MCU12/0184 - Objection - Julia Walkden

Subject: FW: Submission re: MCU12/0184 Additional information
From: Jack Lewis
Date: 2014-08-19T23:10:24+00:00
To: Mailbox Records

Can you please load as a NPM Submission Against MCU12/0184.

FYI – there will be a few of these in the next couple of days come in.

From: Julia Walkden [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 2:09 PM
To: Jack Lewis
Subject: Submission re: MCU12/0184 Additional information

Comments on MWA Environmental - Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment for the Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds at 136 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood
Re: MCU12/0184 Additional information
Inaccuracies and omissions:
The Title page indicates the Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds would be located at 124 Top Forestry Road (a small, vacant, adjacent property owned by the Applicant), whereas they are proposed for 136 Top Forestry Road.

1.0  Introduction

Three nearby residences at 136,146 and 111 Top Forestry Road are less than 850 metres from the closest proposed poultry shed.

Although nearby residences are above the level of the sheds, many neighbours spend time on the lower areas of their properties, and will be directly affected by the noise, dust and odour.

Over twelve nearby properties and residences have not been included in this assessment.

Five sheds holding a total of 144,000 birds will not be viable (confirmation from Ingham’s Farming Manager, council minutes 12.12.2013).

The proposal does not comply with the ‘Queensland Guidelines - Meat Chicken Farms’
recommendation that: Fans on tunnel-ventilated sheds should be located on the end of the shed that is furthest from sensitive land uses to minimise the impacts of odour.


2.0  Noise Impact Assessment

The eight-day ambient noise level recorded by the data logger placed next to a residence is not representative of the ambient noise level of the area.

Table 3 refers to a forklift working at entries at eastern ends of shed, whereas the entries are at different locations for all sheds. This table also fails to mention noise generated by litter delivery, litter removal, shed cleaning, and loading spent litter onto trucks to be removed from the site.

Traffic projections should not be averaged over several days. Since there would be several days of the year in which 23 heavy vehicle trips occur in one day, the noise from this traffic should be considered as an entity.

Noise generated by heavy vehicles (air brakes, backing alarms, piercing horns, and many huge tyres) cannot be considered the same as noise from ordinary vehicles.

On-site traffic noise has not been considered.



3.0  Odour Impact Assessment

Inputs for modelling are not site-specific. Site-specific inputs are necessary for accurate model results, especially considering the unique geological features of the development site and the surrounding area.

Odour generated from the catch-out times, litter removal, loading the trucks with spent litter, and cleaning the sheds has not been considered.

The odour modelling results (Attachment 7 - Figure A1) show it would not be feasible to place conditions that prohibit odour, noise and dust nuisance beyond the boundary of the proposal property, as with the Lawnville Road, free-range chicken farm proposal.


4.0  Dust Impact Assessment

Extraction fans point directly at several sensitive receptors. The ‘Queensland Guidelines - Meat Chicken Farms’ (page 20 - A3) states: Fans on tunnel-ventilated sheds should be located on the end of the shed that is furthest from sensitive land uses to minimise the impacts of odour. Fan location is crucial to minimise the impacts of dust on sensitive receptors.

Rainwater collected from roofs of nearby is stored for domestic use. Residents are greatly concerned that pathogens carried by shed dust will pollute their drinking water.

As stated above, modelling results depend on the inputs of the model. The inputs for this modelling are not site-specific, and therefore it is impossible to verify the accuracy of the modelling.


5.0  Top Forestry Road Dust

Traffic cannot be averaged over days for this assessment - 26 vehicle trips a day (23 of these being heavy vehicles) will raise significant quantities of dust. Also, heavy vehicles cannot be considered the same as ordinary vehicles - a B-double has 28 massive truck tyres and is many times heavier, depending on the load.

Many houses are located close to Top Forestry Road and within a kilometre of the proposed development. Residents are greatly concerned that the increased dust from traffic and cartage of spent litter and chickens will pollute their drinking water.

H&R traffic data included readings for just one week, although data was collected for two weeks. All data collected should have been included in the report. One week of data collection is not representative of the yearly traffic.

Dust generated by traffic on internal roads has not been considered.


6.0  Conclusion

The new information indicates that the proposed development has the potential to exceed noise, odour and dust regulatory criteria. It will not be possible to apply reasonable and relevant conditions to minimise these impacts, therefore this application must be refused.



Julia Walkden
423 Old Ceylon Road
Cooroy QLD 4563

19 August 2014