MCU14/0028. NPM Submission Object PA & MB Blackmore

Subject: MCU14/0028
From: bernie blackmore
Date: 2014-07-01T23:20:51+00:00
To: Mailbox Council Mail

Dear Noosa Council,

RE: Proposed Development Permit

Reference No: MCU14/0028

I am writing this submission to indicate my strong objection to
Application no: MCU14/0028 wherein approval is being sought for
Development Permit for Material change of Use (Animal Husbandry Type 2 –
Intensive) 

My concerns begin with the inevitable visual impact, odour and noise of
the initial proposal of 1,000 chickens and the applicant’s future plans
to increase the number of birds and other livestock.  This will lead to
the disturbance to our peaceful hinterland lifestyle. The current
proposal indicates 1000 birds.  However, it clearly states ‘When Melsted
Park has more than 1000 birds’ on page 6 of their proposal, that it is
their intention to increase the number of chickens once production
begins! What will council put in place to control this inevitable
increase from happening?

Lay of the land: 

Noted in the proposal, is the following description ‘The land is gently
undulating with steep areas in parts’. I believe this is misleading at
best; a better description would be, ‘The land is steep with a few
gently sloping ridges’. In the ‘Cooroy & Lake Macdonald Natural Hazard:
Landslide & Flooding Overlay (Map OM3.3) of ‘The Noosa Plan’ the
proposed area is designated as a Landslide Hazard due to the steepness.
With this in mind, while the total area of Melsted Park farm, 60
hectares seems substantial for the proposed enterprise, the amount of
land useable for the proposed ‘chicken tractor runs’ is only the few
ridges, a small proportion of the property, due to the steep slopes.
Further to this, the proposed ‘chicken tractors’ will feature
prominently in the landscape, as they follow the top of the four ridges
on the property, thus destroying the peaceful ambience of the
surrounding valley, due to the noise of chickens and the visual
pollution of the associated ‘chicken tractors’ (chicken caravans)
interrupting the beautiful vistas.  

Visual pollution: 

The ‘chicken tractors’ (chicken caravans) in the proposal, are designed
to be transported over the property. Are there any council regulations
that will ensure that these ‘mobile chicken runs’ don’t just become
‘mobile shanties’ or is this just a way around council building
regulations?  Will a shanty town of ‘chicken tractors’ be the area’s
foreseeable future?  

Noise: 

Currently, near neighbours beyond the far side of my property from my
house, have a small flock of birds that free range. While this is a
pleasant sound of rural life, I can only imagine the noise 1000 chickens
housed in shiny metal sheds will make, especially with the chickens
spread across the tops of ridges without any form of natural buffer to
soften the sound. Rural properties are by description and nature
‘quiet’.  So quiet, that when the wind is blowing from the right
direction, you feel you could join in the conversation taking place on
your neighbour’s verandah over a quarter of a kilometre away.  The
introduced sound of over 1000 chickens will be deafening in such a quiet
area! After over twenty five years of living ‘la dolce vita’ (the sweet
life), it would be criminal for this to be denied to all the residents
of our valley, simply because the applicant purchased a property and
amid claims that “traditional farming methods are no longer financially
viable.” wants to intensively farm an area not suited for such an
enterprise.

 

 

Odour: 

The odours that will undoubtedly emanate from the intensive farming of
chickens and pigs will also prove distressing to neighbours. With such
limited usable land available for the chicken runs due to steepness, I
suspect concentration of faecal matter across the tops of ridges will be
significant. This, concentration of nutrient, in such a high rainfall
area will inevitably become runoff down to dams and the head of Six Mile
Creek.  

Traffic and road network:

Lawnville Road and Cooroy – Belli Creek Road are narrow windy roads that
have become increasingly busy with local usage and tourist traffic that
includes cars, motorbike enthusiasts, and bike riders . Many residents’
driveways are ‘concealed’ as indicated by Council’s own signage. While
the proposal claims, ‘There will be limited impact on the road network’,
it also indicates the property’s production is to be ramped up
dramatically, with cattle production doubling from 1 head per hectare to
2, added to this, will be 20 pigs and over 1000 chickens! While
consistently claiming limited impact on the road network, the proposal
does concede that trucks will be used for livestock transport and bulk
grain deliveries. Not what I call, ‘limited impact’ on such narrow and
windy roads, where this extra traffic will undoubtedly prove
problematic. Will council be liable for the increased risk and
subsequent accidents or does council have plans to upgrade the roads
around the proposed farm?

  

I respectfully urge council to reject this proposal in its current form
based on its failure to meet Division 2 – Agricultural Uses Code 

14.4 Overall outcomes for the Agricultural Uses Code 

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 – 

i. Avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of
other premises, including visual and acoustic privacy; 

Short of this, I ask that measures be implemented that at least
stipulate conditions that will ensure that future expansion of this
enterprise beyond 120 cattle, 1000 chickens and 20 pigs be ruled out. 

If this proposal goes ahead, I am certain that it will be the demise of
the hinterland’s current idyllic lifestyle. 

I thank you for the opportunity to submit this objection.

P A and M B Blackmore