RESPONSE TO DEFERRAL MOTION - MCU12/0184 - Chicken farm application

Subject: W DONALD MILLIGAN PTY LTD  136 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood - MCU12/0184 - Chicken farm application
From: Jack Lewis <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:51:26 +0000
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

#ECMAll

From: Cliff Wirz [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2015 4:48 PM
To: Kerri Coyle; Jack Lewis
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Allan Hull; Mark Lewis; '[email protected]'; David Morrison
Subject: W DONALD MILLIGAN PTY LTD 136 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood - MCU12/0184 - Chicken farm application

[GANTT LEGAL]

Dear Kerri.

I refer to my email dated 18 March 2015.

Given that there have been numerous requests for and further information provided during the assessment of this development application, I thought it would be useful to provide a detailed chronology of steps taken to progress the development application, before providing a response to the further information requested.

The applicant's contact for the development application, Max Watterson of Max Watterson & Associates is copied into this email.

Background


1.     On 14 November 2013 Council resolved to request further information with respect to the development application.



2.     On 13 February 2014 my clients, my clients, Max Watterson and I met with Jack Lewis, other Council officers and yourself to discuss the further conduct of the development application, particularly, the additional information requested by the Council (set out in the Council resolution dated 14 November 2013) and the reasons for refusal contained in the report considered at the Council's ordinary meeting held on 12 December 2013.



3.     Video survey equipment was subsequently installed on the evening of 11 March 2014 to count vehicle movements in 2 locations along Top Forestry Road. The video traffic surveys obtained full day data from Wednesday 12 March 2014 until Tuesday 18 March 2014.



4.     By email dated 11 June 2014 you provided me with a draft template for an infrastructure agreement.



5.     By email dated 30 July 2014 I provided a background of work undertaken since the February 2014 meeting



6.     By email dated 31 July 2014 I provided you with:



*       a link to videos taken by Lambert & Rehbein of the route (and not the video traffic surveys) the video traffic surveys of Top Forestry Road, obtained from Wednesday 12 March 2014 until Tuesday 18 March 2014



*       confirmation that in terms of the composting/manure stockpiles component of the development application the applicant is prepared to accept a condition of approval that no composting and stockpiling of poultry manure generated by the poultry sheds is to be undertaken on-site (which addressed item 3 of the Council resolution made at the Council's ordinary meeting on 14 November 2013)



*       An updated odour and air quality impact assessment prepared by MWA Environmental dated 31 July 2014.



(a)   In terms of odour, the report included additional receptor locations and considers all closest sensitive receiver locations and, based upon the modelling methodology requested by Council's peer reviewer, indicates compliance with the Queensland odour amenity guideline at all sensitive receptors.



(b)   In terms of dust, the report concluded that sealing of Top Forestry Road for all locations where houses are within 50 metres of the road is not considered to be warranted based upon the minor traffic volumes (addressing item 2 of the Council resolution made at the Council's ordinary meeting on 14 November 2013).



(c)   In terms of noise, the report concluded that, due to minor traffic generation, the proposed development has no potential to cause any regulatory traffic noise planning levels to be exceeded at residential land uses and that the overall impact on the existing acoustic environment from development generated traffic will not be unreasonable.



*       A Traffic Engineering Report" prepared by Lambert & Rehbein dated 31 July 2014 (addressing item 1 of the Council resolution made at the Council's ordinary meeting on 14 November 2013). According to the traffic report, "The activity associated with the proposed use would be generally a very low impact and very low activity with almost half of the days throughout a 63 day growth cycle expected to generate no external traffic activity.". The traffic engineering report also outlined two options for minor mitigation works to Top Forestry Road which the applicant would like to discuss with Council, with a view to incorporating into an infrastructure agreement.



*       A request for a meeting to discuss the amended reports with a view to determining works ought to be incorporated into an infrastructure agreement



7.     By correspondence dated 15 August 2014 I provided you with a USB of the video traffic surveys of Top Forestry Road, obtained from Wednesday 12 March 2014 until Tuesday 18 March 2014 by Lambert & Rehbein



8.     By email dated 16 September 2014 I provided you with response regarding issues raised in the agenda for the Noosa Shire Council's Planning and Organisation Committee meeting to be held on 16 September 2014 (noting that the resolution of the committee meeting was to be considered at the Full Council meeting to be held on 25 September 2014). The email included:



*       background information regarding odour issues, including impacts and odour footprints with respect to adjacent land owned by the applicant which did not form part of the development application



*       confirmation that the odour and air quality impact assessment prepared by MWA Environmental dated 31 July 2014 included results from the odour model for 185 Top Forestry Road which indicates compliance with the 2.5 odour unit guideline



*       covenants - advice from Christopher Hughes QC and Michael Williamson of Counsel regarding a proposed Covenant over Lot 1 on SP100785,  Lot 22 on SP226606, Lot 204 on RP892484 and Lot 20 on SP226606 and confirmation that the applicant is prepared to provide covenants to the Council under s. 97(a) of the Land Title Act 1994 on the four adjoining lots owned by my clients (namely Lot 1 on SP100785,  Lot 22 on SP226606, Lot 204 on RP892484 and Lot 20 on SP226606) for the purpose of a buffer whilst the poultry farm operates on the land the subject of the development


9.     By correspondence dated 26 September 2014 (copy enclosed) you advised that the Council at its ordinary meeting held on 25 September 2014 resolved to defer deciding the development application to allow my client to address a number of issues relating to dust, odour and traffic engineering.



10.  By email dated 2 October 2014 I advised that my client, and consultants (Ben Hyde of MWA Environmental, Steve Williams of Lambert & Rehbein and Max Watterson of Max Watterson & Associates) and I would like to meet with Council officers and the independent experts engaged by the Council to assess the development application (namely Colin Beard of Beard Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd and Geordie Galvin at Pacific Environment Limited) to discuss the issues set out in your correspondence dated 26 September 2014.



11.  By email dated 7 October 2014 you confirmed that a meeting would be held at the Council Chambers on 15 October 2014. You also requested further on advice on how a covenant is intended to work.



12.  A meeting was held at the Council Chambers on 15 October 2014 and primarily concerned the width of Top Forestry Road. Subsequent to the meeting, Max Watterson undertook surveys of Top Forestry Road and Steve Williams of Lambert & Rehbein has undertaken further investigations regarding Top Forestry Road utilising the survey information.



13.  By email dated 10 December 2014 I provided you with a plan of Top Forestry Road prepared by Lambert & Rehbein based on the survey information provided by Max Watterson. Steve Williams comments regarding the plan were as follows:



"The plan shows that for the majority of the road we already have a 6.0m road width and as such there would be no widening required.  The plan identifies the areas where the survey shows we would need to undertake some widening to achieve a 6.0m wide road to satisfy the position taken by Colin Beard.  It is noted that this widening requirement would vary from 100mm to 500m.  I think that for the sections where we are talking 100mm and 200mm this really is becoming completely unreasonable in my opinion.".



It was noted that The above comment does not relate to the significant bend in the road near the land the subject of the development application which the parties have previously discussed and which will require upgrading/widening.



My client and consultants (Steve Williams of Lambert & Rehbein and Max Watterson of Max Watterson & Associates) requested a meeting with Council officers and Colin Beard to discuss the abovementioned plan and road upgrade requirements.



14.  By email dated 10 December 2014 you requested further survey information (ie a series of cross sections showing the existing and proposed profiles) and suggested that a meeting was premature at this stage.



15.  By email dated 12 January 2015 I enclosed drawings prepared by Lambert & Rehbein which show widening details and typical cross sections for Top Forestry Road, a Detail & Level Plans and ACAD file prepared by Max Watterson & Associates that you requested, and confirmed that:



*       My client has instructed me that they are prepared to construct Top Forestry Road to achieve a 6m sealed pavement along the corridor



*       My client is prepared to accept a condition of approval requiring Top Forestry Road to be designed, constructed and sealed in accordance with the Council's adopted standards prior to the commencement of the use (namely, "Planning Scheme Policy 5 - Engineering Design Standards - Roads, Drainage and Earthworks")



*       My client also proposes to enter into an infrastructure agreement with the Council to establish the obligations and secure the performance of the parties to the agreement about the condition regarding construction of Top Forestry Road, and to identify any entitlement to an infrastructure offset that is to apply to the infrastructure contribution for road transport infrastructure



I also confirmed that my client and consultants (Steve Williams of Lambert & Rehbein and Max Watterson of Max Watterson & Associates) would like to meet with Council officers and Colin Beard to discuss the abovementioned plans and road upgrade requirements, with a view to incorporating same into an infrastructure agreement.



16.  By email dated 2 February 2015 you made a number of comments regarding the plans submitted on 12 January 2015 for my client's consideration (below) and suggested my client amend the drawings if agreeable:



*       Geotechnical investigation is required on the proposed cut banks to determine if the proposed slopes are achievable and sustainable.



*       The table drain indicated on the "Typical Cross Section" on drawing No.B14101-SK-005 needs to be amended to be 1 in 4 (and be consistent with the other submitted drawings).



*       The pavement design indicated on the "Typical Cross Section" on drawing No.B14101-SK-005 needs to be amended to be in accordance with section 3.19 of Council's PSP5. A note must also be included that indicates that the pavement design is preliminary only and subject to on-site testing and Council approval.



*       A notation that the table drains will be widened (as required) where located adjacent to cross road drainage.



*       Acknowledgement that the works will include all necessary road signage, guide posts etc



*       A further plan indicating the extent of works (once the geotechnical investigation has been completed), that includes existing vegetation to be removed/retained, existing services, property boundaries etc.



Your email dated 2 February 2015 also noted:

It is noted that the submitted plans received on the 12/01/2015, only address point A and point E of the Council's resolution. The other points remain important matters and it is suggested that they also be addressed by your client.


A.     Identify measures to mitigate dust nuisance for residents living along Top Forestry Road and minimise road maintenance requirements such as sealing of Top Forestry Road;


B Investigate whether an alternative haul route can be used that does not include the residential streets of Cooroy (Maple Street and Crystal Street) and is suitable for heavy vehicles;

C. Confirm whether chicken pick-up times can be limited to day time only (6am to 7pm);

D. Identify how unacceptable odour impacts on future residents of 124, 146, 172 and 224 Top Forestry Road may be addressed; and

E. Provide an Infrastructure Agreement that includes all proposed road works and/or maintenance measures to be undertaken to Top Forestry Road to address road safety, amenity and maintenance issues and where appropriate odour measures for 124, 146, 172 and 224 Top Forestry Road.





17.  By email dated 11 February 2015 you referred to discussions between Steve Williams from Lambert and Rehbein and Council officers provided further clarification regarding the issues set out in your email dated 2 February 2015 as follows:

Steve from Lambert and Rehbein contacted officers last week seeking some clarification around the issues raised in the email below generally asking whether the geotechnical investigation could be addressed at a later point.  Questions around the pavement design were also raised.  The following comments are made for your consideration:


*       Geotechnical Investigation - this should be done in this phase of the project as the current slopes may not be supported by the slope stability analysis and hence may require flatter batters which would result in tree loss (the extent of which is not known until that Geotechnical analysis is completed ). Additional engineering treatment may also be required to ensure long term slope stability so as not to create ongoing maintenance and safety issues. While this could be conditioned as part of the Ops Works this is a risk to the Applicant as Council is unlikely to accept flatter batters that result in significant tree loss.  It is preferred that this issue be addressed earlier rather than later.


*       Pavement Design - the pavement design should be undertaken in accordance with the PSP to ensure good long term performance and asset life that matches our pavement design life. If a lower pavement thickness was adopted with substandard  design principles this may result in a shortened performance life for the road pavement, additional ongoing maintenance intervention costs and risks to Council.



18.  By email dated 18 March 2015 I provided you with an update regarding timing to respond to the further information you have requested. In that email I advised that Council undertook grading/widening works to Top Forestry Road In the weeks commencing 16 and 23 February 2015, and that my client was waiting for those works to be completed before undertaking the further investigations and information requested regarding the proposed road upgrade to Top Forestry Road.

Further information

The further issues to address are set out in your emails dated 2 and 11 February 2015.

A response to all of those issues is set out below.

All of the documentation referred to in items 1 - 3 below can be accessed via the following link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3qxrzsx2i2seex8/B14101.zip?dl=0


1)     I enclose a geotechnical investigation report (version 1) prepared by Red Earth Engineering Pty Ltd dated 23 April 2015. The geotechnical investigation assessed both the existing pavement composition (including underlying pavement strength) and assessed slope stability at the major curve widening area in Top Forestry Road at around chainage 1100m through 1200m (Ch0 starting at Old Ceylon Road).



2)     I enclose correspondence from Steve Williams of Lambert and Rehbein dated 25 May 2015 regarding the proposed road pavement upgrade and widening of Top Forestry Road and the updated set of concept drawings referred to therein, namely:



                        I.         Drawing B1401-SK-004, revision B dated 8 May 2015 titled "Top Forestry Road - Widening Details";

                       II.         Drawing B1401-SK-005, revision C dated 28 April 2015 titled "Top Forestry Road - Widening Details & Typical Section";

                     III.         Drawing B1401-SK-006, revision A dated 6 January 2015 titled "Top Forestry Road - Concept Annotated Cross Sections";

                     IV.         Drawing B1401-SK-007, revision A dated 6 January 2015 titled "Top Forestry Road - Concept Annotated Cross Sections



The drawings provide a 6 m wide sealed pavement, increased to a minimum of 7 m at the major curve widening area in Top Forestry Road at around chainage 1100m through 1200m (Ch0 starting at Old Ceylon Road). The updated set of concept drawings above have taken into consideration the findings of the geotechnical investigations.



The Circly analysis of Top Forestry Road referred to in the correspondence from by Lambert and Rehbein dated 25 May 2015 is enclosed.



My client has confirmed that they are prepared to provide a minimum pavement depth for rural roads as outlined in Council's PSP5 of 200mm.



3)     I also enclose correspondence from L Hattendorff (senior ecologist) of Lambert and Rehbein dated 14 May 2015 outlining the results of an ecological inspection of the area subject to the proposed road widening of Top Forestry Road, with a particular focus at the major curve widening area in Top Forestry Road at around chainage 1100m through 1200m (Ch0 starting at Old Ceylon Road).



4)     The correspondence from Steve Williams of Lambert and Rehbein dated 25 May 2015 also provides a response to item B in your correspondence dated 2 February 2015, that is, "whether an alternative haul route can be used that does not include the residential streets of Cooroy (Maple Street and Crystal Street) and is suitable for heavy vehicles.". Steve Williams is of the opinion that there are no alternative viable and reasonable alternative routes, and that the travel route previously proposed by my client in the development application is the most appropriate route from a traffic engineering perspective.



5)     I also enclose correspondence from Ben Hyde of MWA Environmental dated 27 May 2015 summarising the dust monitoring results and addressing the relevant aspects of 'Item A' identified in your correspondence dated 2 February 2015. Ben Hyde is of the opinion that the sealing of Top Forestry Road is not necessary to prevent unreasonable dust nuisance at residents living along Top Forestry Road. Having said that, my client has confirmed that they are prepared to seal Top Forestry Road.



6)     In terms of the "Odour impacts" referred to in Item D in your correspondence dated 2 February 2015, my client has previously confirmed (by email dated 16 September 2014) that based on advice advice from Christopher Hughes QC and Michael Williamson of Counsel, my client is prepared to provide covenants to the Council under s. 97(a) of the Land Title Act 1994 on the four adjoining lots owned by my clients (namely Lot 1 on SP100785,  Lot 22 on SP226606, Lot 204 on RP892484 and Lot 20 on SP226606) for the purpose of a buffer whilst the poultry farm operates on the land the subject of the development.



I now enclose correspondence from Christopher Hughes QC and Michael Williamson of Counsell dated 21 May 2015. The advice confirms that a section 97A covenant can be registered on each lot, or part thereof, impacted by odour.



The land referred to in Item D in your correspondence dated 2 February 2015 are all owned by my client, or the directors of my client. Details of the four lots referred to are below:



*       Lot 204 on RP892484 (146 Top Forestry Road) - owned by Genevieve Milligan and David William Milligan (i.e. David Milligan's house lot)

*       Lot 20 on SP226606 (124 Top Forestry Road) - owned by W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd (vacant land)

*       Lot 22 on SP226606 (172 Top Forestry Road) - owned by W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd (orchard)

*       Lot 1 on SP100785 (224 Top Forestry Road) - owned by W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd (orchard)







7)     In terms of item E in your correspondence dated 2 February 2015, you have previously advised that the Council will engage a solicitor to draft of the infrastructure agreement. Having said that, I am prepared to draft of the infrastructure agreement. Please let me know how you wish to proceed.



8)     In terms of item C in your correspondence dated 2 February 2015, my client has previously confirmed that Inghams will use their best endeavours to limit chicken pick-up times to day time only (6am to 7pm), however, there may be times when chicken pick-up will need to occur outside this period. In the circumstances, my client is not prepared to accept a condition limiting chicken pick-up times to day time only (6am to 7pm).


Yours faithfully
[Cliff Wirz]
Cliff Wirz
LLB MURP MDIA
Director
0401 102 694
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
www.linkedin.com/in/cliffwirzlawyer
Level 22 69 Ann Street BRISBANE QLD 4000<https://maps.google.com/maps?q=69+ann+street+brisbane+australia&hl=en&ll=-27.469728,153.022344&spn=0.00183,0.003484&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.68309,114.169922&t=m&hnear=69+Ann+St,+Queensland+4000,+Australia&z=19>
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
www.ganttlegal.com.au<http://www.ganttlegal.com.au/>

Individual liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation