Not properly made submission (late) Helen Kincross MCU12/0184

Subject: bm BCS 1192  MCU 12/0184
From: Denis Donohue
Date: 2013-09-25T08:13:46+00:00
To: Internet Mailbox Sunshine Coast Regional Council

Dear Mr Lewis,

MCU 12/0184

I failed to put the above development application code on the objection I submitted.  Is my objection valid or should I submit it again?

Thank you.

Helen Kinross


> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: MCU 12/0184
> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:41:26 +1000
> 
> Dear Mr Lewis,
> 
> Subject: Objection to the proposed broiler farm at Top Forestry Road, 
> Cooroy.
> 
> My property is at 904 on the Cooroy Belli Creek Road. My husband and 
> I bought the property there several years ago as a retreat from the 
> city and a future place of retirement. We purposefully searched in 
> Noosa Shire because of it's amazing natural beauty and because the 
> Noosa Shire Council, which was then responsible for the area had a 
> track record of trying to ensure that residential and commercial 
> development showed a sensitivity to the environment that was not 
> apparent to us in other council jurisdictions. Indeed, our 
> impressions were confirmed by no less a body than UNESCO when it 
> designated the area the Noosa Biosphere, a place with an innovative 
> approach to conservation and sustainability, where a balanced 
> relationship between humans and the reserve is promoted and a green 
> approach is taken in the ways people do business.
> 
> We were utterly dismayed to discover that it was possible to propose 
> placement in such an area of an industry which brings with it so much 
> environmental hazard. Why not a plastics factory?
> 
> The basis of my objections is firstly it's environmental impact 
> including noise from the chickens and trucks, odour, pollution of the 
> air with particulate and pollution of the water catchment. We rely on 
> tank water and I am concerned that particulate pollution from the 
> chicken factory will contaminate our water. Also I believe there is 
> an endangered frog that could be affected.
> 
> Secondly, I believe the roads are inadequate for heavy vehicular 
> traffic which will cause dust and safety issues. If the industry goes 
> ahead the roads will have to be widened and tarmac laid where there is 
> none at present, changes which will be paid for by the taxpayer to 
> accommodate one factory which in my opinion is more likely to bring 
> economic harm to the area in the form of reduced tourism and people 
> leaving the area, than economic benefit.
> 
> Thirdly, I object to the visual impact this industry will have. 
> Really?? Shaving off the top of a ridge? Already in this area 
> residents have shaved off the top of hills in order to place homes 
> with a 360 degree view, a practice which is not permitted in other 
> jurisidictions such as the Byron Bay shire because it is considered to 
> spoil the visual beauty of the land's contours. I am not criticising 
> householders who do this because I see what motivates them and perhaps 
> they regret it afterwards. It is up to the Council to legislate for 
> this kind of visual amenity. To cut off a ridge top in this area to 
> place a factory is simply shocking to me.
> 
> Fourthly, I think the suffering imposed on another species in 
> industrially raising chickens is not compatible with an area that has 
> biosphere status.
> 
> I completely support agricultural pursuits in our area and I applaud 
> all those who do this while protecting the environment but this is not 
> an agricultural pursuit. This is a factory with the contamination 
> issues of a factory. Should the Council take the responsibility of 
> directing the applicant to purchase land near an existing chicken 
> factory where the cost of infrastructure and managing waste would be 
> greatly reduced and where environmental hazard could be contained in a 
> tighter area?
> 
> As the Council is considering this application, I think that the fact 
> that the application contained inaccuracies that had to be corrected 
> and potentially has further inaccuracies not corrected, should be of 
> great concern. Also, the proposal of a composting system that does 
> not even meet industry standards should be rejected. Could the 
> Council investigate the current state of this property in order to 
> independently determine how successfully the applicant has managed his 
> land to date? What experience does the applicant have in running a 
> factory chicken enterprise? If the applicant is a novice at running 
> what is clearly a complex operation, should his first attempt be a 
> very large scale operation in such a beautiful and challenging 
> environment? Surely the applicant's track record and industry 
> experience are important factors in the consideration of his proposal.
> 
> Thank you for your attention to our concerns. We hope for an outcome 
> that best serves the residents and the environment in this little bit 
> of the world we care for.
> 
> Helen Kinross
> 
> 
> 
>