidelines for rural zoned land.  The closest houses to the site are also at risk of distinct odour impacts at times, with the applicant’s report failing to address one of the sensitive receiver locations.

The proposal will also generate significant traffic movements, impacting on the traffic safety of Top Forestry Road, with the applicants proposed improvements not sufficient to provide the necessary safe environment.  It is neither feasible nor reasonable to condition for the developer to construct the necessary improvements to this road, given the topography and the extent of works required to achieve a reasonable standard.  Traffic movements are also likely to adversely impact on residents’ amenity due to dust and noise generation on Top Forestry Road.  Collection of birds is also likely to be through the night during the peak batch cycle, affecting residents living along the route, particularly the residential streets in the Cooroy township.

It is, therefore, recommended that the application be refused.

[word/header1.xml]
ATTACHMENT 1

[Attachment: image10.png (image text)]
‘ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 412 DECEMBER 2013

 

“+The applicant seoks that council enter ini infrastruture agreement for S0% ofthe
‘ost to upgrade the mos crtical bend on Top Ferestry load. No infrastructure
‘2gfeement has been provided or any details ofthe Ikaly scope and cost of he works.

‘+The proposed trp numbers detailed inthe applicant's revised table fers significardly
{tom the information previously provided to counel bythe applicant for feed deliveries
‘and information gained by oficrs from the industry and eauncls odour consultant
including:

‘9 Max Watterson & Associates 5/11/13 — maximum 3,960 and minimum of
3.210 bids por tuck

‘2. MWA Envianmantal attachment 6/1113 — caloulates 5212 bids per ruck

(©. Hayes Trafic Engineering tachment example — calculates 6,633 birds por
truck

12 AWA Environmental attachment 6/118 — maximum of 154 feed deliveries in
fone cycle

‘2. Max Watterson & Associates advice on site meeting with councilors —
‘maximum of 12 rps in any one day

(9 Max Waterson & Associates 2/12/13 average number of birds per ruck 5011
‘and maximum of 26 rps in any one day

‘@- Max Watterson & Associates 2/12/13 maximum of 52 feed deliveries in one

eye.
‘Officers have nt been abe o tablish satisfactory in the time permited the
‘accuracy or otherwies ofthe information now supplies by the applicant.

Previous Council Resolution
Ocdinar 14 November 2013 (Council Resolution OMI3422

ITEM 72.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY TYPE 2
INTENSIVE (POULTRY FARM) AT 136 TOP FORESTRY ROAD,
RIDGEWOOD

‘That Council defer consideration of appication No. MCU12/0184 fr @ Development Permit
{or Material Change of Use for Animal Husbandry Type 2— Intensive (Poully Farm) and
Envionmentaly Relevant Acialy (ERA 4 ~ Poully Farming), situated at 136 Top Forestry
FR, Ridgewood fo the nex! Counel meeting and request the applicant fo provide the
Tellowing adtional information:

 

1. total vehicle tps including details of size of vehicles, purpose ofp, time of tip and
‘number of tps per day

2. feasibly of requirements fo provide to seal to 50m in rot of affected properties an Top
Foresiry Road ort enter into an infrastructure agreement with councl!

2. composting and stockpiling methodology including data on management of emissions
during these processes

4. water quality management particularly addressing potential impacts rom use of shed
‘waste and composting materia for fering the orchard and any associated run of nd

5. feasibity on reduction of size and numberof sheds.

 

‘Sunshine Coast Regional Council (OM Updated Page 12 of 26


[Attachment: image11.png (image text)]
‘ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 412 DECEMBER 2013

critical Dates

“There has bean no formal extension of the decision making period. The applicant has the
‘recourse to ther wat for Councis decision, or seek o pursue a ‘deemed refusal ofthe
‘applicaon wih the Planning and Environment Court.

‘CONSULTATION
Internal

‘Advice has been sought from the folowing specaiss, with their comments included within
the report:

“+ Trafie Engineering Specaist;

“+ Gil Enginesring Specialist;

“+ Water Quality Speci;

“+ Environmental Specials; and

“+ External Environmental Consultant.

‘CONCLUSION

tis concluded thatthe actional information provided by the applicant does not satistactrly
adress officers concems with the proposed pouty farm and therefore ofces confi thei
‘orignal recommendation for refusal. Thee sl maine significant conceme regarding the
‘edour report and there fs no agreement by the applicant ofthe extent of road works to
‘rovide the necessary safe anvrerment on Top Forestry Road


[Attachment: image3.png (image text)]
‘ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 42DECEMBER 2013

7 REPORTS DIRECT To COUNCIL.
7.4 REGIONAL STRATEGY AND PLANNING

74.2. UPDATED REPORT - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR ANIMAL
HUSBANDRY TYPE 2 INTENSIVE (POULTRY FARM) AT 136 TOP
FORESTRY ROAD, RIDGEWOOD

File No: mcurzo1e4
‘Author: Development Planner

Regional Strategy & Planning Department
‘Attachments: _Att 1 - Revised Heavy Vehicle Estimation... AS

 

 

‘Att 2 - Proposed Upgrades to Top Forestry Road .v.ncn.0 17

EE3 - Odour Models ee

   

 

In November 2013, coun deferred consideration ofa Development plication for Material
‘Change of Use for Animal Husbandry Type 2 (Poultry Farm) and Environmentally Relevant
‘Actvty (ERA 4 ~ Poulty Farming) at 136 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood requesting the
‘applicant provide adaional information onthe proposal

“The purpose ofthis repr iso summarise the tional information received and provide @
furter assessment.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

‘Since counts Ordinary Meeting of 14 November 2013 offcers met wih the applicant to
‘scuse counel's request for additonal information and associated issues wih the proposed
jpoulty farm. Further witten details wore subsequently provided bythe applicant on 2
December 2013, including advice thatthe masimum number of birds proposed is 235,554;
{urhor deals of raffle mavement:revied odour madling anc canimation that some
‘additonal upgrades to Top Forestry Road would be undertaken.

Review of he aditonal information provided by the applicant concludes that there are sila
‘numberof unanswered issues surrounding the proposed pouty farm including:

“+The odour repr falls to take nto accaunt a nearby receptor (house), and does not
_alicfactory resolve odour leaves fora numberof houses curenty owned by tha
‘applicant. The odour modeling also doesnot adress the manure spreading but
‘Simply proposes some management measures for coir ofthe expected odour.

“+The Wafc details identity that ruck movements wil be less than officers identified in
the previous report to counci, wth these numbers unable to be ful veried by
‘officers in time forthe Ordinary meeting. Notuihstanding this the number of heavy
‘Yeh submited by the applicant rains significant and wil adversely impact on
‘the oad safety of Top Forestry Road and forthe amenity of residents ving along the
‘proposed travel route

‘+ Loading ofthe ve birds is proposed to commence at 2:30am but no deals have
‘been provided ofthe numberof vehicles that wil tavelo and from the ste at is
time,

‘+ Sealing of Top Forestry Roads now proposed within 50 metres ofa houses and an
Infrastucture Agreement is proposed with councl fr ha the cost of the worst bend
‘on Top Foresty Road. Council's trafic engineer considers the existing road sufficient
{cater forthe existing use and thatthe necessary road improvements ought to be

‘Sunshine Coast Regional Council "OM Updated Page 5 of 26


[Attachment: image4.png (image text)]
‘ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013

 

undertaken by the pouty farm operator and not council. Further, the proposed
Improvements are not adequate to cate forthe number of heavy vehicle movements
{kal to be generated and no Infrastructure Agreement has beon provided by the
‘ppiicant.

‘+ No additonal stormwater details have been provided to demonstrat thatthe water
‘ually of nearby crooks wil not be adversely impacted upon. Notwithstanding tris
|S considered that this specific matter could be adcressed by suable conditions.

tis concuded that the ational information provided by the applicant doesnot satisfactorily
‘adress officers concerns with the proposed pouty farm and therefore ofcers confim their
‘orginal recommendation for refusal

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

‘That Council Refuse Application No. MCU12/0184 fora Development Permit for
Material Change of Use for Animal Husbandry Type 2~ Intensive (Poultry Farm) and
Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA 4 - Poultry Farming), situated at 136 Top
Forestry Ri, Ridgewood for te following reasons:

|. the proposed poutry 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

the proposed poultry farm does not achieve sufficient separation
distance from surrounding residents so as to avoid adverse odour
Impacts on residents" amenity, with insufficient detals provided on the
‘emissions from manure stockpiles, manure spreading, and for one of the
Closest sensitive receiver locations

the proposal will have unacceptable impacts on the safety of Top
Forestry Road and the proposed road improvements are not sufficient to
provide the necessary safe environment

lv, traffic generated by the development proposed will have significant
‘adverse impacts on the amenity of residents, given Top Forestry Road is
unsealed and bird collection is likely to be through the night and

\. The proposed sheds and earthworks necessary for shed construction is.
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,

1f councl were to approve this development, the applicant would be required to pay
Infrastucure charges for trunk infrastructure.

Councits Infrastucure Policy Branch has provided the following estimate of the
Infrastucure charges requited by this development:

 

‘Sunshine Coast Regional Council ‘OM Updated Page 6 of 26


[Attachment: image5.png (image text)]
‘ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013

 

 

‘Allocation of adopted infrastructure charge to trunk
‘Amount Payable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Transport 156.672
Public Parks & Land for Community Facies sz7.548
[TOTAL (June 2013 index) = 104,320
PROPOSAL

“The application seeks approval fora Material Change of Use for Animal Husbandry Type 2—
Intensive (Poultry Fam) and Environmentally Relevant Actviy (ERA 4 - Poultry Farming),
‘uated at 136 Top Forestry Ra, Ridgewood.

“The development valves the constuction of 8x 100m to 120m long x 16m wide sheds
long the idgeline ofthe site, and proposes to carry in the ordr of 235,554 bids a any one
{ime. This sa reduction to tho number of birds previously proposed of between 250,000 —
‘300,000 birds. The applicant indicates the process involves rearing day old chicks to
Chickens fra period of 6-9 wesks, before being removed from the sta for chicken meat
production (bach cyte).

Food forthe bird, is brought onto the st throughout the batch cycle by 19m B-doubls with
‘liveries generaly made between Bam to 4pm and focused mostly during the fist half ofthe
batch cycle (weeks 1-5). The grown chickens are then removed from the ste during wecks
'5- Bcommencing at 2:30am when the birds aro less active.

 

“The applicant proposes that upon completion ofthe bird growing cyte, the sheds aro
‘leaned out and prepared for the next batch cycle over at - 2week period. Spent liter frm
‘the sheds is proposed tobe stockpiled within 2 bunded areas fra period of 4 to 5 weeks,
botore being spread ono the existing avocado orchard. The bunded areas have a total ine!
stance of 300m x 20m wide and are located adjacent o the proposed sheds.

‘A Preliminary Operational Management Plan has been prepared bythe applicant to address
‘the operation ofthe proposed pouty farm and the existing avocado fam.

Background
“The locaton ofthe subject sien elation to ts surrounds is shown onthe image below:

 

‘Sunshine Coast Regional Councit (OM Updated Page 7 of 26


[Attachment: image6.png (image text)]
‘ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT ‘12 DECEMBER 2013

 

[Alls Ordinary Meeting on 14 November 2013 council defered consideration tothe next
‘Council meeting and requested the appicant provide the folowing addtional information:

1. otal vehicle tps including deals of siz of vehicles, purpose of tip, tim of tip and
numberof tips per day

2. feasiity of requirements to prove to seal to 50m in fron of affected properties an Top
Forestry Road oro enter into an infrastructure agreement with councl

3. composting and stockping methodology including data on management of emissions
during those processes

4. water qualty management particularly addressing potential impacts from use of shed
waste and composting material for ferising the orchard and any associated run off and

5. feasitity on reduction of size and numberof sheds

‘A meting was held withthe applicant and thei consultants onthe 20 November, ociscuss
‘Counc’ request or further details and officer's coneems, including the flowing:

+ Councits odour consultan's concems with the odour modeling undertaken of the
proposal

‘+ Arevised table to be provided, similar othe table included inthe ofcar's report to
council, clearly dealing the Ikely maximum vehiclafrp numbers including vehicle
|ypes on @ weekly and daly basis, including travel times.

+ Evicence of maximum number of birds able fo be transported ona sing truck atthe
diferent growing stages.

+ Review and provide further detais ofthe likely upgrading requirements for Top
Forestry Rd, simiarto th details provided for he Internal driveway fo ensure Top

 

 

‘Sunshine Coast Regional Council ‘OM Updated Page 8 of 26


[Attachment: image7.png (image text)]
‘ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013

 

Forestry Road achieves the necessary safe envcrment, including consideration on
‘sealing and road widening fo allow two tucks to pass one another.

‘+ Confirmation of the maximum numberof birds tobe kept in the sheds with
‘consideration given fo reducing the numberof chickens on site.

“The applicant provided a formal response tothe request for ational information onthe 2
December 2013. An assesement ofthe acstonal information is provides Below.

‘ASSESSMENT

1. Total vehicle trips including details of sizeof vehicles, purpose of trp, time of
tip and number of tips per day.

“The applicant has provided a revised table ofthe daly vehicle movements, including the ype
‘of vehices, purpose of the kp and travel times, which i included as Attachment 1.

“The revised tabla has been updated to reflect he proposed maximum numberof birds as
235,554 and indicates that delivery of feed willbe spread over addtional days, concentrated
inthe frst half of tho 0 week batch cycle (weeks 1 ~ 5) and so avoid Ive bi pick up mes
{towards the end ofthe baich cycle (weeks 5-2). The applicants revised table also indicates
‘tha feed delve wil now be spread over 16 days, with upto 4 heavy vehicle ips for feed
{liveries proposed in any one day Live bid pick up wil now be spread over 5 days for
‘each batch cycle, with between 20-25 heavy vehicle trips using the road rom 20am
onwards

“The proposed trip numbers detailed in the applicants revised table fers significantly from
‘the information previously provided to councl by the applicant for feed deliveries and
Information gained by offers from the industry and councis odour consultant
NNotwthstanaing this, Counei's Traffe Engineer confirms that even with the revised trac
‘movements the planned Wafc demand wil sil require signticant improvements to Top
Forestry Road, so as to ensure the safety of Top Forestry Road. The proposed pick up times
{or live birds silat ail raiaessignficant amenity concems fr residents. parila or
‘those residents ving along the travel route through tha residential streets of Coory.

2. Feasibility of requirements to provide fo seal to 50m infront of affected

‘properties on Top Forestry Road orto enter into an infrastructure agreement
‘with council.

‘A plan has been prepared by Callaghan & Toth Engineers showing Top Forestry Road to be
‘sealed within 50m ofacjacent dwolings. The plan includes 5 sections ofthe road to be
‘sealed, totaling 38 1m ofthe existing 13km travel route on Top Forestry Road. The applicant
Inicales they are wiling to accept a condition forthe sealing ofthese sections, subject to a
‘subsequent Operational Works approval.

“The applicant alo concedes thatthe existing road bend located adjacent to 111 and 124
“Top Forestry Road is of nsuficientwicth to accommodate two trucks to pass. A concept plan

‘has been provided including widening ofthe read formation, with stone pitched retaining
als on each sie ofthe road. A copy ofthe proposed works is incuded as Attachment 2.

“The applicant considers the current situation is inadequate forthe existing trafic usage and
‘seeks Council to enter into an infrastructure agreement o pay @ contribution of 50% of the
‘ost for improvernens to Top Forestry Road at this bend. No Getalls as to the cos of road
Improvements have been submitted ora signed Inastructure Agreement.

 

‘Sunshine Coast Regional Councit (OM Updated Page 9 of 26


[Attachment: image8.png (image text)]
‘ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013

 

Counc Trafic Engineer advises thatthe current width of the road is sufficint forts
predominant rural residential use ands being maintained by councl twice a year, 25 2
‘Sesignated school bus route and therefor all acessary improvements should be
Undertaken by the applicant and no council. Counells Trafic Engineer also advises thatthe
‘ad improvements offered by the applicant are not considered sutable to cater forthe
‘number of heavy vehicles expected tobe generated by the pouty farm. In order forthe
‘Safety and amenity concems to be properly adaressed, Councl's Trafic Engineer
‘recommends Top Forestry Road ba sealed fr as enti length and tha road widened to allow
{wo trucks to pass one another.

Infrastructure agreements allow local governments and developers to negotiate and agree on
‘speci arrangements for he frastrature networks that euppor developments, The
process for negotiating an infrastructure agreement must be undertaken privet issuing a
‘evelopment approval, n order to ensure the works are sacured. In egard tothe
infrastructure agreement proposed by the appcant. itis not appropriate for Counc to enter
Jito an agreement without ary detas as othe scope and cost ofthe works.

3. Composting and stockpiling methodology including data on management of
‘emissions during these processes

“The applicant's consultant performed futher odour modeling of the sheds and iter

stockpiles only, wih no modeling undertaken forthe manure spreading, instead proposing @

‘number of management techniques to minimise tha potential for dour nuisance. The further

‘madeling results in a much lager odour fetprin than thal which was orginally submited

withthe application. The modeling results are included as Attachment 3.

During the review ofthe most recent modeling, i was identified that a sense receptor was
‘not included. This missed receptor i located at 185 Top Forestry Road, and is 750m tothe
‘south of the subject sit (see Altachment 3) and it appears the receptor maybe within the
25 cdour init modeled. Accordingly counci's odour consultant advises thatthe actual
Concentration at this sensitive receptors uncertain and should therefore be analysed further.

“The odour modeling considers the cumulative impacts of the shed and sockpiing area
{assuming good management ofboth), but no modeling has boen undertaken to assess the
Impacts associated with spreading of the manure. While modeling ofthe manure spreading
was not considered feasible by the applicant, councs odour consultant describes ther
‘cases where spreading has been modeled to determine the impacts. The modeling of
‘Spreacing could lead toa situation where the predicted odour impacs increase and the 2.5
‘cour ints are nt mat for a numberof nearby houses.

CCounci'sconsutant comments that the proposed management measures to contol the
‘emissions fom the liter stockpiles and spreasing management may potently reduce the
‘isk of adverse ost odour impacts. However, the management measures are ikely tobe
‘onerous for ongeing pouty farm operations and cific to enforce by councl.

“The applicant acknowledges that several properties onned by themselves are adversaly
Impacted upon by the odour associated with the development. To address this issue, the
‘applicant proposes the inclusion ofthe following coniion:

‘The pouty farm can only operate as long as Lots 20 & 22 on SP 226606, Lot 1 on SP
100788 and Lot 204 on RP802484 are owned and occupied by the operator or an
‘employee ofthe pouty farm. Inthe event thatthe lands are not owned and occupied by

 

‘Sunshine Coast Regional Council ‘OM Updated Page 10 of 26


[Attachment: image9.png (image text)]
‘ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 412 DECEMBER 2013

 

‘the aperator an employee of the poultry fam, the farm can only operate when the odour
limits are below 25 odour unit.

‘Counc’ solicitor advises that this would be an inappropriate condton to adress the
‘tential odour nuisance for these ois and thats Ika tobe shown to be unlawful and not
‘rors.

‘4. Water quality management particularly addressing potential impacts from use
of shed waste and composting material for fertlising the orchard and any
‘associated run of.

“The applicant has not proved any futher quantatve information about the specific design
‘ofthe catchments within the avocado orchar Notwithstanding this, Counes water quality

‘Spedalist advises the applicant has demonstrated that stormwater quality pollion reduction
{Targets can be met for the dovelopment’s sheds, roads and bunded areas provided they are
‘sealed,

In rogards to the spreading of ter over the existing orchard, the applicant indicates the
‘orchard curently includes a vegetated bufer located along the watercourses and the
‘Spreading of the compost wil only be undertaken within the orchard area which would not
ead to any further impacts than what could curently occur on the sta. Councis|
‘environmental specialists advises thal providing vegetation buffers are maintained tothe
‘crooks and water monitoring fs undertaken, the proposals unlikely to have any adverse
impacts.

5. Feasibility on reduction of size and number of sheds.

“The applicant originally proposed the construction of @ poultry sheds 160m long, which
Ingham incite isthe industry standard for new farms. During the detaled design stage,
the sheds have been reduced to average lengths of 105m. The applicant also indicates that
‘they into to adopt RSPCA stocking densiy ratios of 172 birds per square metre, therefore
‘the maximum ictal number of birds possible atthe ste is 235 554

“The Queensland Farming Manager of Inghams has provided writen conrmation that most
‘naw faites have a capacity of 240,000 birds and tata capacity of less than 200,000 may
‘ot be viable. As result, the applicant does not consider it feasible to reduce the number of
‘Sheds onthe ie,

Legal
‘Advice has boon sought from councs solicitor rgasing the applicant's proposed condtion|

to adkress odour impacts on adjoining lis. Counc’ soior advises that this skal to Bo
‘shown fo bs an unlawful condition and not abla to be enforced.

isk

“There are significant sks in approving the current application, based onthe current
Information provided by the applicant as:

‘+The odour modeling has identified thatthe Queensland odour guidetines wil not be
‘met fora number of properties, with no detaled analysis undertaken for 1 receptor
‘and no edour modeling undertaken forthe proposed manure spreading,

‘+The applicant's proposed extent of road works are not considered sutabe to cater for
the numberof heavy vehicles expected to be generated bythe pouty farm and the
‘applicant has provided no agreement tothe exlent of roadworks ofcars have
‘ented as necessary.

 

‘Sunshine Coast Regional Council ‘OM Updated Page 11 of 26