MCU12/0184 & ERA12/0087 Objection R Ritchie

MCU12/0184                        Noise, Odour and Dust Assessments
Contents

1.3 Surrounding Land Uses               3

1.4 Proposed Development                4

2.0 Noise Impact Assessment             4

3.0 Odour Impact Assessment             5

4.0 Dust Impact Assessment              6

5.0 Top Forestry Road Dust              6

6.0 Conclusion                          6



1.3 Surrounding Land Uses
Land uses surrounding the site are predominantly rural residential, rather than
agricultural. In fact, of the 28 identified receptors, at most three are involved in rural
pursuits. The rest are best described as rural lifestyle blocks.

Many of the closest properties to the northeast are not heavily vegetated and wiII be
directly affected by noise, odour and dust. Many other properties, with residences set just
tens of metres from Top Forestry Road, wiII also be greatly affected by the dust generated
by heavy vehicle traffic.

Paragraph 3 states' /IIini/llu/ll setback distance between tile proposed poultry sl/eds and a
surrounding residence is approxi/llately 850 /IIetres'.

Based on aerial imagery data, the following points are noted:
• Nearest residences (136 and 146 Top Forestry Road) are 270 and 380 metres from the
nearest proposed shed.
• 111 Top Forestry Road is 780 metres from nearest proposed shed.

Section 1.3 also states 'Tile /IIajorihj of SlllTollllding dwellings are elevated above tile level of tile
proposed poultry slleds, witll intervening gullies'.
• The residence located at 50 Top Forestry Road is on the same contour (approximately
170 m) as many of the proposed sheds. This property is approximately 1km north east of
the nearest shed. This contour (between the residence and the sheds) appears to be
uninterrupted and may allow migration of noise and/ or odour.

• It is worth noting that the' gullies' mentioned are in fact used for hobby farming,
domestic food production, recreation and land conservation. MW A fails to assess these
land uses when considering the effects of pollution on surrounding properties.

Paragraph 4: Figure 3 does not reference the residences located at 136 and 146 Top
Forestry Road, which are 270 and 380 metres from the nearest proposed shed. There is also
no consideration of adjacent freehold lots that do not currently have residential land use,
specifically 124, 172 and 224 Top Forestry Road. These locations may become subject to
                                                                                                             3