Original source · versioned page text
Martoo Response to IR
Attached to the e-mail MCU14/0039 & REC15/0012 Response to information request & request to change application email 1 of 3.
Council Reference: MCU14/0039 Our Reference: 01569 L12 NG 2nd July 2015 Chief Executive Officer Noosa Council Po Box 141 TEWANTIN QLD 4565 Confidential Email Transmission: [email protected] Original in Post: No Dear Sir/Madam RE: RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST_______________________________________ Development Application for Material Change of Use for Cultivation – Type 2 Intensive for Premises at 305 Lake Macdonald Drive, Lake Macdonald and described as Lot 1 on SP108094: MCU 14/0039 I refer to the above application and in particular to the request for additional information issued by your th Council and dated 25 June 2015. This request listed 14 items that Council considers is necessary in order to complete its assessment of the above application. After a review of preliminary specialist reports commissioned in response to the items raised in Councils information request, the applicant has to determined to change the application in the following manner: • Deletion of the two future greenhouses with the approval now seeking approval for the one existing greenhouse on site; • Modify the proposed access to the site with access to agricultural use to be taken through 271 Lake Macdonald Drive (Lot 2 on SP108094); • Removal of two earthen bunds from the site. New proposal plans are included in Attachment A. The proposed changes are noted as not being a minor change under the Sustainable Planning Act (SPA) however are considered a change in accordance section 354 of the SPA. Section 354 of the SPA states: 354 Effect on IDAS—changes about matters relating to submissions or information requests (1) This section applies to a changed application if— (a) the change is not a minor change of the application; and (b) the assessment manager is satisfied the change— (i) only deals with a matter raised in a properly made submission for the application; or (ii) is in response to an information request. (2) IDAS does not stop for the changed application. (3) Subsection (4) applies if the notification stage applied to the original application and the change was made during the notification stage or after the notification stage ended. (4) The notification stage must restart or be repeated unless the assessment manager is satisfied the change would not be likely to attract a submission objecting to the thing comprising the change, if the notification stage were to apply to the change. (5) Also, if the notification stage applies to the changed application, the assessment manager can not decide the application until the notification stage has ended.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 4 pages
Page 2
Page 2
The proposed changes are in response to matters detailed in the information request issued by Council
specifically:
• Item 5 which indicates that new development should not be in the Riparian zone. The applicant has
deleted the two future greenhouses which intruded into this Riparian zone.
• Items 6 and 7 which indicate the existing access is not considered suitable and that the access
must be suitable for the various vehicle types and be in accordance with Council standards. The
existing site access was not able to comply with relevant standards and therefore access through
the adjoining property at 271 Lake Macdonald Drive is proposed. Amended application forms are
included as part of this response.
The applicant contends that the proposed changes to the application are a direct result of Councils
information request and consistent with Section 354 of the SPA and requests that the application be further
assessed.
In response to the items raised in Council information request the applicant has decided to respond to these
items as below:
Item 1: Provide a flood report for the proposed development.
Applicant’s Response to Item 1: The applicant commissioned Water Technology Consultants to
prepare a flood report for the site – refer attachment B. The report concludes that the impacts are
non-worsening and will not result in any actionable nuisance. The report includes a number of
recommendations including alteration to the greenhouse structure by the provision of lay-down
sheeting to the perimeter of the greenhouse as well as removal of two earthen bunds on the site.
Item 2: Provide a flood management plan for the development
Applicant’s Response to Item 2: The applicant commissioned Water Technology Consultants to
prepare a flood management plan for the site – refer attachment B.
Item 3: Provide a preliminary stormwater design plan for the development.
Applicant’s Response to Item 3: The applicant commissioned O2 Environmental to prepare a
stormwater plan for the site – refer attachment C.
Item 4: Provide a report by suitably qualified Soil and Groundwater specialist to demonstrate
that environmental harm to soils, groundwater and nutrient loads within Six Mile Creek
will not result from the proposal
Applicant’s Response to Item 4: The applicant commissioned O2 Environmental to prepare a
stormwater plan (SMP) for the site (refer attachment C) which addresses the lands use and nutrient
loads from the proposal. This SMP concludes that the hydroponic system is a closed system and no
irrigation water can enter the soil profile. Further the SMP indicates that even during storm events the
likelihood of nutrient rich irrigation water being conveyed to the receiving water in minimal due to the
considerable time for flood waters to reach the site as well as measures to be implemented as part of
the flood management plan for the site detailed in Water Technology Consultants report.
Page 3
Page 3
Item 5: Provide an assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the Biodiversity
Overlay Code.
Applicant’s Response to Item 5: In response to this item, the applicant has modified the proposal and
deleted the two proposed greenhouses located to the north and west which partially intruded into the
mapped Riparian buffer area. The existing greenhouse is located clear of the mapped riparian
vegetation. The applicant commissioned O2 Environmental to assess the impacts of the works on site
and this is detailed in attachment D Riparian Buffer Area Assessment.
Item 6: Provide a preliminary design plan for the vehicle access to the site.
Applicant’s Response to Item 6: The applicant commissioned TTM Consulting to review the existing
access to the site and advise if this access was able to comply with relevant standards. TTM advised
that the existing access to Lake Macdonald Drive was not able to meet the relevant requirements and
as a result of this advice, the applicant commenced negotiations with the land owner of 271 Lake
Macdonald Drive (Lot 2 on SP108094) to obtain an access easement across his property. TTM
Consulting have provided a letter and plan confirming that the new access complies with relevant
standards (refer attachment E). RPEQ certification will be provided within 10 days.
The owner of 271 Lake Macdonald Drive has consented to the issue of an easement across the site
and revised application forms are submitted.
Item 7: Provide a preliminary design plan for the access driveway, internal access
pathways/driveways and parking/loading areas.
Applicant’s Response to Item 7: The applicant has not provided a detailed design at this stage of the
internal driveways noting that there is significant area available for parking and loading. A separate
application for operational works will be submitted indicating compliance with relevant design
standards.
The proposal also complies with Overall Outcome 14.4.2(b)ii of the Agricultural Uses Code which
states:
14.4.2 The overall outcomes sought by the Agricultural Uses Code are the following-
b) Uses and works are located, designed and managed to –
ii) maintain the safety of people and works;
Attachment B includes a Flood Management Plan that outlines procedures for maintaining safety of
people and works on site.
A review of the proposal against the Agricultural Uses Code detailed in the information request is
detailed in the table below:
Specific Outcomes Probable Solution Proposal Response
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
O2 The use does not have adverse S2.1 Cultivated areas have a slope of The areas of the site to be used for
impacts on environmentally sensitive less than 1 in 4 (25%); OR agricultural purposed are relatively level
areas including— S2.2 For cultivated areas with a slope and not constrained by slope.
a) for sloping sites—impacts of soil of 1 in 4 (25%) or more—
erosion or landslide; and a) any ploughing or cultivation is parallel Attachment C includes a Stormwater
b) for watercourses,drainage lines to contours; and Management Plan and attachment B a
and wetlands—impacts of sediments, b) sediment barriers are provided and Flood Management Plan that details the
nutrients and other chemicals flowing maintained downslope of cultivated system on site will not impact on the
into these areas. areas to prevent sediment flowing into surrounding area.
watercourses, drainage lines and
wetlands either on or off the property;
or
c) grassed or vegetated buffer areas
are provided and maintained downslope
of cultivated areas to slow overland flow
and prevent sediment flowing into
watercourses,drainage lines and
wetlands either on or off the property
Page 4
Page 4
Cultivation Type 2
O3 For Cultivation Type 2 , the use does S3.1 For Cultivation Type 2 , vegetated All existing vegetation on site is to be
not have significant adverse impacts on buffer areas are provided and retained. It is noted that the existing riparian
environmentally sensitive areas, maintained between cultivated areas vegetation provides appropriate buffers to
including riparian zones, watercourses, and any watercourse,drainage line the existing creek systems on site.
drainage lines and wetland or wetland on the premises or adjacent
premises, to slow and retain overland It is noted that the proposal has been
flow, filter sediment and nutrients and altered with two of the proposed
contain chemical run-off. greenhouses deleted. The remaining
greenhouse is located clear of the riparian
zone.
Attachment C provides a Stormwater
Management Plan for the site which
details that the hydroponic system is a
closed system that will not impact on the
surrounding area.
Attachment D includes an assessment
of works in the mapped riparian zone
detailing alternative solutions for
offsetting the impact of the works.
Item 8: Provide details of the effluent disposal system.
Applicant’s Response to Item 8: The applicant engaged Australian Soil Investigation (ASI) to provide
a site evaluation of the property with regard to the treatment and disposal of effluent. Refer
Attachment F).
Item 9: Please provide details as to the short and long term intentions to provide power to the
site.
Applicant’s Response to Item 9: The greenhouse previously was powered by a generator that caused
noise complaints to be lodged with Council. The applicant notes that these complaints were the result of the
generator on site and to overcome this issue has connected the site to mains power. The generator is no
longer utilized for operations on the site.
Item 10: An acoustic report is to be provided to address noise sources from the development.
Applicant’s Response to Item 10: The requirement for the noise report appears to be a direct result of
complaints received by Council regarding noise from a generator that previously supplied power to the
use. As indicated in item 9 above, the premises are now connected to mains power and the generator
not utilized. It is noted that no night time operations occur on the site and all service vehicles will only
access the site during normal working hours.
The proposal has been significantly reduced with two of the greenhouses deleted from the proposal
therefore reducing the number of persons working on site and number of service vehicles.
Item 11:The acoustic report should include the location of any plant and associated equipment to
eliminate existing noise nuisance during night time hours and mitigate noise from delivery and waste
vehicles and associated activities.
Applicant’s Response to Item 11: The requirement for the noise report appears to be a direct result of
complaints received by Council regarding the noise from generator that previously supplies power to
the use. As indicated in item 9 above, the premises are now connected to mains power and the
generator not utilized. It is noted that no night time operations occur on the site and all service vehicles
will only access the site during normal working hours.
Carparking and access roads are located over 300 metres from surrounding residences with existing
vegetation aiding in further buffering the use.
Page 5
Page 5 Item 12: A Waste Management Plan is to be submitted. Applicant’s Response to Item 12: Attachment G includes a Waste Management Plan for the site. Item 13: Water for the cultivation is sourced from the 271 Lake Macdonald Drive. Provide evidence that the appropriate licenses have been obtained. Applicant’s Response to Item 13: The site has been utilized for a turf farm for the previous 30 years and has always obtained water from the existing dam at 271 Lake Macdonald Drive. The applicant intends to continue to utilize this existing arrangement of utilising the dam for rural purposes consistent with the scheme. Item 14: If connection to Unity water network is proposed then a network analysis is to be performed. Applicant’s Response to Item 14: The applicant does not intend to connect to the Unity Water Network. Water will be collected from the existing buildings on site and utilised for staff and agricultural uses. Supplementary water for the agricultural use will be continued to be obtained from the existing dam at 271 Lake Macdonald Drive in accordance with the original turf farm operations. The applicant considers that they have now responded to Council’s information request. The Decision Making Period has therefore commenced and we request that your Council proceeds with its assessment of the application as soon as possible in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. Please contact our Sunshine Coast office if you require any further information and/or clarification. Yours faithfully, Nadine Gorton Senior Planner martoo consulting pty ltd Enclosures: Attachment A: Proposal plans Attachment B: Flood Management Plan Attachment C: Storm water Management Plan Attachment D: Riparian Buffer Assessment Attachment E: Traffic Statement Attachment F: Effluent Disposal Report Attachment G: Waste Management Plan IDAS Form 1 and 7.