MCU21_0154 Objection letter

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