2016-02-02 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                         2 FEBRUARY 2016


REPORT
A report on the development application for Material Change of Use 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 Road, Ridgewood was considered at its Ordinary Meeting on 19 November 2015.
Council resolved to refuse the application on a number of grounds.
The applicant lodged an appeal with the Planning and Environment Court on the 4 January
2016.
The appeal seeks the Court approve the application, subject to lawful conditions.

On the 11 January 2016, The Department of Transport and Main Roads acting as
concurrence agency to the original application advised that the Department will not be
joining the appeal.

On the 20 January 2016, three properly made submitters to the development application
advised that they elect to join the appeal as co-respondents.

It is in order for Council to defend the appeal and the recommendation is worded
accordingly.

Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting 19 November 2015, Item 1, Page 14
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Organisation
Committee Meeting dated 10 November 2015 regarding 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 Road, Ridgewood and refuse the application 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 odour modelling carried out by the applicant does not provide sufficient assurance
     that nearby residents will not be adversely impacted by odour;
4.   The proposal will result in actual and perceived loss of amenity to nearby residents;
5.   Traffic generated by the development will have significant adverse impacts on the
     existing road network and on the amenity of residents living along the haul route, as
     the route traverses Cooroy’s residential streets and bird collection will occur during
     normal sleeping hours;
6.   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;
7.   It has not been clearly demonstrated that the proposed poultry farm will not generate
     unacceptable levels of dust, other particulates and ammonia that may impact on the
     amenity of nearby residents and/or have adverse environmental outcomes.




                                                                                     Page 4 of 81