Original source · versioned page text
2014-09-16 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (16.6 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
Planning & Organisation
Committee Meeting
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
commencing at 1.30pm
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair), Noel Playford, Joe Jurisevic, Tony Wellington
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of sections 2 to 78 (of 141)
Section 2
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
PLANNING & INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT REPORTS 3
DA Planning & Environment 3
1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY BUILDING WORKS
ASSESSABLE AGAINST THE PLANNING SCHEME FOR ADDITIONS TO A
DETACHED HOUSE 19 ALLAMBI RISE NOOSA HEADS - PBA14/0017 3
2 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY TYPE 2
- INTENSIVE) AND ENVIRONMENTALLY RELEVANT ACTIVITY (ERA 4 -
POULTRY FARMING) SITUATED AT 136 TOP FORESTRY ROAD, RIDGEWOOD
MCU12/0184 23
3 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPE 4
CONVENTIONAL (4 UNITS) AND ASSOCIATED OPERATIONAL WORKS
SITUATED AT 28 NANNYGAI STREET, NOOSAVILLE MCU14/0051 &
OPW14/0274 69
4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR RECONFIGURING A LOT - 1 LOT INTO 2
LOTS AND AN ACCESS EASEMENT AT 22 & 23 EDWARD STREET, COORAN
REC14/0002 93
Strategic Land Use Planning 109
5 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BILL 2014 AND PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT
COURT BILL 2014 109
CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS 115
6 ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE POLICY REPORT 115
7 2014/15 NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY REFORM APPLICATION 119
Finance 122
8 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT AUGUST 2014 122
ICT 131
9 TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES UPDATE 131
Revenue Services 133
10 JULY 2014 RATE LEVY 133
EXECUTIVE OFFICE REPORTS 137
Community Engagement 137
11 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROJECT NEWDEMOCRACY FOUNDATION 137
CLOSED SESSION 141
12 CLOSED SESSION ITEM - ACCESS ISSUE WALTER
HAY DRIVE - NOOSA ON WEYBA - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
APPEAL (NORTHBROOK) - MCU12.0208 141
Page 2 of 145
Section 3
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
PLANNING & INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT REPORTS
(Planning & Development Sections only)
DA Planning & Environment
1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY BUILDING WORKS
ASSESSABLE AGAINST THE PLANNING SCHEME FOR ADDITIONS TO A
DETACHED HOUSE 19 ALLAMBI RISE NOOSA HEADS - PBA14/0017
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Planning Technical Officer, Glen Conforti
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM / Application / PBA14/0017
Attachments 1. Locality Plan
2. Proposal Plans
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant R. & C Kimberley c/ Tim Ditchfield Architects
rd
Proposal 3 storey addition to a detached house
Properly Made Date 20 August 2014
Information Request Date Not Applicable
Information Response Date Not Applicable
Decision Due Date 18 September 2014
Number of Submissions Not Applicable
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 19 Allambi Rise, Noosa Heads
RP Description Lot 2 RP121805
Land Area 759m²
Existing Use of Land Dwelling
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Noosa Heads
Zone Detached Housing
Overlays No Applicable Overlays
Assessment Type Preliminary Building Works Assessable against the Planning
Scheme
Page 3 of 145
Section 4
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Planning Technical Officer to the Planning &
Organisation Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2014 regarding application
PBA14/0017 for Preliminary Building Works Assessable against the Planning Scheme – 3
storey addition at 19 Allambi Rise, Noosa Heads and approve the application in accordance
with the following conditions:
PLANNING
When Conditions must be Complied With
1. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of this Decision Notice must be complied with
prior to the use commencing, and then compliance maintained at all times while the
use continues.
Approved Plans
2. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with
the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following
table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan name, prepared by Date
DD 1.01 P1 P1 Site Plan, prepared by Tim Ditchfield Architects 01/08/14
DD 2.04 P1 P1 Undercroft Floor Plan, prepared by Tim Ditchfield 01/08/14
Architects
DD 2.03 P1 P1 Lower Ground Floor, prepared by Tim Ditchfield 01/08/14
Architects
DD 2.03 P1 P1 Upper Ground Floor, prepared by Tim Ditchfield 01/08/14
Architects
DD 2.02 P1 P1 First Floor, prepared by Tim Ditchfield Architects 01/08/14
DD 2.05 P1 P1 Roof Plan, prepared by Tim Ditchfield Architects 01/08/14
DD 3.03 P1 P1 Section C-C, prepared by Tim Ditchfield Architects 01/08/14
DD 4.01 P1 P1 South Elevation, prepared by Tim Ditchfield 01/08/14
Architects
DD 4.02 P1 P1 East Elevation, prepared by Tim Ditchfield 01/08/14
Architects
DD 4.03 P1 P1 North Elevation, prepared by Tim Ditchfield 01/08/14
Architects
DD 4.04 P1 P1 West Elevation, prepared by Tim Ditchfield 01/08/14
Architects
Building Height
3. The maximum height of all new additions to the dwelling must not exceed 8 metres
above the finished ground level and the natural ground surface. The new 3 storey
portion is only permitted where indicated on the approved plans.
Page 4 of 145
Section 5
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
4. Certification must be submitted to Council from a Licensed Surveyor which certifies
that the building does not exceed the maximum height requirement of this Decision
Notice.
Performance Bond
5. Security in the form of a cash bond or trading bank guarantee to the sum of $5,000
must be submitted to Council, to secure performance of all conditions of this approval,
prior to the issue of a Development Permit for Building Works. The cash bond or
trading bank guarantee will be returned on performance of the conditions of approval
less any costs incurred by Council in respect of enforcing performance of this permit.
Council reserves the right to call upon the bond or guaranteed sum to effect
compliance with conditions.
Landscaping
6. The land between the dwelling and the eastern boundary must be reinstated to the
natural ground surface level except for the vehicle access to the north east corner of
the lot.
7. Existing trees on the site and within road reserves must be retained, except where
required to be removed between the dwelling and the eastern boundary.
8. Trees to be retained and must be protected from construction activities by:
a. clearly marking vegetation to be retained with flagging tape
b. installing protective fencing around the drip line of the vegetation
c. restricting stockpiling, storage and vehicle parking to those areas which are
already cleared
d. using low impact construction techniques around vegetation.
9. Screening vegetation must be planted along the eastern boundary in accordance with
Council’s Planning Scheme Policy PSP3 Landscaping Plants and Guidelines. The
planted vegetation must have a minimum pot size of 200mm and consist of native,
endemic species. In this regard, 4 species with a pot size of 45 litres, must be planted
and evenly spaced along the length of the eastern elevation.
Geotechnical Stability
10. All works must be carried out in accordance with a Geotechnical Report for the site
prepared by a qualified person*. Prior to the issue of a Development Permit for
Building Works, certification must be submitted to Council from a qualified person*
which certifies that the site is not at risk from landslide emanating from the site or from
other land.
External Colours
11. External colours and finishes of the building must comprise of muted/environmental
tones that blend with the natural environment to assist the building to blend with the
surrounding vegetation. In this regard, the colour palette must be in accordance with
the colour indicated on the approved plans or alternatively submitted to Council for
approval prior to the issue of Development Permit for Building Works.
ADVISORY NOTES
The following notes are included for guidance and information purposes only and do
not form part of the assessment manager conditions:
Page 5 of 145
Section 6
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Development Compliance Inspection
1. Prior to the commencement of the use, please contact Council's Planning Assessment
Branch to arrange a Development Compliance Inspection.
* Qualified Person – Geotechnical Stability
2. For the purpose of preparing a Geotechnical Report, and for certifying geotechnical
stability for the development, a qualified person0 is considered to be a person who:
a. is a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ); and
b. has a degree in civil engineering or engineering geology; and
c. has a minimum of 5 years’ experience in the field of geotechnical engineering or
engineering geology.
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The application seeks Preliminary Building Approval for renovations to a detached house.
The proposal includes a third storey within the front 6m setback, a new single vehicle
garage, the rendering of existing block and brick work, replacing the decking and a general
refurbishment of the internal layout. Given the steep slope, various areas of the existing
dwelling exceed the 8 metre building height in metres requirement of the Building Works
Code. In this regard, all new additions, including the proposed 3rd storey, are less than 8m
above the finished ground level and the natural ground surface.
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Site Description
The lot fronts a small service type road off the main Allambi Rise, which services only the
subject dwelling, one other single dwelling and 2 multiple dwellings. The lot slopes steeply
from east to west at an approximate rate of 1:2. However, to avoid the steepest slope of the
land, the majority of the dwelling is nestled towards the eastern boundary, where the slope is
slightly less. Significant vegetation exists within the site down slope of the dwelling such as
mature Callitris pines, eucalyptus and protruding through the deck, a large Poinciana tree.
2.2. Surrounding Land Uses
Multiple dwellings adjoin to the north and east and detached houses to the south. Given the
steep slope of the surrounding land, premises nearby exceed 8m and are 3 storeys.
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 the application must be assessed against each of
the following statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the
development:
• State Planning Policies;
• the South East Queensland Regional Plan;
• State Planning Regulatory Provisions;
• any Structure Plan or Master Plan in place for declared areas;
• any Preliminary Approval Overriding the Planning Scheme for the land;
• the Planning Scheme for the local government area; and
• any Temporary Local Planning Instrument in place for the local government area.
Page 6 of 145
Section 7
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Of these, the statutory planning instruments relevant to this application are discussed in the
sections that follow.
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan 2009 - 2031
The site is located within the Urban Footprint of the SEQ Regional Plan. The proposal is
consistent with the regional policies of the SEQ Regional Plan.
State Planning Regulatory Provisions
The proposal is for an urban activity within the Urban Footprint and is consistent with the
SEQ Regional Plan Regulatory Provisions
3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The subject site is located in the Noosa Heads Locality and is zoned Semi-Attached
Housing. The proposed use is identified as a consistent use within the zone and is required
to follow a code assessable application process.
Land Use & Works Provisions
The Building Works Code regulates land use and design for this application.
The application has been assessed against Building Works Code and the pertinent issues
arising out of the assessment are discussed below:
Setbacks and Building Height in Storeys
The proposal seeks a 2.5m front setback to construct a bedroom above the existing garage
and thus creating a 3rd storey. The proposed eastern elevation in Figure 1 shows the
location in relation to the front boundary, its presentation to the street and the neighbouring
property and shows the existing dwelling.
Figure 1- Proposed east elevation and existing
Page 7 of 145
Section 8
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Setbacks
The part of Allambi Rise that the premises fronts is unusual as there is no footpath or green
space between the premises and road and therefore, no clear distinction between
public/private spaces. This part of Allambi Rise appears similar to a private driveway shared
by several properties. The photos in Figure 2 below show the only 3 properties that have
direct access from this part of Allambi Rise.
Building Works Code Discussion
Setbacks
O1 Buildings and other structures
are appropriately designed and
sited to—
a) provide amenity for users of the The proposed setback does not create any overlooking or
premises as well as preserve the acoustic issues as there are no windows or doors facing the
visual and acoustic privacy of neighbours and an existing driveway provides adequate
adjoining and nearby land uses; separation for acoustic purposes.
b) preserve any existing vegetation
that will buffer the proposed
building from adjoining uses; There is an existing garden along the eastern boundary with
plants in poor condition. A condition could be imposed to
c) allow for landscaping to be improve this garden with suitable native species.
provided between buildings;
d) maintain the visual continuity and Given the unusual streetscape, as shown in Figure 2, there is
pattern of buildings and landscape no clear public/private delineation and therefore the proposal
elements within the street; would is not out of character with the street.
e) for class 10a structures, do not The garage location remains unchanged with a change to the
visually dominate the street; external material finish only proposed.
Figure 2 - Existing streetscape
Page 8 of 145
Section 9
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Building Height in Storeys
Building Works Code Discussion
Height
O10 Buildings and other
structures–
a) are low rise and present a The proposal being less than 8m, presents a building height in
building height consistent with metres consistent with buildings and structures in the
structures on adjoining and surrounding area. It is noted that various premises nearby are
surrounding land; 3 storeys and exceed 8m. The proposal would not be out of
character with nearby development.
b) have a maximum building height
of–
...v) otherwise - 2 storeys; The new bedroom renders the building 3 storeys. The new
single garage includes a new concrete slab, wall and a
laundry refurbishment in the undercroft floor area which exists
as 3 storeys. Creating the new garage at this level does not
alter the extent of the 3 storey portion of the dwelling.
c) do not visually dominate the The proposal is seen from main beach but given the distance
street, surrounding spaces or the and the existing vegetation, it is unlikely that any recognisable
existing skyline; change would occur to this vista. The applicant has indicated
the intention to use colours that blend with the natural
environment. A condition could be imposed to ensure this is
undertaken. The proposal is not bulky or imposing and would
not visually dominate the street, given that it presents as 2
storeys.
d) preserve the amenity of The proposal preserves amenity in terms of privacy and
surrounding land including privacy, access to sunlight of surrounding land. However, although the
rd
views and access to sunlight; proposal complies with building height in metres, the 3 storey
impedes some secondary south western views from the
neighbouring property to main beach and the hinterland.
These views are filtered through existing significant
vegetation. The photo in Figure 3 shows the area of the roof
and the view likely to be impeded.
The non-compliance is of a technical nature because if the
‘basement cinema’ was converted to subfloor space and
reinstated to the natural surface level, then technically 2
storeys, the proposal would comply with building height in
storeys. Noting also with this, that the external building
elevations would remain unchanged and views from the
neighbouring property would still be impeded. Alternatively, if
a new dwelling was constructed to 8m and 2 storeys with a
nd
6m setback for a 2 storey, the neighbouring views would still
be impeded similarly to that impeded by the current design
proposal.
e) respect the scale of surrounding The proposal will not extend above any of the existing trees
vegetation; growing at a similar level.
Page 9 of 145
Section 10
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Figure 2 - Area of new storey viewed from neighbouring property
4. CONSULTATION
4.1. Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council specialist:
• Engineering
5. CONCLUSION
The proposal is 3 storeys within the front setback and impedes some secondary views from
the neighbouring property. Should alternative options for a 2 storey built form be realised,
the same secondary views are likely to be impeded as impeded by that proposed. In this
context, and that the proposal will not dominate the skyline, the street, adversely affect
privacy or access to sunlight, the proposal meets the provisions of the Building Works Code
and is recommended for approval.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Services X Planning & Infrastructure
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health DA Planning
Community Facilities Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
Asset Planning
Civil Operations
Environment
Executive Office Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 10 of 145
Section 11
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCALITY PLAN
Page 11 of 145
Section 12
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 12 of 145
+ LO
_ a +
al z a
N s | \ RP969GG | Bur2927 | LOT ID So
2 < MH Lot 2 on RPI21805 N
& 2 Wee.te Noosa Shire Council o
o oO “ Parish of WEBYA Da
= wc i & | County of MARCH oS
o Q
Oo ' ms 759 me a
a C So / Common Property | Neighbouring Lot 30
| Z a | BUP4736 $ BUP333
~ 20° 48 30" |
oO xX | 14, 404m / Z
< ia i ] 7 co
E le o Shtse i ee ee
< fb | PaaS ‘il Te —— £ 4
Pg ! | |
Z A a sel | | |
O oO l Xe} | | ~
< . dei]. | | |
Oo |! EN L ‘ | |
é s ea es foot | nt pursods
A Exister
ke ome Lot 2 = = Setback |
Ww oft RP 21805 _$——S ee | ros oh N
Ww inf | Nd a Existing Roofed Deck Existing Roofed Deck
= To satan ° = [nary
Lu chee NB i eel il|
Lu : = —— 2100 Existing First Floor o 2 4 6m
E : Easting | Adjacent Building oS) ee
S | 1 | E rr 3 FFL37.860 | Seale |: 200@A3
= oe poem, UL LUI | Em tenn ta
O ; FFL 37.860 ee ee ELL celts sera see peste Ls ERE
O eS Sy co . es
ing , | ry = . =
e ew ME | uu anes
- 270° |4' 00 ata TTT | I : he ‘ABN 85 114 488 205
aa : s a s
7 Burch 8 Design Studies FRLALA Reg No 002195
x 9 30.376m ] wna MH. A P.O.Bax 1382 Noosavite Cid 4568 atk
n | UL 34.95 ( * iG He aren Se ete we =
2 Y &€ & 8 ¥ ae 8 - Cet
< . ALLAMBI RISE be Ct RKimberey
is Proposed Alterations &
4 AAU ES. PFs * itions to Existing House
Oo eo fast, es 19 Allambi Rise
03 — Noosa Heads
© DEVELOPED DESIGN
Zz Site Plan
‘oe due can
za 1:200 . June 2014 BM .
S 413 DD 1.01 Pt
—
oaSection 13
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 13 of 145
+ w
z , > <
a)
YD) 28 LEGEND S
2 f 780° ate oN ME New Wall °
E Iimber “Ee A aa) Wea + ee ek == _Exsting Wall / Structure o
: Le c :
~ Sceen [ |) 9 = = - Ensting to be removed a
2 | c
© o (~Ee
el | =a
Ce C1 =
ay e —_———_—_____ EEE
< era
Q 8 : I
a ‘| : |= yl "
Exsting rf Returbish } :
xt Deck CF Exsting | C
2 (o . | l
= (B 4--+—--*—+ 1 f—-——-—} a -—- ry
tH Existing Pool Exsting | N
= _] Structure Undercroft |
Ww .
Lu 8 a cy
E © a Pn | 0 1 2 3m
— | Seale 1: 100 @A3
= G © oi oui
8 RB | eee
1
(Gy ] . e — i} eet
S Tim Ditchfield
Y @ “ah architects
- ly \ | 116
< S Heme |} O | cemeeees ite
7 ctura 1 Emat tmgiderccom au -_ =
S . | oe
<x SOR Kietariey
° { D }~ t ES 4; : , hddlons to Bxstng House
O \ } 49 Allambi Rise
og | Site Bound \ \ L Noosa Heads
oO - : DEVELOPED DESIGN
2 Undercroft Floor Plan
Z 1:100 Aug 2014 BM
z ALLAMBI RISE 4413 DD 2.04P1
3 Access Dnveway -rnrnrrrr
aSection 14
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 14 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ate
i ae FAY,
|
|
1e) © 3 g
f a
& ee We toes ez
IF Le es doa || el 3 % V2 li Ll ‘S. Ja gE
iz Te ee
a
m
52308 BF SSE Sse Oe 2es Agee: ope
"? ie i Sle i Wk
lea ES 32 eli Hite - pee B
* Ee Pepeyal Qi ile: sh. peig
gee 83 5 88E oO ih j : sg
ei oP imi Ble * = |
: at ite ll ii
Page 14 of 145Section 15
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 15 of 145
s 2
o iL Ba. o | =
N |
- ‘ LEGEND So
gs 4 A ME New Wall 9
e 3 i , == Exsting Wall / Structure oO
& = “ he : 1 ; x { Ensting to be removed >
o Te a oO.
a See ee ae
o |. Stack fway ce, a Se
a —— eS eases:
Doors {iit ding | — , ;
(A \—- ww oe | aa = | _ a
Fe yd} *;
lm gt col
(A aul st ese ||
< = ea pane tg | a
oS 3 a ti | sa
a . rt Tee Te
2 sil “Tt qr ; | we |
© _ Hsing oR Ly | eo |
Z C J a oy f
= { : : * Pigs. a , z i - a
z ee | |
Ww & . Deck = al. ey =
Lu é ia ce Ree P| be || o 1 #2 3m
E Lo) fe fe coe baebaodae)
s (| | ; TT Seale 1: 100 @A3
Ss (3B fl ot Nes RRR RREN wiky __P1__ 01/08/14 For Protiminary BA
Oo 3.02) 1. OR Te — eS
/ ay Entry FT ta | - 7 waseinenty py rode ted se win pemeeao
Oo 6 Cee = ine ee
S % PN eentecetthl Tim Ditchfield
O = TH *af— architects
E ‘ © | ! 2 BArch B Design Studies FRALA ear Aire}
T - P.O.Box 1382 Oo
a F ; at Sieger Wa
soot piabe ! Project
° {D }- — ee ha Mone to Eaeing House
O° 1 aa . a a ab
, ; ‘ eS | 19 Allambi Rise
03 ; Site Boundary eae —
DEVELOPED DESIGN
9 4 a Upper Ground Floor Plan
ae oe can
5 | ore 4100 Aug2014 BM
2 come G0) ALLAMBI RISE i413 DD 201 Pt
ie Access Dnveway. as
_ bitumen
aSection 16
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 16 of 145
ba re)
S s
N ug! e > 3 | LEGEND So
ome
| | { é
gs pos 6570° } R | mmm New Wail oe
€ » | __| . == Exsting Wall / Structure o
L Ensting to be removed a
a. J
o TL Towel Ladder a
n
© |
ei
A - BH _
<x $0 Setbaq \3.01/
Q t Deck
za : below Existing Roof
0 Height ¢ Profle
a ne
< J |
} Unchan.
2 B | 2 Sonor
Ww |
Li) N
i Y O
Lu E
uu é 2100 0 1 #2 3m
net ec
E = —— = Exot Seale 1: 100 @A3
= | | eH | “ut |
UT
8 Re oe ee Be Soeaenmenomnae
z i] ee Ea Tim Ditchfield
% i es + os . . .
Oo ee g mc § | architects
= ) _ | FFL 37.860 vs ;
High || NM IR Ens 1 ‘ABN 85 114.488 305
Ee > | 4 | Sp oe BArch 8 Design Studies FRALA Reg Mo 002195
< S BT Ps Owl oe
Yn) | Ml) site 2 | | Me Ts ty A a Enel tneieecoaunt = =
z r eran \ C&R Kimberley
Project
O On \& % Pi Alterations &
0 (D : Parapet & ; Addons to Existing House
Oo ad 19 Allambi Rise
03 ; Site Boundary \ L . x\ =
T : DEVELOPED DESIGN
9 \ First Floor Plan
, se oe cam
2 4100 Aug 2014 6M
é 6) ALLAMBI RISE 1413 DD 2.021
Access Drveway ew
_l
aSection 17
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 17 of 145
st f / | oli B® 0 | y wf S
Lo
x
5 / / / : oe : : f ~ oa
a ES / r FARO, Sick hel st fight
> Toe 29 LEGEND S
® / / / pf , , |
z Pritt |
2 / fl in ab
s / / | j ;
_ ad Al Wie Root | “X30
2 / _ o% Exsting (KY
[OT see
a a
4 PA i 2
a / / | / || re :
Wi / / / | Se N
oO / / /(B ya} |
e / LT) sn ei ei
tH g / / » | 4 Eeotng o>? Seale 1: 100@A3
= / / i 4 | A
ui / / / ay SS
f SPITE SL am = ga
E it Sex | Tim pas
= / / Da \ ¢ / | Nie Sei Wi ERK a
° j Pl hy iG es fae
Zz o / % | Setback Een Kitedey .
2 i / / 5 3 : Addons to Existing House
a / / jf / “ar | tec als
z / / / ADT / / i | DEVELOPED DESIGN
e / / / / Site Bound —= Top of Parapet Wall \ a= OS
: i | Vv A & fg v gs Pie © | ALLAMBI RISE ors
g Vans / P / / I @)
2 //l / / { 3500 ee ein: — 1
2 / / ;
s
aSection 18
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 18 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
aa ae 2
28 2s g
i
5900
Approx.
= 4 /
+t, —_ /
A eae | 2750 He FZ)
nN 600 550 /
at f 2.
i | .
i _2100
8 ‘|, 2300 s— i
||
1 / S '
1 | a HE o)
Hl = if
Poa r/
ET | ze
peo /} Qs F
o x We | g "at
g / =F Fl
Ss a /
oO . i al f g (oo)
; ‘ PT | / é
O ; | / ;
t ' 8
/ eo i _-
Baisting Bosting
1
ide —
a >)
i > am Q) See
go 2 II) E a 4 z¢28
: Eee":
he sees lil Peyton |
eee
| \ Dioe to
» 5 We -
gt ly
}. Ie * | lag 1
pea es e: A | jes
| ae edi
3 e ee Boundary
ge AS
s SUD ods |
lag pass |
Ba HERE SERIES izes AES ope
SEAT ST Wt §
Gioo ge 32 3 |teed Hii? -|- ooz ®
2/8 Se oF PTE Oly: 3 38 2
g 8 Feo |'se: sel lee Sh. ga¢5
giz] 2 3s | ast oS Ht s = *
w8 z ge os H+ wo e =
3 eM Slee 3 33
: bee O/T if
Wt seca] et 3
Page 18 of 145Section 19
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 19 of 145
= Lo
oO ae? Kg y +
N Ne m~ \ pp TP _
& ot iF por PR ae y, beg 5
oO Sie aT ey A PL
= Pate ah ” SRV oe ek, iy, al ; _ o
: ree ae ee ae 2
se > ates , Wi ey, i! - oy r }
= ah) = am, i pS us Pay 45 Fix om
oO oe y ae Tk Thy Tied a ‘4 OR ae on. 7. ee Level a Caen eo
” ae aS RRS aa } m eG “aes 4 en Fi «Buk ' ons
© THR, AP Weawk TN Ta Te ai Sil Pete ti a
a ‘3 A POUT ce PO ee we WOR ROS RTE CSE oe Er a
“ te BLN fi ¥: * “«- cx hi, fed > y an S| ES — | = = Drivewey
e 2» i Yh ny ROR. Wi Bitar i Ny Access
G J oh kee CaS a ba RO ant maa ‘A wy ARS eseiactl
C'S» ae atte 9 re ees é an "
mote Oe Rebee Je. a S ” 5
Petes A oot 5 1 8
FFL 37.060_ Jor Sg Sa RR nl RO Heng s his : e| op B Ee
5 pad ee man lr
fa) a SacI Pa 7 3 gi 3
S Fi a ety) | 3%
Ww het & a van Mere i.) I hi é
© FFL 35,460 aime foe Pe Pon Ve .
<x ‘FFL 36.50090° eRe oR Real Dae SE aE “Tl Sts ’ ; ~ =====
eS cad H > ‘ ' > “| f : ’ $
= Ae its at me ’ o Til] ) 4 Timber Screen
Lu FFL 92.690 _ "| eee — Il LE iP oy — — | — eas
Ww FFL 32.680 e : aos me FP, : mr ; ae RON ——> Extn Gate ;
= it Rae de ht
K “ 4g ie ,.7 Un.
Lu * Ee A Vy Le $ Us
E Pic sie <4 es en, a a
me Ay | 1 ‘
nl ae) 4 . a Oe ee eel
Ss yy Bay ti ip Pet Seale 1: 100 @A3
= ya ) at S22
Sea Page 7 et
O . \ z f "57 Ths cwngis etfcto aoyigh end comet be produ
2 Ty South Elevati =
z H/ y Ou evation ST ee
O "1 Tim Ditchfield
- we ecenas rae
= DAs architects
P.O.Box 1382 Noosavile Cid 4506
ct ¢ PT 58480 Fe 68 4818 wat
x C&R Kimberley
4 Proposed Alterations &
aw itions to Existing House
° 19 Allambi Rise
og Noosa Heads
O DEVELOPED DESIGN
z South Elevation
Zz ae
a 1:100 Aug 2014 6M
Zz Proj no. Dwg no.
= 1413 DD 4.01 P1
_l _
aSection 20
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 20 of 145
=
o ORT, p TR CORE Lee CR S
N SM ao) por VE tien Pn Seah aC 5 TRE Spy LEGEND 5
a a os inne ll a oat] PEN eB a ei
2 ie 1 eth gp ye ae a pal > Be aa") aa .* oe z is is POAT: ey 4 - Rendered Block So
€ A: BP aor Bg Vins item ‘Sith, fa a Vane | Atte ine Clack N
Toa Aaa 20 me Ge RE AN veh. We ¥ ; q Ce “a [7] Zine Cladding o
o Be fe. ae dod rey ‘ erat oN, ee RNR ath oe > Standing Seam Joints D
oO ye cathy. Ky eae Sy 3 Pee <te Ke Se i 3 oe \| ; co y ue ™ we \| 2 in? x Se Rw ee [TB] Timber Boards o.
om Tae ee iG ra a A he Sats on] - m itpomeren t7 * eager Oat > IK ata
“ mae nt [aa RE NN TD “2 TR i ae a SE [FB] Plasterboard
© ali oe Mg RS re, Pm CU Rio GRO OR Oe aA “a 2
a ERE ppg Tl As a a eee ~
re SW, - r re 78 ; ria Sen aa. ~~ Piha Wa f S ere a . ‘oak,
w (eee? (ari wo Ee a
— fe z : ~o™ ay 3 Me > on
: a rr tar woh Sie eee — —
a 8 | ae ee rath Heagit Unt
<= | ta ~~
0 FFL 85.460 nH
‘FFL 35.300 — 2 ne a so oe a oe
< ee *
; i a Ty
g a 4 \ 4
F | 7
iv FFL 32.830 IRIE R RS él
ul FFL ae RRS a oe aa rite
= PA ¥
Ww
im) <=
E Zine Cladding. Poe <i 0 1 2 3m
S Une of Exsting — t s Seale 1: 100 @A3
Driveway .
= rene ——————
Oo See atta ‘Taeetgtebcvarinsentnepaarh
O pL paeataeaataees riemaalal
East Elevation arta PAL
z2 Tim Ditchfield
o “a ~— architects
- Burch B Design Studies FRLALA mnogo 88
o meucemecses Sat
z C&R Kimber
P. Alterations &
o Aas a use
Oo 19 Allambi Rise
og Noosa Heads
DEVELOPED DESIGN
oO
zs East Elevation
= oe can
za bol Aug2014 BM im
é 4413 Db 4.02 P1
=!
ouSection 21
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 21 of 145
a L9
S os ene eae se, A AI _
N a iy Pod aye Pg 7 ad iy se => fae = “3 e = ae ig J 5
2 ae RR Poa ite ‘ak Bra cs oven. os ieee SRTA A NI
5 « A a : F ee Re Pea, Re fore ee rs ag aR toe ME
2 CF ee ae) ae RE SR Gen oO ool Ee Vi inal %
S ORE WW eee 2 Y(t b Pepe te a att: KY cele soda ae U4 2
@ dibeengier 2 = ae Satie Dies oe Sain a aa HORT na aed a> oa
© te ae i ie fe oe es haa th ma sa
os ae. Peake 10 oy. § MBP 547 AT a 5 Nig = . Ni a
= ») Ape it ee SSE waa aT Dr ie
= oa age NRE eR
——— “e | 74 P ’ he Nt yrngs aes eT ae Le eh me -
Hest Lt == Po ee aN | i ea SP a Mipsis
N.G.L. +8000 Ue = A th Ae SN r hh » ~ an ait owe Ad
FFL 37.860 DLs Ouiding face >| 4 ro eo re A iter ines ONE OM oa aE
Zz See - tok | PAN ee & SR ee Se cS
oO I an) Be <geey a mc URSA ilar Rita Nc i
Ww Access | — | Sea mT ie Ee 5 bs Feng PAYS : mY a RS
x "FFL 35.390 "5 nnn ? _ } (f aan tan > ry Toes x aa i TP) Ke
0 = = ‘ i OR at #, Bas. Me: RN EC AN rife
a , See et eee ‘ae oe " * ony Cs ib eee’,
ke y fey { wa i t ‘SE Ry PSB rere red Ae Pe
Lu FEL 92,800 f - P ll hi r Dares fh Tes oe aN Se Rr Yee 5
Ww FFL 32.680 ‘ P| i Pere re eee uh 2k \ Pe had *
: be tn
» a ey, ye 6 ab a Pa ‘ 4 er, ss ae
Ww 7 ) a NS YY mst? r oF ) ie 3
= : = ra aad Age ‘a Te, , i ry Tt 0 1 z. 3m
a oy) | | = ee Ue y a
= a) = /| P Rely Ail 8'g Seale 1: 100@A3
= - . K { : y Existing f \ eo i | Py = y awry
= ~ ; : ) Decking «| ! } j \ Pt 01/08/16 For pretinimary BA
Oo Fevenied Groved Line , ee 7 See | ( | er eee ep memes
O at Site Boundary : wre 1 Existing ) dechorhatoy by nedunuhou be we poms
> North Elevation EE =
3 : ) | Tim Ditchfield
O y ; h L taj architects
- ( (ABN 85 116 488 305
x | } fy Ree tte Se Reg No 002195
wn 1 rors sc oa wat
2 I 4 =
z : ) | C&R Kimberley
oO RRP " pee
0 ~ | Kalitons toxin
Oo | 49 Allambi Rise
8 f oi
© DEVELOPED DESIGN
2 p North Elevation
= ‘ae due cam
za > 1100 Aug 2014 6M
Zz Proj no. Dwg no.
= 1413 DD 4.03 P1
—
oaSection 22
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 22 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
a3 a3 3 ,
gs Be g ;
\ ge OB BS Kee
bs RS os _ > AR: re” 24 Ui
pS a Pak Spot
Nee OE TE. Ogee
re a
. G3 2, aes FO SoS.
ag Nase a ayy
Sn 6 Fs Ua? Ba
ZN <= M "Vaal ashe
; yas >
est 1 =. ws at air z
es = | «OO ee
SS ee g552 eae ah
Lbs a & Sees s
ee ee = we tO
2 = =
” ia = _— ei ay,
2 te 2, ae
a a | mF Ve 5 ays 3%
al Saat oa, ee ee
3 a 2M eZ ES
aT = ae ey ; Sa Z os fr ; ay fae,
a ee ad ee ai, at See
— ee aS ye. Co
= i 7a a ae APR TENS te
|i ie oes ee Sey
ja ma . Be 3s tc : ae : eR
a ae 8 pe 2
a: ' Te. 4 ao
Ee Fe ; Wak Ot ae a
= = " 4S } =
‘ ras face Wm Be
SE Ma Se 28 ial
a= Sate ss |
= Soi ee 3 | hee
————a tel ar Sie rs as ees
ae ree a3 eT oe,
\ te Pe IS Seer Yh
= Fete” BA ae a ite Ve
Ne "a oe My es = 4 Ead22 .
Cri: Ma z sy” NO Ae
23 26)s09 229 B73 O8| p22 Te
as HES PE Reet EEE SET? ep
eo ge ch 2 (ETS Ue SL
8 a3 Bn 5> § ily Ht E
“(Po “@ ge sitet Slhlar al.
sie] 2 dg | EE OGG
2 e* A | :3, ij] = 3
3 me Dl
WW gscQy it
Page 22 of 145Section 23
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
2 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY TYPE 2 -
INTENSIVE) AND ENVIRONMENTALLY RELEVANT ACTIVITY (ERA 4 - POULTRY
FARMING) SITUATED AT 136 TOP FORESTRY ROAD, RIDGEWOOD MCU12/0184
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Development Planner, Jack Lewis
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM / Application / MCU12/0184
Attachments 1. Previous Council Reports
2. Current Proposal Plans
3. Proposed Haul Route and Vehicle Movements
4. Odour Contour Modelling
5. Proposed Upgrading to Top Forestry Road
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 12 November 2012
Information Request Date 10 December 2012
Information Response Date 8 May 2013
Number of Submissions • 12 Properly made submissions;
• 118 Not properly made submissions (received until November
2013); and
• 35 letters and 430 petitioners objecting to the development on
www.change.org (received since the updated information was
received on the 31 July 2013).
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 136 Top Forestry Rd, Ridgewood
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
Locality Mary River Catchment
Zone Rural
Assessment Type Impact
Page 23 of 145
Section 24
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Organisation
Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2014 and refuse Application No. MCU12/0208 for a
Development Permit for Material Change of Use (Animal Husbandry Type 2 - Intensive) 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 residences and properties, so as to avoid adverse odour impacts on
amenity;
3. The development will result in unacceptable impacts on Top Forestry Road, as the
proposed road improvements are not sufficient to provide the necessary safe
environment and will result in an unacceptable road maintenance burden for Council;
4. Traffic generated by the development will have significant adverse impacts on the
amenity of residents living along the haul route, as Top Forestry Road is unsealed, the
route traverses Cooroy’s residential streets and bird collection commences at 2:30am;
and
5. 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.
REPORT
1. BACKGROUND
The development application was first reported to the Sunshine Coast Council on the 14
November 2013, wherein Council decided to defer consideration to the next Council meeting
and request the applicant to provide the following additional information:
1. Total vehicle trips including details of size of vehicles, purpose of trip, time of trip and
number of trips per day;
2. Feasibility of requirements to provide seal to 50m in front of affected properties on Top
Forestry Road or to enter into an infrastructure agreement with Council;
3. Composting and stockpiling methodology including data on management of emissions
during these processes;
4. Water quality management particularly addressing potential impacts from use of shed
waste and composting material for fertilising the orchard and any associated run off;
and
5. Feasibility on reduction of size and numbers of sheds.
A supplementary report was then provided to the Sunshine Coast Council’s Ordinary
Meeting of the 12 December 2013, wherein it was decided to defer the application for the
new Noosa Council consideration to allow:
a) The applicant time to submit their proposed infrastructure agreement and for the
matter to be negotiated; and
b) Additional odour modelling to be undertaken to address the missed receptors and the
spreading of poultry manure in combination with the sheds and manure stockpiles.
Copies of the previous Council reports are included as Attachment 1.
Page 24 of 145
Section 25
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
On the 13 February 2014, officers met with the applicant and consultants to discuss the
additional information requirements. The applicant advised it would engage a new traffic
engineer and investigate the possibility of upgrading sections of Top Forestry Road and
review the potential odour impacts. It was agreed that a period of 3 months was sufficient to
provide the response.
A draft infrastructure agreement template was given to the applicant in November 2013 and
again in June 2014.
The applicant did not provide any additional information within the agreed three months,
indicating a number of times that officers could expect to receive the information ‘shortly’.
The applicant was subsequently given a deadline of 31 July 2014. The revised information
was received on this date and included an updated ‘Noise and Air Quality Impact
Assessment’ prepared by MWA Environmental and a ‘Traffic Engineering Report’ prepared
by Lambert & Rehbein. No infrastructure agreement was received as part of the response.
The following further assessment is predominantly based on the information within these
reports.
2. 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 closest residences to the subject site are
identified on the locality plan below.
Page 25 of 145
Section 26
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
The current proposal involves the construction of 8 x 100m to 130m long x 16m wide sheds
along the ridgeline of the site, with each shed containing 26,800 to 34,840 chickens. On this
basis, the site has the potential to carry in the order of 230,000 birds at any one time (this
equates to a stocking density of 16.75 birds/m2, with a maximum target mass density of
32kg/m2). The applicant indicates the process involves 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). There are approximately 5.8 batch cycles per year. It is proposed to construct
the poultry growing sheds in two stages (stage 1 – Sheds 1 to 5; and stage 2 – Sheds 6 to
8). The current proposal plan is included as Attachment 2.
Deliveries of wood shavings, feed delivery, live bird pick up and removal of litter is carried
out throughout the batch cycle by Articulated Vehicles (AVs). The collection of live birds
occurs between weeks 5 – 8 and commences in the early hours of the morning (from
2:30am), when the birds are calm. A breakdown of the proposed vehicle movements per
batch cycle is included as Attachment 3.
Composting, stockpiling and spreading of poultry manure generated by the poultry sheds is
no longer proposed on site. An updated traffic assessment and odour, dust and noise
modelling of the development have been undertaken by the applicant’s consultants. The
likely odour impacts have been mapped and are included as Attachment 4.
3. ASSESSMENT
The subject site is located in the Mary River Catchment locality and is zoned Rural. The
proposed use is identified as consistent within the zone and is required to follow an impact
assessable application process and must demonstrate that the selected site is suitable, and
the potential impacts can be appropriately managed. The pertinent issues arising out of the
assessment are discussed in terms of their relevant topic below.
Traffic
The applicant has provided a detailed breakdown of the proposed traffic movements
associated with the existing avocado orcharding and the proposed poultry farm. The
applicant describes that vehicle movements associated with the avocado orchard range from
2 to 14 movements per day, with a Large Rigid Vehicle operating every 4 days, during the 73
day picking season. The traffic movements associated with the poultry farm is described as
involving complex logistics to suit the requirements of Inghams, with little flexibility in the 63
day batch cycles. The applicant’s traffic numbers have been estimated with the assistance of
an experienced poultry grower and key contract managers for Inghams and are considered
to be a reasonably accurate representation of proposed traffic movements.
The most notable traffic impacts are associated with the poultry pick-up, which occur during
weeks 5-8 over 5 days, when Heavy Vehicles arrive and pick up the birds in the early
morning (from 2:30am). During these periods, the maximum number of Heavy Vehicle
movements per day is forecasted to be 26. The loading process takes in the order of 60
minutes per truck and is expected to occur over a 10 hour period. There are a total of 9 days
within the 63 day cycle, when Heavy Vehicle traffic volumes exceeds 10 movements
(average of 1 day per week). The total vehicles associated with the development for each
day of the batch cycle is demonstrated in the graph below.
Page 26 of 145
Section 27
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
To address road safety, the applicant proposes to upgrade sections of Top Forestry Road.
The applicant’s engineer provides two options for improving the road, with both involving
localised widening (5.5m carriageway) and improvements to the critical bends. Neither
option includes sealing the road. Option 1 involves significant slope and embankment
stability works allowing a heavy vehicle and car to pass each other on the critical bend; and
Option 2 involves installing a one way system at the critical bend (see Attachment 5).
Council engaged a traffic engineer (Beard Traffic Engineering) to review the report. Council’s
consultant advises that Top Forestry Road cannot satisfactorily be used by the proposed
heavy vehicles without significant upgrading or some way to ensure compliance with a traffic
management plan, which effectively restricts usage of the road to only one heavy vehicle at
a time and with restricted operating speeds (probably not more than 30 km/hour). The
problem is that there is no real way to enforce compliance with such a traffic management
plan and Council’s traffic engineer discounts option 2 (involving the one way system) for this
reason.
The consultant also advises that any upgrading should take into account the proposal’s use
of relatively large vehicles (19m AVs), the critical bends and the relatively steep terrain.
Taking account of these factors, Council’s traffic engineer recommends that as part of the
development, upgrading should be carried out to Top Forestry Road with a basic
carriageway of 6m and 7m on the critical bends, fix the crossfalls, and installation of guide
posts and speed signage. These proposed safety upgrades are fairly similar to the
applicant’s first option, which proposes a 5.5m carriageway and 8m on the critical bends.
The Eastern Downs Regional Roads Group Configuration Standard from which the 6m
carriageway widths have been adopted, suggest that for traffic volumes over 100 vehicles
per day and/or has >20% heavy vehicle use, the road should be sealed. While the standard
adopted by the applicant’s consultant for a 5.5m carriageway is from the Unsealed Roads
Manual (Australian Roads Research Board), which requires an all-weather two-lane road
formed and gravelled, or single-lane sealed road with gravel shoulders.
The above standards only address the safety of the road and do not address the amenity
(dust) impacts and maintenance requirements.
Page 27 of 145
Section 28
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
With regard to dust nuisance, the applicant’s environmental consultant describes how the
proposal will generate on average an additional 4 vehicles per day, with the chicken pick-up
days generating 26 Heavy Vehicles trips, which is more than 25% higher than the average
daily flows on Top Forestry Road. The applicant’s environmental consultant discusses how
this peak only occurs approximately 20 times a year and submits that this is not unusual for
a rural unsealed road, and dust emissions may be minimised by appropriate maintenance of
the road surface (dust suppressant/water truck). The applicant’s proposed road maintenance
to address dust is not a preferred method and is likely to result in significant compliance
issues for Council. Also, dust nuisance is likely to occur more frequently than the applicant
submits as the proposed traffic movements indicate that in any one batch 9 of the 63 days
heavy vehicle movements will exceed 10 in any day. This amounts to 52 times a
year. Given the heavy vehicle movements are reasonably frequent and that the poultry farm
will increase the number of heavy vehicles on the road to more than 20% of the total vehicle
movements on the road, sealing of Top Forestry Road is the preferred method of
addressing the potential dust nuisance and is consistent with the Eastern Downs Standard.
With regard to road maintenance, Council’s Civil Operations Branch Manager notes that if
Top Forestry Road remains unsealed, then there would be increased maintenance costs to
Council for grading & re-sheeting due to gravel loss under traffic. Furthermore, it is expected
that the pavement design on Cooroy Belli Creek and Old Ceylon Roads would not have
allowed for the additional heavy vehicle volumes generated by the proposed development
and therefore Council could expect that the life of the pavement on these roads would be
reduced & hence increase the maintenance cost & bring forward the requirement for full
reconstruction or rehabilitation.
While the applicant has undertaken a more detailed assessment of the road safety impacts,
including recommended upgrading to sections of Top Forestry Road, Council’s traffic
consultant advises the carriageway requires greater widening in places and the works do not
fully address the additional impacts associated with dust nuisance and future maintenance
costs for Council.
Noise
A revised noise assessment has been carried out by the applicant. The assessment
concludes that the noise amenity criteria for the on-site poultry sheds meet the relevant
guidelines and would not impact neighbours amenity. This report has been reviewed by
Council’s consultant (Pacific Environment) who advises the assumptions and modelling of
the proposed on-site noise impacts comply with the relevant standards. However, the
proposal does not fully consider increased traffic noise to surrounding residents living along
the proposed haul route.
The applicant’s reporting does not take into consideration the chicken pick-up days, which
will commence at 2:30am and involve 26 heavy vehicle movements over a 10 hour period.
While these pick-ups are predicted to occur only 5 times during each 63 day cycle, the timing
and frequency of the truck movements during normal sleeping hours represents an
unacceptable noise nuisance for residents living adjacent to the haul route. Residents along
Top Forestry Road, Old Ceylon and Cooroy Belli Creek Road live generally in close
proximity to the road carriageway and are likely to be impacted. The haul route also includes
the residential streets of Maple St and Crystal St. Industrial type traffic during the night
would be an unreasonable imposition on the amenity and expectations of residents living
along these streets.
Page 28 of 145
Section 29
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Odour
The applicant submitted a revised Air Quality Assessment report, prepared by MWA
Environmental for the 8 poultry sheds. The major difference between the original modelling
and the recent work is that the composting, stockpiling and spreading of the poultry manure
is no longer proposed. Pacific Environment reviewed the latest report on behalf of Council
and advises that the modelling has been carried out in line with good practice. The resultant
modelling, therefore, provides an indication as to the potential odour impacts associated with
the farm.
The Queensland odour guideline for rural zoned land indicates ‘sensitive receptors’ should
not be exposed to more than 2.5 odour units = C99.5 1hr. Notably, even if the applicant was to
meet this guideline, the odour concentration levels would be noticeable for nearby residents
(with the smell considered “distinct” for at least 44 hours/year).
The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection’s - Guideline for Odour Impact
Assessments defines a ‘Sensitive Receptor’ as a dwelling… and includes the curtilage of
such any place and any place known or likely to become a sensitive place in the future. The
applicant’s odour contour modelling does not include 5 ‘sensitive receptor’ locations
surrounding the proposed sheds that would be within the 2.5 odour unit contour. A map of
the missed ‘Sensitive Receptors’ is provided below.
As discussed within previous reports, the applicant acknowledges that several properties
they own are adversely impacted by the odour associated with the development. To address
the issue, the applicant previously proposed the inclusion of the following condition:
Page 29 of 145
Section 30
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
The poultry farm can only operate as long as Lots 20 & 22 on SP 226606, Lot 1 on SP
100788 and Lot 204 on RP892484 are owned and occupied by the operator or an employee
of the poultry farm. In the event that the lands are not owned and occupied by the operator,
an employee of the poultry farm, the farm can only operate when the odour limits are below
2.5 odour units.
Council’s solicitor advises that this would be an inappropriate condition to address the
potential odour nuisance for these lots and that it is likely to be shown to be unlawful and not
enforceable. The applicant could alternatively change the application and include properties,
224, 172, 146, 124 and the subject site in the application. Under the Sustainable Planning
Act 2009, a changed application involving new properties would need to be renotified. The
applicant has not indicated they are prepared to include these properties as part of the
application. As such there is no way of avoiding unacceptable odour impacts on future
owners/residents of these properties.
The applicant has also not provided detailed modelling of odour impacts to 185 Top Forestry
Road. There is an existing house on this property, and the current owners have lodged a
letter of support for the application. Council’s Environmental Consultant also advises that
more detailed modelling could be undertaken around the house, and if done is more than
likely to result in this sensitive receptor being outside the 2.5 odour unit contour.
4. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in May 2013. 12 properly made
submissions and 118 not properly made (late) submissions were received at the time. Of
the 130 total submissions, 101 are objecting and 29 supporting the application.
Since the applicant provided further information about the proposal on the 31 July 2014 a
further 35 letters and 430 petitioners on www.change.org were received. All were objecting
to the application. The following table provides a summary and assessment of the issues
raised in the recent submissions
Issues Comments
Odour concerns
Affect amenity of neighbours. The revised odour modelling indicates all but 5
properties will meet the QLD odour guidelines. As a
result, the development has the potential to affect the
amenity of neighbouring properties.
The existing houses on the subject site and The neighbouring properties owned by the applicant
the neighbouring property (146) have not are not included as part of the subject application.
been included as sensitive receptors. House These are considered sensitive receptor locations
across the road at 185 Top Forestry Road pursuant to the QLD Odour Guidelines.
has not been included as a sensitive 185 Top Forestry Road, has also not been included
receptor. The report does not consider the as part of the detailed modelling of the odour
lots at 124, 172 and 224 Top Forestry Road contours.
(Lots owned by the applicant with no houses
developed yet).
The odour modelling only depicts sensitive The Queensland odour guideline for rural zoned land
receptors; however the lower paddocks and indicates ‘sensitive receptors’ should not be exposed
dams will be within the 2.5 odour unit. to more than 2.5 odour units. A sensitive receptor
only refers to the residential dwelling and the
curtilage of such place (land immediately surrounding
the house, excluding open paddocks).
Assumptions about report Council’s environmental consultant has reviewed all
• Using weather assumptions for of the assumptions, criteria and meteorological data
Nambour and Tewantin should not be built into the odour modelling and consider them to
Page 30 of 145
Section 31
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
used. Rather a site specific analysis be appropriate for the proposed location of the
should be used. potential odour sources.
• Odour associated with catch out has not
been considered.
• Meat Guidelines recommend fans are
located on the end of the sheds furthest
away from sensitive receptors.
Unable to condition the development not to The odour report shows that the development will
emit odour beyond property boundary. emit odour beyond the property boundaries
exceeding the QLD odour guidelines.
Dust concerns
Health concerns about dust from the farm The proposed dust impact has been appropriately
and effects on neighbouring water tanks. modelled and meets the recommended standards.
Council’s environmental consultant also considers
the modelling to be consistent with that seen
elsewhere (i.e. the predicted dust levels require a
smaller buffer than that required for odour).
Unable to verify the accuracy of results The meteorological data built into the dust modelling
because they are not site specific. is considered appropriate for the proposed location.
Noise Concerns
Noise from the existing avocado orchard has The noise from the avocado orcharding is an existing
not been considered in the cumulative noise use on the site and predominantly operates during
levels. day time hours and does not generally coincide with
the poultry farm’s potential noise impacts, which are
at night.
Assumptions about report The proposed on-site noise impacts have been
• Location of the background noise logger appropriately modelled and meet the recommended
would have been influenced by standards. The assumptions and criteria are
surrounding houses. considered appropriate and similar to other poultry
• Does not consider fork lifts working from operations.
all locations on the sheds.
• Does not consider the noise from the
feeding systems.
• Does not consider noise from trucks
associated with litter delivery and clean
out.
No consideration of the noise of the trucks The noise of trucks during the early morning pick up
on the road. times has not been modelled. The noise associated
with trucks along the haul route during regular
sleeping hours is likely to adversely impact the
amenity of residences along the haul route.
Traffic concerns
Dust from the trucks using Top Forestry Agreed.
Road will affect neighbour’s amenity.
Concerns about the safety of the roads. The applicant has proposed upgrading to Top
Forestry Road to improve the safety of this section,
including, widening, sealing, signposting and
reducing the speed limits. Council’s traffic consultant
considers that some additional widening is required
to address road safety.
Council will have the burden of looking after The associated traffic impacts of the development
the maintenance of the road. would increase the maintenance required on the haul
route.
Feasibility of upgrading the road for one This is a matter for the applicant.
farm.
Page 31 of 145
Section 32
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Omissions in the traffic report relating to Council’s traffic specialist indicates that while one
data used and assumptions. While one week week of data does not provide a true representation
of data is not representative of yearly traffic. of the seasonal fluctuations, based on the number of
houses and uses on the road, the survey is fairly
consistent with vehicle movements on similar roads.
Traffic Upgrading There are a variety of “standards” which have been
• DTMR recommends 8m wide unsealed defined at different times by different agencies.
roads. Normally, the Austroads standards would be easily
• Two B-doubles will not be able to pass the most reliable, but it is not clear that the published
each other as part of the proposed works standards take adequate account of heavy vehicle
causing a safety issue for other users. proportions or vehicle operating speeds (or even the
• The option of having a one way section length of the route). As a result, Council’s traffic
of Top Forestry Road would make the engineer has based the assessment of road
road worse. requirements for the development on the standards
listed below:
- 1989 Austroads Rural Road Design Guide;
- 2003 Austroads Rural Road Design Guide;
- 2009 ARRB Unsealed Roads Manual;
- 2009 Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 3;
- Eastern Downs Regional Roads Group
Configuration Standards (current)
No route specified for the waste trucks. It is anticipated the waste trucks would travel the
marked haul route to the Bruce Highway.
Vegetation removal along the Top Forestry Geotechnical testing would be necessary to ensure
Road reserves would destabilise banks and that the full width of the road formation is capable of
increase dust nuisance. carrying the traffic loading and not, for example
relatively loose fill material that has accumulated
over time. Confirmation would also be required of
slope stability on any cut batters. Drainage is also
typically a critical factor impacting on the risk of
landslip in mountainous terrain. It is noted that limited
consideration has been given to this factor. There is
also a need to consider the warrants for guard rail
due to height/slope factors and roadside obstacles
within the road reserve (i.e. trees).
No discussion about the dust issues from From a safety, maintenance and amenity point of
the 26 truck movement days. Heavy vehicles view, the proposed development impacts would
cannot be considered the same as an require Top Forestry Road to be sealed. This would
ordinary vehicle and cause more of a noise, eliminate the impact of dust nuisance. However,
and dust nuisance. noise impacts associated with heavy vehicles using
the haul route at night are likely to unreasonably
affect the amenity of residents on the route.
Other
It is not possible to apply reasonable and Agree.
relevant conditions to minimise impacts to
neighbours.
Impacts on the waterways. The proposal includes concrete shed flooring and
storm water treatment to hardstand areas. As a
result, it is unlikely the development will have any
significant impacts on the quality of the surrounding
waters.
Reduced house prices and incompatible with These matters are not planning matters for
Noosa’s Biosphere status. assessment.
2
Inhumane development (16.7 birds per m ). These matters are regulated by the Department of
Forestry and Fisheries and Biosecurity agencies, and
not local government.
Page 32 of 145
Section 33
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Impacts from the farm will affect native fauna The proposed structures are proposed within the
(including native birds and koalas), and middle of an existing avocado orchard. The
increase in flies and vermin to the area. Environmentally Relevant Approval would require the
sheds to be constructed to not cause an increase in
vermin in the area.
As provided in the report to Council in Dec This is a matter for the applicant.
2014 – Ingham’s and the applicant advise
that Stage 1 proposal for 5 sheds is not
economically viable.
Address on title page of the odour and traffic The IDAS forms indicate the application is for 136
reports refers to neighbouring property. Top Forestry Road.
Residents along Top Forestry Road advise The applicant’s consultant advises that he carried out
that there was a lack of public notification the public notification for the application in
signs along Top Forestry Road accordance with the Act’s requirements and did
maintain a sign to this road frontage. A Notice of
Compliance has also been provided to Council
pursuant to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.
5. CONCLUSION
The report provides an assessment of the most recent information for an application for a
230,000 bird poultry farm at 136 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood. The decision on this
application was previously deferred to the new Noosa Council, to allow the applicant time to
submit their proposed infrastructure agreement about upgrading Top Forestry Road and
additional odour modelling to be undertaken to address missed receptors.
While the applicant has provided a more accurate representation of anticipated traffic
movements, the frequency of the heavy vehicles associated with the development
(especially around the pickup days) will require significant upgrading to Top Forestry Road.
The proposed upgrading recommended by the applicant does not include sealing of the
road. The sealing of this stretch of road is considered to be warranted so the use does not
cause an unreasonable dust nuisance to neighbours and not result in an increased
maintenance cost to Council.
The updated odour modelling has been changed to only include the impacts of the poultry
sheds, with the manure proposed to be taken off-site. Even though the modelling has been
revised and includes lesser odour impacts, the report still fails to consider 5 ‘sensitive
receptors’ surrounding the site, 4 of which adjoin the farm and are currently owned by the
applicant. These properties are not part of the application and there is no way of avoiding
unacceptable odour impacts on future owners/residents of these properties.
The proposal still does not satisfactorily address all potential impacts of the development
and is likely to affect the lifestyle and amenity of surrounding residents and residents on the
haul route. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Planning & Infrastructure
Community Services
Disaster Management & Public Order Building & Plumbing Services
Waste & Environmental Health x DA Planning
Community Facilities x Strategic Land Use Planning
Cultural Facilities Asset Design & Investigations
Asset Planning
X Civil Operations
Environment
x
Executive Office Corporate Services
Community Engagement Finance
Customer Service ICT
Executive Support Procurement & Fleet
Governance Property & Facilities
Human Resources Revenue Services
Page 33 of 145
Section 34
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 34 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
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. ..........ccscsssesseeeeseeeeeseeseseeeeesees OT
Att 2 - Traffic Route..........ccsssseceseseecsssensnsnsnsescerseeeecsnesessenscerscetsteeees DO
Link to PD Online:
http://pdonline_sunshinecoast gid_.gov.au/masterview/Modules/Applicationmaster/ default. aspx?paqe=wrapp
er&key=1246601
APPLICATION DETAILS
W Donald Wigan Pty Lid
Proposal: Development Permit for Matenal 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:
14 Novenber 2073
Number of Submissions: 12 Properly made submissions; and
118 Not properly made submissions
PROPERTY DETAILS
[Divisions
136 Top Forestry Rd, Ridgewood, Cid, 4563
Lot 21 SP 226606
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 fRural
[Assessment Type: [Impacts
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to seek council's determination of an application for a Development Permit for
Maternal 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
Page 34 of 145Section 35
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 35 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
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 ndgeline 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 tnps. 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 nsk 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 concemed 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
Page 35 of 145Section 36
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 36 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
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):
isStatuSheceaket Mosse cheroe © ew) noun Paya
Allocation of adopted infrastructure charge to trunk
$156 672 |
Public Parks & Land for Community Facilities | ___s27.64a |
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 ndgeline
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 delivers in the first week, increasing to 24 delivenes dunng 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 penod. 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.
Page 36 of 145Section 37
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 37 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
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 ndgelines. There is an existing farm shed located on the ndgeline
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
imigate the existing avocado orchard.
A 120m wide easement extends along the site's westem 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
eastem 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.
Page 37 of 145Section 38
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 38 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
‘ * " : a 4
- ‘ ; Pg
ai . ean) Y
Cyr Ne ae
em eS a's é
‘Soak ia FSS - -
Ye A wd
a alas AS
aise: oe 2
Subjectsite 474 £ ‘
iW ra 4 .
ho) ee od ns itl ‘ 3
e 7 ¢
, a ” 4
LP ibeh 1B ie) ) 4 hae
yy? wae) . Li ee
2 nie fa
co al 8 ’
propery fo pe
Pro pe
977 Cooroy 674ha_ | There is an existing house located Predominantly vegetated
Belli Creek close to Cooroy Belli Creek Road in the | with a single detached
Road north westem portion of the lot. The house.
house is 1,150m from the existing farm
sheds on the subject site.
869 Cooroy 49.3ha_ | There is an existing house located in The lot is partially cleared
Belli Creek the northern portion of the lot. The with cattle grazing.
Road house is 980m from the existing farm
sheds on the subject site.
76 Top Forestry | 49.4ha_ | There is an existing house located in The lot is partially cleared
Road the northern portion of the lot. The with cattle grazing.
house is 950m from the existing farm
sheds on the subject site.
124 Top 647 ha_ | The lot is currently cleared with no The lot is partially cleared
Forestry Road houses on the site. This lot is owned by | with cattle grazing.
the applicant and is approximately
700m from the existing farm sheds on
the subject site.
146 Top 2.04ha_ | There is an existing house with shared | Predominantly vegetated
Forestry Road access to the subject site. This lot is with a single detached
owned by the applicant and is house.
approximately 650m from the existing
farm sheds on the subject site.
172 Top 2.92ha_| The lot is predominantly vegetated with
Page 38 of 145Section 39
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 39 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
=
Property
Forestry Road a farm shed in the south eastern portion | with no detached houses.
of the lot. This lot is owned by the
applicant and is approximately 850m
from the existing farm sheds on the
subject site.
224 Top The lot is currently cleared with no Avocado cropping with
Forestry Road houses on the site. This lot is owned by | the imgation of trees from
the applicant and is approximately the dams on the subject
750m from the existing farm sheds on ‘| site.
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:
e2_7OState Planning Policies
eC Othe South East Queensland Regional Plan
e2_7 State Planning Regulatory Provisions and
e2_Cothe 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 Govemment 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.
Page 39 of 145Section 40
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 40 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
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 agncultural 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 onginally 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 tip generation from the existing and proposed uses
and divide the total by 365 to determine a “per day” tnp rate. This methodology does not give any
consideration to:
e2Oothe type of vehicle for the “trip” or
e2_Cothe impacts (safety, noise, dust, road maintenance) of a “heavy vehicle” tip compared to the
“tip” 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
“tip” numbers or
e2_Cothe vanations 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 vanations in “trip” numbers.
It is noted that, while the application onginally 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 tnps per “batch” from the submitted
Hayes traffic report (218 tnps), the submitted MWA Environmental report (234 tnps), 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
Page 40 of 145Section 41
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 41 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
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 tips are
created during the second half of the “batch” (days 36-63) with the trips increasing for feed delivenes 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,
dunng 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 concems 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 westem comer 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 tumaround 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.
Page 41 of 145Section 42
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 42 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
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 tips are
created during the second half of the “batch” (days 36-63) with the trips increasing for feed delivenes 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,
dunng 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 concems 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 westem comer 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 tumaround 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.
Page 42 of 145Section 43
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 43 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
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 = C23;
are. 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:
e2_Cilitter stockpiles being covered
e_Cilitter stockpiles tumed at least weekly, and only when prevailing winds are below 10km/h and
from the northeast to southeast sector
e2_applying litter within 4-5 weeks of the cleanout of the sheds to avoid stockpile odours coinciding
with high shed odours
e2—Cominimum setback of 50m is retained from spreading areas to boundanes and waterways
e_Cilitter is spread only during 6am to 6pm, and only when prevailing winds are from the northeast to
southeast and
e2_Doonly 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 (Mynad International) detailing that all of the poultry
manure compost can be utilised by the existing orchard. Using the Department of Agnculture, 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
Page 43 of 145Section 44
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 44 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
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 nutnent 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 ndgelines of the site. Large quantities of cut and fill are
required on the existing ndgelines, 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 ndgelines, 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
Page 44 of 145Section 45
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 45 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
The department is an advice agency for matters associated with the Eerwah Vale Transmission Line
Cormdor. 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 Govemment under the Environmental Protection
Regulation 2008.
On 31 March 2013, the State Govemment introduced the Greentape Reduction Act 2012 which resulted in
changes to the prescnbed 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, Fishenes 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:
e2_loDevelopment Engineer, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch
ellOoHydraulics and Water Quality Specialist, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch
eD_CoLandscape Officer, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch
e2—OoEnvironment Officer, Engineering and Environment Assessment Branch
e2_7oUrban Designer, Planning Assessment Branch and
eD_OoTraffic 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:
Page 45 of 145Section 46
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 46 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
e +. ‘.
© rg ae Me a , |
e Y
ee te | :
i % = | @ oesccras o_~
ma « s &
> rox? . \
' \ s
baba ; es * Bj * \
° , w 3 "HEN
e a @ . \
ba, .? > of eo s os \
I © 3 a \
pe See ps *
Coery nen ee? . 1
pmaner ars #, P - & ‘
! . , :
afd. £ ‘
; y Caerte'ps | 4
SS 7 re,
Seth" yoo . é i.
LS tee 5
a Read 9, out ‘ =
“se ."
¥ b 3 ” Coty,
; te oy % Naan,
‘ ~ i NS yey . ,
} Toei Fem é + > ees,
The following table provides a summary and assessment of the issues raised by submitters.
[Issues 0 Comments
Operations The Preliminary Operational Management
Broiler shed production is now a synchronized | Plan calculates the total amount of shed
operation, rather than staged. This streamlines | litter potentially generated by a full shed
production but means enormous volumes of cleanout to be 1,027m3 per batch. No
odourous shed litter require processing in huge | quantitative data has been provided to
batches at each shed clean out. estimate the odour emissions from this
source.
Noise Impacts No road improvements have been
Noise impacts on neighbouring dwelling as a suggested by the applicant to suppress
result of day and night operations, including increased sound pressure emissions from
ventilation, shed clean out and traffic. 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 The odour modeling fails to account for
Odour impacts will adversely affect the the impacts associated with the
neighbouring residents. 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 Thr
for the neighbouring property at 146 Top
Forestry Road.
associated wih the cleanout of th
The dust problems will adversely affect the associated with the cleanout of the sheds
Page 46 of 145Section 47
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 47 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
neighbouring residents. 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 The potential impacts associated with the
Waste litter storage area massively increased | reuse of spent poultry litter back on to the
from 280m? to 5,273m?, an area equivalent to | existing avocado orchard have not been
3 more broiler sheds. satisfied or addressed. The proposal
Applicant now plans to remove waste litter off | includes reduced composting times
the property that can't be stockpiled. compared to DAFF guidelines, and there
Composting times of 4-5 weeks are less than _| is ambiguity in the nutrient uptake of the
half that of industry standards for full avocado orchard from poultry manure.
composting and therefore no thorough
treatment of the pathogens. DAFF guidelines are only available about
No gradient plan to determine appropriate litter | the reuse of this spent litter on existing
spreading sites as per Department of Forestry | pastures over large areas and infrequent
and Fisheries (DAFF) guidelines. spreading regimes. Furthermore, any
Revised tree audit fails to account for the spent litter that is not to be used on the
hundreds of avocado trees to be removed for | site is planned to be removed from the
the huge new compost litter zones. site and sold to local farms.
Revised agronomist's report does not take
differing ages and conditions of existing trees | The traffic report does not appropriately
in composted litter application data. consider this aspect of the proposal,
No information supplied of similar broiler resulting in additional truck movements
operations that are using on-site processed from the site.
litter material on tree crops.
Traffic The poultry use requires servicing by a
The roads servicing the site are inappropnate | mix of semi-trailers and truck and dog
for the use of B double and other heavy combinations (litter delivery, bird delivery
vehicles, with no plan to improve the surface of | and collection, dead bird collection) and
Top Forestry Rd or ameliorate the dust 19m b-doubles for the delivery of feed.
nuisance to properties along the road. These types of trucks are small enough
No traffic plan has been provided for heavy not to require an approved B Double
vehicles passing through the town of Cooroy, | route.
heading south to the Bruce Highway.
ls it a true assessment of how many trucks will | A further revision to the traffic plan was
be using this road and will it be 7 days a week? | received to council on the 24 September
(No accounting for the traffic generated by the | 2013, showing truck movements from the
heavy vehicles removing excess shed litter Highway to Myall St, Crystal St, Maple St,
from the property and no accounting for any Cooroy Belli Creek Rd, Old Ceylon Rd,
extra staff movements or dead bird removal in | Top Forestry Rd and then the site.
the traffic plan).
A school bus stop is near the site and no The main traffic concem involves the use
consideration has been given to pedestnans. _| 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.
Page 47 of 145Section 48
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 48 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
The sheds and associated earthworks will and fill on the existing ndgelines to
have a visual impact to the surrounding accommodate the sheds, roads and litter
houses. storage areas. Vegetated screening is
Too many signs will have to be erected along _| unlikely to be successful due to the sites
the roads waming of trucks etc. slope and significant earthworks
The proposal is completely out of scale with proposed.
other agricultural uses.
Water Quality The water quality specialists consider the
Rainfall data has been taken from Tewantin, rainfall data used to be adequate for this
whereas the rainfall totals in the Top Forestry _| location. However, there is uncertainty
area have been a lot more in the previous regarding the water quality impacts
three years. associated with the application of spent
Impacts on the tributary to the Mary River. 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 The applicant's consultant advises that he
Residents along Top Forestry Road advise that | carried out the public notification for the
there was a lack of signs along Top Forestry application in accordance with the Act’s
Road requirements and did maintain a sign to
this road frontage.
Submissions in support Were the application to be approved, the
The applicant has a proven track record and is | approval is for the site, not the operator.
a skilled operator
Significant investment in local economy The proposal is not consistent with the
The proposal will create additional employment | planning scheme as the applicant has not
Is consistent with planning scheme and satisfactonly demonstrated that the
impacts are addressed appropnate'! impacts can be mitigated appropnately.
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:
e_OoBiodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands — Waterways: Stream Oder 1-2 & 34
el_COBiodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands — Ripanan Protection Area
e“_OOBiodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands — Native Vegetation Area
e_OoBiodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands — Koala Habitat Area
e2"OoBushfire Hazard — High Hazard Area
e2_CoHeight of Buildings and structures — 8.5 metres
eOOLandslide Hazard Area
e277 oRegional Infrastructure — High Voltage Electncity Line and Buffer and
e2—OOScenic 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.
Page 48 of 145Section 49
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 49 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
Page 49 of 145Section 50
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 50 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013
7 REPORTS DIRECT TO COUNCIL
7A REGIONAL STRATEGY AND PLANNING
71.2 UPDATED REPORT - 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 - Revised Heavy Vehicle Estimation... 15
Att 2 - Proposed Upgrades to Top Forestry Road....................... 17
|
PURPOSE
In November 2013, council deferred consideration of a Development Application for Material
Change of Use for Animal Husbandry Type 2 (Poultry Farm) and Environmentally Relevant
Activity (ERA 4 — Poultry Farming) at 136 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood requesting the
applicant provide additional information on the proposal.
The purpose of this report is to summarise the additional information received and provide a
further assessment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since council's Ordinary Meeting of 14 November 2013 officers met with the applicant to
discuss Council's request for additional information and associated issues with the proposed
poultry farm. Further written details were subsequently provided by the applicant on 2
December 2013, including advice that the maximum number of birds proposed is 235,554;
further details of traffic movements; revised odour modeling, and confirmation that some
additional upgrades to Top Forestry Road would be undertaken.
Review of the additional information provided by the applicant concludes that there are still a
number of unanswered issues surrounding the proposed poultry farm including:
« The odour report fails to take into account a nearby receptor (house), and does not
Satisfactorily resolve odour issues for a number of houses currently owned by the
applicant. The odour modelling also does not address the manure spreading but
simply proposes some management measures for control of the expected odour.
« The traffic details identify that truck movements will be less than officers identified in
the previous report to council, with these numbers unable to be fully verified by
Officers in time for the Ordinary meeting. Notwithstanding this the number of heavy
vehicles submitted by the applicant remains significant and will adversely impact on
the road safety of Top Forestry Road and for the amenity of residents living along the
proposed travel route
« Loading of the live birds is proposed to commence at 2.30am but no details have
been provided of the number of vehicles that will travel to and from the site at this
time.
« Sealing of Top Forestry Road is now proposed within 50 metres of all houses and an
Infrastructure Agreement is proposed with council for half the cost of the worst bend
on Top Forestry Road. Council's traffic engineer considers the existing road sufficient
to cater for the existing use and that the necessary road improvements ought to be
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Updated Page 5 of 26
Page 50 of 145Section 51
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 51 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013
undertaken by the poultry farm operator and not council. Further, the proposed
improvements are not adequate to cater for the number of heavy vehicle movements
likely to be generated and no Infrastructure Agreement has been provided by the
applicant.
« No additional stormwater details have been provided to demonstrate that the water
Quality of nearby creeks will not be adversely impacted upon. Notwithstanding this it
is considered that this specific matter could be addressed by suitable conditions.
It is concluded that the additional information provided by the applicant does not satisfactorily
address officers concerns with the proposed poultry farm and therefore officers confirm their
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:
i. 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
li. 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
iii. 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
iv. 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
v. 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:
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Updated Page 6 of 26
Page 51 of 145Section 52
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 52 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013
ee
infrastructure networks
[Public Parks & Land for Community Faciities | $27,648,
[TOTAL (June 2013index)= |S 8184320)
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, and proposes to carry in the order of 235,554 birds at any one
time. This is a reduction to the number of birds previously proposed of between 250,000 —
300,000 birds. The applicant indicates the process involves 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
deliveries generally made between Sam to 4pm and focused mostly during the first half of the
batch cycle (weeks 1-5). The grown chickens are then removed from the site during weeks
5 - 8 commencing at 2:30am when the birds are less active.
The applicant proposes that upon completion of the bird growing cycle, the sheds are
cleaned out and prepared for the next batch cycle over a 1 - 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.
Background
The location of the subject site in relation to its surrounds is shown on the image below:
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Updated Page 7 of 26
Page 52 of 145Section 53
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 53 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013
‘ ‘ 369 ‘
all >
‘: Ne
re )
Subjeqs Site 1. f
State Forest 2 y -
Pre
At its Ordinary Meeting on 14 November 2013 council deferred consideration to the next
Council meeting and requested the applicant provide the following additional information:
1. total vehicle trips including details of size of vehicles, purpose of trip, time of trip and
number of trips per day
2. feasibility of requirements to provide to seal to 50m in front of affected properties on Top
Forestry Road or to enter into an infrastructure agreement with council
3. composting and stockpiling methodology including data on management of emissions
during these processes
4. water quality management particularly addressing potential impacts from use of shed
waste and composting material for fertilising the orchard and any associated run off and
5. feasibility on reduction of size and number of sheds.
A meeting was held with the applicant and their consultants on the 20 November, to discuss
Council's request for further details and officer's concems, including the following:
* Council's odour consultant's concerns with the odour modelling undertaken of the
proposal.
e A revised table to be provided, similar to the table included in the officer's report to
council, clearly detailing the likely maximum vehicle/trip numbers including vehicle
types on a weekly and daily basis, including travel times.
e Evidence of maximum number of birds able to be transported on a single truck at the
different growing stages.
e Review and provide further details of the likely upgrading requirements for Top
Forestry Rd, similar to the details provided for the internal driveway to ensure Top
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Updated Page 8 of 26
Page 53 of 145Section 54
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 54 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013
Forestry Road achieves the necessary safe environment, including consideration on
sealing and road widening to allow two trucks to pass one another.
« Confirmation of the maximum number of birds to be kept in the sheds with
consideration given to reducing the number of chickens on site.
The applicant provided a formal response to the request for additional information on the 2
December 2013. An assessment of the additional information is provided below.
ASSESSMENT
1. Total vehicle trips including details of size of vehicles, purpose of trip, time of
trip and number of trips per day.
The applicant has provided a revised table of the daily vehicle movements, including the type
of vehicles, purpose of the trip and travel times, which is included as Attachment 1.
The revised table has been updated to reflect the proposed maximum number of birds as
235,554 and indicates that delivery of feed will be spread over additional days, concentrated
in the first half of the 9 week batch cycle (weeks 1 — 5) and so avoid live bird pick up times
towards the end of the batch cycle (weeks 5-8). The applicant's revised table also indicates
that feed deliveries will now be spread over 16 days, with up to 4 heavy vehicle trips for feed
deliveries proposed in any one day. Live bird pick up will now be spread over 5 days for
each batch cycle, with between 20-26 heavy vehicle trips using the road from 2:30am
onwards.
The proposed trip numbers detailed in the applicant's revised table differs significantly from
the information previously provided to council by the applicant for feed deliveries and
information gained by officers from the industry and council's odour consultant.
Notwithstanding this, Council's Traffic Engineer confirms that even with the revised traffic
movements, the planned traffic demand will still require significant improvements to Top
Forestry Road, so as to ensure the safety of Top Forestry Road. The proposed pick up times
for live birds similarly still raises significant amenity concerns for residents, particularly for
those residents living along the travel route through the residential streets of Cooroy.
2. Feasibility of requirements to provide to seal to 50m in front of affected
properties on Top Forestry Road or to 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 of adjacent dwellings. The plan includes 5 sections of the road to be
sealed, totaling 381m of the existing 1.3km travel route on Top Forestry Road. The applicant
indicates they are willing to accept a condition for the sealing of these sections, subject to a
subsequent Operational Works approval.
The applicant also concedes that the existing road bend located adjacent to 111 and 124
Top Forestry Road is of insufficient width to accommodate two trucks to pass. A concept plan
has been provided including widening of the road formation, with stone pitched retaining
walls on each side of the road. A copy of the proposed works is included as Attachment 2.
The applicant considers the current situation is inadequate for the existing traffic usage and
seeks Council to enter into an infrastructure agreement to pay a contribution of 50% of the
cost for improvements to Top Forestry Road at this bend. No details as to the cost of road
improvements have been submitted or a signed Infrastructure Agreement.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council OM Updated Page 9 of 26
Page 54 of 145Section 55
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 55 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013
Council's Traffic Engineer advises that the current width of the road is sufficient for its
predominantly rural residential use and is being maintained by council twice a year, as a
designated school bus route and therefore all necessary improvements shouki be
undertaken by the applicant and not council. Council's Traffic Engineer also advises that the
road improvements offered by the applicant are not considered suitable to cater for the
number of heavy vehicles expected to be generated by the poultry farm. In order for the
safety and amenity concerns to be properly addressed, Council's Traffic Engineer
recommends Top Forestry Road be sealed for its entire length and the road widened to allow
two trucks to pass one another.
Infrastructure agreements allow local governments and developers to negotiate and agree on
specific arrangements for the infrastructure networks that support developments. The
process for negotiating an infrastructure agreement must be undertaken prior to issuing a
development approval, in order to ensure the works are secured. In regard to the
infrastructure agreement proposed by the applicant, it is not appropriate for Council to enter
into an agreement without any details as to the scope and cost of the works.
3. Composting and stockpiling methodology including data on management of
emissions during these processes
The applicant's consultant performed further odour modeling of the sheds and litter
stockpiles only, with no modeling undertaken for the manure spreading, instead proposing a
number of management techniques to minimise the potential for odour nuisance. The further
modeling results in a much larger odour footprint than that which was originally submitted
with the application. The modeling results are included as Attachment 3.
During the review of the most recent modeling, it was identified that a sensitive receptor was
not included. This missed receptor is located at 185 Top Forestry Road, and is 750m to the
south of the subject site (see Attachment 3) and it appears the receptor maybe within the
2.5 odour limit modeled. Accordingly council's odour consultant advises that the actual
concentration at this sensitive receptor is uncertain and should therefore be analysed further.
The odour modeling considers the cumulative impacts of the shed and stockpiling area
(assuming good management of both), but no modeling has been undertaken to assess the
impacts associated with spreading of the manure. While modeling of the manure spreading
was not considered feasible by the applicant, council's odour consultant describes other
cases where spreading has been modeled to determine the impacts. The modeling of
spreading could lead to a situation where the predicted odour impacts increase and the 2.5
odour limits are not met for a number of nearby houses.
Council's consultant comments that the proposed management measures to control the
risk of adverse off-site odour impacts. However, the management measures are likely to be
onerous for ongoing poultry farm operations and difficult to enforce by councdl.
The applicant acknowledges that several properties owned by themselves are adversely
impacted upon by the odour associated with the development. To address this issue, the
applicant proposes the inclusion of the following condition:
The poultry farm can only operate as long as Lots 20 & 22 on SP 226606, Lot 1 on SP
100788 and Lot 204 on RP892484 are owned and occupied by the operator or an
employee of the poultry farm. in the event that the lands are not owned and occupied by
Page 55 of 145Section 56
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 56 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013
Council's Traffic Engineer advises that the current width of the road is sufficient for its
predominantly rural residential use and is being maintained by council twice a year, as a
designated school bus route and therefore all necessary improvements shouki be
undertaken by the applicant and not council. Council's Traffic Engineer also advises that the
road improvements offered by the applicant are not considered suitable to cater for the
number of heavy vehicles expected to be generated by the poultry farm. In order for the
safety and amenity concerns to be properly addressed, Council's Traffic Engineer
recommends Top Forestry Road be sealed for its entire length and the road widened to allow
two trucks to pass one another.
Infrastructure agreements allow local governments and developers to negotiate and agree on
specific arrangements for the infrastructure networks that support developments. The
process for negotiating an infrastructure agreement must be undertaken prior to issuing a
development approval, in order to ensure the works are secured. In regard to the
infrastructure agreement proposed by the applicant, it is not appropriate for Council to enter
into an agreement without any details as to the scope and cost of the works.
3. Composting and stockpiling methodology including data on management of
emissions during these processes
The applicant's consultant performed further odour modeling of the sheds and litter
stockpiles only, with no modeling undertaken for the manure spreading, instead proposing a
number of management techniques to minimise the potential for odour nuisance. The further
modeling results in a much larger odour footprint than that which was originally submitted
with the application. The modeling results are included as Attachment 3.
During the review of the most recent modeling, it was identified that a sensitive receptor was
not included. This missed receptor is located at 185 Top Forestry Road, and is 750m to the
south of the subject site (see Attachment 3) and it appears the receptor maybe within the
2.5 odour limit modeled. Accordingly council's odour consultant advises that the actual
concentration at this sensitive receptor is uncertain and should therefore be analysed further.
The odour modeling considers the cumulative impacts of the shed and stockpiling area
(assuming good management of both), but no modeling has been undertaken to assess the
impacts associated with spreading of the manure. While modeling of the manure spreading
was not considered feasible by the applicant, council's odour consultant describes other
cases where spreading has been modeled to determine the impacts. The modeling of
spreading could lead to a situation where the predicted odour impacts increase and the 2.5
odour limits are not met for a number of nearby houses.
Council's consultant comments that the proposed management measures to control the
risk of adverse off-site odour impacts. However, the management measures are likely to be
onerous for ongoing poultry farm operations and difficult to enforce by councdl.
The applicant acknowledges that several properties owned by themselves are adversely
impacted upon by the odour associated with the development. To address this issue, the
applicant proposes the inclusion of the following condition:
The poultry farm can only operate as long as Lots 20 & 22 on SP 226606, Lot 1 on SP
100788 and Lot 204 on RP892484 are owned and occupied by the operator or an
employee of the poultry farm. in the event that the lands are not owned and occupied by
Page 56 of 145Section 57
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 57 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013
e The applicant seeks that council enter into infrastructure agreement for 50% of the
cost to upgrade the most critical bend on Top Forestry Road. No infrastructure
agreement has been provided or any details of the likely scope and cost of the works.
« The proposed trip numbers detailed in the applicant's revised table differs significantly
from the information previously provided to council by the applicant for feed deliveries
and information gained by officers from the industry and council's odour consultant
including:
© Max Watterson & Associates 5/11/13 — maximum 3,960 and minimum of
3,210 birds per truck
© MWA Environmental attachment 6/11/13 — calculates 5312 birds per truck
© Hayes Traffic Engineering attachment example — calculates 5,633 birds per
truck
© MWA Environmental attachment 6/11/3 — maximum of 154 feed deliveries in
one cycle
© Max Watterson & Associates advice on site meeting with councillors —
maximum of 12 trips in any one day
© Max Watterson & Associates 2/12/13 average number of birds per truck 5,011
and maximum of 26 trips in any one day
© Max Watterson & Associates 2/12/13 maximum of 52 feed deliveries in one
cycle.
Officers have not been able to establish satisfactorily in the time permitted the
accuracy or otherwise of the information now supplied by the applicant.
Previous Council Resolution
Ordinary Meeting — 14 November 2013 (Council Resolution OM13222)
ITEM 7.2.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY TYPE 2
INTENSIVE (POULTRY FARM) AT 136 TOP FORESTRY ROAD,
RIDGEWOOD
That Council defer consideration of 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 to the next Council meeting and request the applicant to provide the
1. total vehicle trips inchading details of size of vehicles, purpose of trip, time of trip and
number of tnps per day
2. feasibility of requirements to provide to seal to 50m in front of affected properties on Top
Forestry Road or to enter into an infrastructure agreement with council
3. composting and stockpiling methodology including data on management of emissions
during these processes
4. water quality management particularly addressing potential impacts from use of shed
waste and composting material for fertilising the orchard and any associated run off and
5. feasibility on reduction of size and number of sheds.
Page 57 of 145Section 58
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 58 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINARY MEETING UPDATED REPORT 12 DECEMBER 2013
e The applicant seeks that council enter into infrastructure agreement for 50% of the
cost to upgrade the most critical bend on Top Forestry Road. No infrastructure
agreement has been provided or any details of the likely scope and cost of the works.
« The proposed trip numbers detailed in the applicant's revised table differs significantly
from the information previously provided to council by the applicant for feed deliveries
and information gained by officers from the industry and council's odour consultant
including:
© Max Watterson & Associates 5/11/13 — maximum 3,960 and minimum of
3,210 birds per truck
© MWA Environmental attachment 6/11/13 — calculates 5312 birds per truck
© Hayes Traffic Engineering attachment example — calculates 5,633 birds per
truck
© MWA Environmental attachment 6/11/3 — maximum of 154 feed deliveries in
one cycle
© Max Watterson & Associates advice on site meeting with councillors —
maximum of 12 trips in any one day
© Max Watterson & Associates 2/12/13 average number of birds per truck 5,011
and maximum of 26 trips in any one day
© Max Watterson & Associates 2/12/13 maximum of 52 feed deliveries in one
cycle.
Officers have not been able to establish satisfactorily in the time permitted the
accuracy or otherwise of the information now supplied by the applicant.
Previous Council Resolution
Ordinary Meeting — 14 November 2013 (Council Resolution OM13222)
ITEM 7.2.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY TYPE 2
INTENSIVE (POULTRY FARM) AT 136 TOP FORESTRY ROAD,
RIDGEWOOD
That Council defer consideration of 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 to the next Council meeting and request the applicant to provide the
1. total vehicle trips inchading details of size of vehicles, purpose of trip, time of trip and
number of tnps per day
2. feasibility of requirements to provide to seal to 50m in front of affected properties on Top
Forestry Road or to enter into an infrastructure agreement with council
3. composting and stockpiling methodology including data on management of emissions
during these processes
4. water quality management particularly addressing potential impacts from use of shed
waste and composting material for fertilising the orchard and any associated run off and
5. feasibility on reduction of size and number of sheds.
Page 58 of 145Section 59
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Attachment 2
Page 59 of 145
Section 60
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Attachment 2 cont.
Page 60 of 145
Section 61
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Attachment 2 cont.
Page 61 of 145
Section 62
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Attachment 3
Page 62 of 145
Section 63
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 63 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
PCC
iy ut lil
Be AE
| ULI TL HALE TIE HATH
SUE TTR TUTTE
| IINNVOVO WANNUINE AQNVOVE UHENUUNG UUUANERO
STAAL LUTTE
3
Te TTA TTATTTTATE
HIE HIE WHEL TIE UIA
LHL
: UATE TTT T
|
RAAT ITE
e ||| |||: Hy ALITA H
3 5 Ji} | |
a . Hy ile al Fel F diel
RU TT PA A
sc Pe | I dae | He
i 7. i i | i
4 ; ale a t : 1s ‘
& 3 i Hh Aue Hye
f ETL) LEECH) REESE) TH =
ee BBE) UHH
SBE UE UFSection 64
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 64 of 145
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
cs — — — )
ACETATE CATT A
HI UATE TE
AEA EAE
ft e 3
JANA ARETE UTA
ATARI
TERISTIC
HARLECH
UAE LEAT §
| R : ele i ei ae , ; }
eH ATE | ESE 3 HAA | TE
iN WANG GGAVTIUD HTT
itt | ?
tT : 5 j 5
ma |
: “15 =
HTH AH =H Ae Bere HH 3
| | %
; I :
: . Page 64 of 145
—Section 65
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Attachment 4
Page 65 of 145
Section 66
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Attachment 5 – PROPOSED UPGRADING TO TOP FORESTRY RD
Page 66 of 145
Section 67
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 67 of 145
u
. 3 rc pe 8 >
Oe i i 8 z
, 2 / ~~. DESIGN SURFACE 2 Zz
hae) = Sante: i Se EXISTING SUBFACE f 2
ames . “ew EARTHWORKS (CUT) TO PROMIDE FORMATION 2 oO
if Q j ~ WIOTH AND RE-INSTATE TABLE OR4N =
mm : Ny AENSTATED TABLE DRAN — tm MDE, 0.5m DEEP S i Re
aA 4 A S
“Fl . E ’ is) \ g i l Oo
ape 3 i al{ | f a
75 a Bop 3 Re, i
: \
TOP FORESTRY ROAD ed oe \ ROAD WIDENING — TOTAL FORMATION WDTH VARIES ! >
5 ad WIN. S.Sm (STRAIGHTS) WAX. 7.5m (CLIVE WDEMNG) 2
iS C . n
% a s af —— ee 4
Se ~S >
eis) a A j d Oo
— r x cl TYPICAL CROSS SECTION NL 2
EXCAVATE INTO EMBANKMENT (LHS IN. [fe NA lf y oO
DIRECTION OF CHAINAGE) TO PROVIDE [a Fi ~ S 3
CARRIAGEWAY WIDTH, CURVE WIDENING a =
AND REINSTATE TABLE DRAINS. ee =
; / i “4 =
i mM
. — =
Ay | ,
ie A 0 a
_ DEVELOPMENT . ZF, 6
. z
. a . : : qaast? <>» 2
TOP FORESTRY ROAD aS m
_ 3 = Ts 3
aE SEE A cu mbes mt so aL S
, —— SS = A = &
; . FoR HEAV VEHICLES TO PASS PASSENGER >
. VEHCLES SAFELY IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
K. -sTURES LEGEND NOTES: be
REFER MR SD DMG 154) . ' To here NUMBER 814101-Sk—001 o
. FOR OVERALL UPGRADE DETALS, REFER
0 SiN POST - @O
& 9 VY > CONCEPT 3
O CUT BATTER AND TABLE DRAIN k r — ADVICE ONLY 9°)
o - 3
a
024 6 8 10m 0 20 40 60 Bom W. DONALD MILLIGAN PTY LID C/— GANTT LEGAL (RK LAMBERT & REHBEIN B14101-SK-002 2
~ = 3 hie
S. “SOME 1250 “Sear 120 ee ee ee TOP FORESTRY ROAD - WIDENING DETAILS & TYPICAL SECTION) SRiHiieesme = RELREE
— SCE 1-250 (At) SCALE 1:2000 (41) INFRASTRUCTURE WORK ASSESSMENT OPTION t - | fermen See eae ee a ps3
aS F\sobalS14 790816101 rcaetrce beteet acta ve) tartchen!\804°0! SK 000 1407 =22. deg -
ol ASection 68
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Page 68 of 145
v
= 4 ys 8 >
iS . ; * 8° z
“sae 2 j . fe ~~ DESIGN SURFACE --t—-g----+ 3 e <
i az, j , : } SS EXISTING SURFACE To RE LoeTED 20m by ADaUCE ! i { a
Se, | > f ~ EARTHNORKS (CUT) TO PROVIDE FORMATION (SHOW. KORATVELY OW PLAX) 3 QM
mS i j ~ WITH AND RE-INSTATE TAELE.O3AIN iS
ae 5 & 74 SEANSTETED TABLE DORAN — 1m WOE, 0.5m DEEP | 12 i ge
ee cess 1 le { oO
S| tee Se ae ; 1.333 ‘\ ia f wD
eRe, x Ps Ma ‘ ' ‘A ; @
ade: & , | r
TOP FORESTRY ea a ees \\ gown wDeNING — TOTAL FORWETION WOTH VARIES |__=we | <
. 4 5 ; . MIN. 5.5m — WAX 7.0m a
' 4 i] o “- >
. ce RE a ey =
. — ~ Ir
‘ 2%, ae
Res) a TYPICAL CROSS SECTION yA Q
Pe | : ON CURVE APPROACHES ~ R1-28
Cee) k 4 od r ~ I QO
EXCAVATE INTO EMBANKMENT (LHS IN fe ~ y Oo
DIRECTION OF CHAINAGE) TO PROVIDE k iw a Re =
CARRIAGEWAY WIDTH, CURVE WIDENING YA ' =
AND REINSTATE TABLE DRAINS. ee! ids : =
7 as “a” tf o
Yo é Y qj
us f§ fy m
UL 4 : m
ss / i
“* ig 4 Ay =
: Ug Baa
~ a pean yy, VA a
A ety IP q
a Oey * / ee / yy Zz
= Se Y a
ae _----0 5 F / >
- DEVELOPMENT stro . ; A M
: . ‘ b se oo m
: 7 | ae S
TOP FORESTRY ROAD a >
en : R 507.990 a TT .
. Ss = SS - _——_ =
re : : SES o ONE way TRAFFIC SECTION OF CURVE.
. PAVEMENT WIDTH THROLCH CURVE IS” &.5m
TO ALLOW POR A 19m ARTICULATED VEHCLE
SWE=T PATH IW 30TH DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
; e
o
wn
vu . . PROPOSED FEATURES LEGEND NOTES: 3s
2 1. FOR OVERALL UPGRADE DETHLS, REFER >
e Crohn moe me © To SKETCH NUWBES 814701—Sk-008 @
o SIGN POST - 3
© ~ a
a 9 7 CONCEPT ®
ss CUT BATTER AND TABLE DRAN + i = ADVICE ONLY N
E 3
= Fimo mmm o-amoa | (ABER EnRE a
a 024 6 8 10m 0 20 40 60 Bt ¥ GAN PIF 230 &/° (KR Meee ction B14101-SK-003 -
SCALE 1.250 (At) SCALE 1:2000 (41) PROPOSED POULTRY FARM TOP FORESTRY ROAD - WIDENING DETAILS & TYPICAL SECTION] S&iiiecsme BEML EIES & [eto en]
: INFRASTRUCTURE WORK ASSESSMENT OPTION 2 anagem ge oe
Fibs Ld VOR TL TT veer btevetee tac! etches AT eS Thetis Ot herSection 69
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
3 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPE 4
CONVENTIONAL (4 UNITS) AND ASSOCIATED OPERATIONAL WORKS
SITUATED AT 28 NANNYGAI STREET, NOOSAVILLE MCU14/0051 & OPW14/0274
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Development Planner, Jack Lewis
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM / Application / MCU14/0051 & OPW14/0274
Attachments 1. Locality Plan
2. Proposal Plans
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Tu Projects
Proposal Development Permit for Material Change of Use – Multiple Housing
Type 4 Conventional (4 Units); and
Development Permit for Operational Works (Vehicle Crossover,
Landscaping, Drainage Works and Carparking)
Properly Made Date 30 June 2014
Information Request Date Nil
Decision Due Date 26 September 2014
Number of Submissions 2 Properly Made
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 28 Nannygai Street, Noosaville
RP Description Lot 1 on RP153307
2
Land Area 1,619m
Existing Use of Land Disused industrial shed
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Noosaville
Zone Semi Attached Housing
Overlays Natural Hazards (Min Floor Height & Potential Acid Sulphates)
Assessment Type Impact
Page 69 of 145
Section 70
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Organisation
Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2014 regarding Application No. MCU14/0051 and
OPW14/0274 for Development Permits for Material Change of Use for Multiple Housing
Type 4 Conventional (4 units) and Operational Works situated at 28 Nannygai Street,
Noosaville; and
A. Approve the applications in accordance with the following conditions:
Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Multiple Housing Type 4
Conventional (4 units)
PLANNING
When Conditions must be Complied With
1. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of this Decision Notice must be complied with
prior to the use commencing, and then compliance maintained at all times while the
use continues.
Approved Plans
2. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with
the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following
table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
4416SM Sheet 5 PA Site Plan, prepared by I Want That Design 27 June 2014
of 36
4416SM Sheet 6 PA Lower Floor Plans, prepared by I Want That 27 June 2014
of 36 Design
4416SM Sheet 7 PA Upper Floor Plans, prepared by I Want That 27 June 2014
of 36 Design
4416SM Sheet 35 PA 3D Perspectives 1 of 2, prepared by I Want 27 June 2014
of 36 That Design
4416SM Sheet 36 PA 3D Perspectives 2 of 2, prepared by I Want 27 June 2014
of 36 That Design
1196-Sk01 Driveway Layout, prepared by Contour 1 July 2014
3. Development authorised by this approval must be undertaken generally in accordance
with the Approved Plans listed within this Decision Notice.
Building Height
4. The maximum height of the development must not exceed 8 metres above the finished
ground level and the natural ground level.
5. Certification must be submitted to Council from a Licensed Surveyor which certifies
that the buildings do not exceed the maximum height requirement of this Decision
Notice.
Landscaping
6. The development site must be landscaped prior to the commencement of use. The
works must be undertaken in accordance the works shown on the Approved Plans,
except where amended by these conditions.
7. 4 x 45L street trees must be planted within the Nannygai Street frontage. The trees
shall be located so as to allow for adequate sight lines, and be clear of existing and
proposed services within the road reserve, including the footpath.
Page 70 of 145
Section 71
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
8. All landscape works must be maintained generally in accordance with the approved
design for the life of the development.
9. All landscape works must be established and maintained in accordance with
horticultural best practice with construction techniques that allow for healthy, sustained
and vigorous plant growth. All plant material must be allowed to grow to full form.
Performance Bond
10. Security in the form of a cash bond or trading bank guarantee to the sum of $20,000
must be submitted to Council, to secure performance of all conditions of this approval,
prior to the pre-start meeting. The cash bond or trading bank guarantee will be
returned on performance of the conditions of approval less any costs incurred by
Council in respect of enforcing performance of this permit. Council reserves the right to
call upon the bond or guaranteed sum to effect compliance with conditions.
Building Appearance
11. All air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment must be located at ground
level, or otherwise fully enclosed or screened such that they are not visible from the
street frontages nor adjoining properties.
Fencing and Walls
12. Any street fencing must be set back an average of 1 metre from the front property
boundary. Any fencing on the front boundary must either:
a. not exceed a maximum height of 1.2m; or
b. be of open construction.
13. The area of land between the fence and the front property boundary must be densely
landscaped to screen any fencing from the street.
Community Management Statement
14. Any proposed Community Management Statement required for the development
pursuant to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 must be
submitted to Council for endorsement at the same time as submission of the Building
Format Plan (or similar) to Council for compliance assessment.
15. All clauses and by-laws of the proposed Community Management Statement must
accord with the requirements of this Decision Notice
Waste Management
16. Refuse storage, removal and collection facilities must be provided in accordance with
the following:
a. provision of a minimum of two 240L wheelie bins for each dwelling unit;
b. provision of separate bins for general and recyclable waste for each tenancy,
with an equal number of each being provided; and
c. provision of a hardstand impervious area in accordance with the approved plan.
Unitywater
17. Reticulated water supply and sewerage must be provided to the development.
18. Construction activities must not impede the access of Unitywater or Fire Brigade
personnel to vital infrastructure (eg. valves, fire hydrants and sewer access chambers).
19. The fire-fighting demand on Unitywater’s water supply system from the development
must not exceed 15 litres per second.
Page 71 of 145
Section 72
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
20. A single Unitywater installed primary water meter must be provided immediately inside
the property boundary. Meters must be Unitywater approved, installed in accordance
with Unitywater requirements and remain accessible at all times for reading and
maintenance purposes.
21. Sub meters must be provided at the boundary of each title to be administered by a
body corporate.
22. The existing 100mm diameter AC watermain within Nannygai Street must be replaced
for the full frontage of the development site with DICL pipes. The replacement works
must be completed prior to placing construction materials/site offices over or adjacent
to the water main alignment.
23. Easements of between 3 and 10 metres must be provided over all Unitywater sewers
located within property boundaries in accordance with the SEQ standards. Easements
shall be centred over the pipe. Easement terms shall be the most current registered
dealing held by the Department of Natural Resources & Mines and shall not be altered
or amended.
24. Water meters must be located on alternative boundaries to electrical pillars.
25. Buildings and other structures must maintain a minimum clearance of 1.5 meters from
Unitywater sewer mains, and 1.0 meter from a sewer manhole chamber or sewer
inspection opening.
26. Storm water retention systems and gross pollutant traps must maintain a minimum
clearance of 1.5 meters from Unitywater water supply and sewerage infrastructure.
27. The applicant must adjust the level of the existing sewerage inspection opening as
necessary to suit the proposed finished levels. Work must be undertaken by
Unitywater at the owner’s cost. Where the existing sewerage inspection opening point
is located within a sealed or concreted parking area, a brass cap is required to be
fitted.
28. Tree plantings must maintain a minimum horizontal clearance of 1.0 metre from
Unitywater water mains and 1.5 metres from Unitywater sewerage mains. Landscaping
plants within these clearances must be low growing when mature, and suitable
approved varieties.
29. Construction works undertaken in the vicinity of Unitywater water supply or sewerage
infrastructure must not adversely affect the integrity of the infrastructure. All costs
associated with repair, replacement or alteration of infrastructure must be met by the
applicant.
ENGINEERING
External Works
30. Nannygai Street must be upgraded for the length of its frontage to the subject site.
The works must include in particular:
a. Construction of a pedestrian footpath in accordance with the conditions of this
Decision Notice; and
b. Removal of the existing property accesses, stormwater outlet points and
reinstatement of the kerb, footpath and verge area to match the balance of the
site frontage, including the provision of topsoil and turf where the existing verge
is grassed.
This condition is imposed pursuant to s665 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 being
non-trunk infrastructure.
Page 72 of 145
Section 73
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Site Access and Driveways
31. A sealed access driveway must be provided from Nannygai Street to all parking and
manoeuvring areas of the development. The works must include in particular a
driveway crossover in accordance with IPWEAQ standard drawing SEQ R-051with a
maximum width of 6 metres at the property boundary.
Car Parking
32. A minimum of 9 car parking spaces must be provided and marked on the site. The
works must include crossfalls, gradients and dimensions in accordance with Australian
Standard AS2890: Parking Facilities
33. All vehicles must enter and exit the site in a forward gear.
Footpath
34. A pedestrian and bicycle footpath must be provided for the development. The works
must include in particular a 2.0 metre wide footpath within the road verge for the entire
length of the site’s frontage to Nannygai Street. This condition is imposed pursuant to
s665 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 being non-trunk infrastructure.
Stormwater Drainage
35. The site must be provided with a stormwater drainage system connecting to a lawful
point of discharge.
36. All stormwater runoff from the site must be discharged in to Council’s kerb and channel
drainage system in Nannygai Street.
37. Approved kerb adapters must be constructed at each outlet point.
38. Electricity and Telecommunication Services
39. Unless otherwise stipulated by telecommunications legislation at the time of
construction, the development must be provided with all necessary conduits, pits and
pipes to accommodate the future connection of optic fibre technology
telecommunications.
40. Certification must be submitted to Council from all relevant service providers which
certifies that the development has met the requirements of this Decision Notice and all
applicable legislation at the time of construction.
Earthworks and Retaining Walls
41. All fill and associated batters must be contained entirely within the subject site unless
written permission from the respective landowner(s) is provided to Council. All
earthworks must be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Australian
Standard AS3798: Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential
Developments.
42. Where the development involves excavation or filling over, or adjacent to, drainage,
water supply or sewerage infrastructure, all access chamber surface levels must be
adjusted to provide a freeboard of 100mm above the finished ground surface level.
Damage to Services and Assets
43. Any damage caused to existing services and assets as a result of the development
works must be repaired at no cost to the asset owner at the following times:
a. where the damage would cause a hazard to pedestrian or vehicle safety,
immediately; or
b. where otherwise, upon completion of the works associated with the
development.
Page 73 of 145
Section 74
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Development Permit for Operational Works (Vehicle Crossover, Landscaping,
Drainage Works and Carparking)
OPERATIONAL WORKS
Approved Plans
1. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with
the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following
table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
1193-SK01 Driveway Layout, prepared by Contour 1 July 2014
1193-SK03 Stormwater Management Plan, prepared by 7 July 2014
Contour
4416SM PB Stormwater Plan, prepared by I Want That 17 July 2014
Design
1193-SK04 A Live Sewer Works Table 2 Sept 2014
CD-001 A Cover Sheet Notes and Schedules, prepared 3 July 2014
by DFS Group
CD-002 A External Works and Planting Plan, prepared 3 July 2014
by DFS Group
CD-003 A Landscape Details, prepared by DFS Group 3 July 2014
2. Development authorised by this approval must be undertaken generally in accordance
with the Approved Plans listed within this Decision Notice.
Prior to Commencement of Works
3. Council must be contacted at least 5 working days prior to any works commencing to
organise a prestart. The contact number to arrange a pre-start meeting is 5329 6244.
The pre-start meeting must include the relevant parties for the following aspects of the
works:
a. Civil engineering works;
b. Erosion and sediment control works
4. A Construction Management Plan must be submitted to Council prior to the pre-start
meeting and must specifically address the following:
a. Traffic Management during all aspects of the construct phase including:
i. A Traffic Management Control Plan in accordance with Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) detailing all temporary signage and traffic
control measures prior to construction
ii. Maintenance of safe pedestrian access across the frontage of the site both
during daily construction and after daily construction has ceased
iii. Proposed fencing to the site during the construction phase of the
development
iv. Adequate parking arrangements for construction workers
b. Maintenance and protection of water quality and existing drainage lines through
the construction site through the implementation of appropriate erosion and
sediment control measures
c. Works programme identifying key components of the works and their respective
durations
Page 74 of 145
Section 75
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
d. Establishment of a communication protocol with the general public, adjoining
owners, emergency services and local businesses to advise of agreed
construction times, impacts on traffic and services and other relevant issues
5. Any conflict between the development and an existing or proposed service must be
referred to the relevant service authority for determination prior to commencement of
works.
During Construction
6. The developer must meet any costs to repair damage to any Council asset during
construction, where damage is a result of the development works. Damage to assets
must be repaired immediately where it creates a hazard to the community. In
circumstances where the damage does not create a hazard to the community, it must
be repaired immediately on completion of the works associated with the development.
A condition report including photographs of the frontage of the site should be
completed and submitted to Council at the prestart meeting or prior to any works
commencing (where no prestart meeting is to occur).
7. All works must be supervised by a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland
(RPEQ) who is independent of the Developer and Principal Contractor, and they must
certify that all works conform to the Operational Works permit. Where municipal works
are involved, such confirmation must be submitted for the respective hold points prior
to any site inspection by Council Officers.
8. All works must be constructed and work procedure undertaken in accordance with:
a. The approved plans/documents and conditions detailed in this Decision Notice
b. All relevant Noosa Council Planning Scheme Policies, standard drawings,
standard specifications and guidelines
c. The latest version of the Healthy Waterways document “Water Sensitive Urban
Design Technical Design Guidelines for South East Queensland” for all water
quality devices to be constructed on site
Works Within Road Reserve/Reinstatement
9. Safe pedestrian access on all streets in the vicinity of the development must be
maintained at all times. Should footpath/road closures be necessary to carry out
construction works, Council’s Engineering Officer must be notified prior to the
proposed closure and all requirements complied with.
10. All frontage works must match neatly with existing road and verge/footpath features.
Additional works beyond the frontage may be required to provide an acceptable
transition to existing road and verge/footpath profiles.
Pathways
11. All pathways must be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:
a. All footpath/cycleway must comply with Council’s Standard Drawing SEQ R-065.
b. All paths must have a slip resistant surface
c. Expansion and contraction joints must provide a flush finish. Installation of joints
by saw cutting is preferred to ensure a smooth ride for cyclists
d. The required work includes any modifications to ensure the footpath finishes
flush with all existing service covers and the like, or alternatively these services
are raised or altered, so as not to create a pedestrian safety hazard
Page 75 of 145
Section 76
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
12. Pathways must:
a. terminate in a manner that ensures smooth transition to existing surfaces for
public safety
b. be designed and constructed to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act
(DDA), Access to Premises Standard, Austroads and relevant sections of
AS1428 Design for access and mobility
Site Access and Driveways
13. Any existing unnecessary or redundant property accesses must be removed, and the
kerb, footpath and verge area reinstated to match the existing footpath and/or verge
treatments. Grassed verge areas to be reinstated must be provided with 100 mm
topsoil and grass seed or turf, and must be maintained by the developer until
established.
14. The driveway must be constructed so as not to concentrate stormwater runoff onto
neighbouring properties or cause ponding of water within the road reserve
Earthworks
15. The finished surface level of the site must be graded and shaped to ensure that all
surface runoff is directed to Nannygai Street and not directed on to any adjoining
property.
16. All earthworks shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of AS 3798
Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Development. Certification
shall be provided by an RPEQ and submitted to Council the issue of the Certificate of
Classification for the building.
Service Conduits under Existing Road Features
17. Electrical conduits or other services proposed to be installed under existing sealed
carriageways, concrete pathways or concrete/sealed driveways must be installed by
boring. Trenching is not permitted, unless specifically approved by Council.
Erosion and Sediment Control
18. Prescribed Water Contaminants (as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1994)
must not be released from the site or to waters within the site, or be likely to be
released should rainfall occur, unless all reasonable and practicable measures are
taken to prevent or minimise the release and concentration of contamination.
19. Erosion and sediment control measures must be installed and maintained to minimise
erosion on the site and to minimise the export of sediment and associated pollutants
from the site. The erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed
and maintained in accordance with current best practice standards (refer to advisory
notes).
20. Prior to the issue of the Certificate of Classification, all site surfaces must be effectively
stabilised using methods which have achieved effective short-term stabilisation and
which will continue to achieve effective stabilisation in the medium to long-term (refer
to advisory notes). For the purpose of this condition, an effectively stabilised surface is
defined as one that does not, or is not likely to result in visible evidence of soil loss
caused by sheet, rill or gully erosion or lead to sedimentation, or lead to water
contamination.
21. Any exposed areas must be effectively stabilised without delay and prior to rainfall
occurring.
Page 76 of 145
Section 77
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
Supervision/Certification
22. Upon completion of the work a certificate must be issued by an RPEQ certifying that
the works have been constructed in accordance with the Operational Works permit.
23. All municipal works must be accepted ‘On Maintenance’ by Council in accordance with
Council’s relevant Planning Scheme Policy prior to plan sealing. To achieve ‘On
Maintenance’, the supervising RPEQ must submit to council:
a. certification that all works have been undertaken and completed in accordance
with the requirements of this Permit
b. As Constructed details in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy
c. Maintenance and operational manuals for all proprietary devices
As Constructed Plans
24. Prior to acceptance of civil works to become Council assets “On Maintenance”, the
lodgement of satisfactory “As Constructed” records must be submitted to Council. The
“As Constructed” information must include:
a. Drawings and data certified by a qualified experienced Civil Engineer (RPEQ) for
design intent, and certified by a Licensed Surveyor in regard to the cadastre and
the location, level and type of all services and structures.
b. The data must be in accordance with Council’s (Noosa Plan) – Planning Scheme
Policy 5 – Engineering Design Standards – Roads, Drainage and Earthworks,
and Planning Scheme Policy 6 Engineering Design Standards – Water and
Sewerage and fully detail levels for all engineering works including but not limited
to drainage structures, finished ground levels and pavement surface levels.
c. The data must be submitted in hardcopy form and digital format (Asset Design
and As Constructed (ADAC)) in GDA94 Zone 56 coordinate values. Guidelines
on the use of ADAC are available at www.adac.com.au
Landscaping
25. The site must be landscaped in accordance with The Noosa Plan’s Planning Scheme
Policy PSP 3 – Landscaping Plants and Guidelines.
During Construction
26. Landscape General - The following requirements apply to all landscape works:
a. All imported topsoil or ameliorated site soil complies with Australian Standard
AS4419 and/or is appropriate for the proposed plant species.
b. All tree stock must conform to NATSPEC criteria as outlined in Specifying Trees:
a guide to assessment of tree quality.
c. Mulch is to be aged, comprised of leaf and limb of varying sizes, free of foreign
matter including, anthropogenic waste, rock, soil / sediment contamination and
applied to ensure 100mm in depth.
d. All necessary measures must be taken to prevent fire ants (or any stages of the
fire ants life cycle) entering the work site. If fire ants are suspected, the applicant
must contact the Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries Call Centre on
132523.
e. Landscaping must not obstruct overland flow paths and must include adequate
drainage to minimise ponding. Mulch or any floatable material must not be
located in swales or overland flow paths.
Page 77 of 145
Section 78
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 16 September 2014
f. Landscaping must not encroach onto kerb and channel, footpaths, pedestrian or
vehicular / circulation areas.
g. Landscaping must not restrict access to service meters.
27. Landscaping of Road Reserves - The following requirements apply to landscaping
within road reserves:
a. Permanent ornamental lighting must not be installed within road reserve.
b. Permanent irrigation must not be installed on road reserve.
c. Vegetation must not be subjected to any hedging maintenance regime and must
be allowed to grow to its natural form.
28. Turf (verge): The applicant must ensure turf is in accordance with the following:
a. Turf species to be sustainable for local and design conditions without requiring
irrigation.
b. Turf is easily accessible and navigable by ride-on mowers with cutting decks of
2.1 metres wide.
c. Be free of rocks and debris.
d. Turf is rolled and joined smoothly and level with adjoining surfaces.
e. Turf is pest, weed and disease free.
Following Construction
29. Ongoing maintenance: The site must be maintained to aesthetically compliment the
surrounding local area for the life of the development. The maintenance must include:
a. Regular mowing, weeding and fertilising of turf verge.
b. Replenishing of mulch to 100mm depth, fertilising and aeration of landscape
areas.
c. Cleaning of all external surfaces including prompt removal of graffiti.
d. Replacement of dead or poorly performing plants.
e. Inspection and assessment of all vegetation such that it does not adversely
affect adjoining property or pedestrians.
f. Remedial action if any vegetation poses a health or safety risk to site users or
adjoining property.
Any repair work which proposes to alter the alignment or level of existing services and
assets must first be referred to the relevant service authority for approval.
UNITYWATER
During Construction
30. Water meters must be installed to each lot of the development in accordance with
Unitywater requirements and SEQ Standard Drawings.
31. Electrical pillars must be located on alternative boundaries to water meters.
32. A minimum horizontal clearance of 1.0 metre must be maintained between stormwater
pipes greater than 225mm diameter and Unitywater water supply or sewerage
infrastructure.
33. Stormwater filtration/retention systems and gross pollutant traps must maintain a
minimum of 1.5 metres horizontal clearance from a sewerage main or sewer house
connection point.
Page 78 of 145
The text continues on section 79.