MCU21_0154 Objection letter

Page 2

12 October 2021

Attention: Assessment Manager
Noosa Shire Council
PO Box 141 Tewantin, Qld 4565


Dear Sir / Madam,

Re: MCU21/0154 - Objection to small scale meat processing plant

We are writing to express our objection to the proposed small-scale meat processing facility located
at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah (Lot 62 on RP886676). Our objection is based on the following
concerns, listed below:

-   Negative compatibility with residential status of neighbourhood
-   Close proximity of business activities adjacent to residential properties
-   Detrimental impact on residential property values
-   Minimal ‘value add’ to amenity / character of neighbouring residence
-   Transference of carcasses in an open vehicle
-   Lack of consultation / advice of existing business operation without proper Council approval
    prior to operation of business
-   Noise impact from compressors and generators to maintain business operations
-   Concerns with future business expansion
-   Concerns with release of aqueous waste within proximity to water courses

With respect to the above concerns the following rationale for the objections is provided below.



Negative compatibility with residential status of neighbourhood

The proposal is for a medium impact industry to be located within a rural residential area which is in
close proximity to neighbouring properties. The proposed home-based business is located approx.
150m from our residence and significantly closer to adjoining lots with minimal buffering. Despite
the assertion that there will not be impacts associated with the business there will be negative
impacts in some shape or form that will detract from the lifestyle and amenity enjoyed by the
existing neighbouring properties.

It is recognised that rural residential and rural lots allow for small home-based business under the
Noosa Plan 2020. It is questionable whether the proposal ‘adds value’ or complements the amenity
and character of the neighbouring residential area. It is our opinion that the majority of residents in
Tinbeerwah would have no objections to a home-based business that are more ‘traditional’ in nature
such as hairdressing, art studio, book-keeping, yoga, massage etc. However, a small meat processing
plant is more in keeping with larger rural zoned allotments associated with traditional agriculture or
within an industrial zoned area. We strongly argue that the definition of what constitutes a
compatible home based business has been well and truly stretched in this instance. We question its
compatibility in a residential area against current planning intents despite all of the efforts to
minimise impacts.

Page 3

Close proximity of business activities adjacent to residential properties

Despite the perceived large lot size – 7822m2, the reality is the meat processing and transport of
carcasses is contained within a small available cleared area on the applicants lot with minimal
buffering to neighbouring dwellings on the south/east portion of the land parcel (approx. 50m to
adjoining Lot 61).

The proposed meat processing activities occur as stated 50m from a neighbouring dwelling (Lot 61,
90 Patterson Drive). The transfer of carcasses occurs even closer on an adjoining driveway within
5m of this dwelling.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection in Queensland, provide eligibility criteria
and standard conditions for meat processing activities. Under the Environmentally Relevant Activity
(ERA 25), Meat processing at threshold 1a between 1000 tonnes and 5000 tonnes of meat products
in a year requires that the processing site is not within 1000 metres of a residential allotment,
mobile home, caravan or other residential premises. This also includes within that 1000 metre
buffer, any area protected area under the nature Conservation Act 1992. The activity area must also
not be within a category A or B environmentally sensitive area and not within 100m of any
watercourse, wetland or spring. There are also a raft of other conditions and requirements that
must be met before an operation can be considered for approval.

The current application states a processing yield of 200 tonnes of meat per year which is
acknowledged not in the same threshold category. However, this stated yield does not factor in
future growth in production and raises the validity of the operation within such close proximity to a
neighbouring residential premise. The applicant has advised that they seek to diversify their product
offering to the public. The reason for the 1000 metre distance is to minimise impacts on
surrounding residents which supports this activity occurring on a larger rural zoned lot or with
greater land buffering. Is 50 metres acceptable for 200 tonnes of production vs 1000 metres for
1000 tonnes? What guidelines or eligibility criteria are being used by Council to assess what is an
acceptable distance for this change of land use? It is our opinion that 50 metres (despite measures
to mitigate impacts) is a grossly insufficient distance to make this an acceptable homebased activity.

Based on the above logic, it is reasonable to assert that a 200 metre buffer from any dwelling is a
minimum requirement based on the percentage of meat production in relation to threshold 1a of
1000 tonnes / year. Figure 1 (over page) clearly demonstrates there is not clear buffering from any
neighbouring residences.

If the application distance of 50 metres to the nearest residential dwelling is accepted along with the
mitigation measures to make the activity lawful by Council, it opens up this type of activity on any
‘largish’ suburban block in suburbs such as Noosa Banks, Noosa Parklands or Sunshine Beach that
back onto state forest / national park and parkland but have a similar distance buffer / driveway
access arrangements etc to a neighbouring property. It appears that if the meat processing
activities occur within the ‘cover of darkness’ and behind closed doors where you can’t see or smell
it, then all is ok with approving this type of activity in any residential area.

Page 4

                                                        Lot 62




Figure 1



Detrimental impact on residential property values

We purchased our property in this area of Tinbeerwah in 2011, on the basis we were buying into an
upmarket ‘blue chip’ rural residential address that was in close proximity to Noosa Heads and
surrounds and provided a quiet lifestyle, connection to wildlife with scenic amenity and its
environmental values. The property was sold with this lifestyle advantage and our own due
diligence supported that perception. We did not purchase with the intent that we would be in close
proximity to a meat processing facility that has to be assessed as a medium industry based business.

The issue of compatibility must be assessed and the approval of a meat processing plant in this
residential area is not compatible with the outcomes sought from a home based business and is in
conflict with the values that have drawn many to this area. In our opinion this approval is not in
keeping with the character of the residential area and brings industry into a rural residential zone. It
is our opinion that the industry definition attached to the property activities will detract from the
value of neighbouring properties and we would be surprised if ‘blue chip’ residences in Noosa Heads
or Sunshine Beach would accept this type of ‘home based’ business in their street. A more suitable
location for this type of industry is within larger ‘rural’ zoned freehold land or within existing
industrial / light industrial premises located at Cooroy or Noosaville that have been set up to cater
for similar business and offer the opportunity for future growth and expansion.

Page 5

Transference of carcasses in an open vehicle

Other concerns which again question the compatibility of this busines include transference of
carcasses via an open vehicle (as is depicted in the application) through a residential street and are
unloaded from a vehicle within 50m of a neighbouring property. With this open transport
arrangement there has to be smell impacts as well as the visual impact of seeing deer carcasses in a
residential area. This type of impact is again more compatible with properties zoned ‘rural’ for
agriculture and would be a more tolerated activity from neighbours who are use to farming practices
and dead animals for consumption being moved around a property. One does not expect in a
residential area on reasonably small lots to accommodate meat processing activities and be subject
to possible exposure to the movement of meat carcasses and their waste and smell. It is still not
deemed an acceptable impact even if the carcasses are transferred under the ‘cover of darkness’ to
minimise impacts on neighbouring residents. It clearly shows that the applicant is conscious that
people may take offence to the transfer of carcasses and seeks to ‘hide’ the activity. It again raises
the question of the ‘fit’ of the activity on the land parcel and its impact on neighbouring properties.



Lack of consultation / advice of existing business operation without proper Council approval prior
to operation of business

It is understood that the applicant has set-up and has been operating the business without required
authority from Council and is only now consulting with the local community and is seeking
retrospective approval from Council in order to lawfully operate. We respectfully ask as to how the
applicant has been allowed to modify an existing outdoor dwelling so extensively and place
industrial grade equipment for processing and storage of food without prior assessment and
approval from Council? It appears that Council has been placed in a difficult position to
retrospectively approve a building modification and land-use change, after the work has been
completed and the business is operating. We recently had to go through an extensive approval
process for renovations with Council and could not start any modification works with our accredited
builder before approval was granted and then had to complete our certification paperwork.

In a review of the application it appears that the applicant has invested heavily in engineering
advice, building modifications etc prior to formal approval of the business knowing full well the
extent of the meat industry approvals that have to be met to operate safely. If correct the
establishment of a business in this way is strongly objectionable and shows either a disregard for
current planning laws. However, the applicants have gone to the extent of extensive research and a
fit out, one questions why the delay in only now seeking planning approval once the ‘horse has
bolted’. We would hope that any planning authority take a strong position on this type of conduct
despite the efforts of the applicant to now retrospectively go through the proper business approval
process with Council to lawfully operate.

Page 6

Noise impact from compressors and generators to maintain business operations

The application asserts that no noise will be created, however, the facility has cold storage and will
require the operation of compressors to stop the spoilage of meat. It is hard to believe that these
compressors are not making noise that affects adjoining residences. This area of Tinbeerwah
regularly has power outages during storm events and we are often the last area to come back on line
and can be without power for extended hours and even days. In one event we went five days
without power connection. The frequency of these events will intensify as Noosa Council predicts. I
would assume that in a power outage the operator will be required to run generators of significant
scale to maintain business operations as well as household use of key appliances. If not then there
will definitely be a significant smell impact.

How will this noise be managed now and into the future? We would argue that the consequence of
meat spoilage is significant to this operator and there is no way that neighbours will be spared
significant generator noise impacts in the event of power outages. Due to the prevailing south
easterly winds we will be impacted by any generator noise from this property if they have to
maintain power due to an outage. The noise from both Lot 62 and Lot 61 is audible on weekends
and midweek during the afternoons. This noise is in the form of power tools, excavation works, dogs
barking, music and children playing. We can expect that any prolonged generator use will have
noise impacts on our property and adjoining properties.



Concerns with future business expansion

Any successful business plan will accommodate expansion strategies and as a business expands its
impacts increase whether they be via inputs of raw materials, distribution of goods, production
demands, request for direct sale etc. The fact that the current operator has a busines plan
demonstrates that they are looking to the future and make good on their significant investment. As
previously stated the applicant is seeking to expand their product lines. Is Council satisfied that this
business will not expand in the future beyond the proposed annual 200 tonne production yield and
how will it monitor its activities in an appropriate manner?

If approval is granted to the business, Council is either signing up for the business to stay in its
current scale or risks that the business will expand and grow due to demand and is accepting of its
future growth and expansion. If it grows then it will trigger further planning requirements to meet
stricter conditions with larger production outputs. To not grant approval would mitigate this risk
and stop future growth impacts on neighbouring residents and reduce compliance issues.

In our opinion this sets a dangerous precedent for Council in having to accept similar types of home-
based businesses that are incompatible with rural residential living. Whilst it is clear that Council has
an agenda via its Agriculture and Agriculture Land in Noosa Shire 2016 Planning Study, to foster
more agriculture and associated businesses there is a line as to what constitutes an appropriate use
of land in a prime “blue chip” residential area.

Page 7

Concerns with release of aqueous waste within proximity to water courses

The processing facility is within 60 metres of an Environmental Management and Conservation area
and within 100 metres of a watercourse contained within neighbouring allotments and the
conservation area. These water courses are within the Lake MacDonald Catchment and is
designated in the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Map code: OM BWW(ii)4. The
development is within all three Noosa Council Biodiversity Categories 1 Protected Areas,
2 Ecological Linkages and 3 Connecting Habitat Area. Ref: NNP SFM Map 4 (Biodiversity).

The application does not provide details on how the plant and equipment and operation of the
facility will not result in any discharge of aqueous waste in the cleaning of transport harvesting
vehicle and processing facility. Will all water used in the meat processing process be captured and
lawfully discharged away from the property offsite or treated locally?

The harvesting vehicle at some stage has to be cleaned to remove any blood and detritus that may
escape from the carcasses. One would expect some ‘wash down’ of external parts of the vehicle and
run off from water waste. It is hard to comprehend that there would be ‘zero’ contaminants from
general business operations and cleaning regimes. There is a risk that contaminants will enter the
protected ecological areas.

Who will be responsible for the review of environmental performance of the operation and
monitoring of any leaching of contaminants into local water courses and soil?



General comments

The application denotes positive economic impacts for the Noosa economy and supporting
entrepreneurship. The applicant is not harvesting feral deer from the Noosa Shire but an adjoining
local authority and transferring raw materials from outside of the region. The positive
environmental impacts for the Noosa region are minimal and the business is a sole operator with no
employees. The value add appears to be in the provision of goods for consumption locally.

There is no objection to entrepreneurship, but the position is taken that this processing activity is
out of context with the size of land available and proximity to affected neighbours.

We trust that Council will take these objections into serious consideration and asks the question
would most reasonable people accept a meat processing facility as a legitimate compatible activity
in a quiet rural residential community and within 50 metres of a residential allotment. We ask that
Council finds a more compatible location for this meat processing operation in consultation with the
applicant.



Regards



Nigel and Helen Walker

Mackay Court, Tinbeerwah