MCU12/0184 & ERA12/0087 Objection R Ritchie

2.3.1
• Table 3 refers to forklift loading at the eastern end of sheds, whereas entries to the
sheds face many different directions - see Figure 4. An eastern entry will be impossible for
several sheds.

The forklifts will be a continuous source of noise during catchout periods.

Table 3 fails to mention noise generated by pneumatic feed systems.

Table 3 fails to mention noise generated by litter delivery, litter removal, shed cleaning,
and loading spent litter onto trucks to be removed from the site.

2.3.4
• Traffic projections should not be averaged. Since there would be several days of the
year in which 24 heavy vehicle trips occur in one day, the noise from this traffic should be
considered as an entity .

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

•   On-site traffic noise has not been considered.


3.0 Odour Impact Assessment
3.1.1
• The assessment is not based on site-specific meteorological data. Wind inputs are
based on data from Tewantin and Nambour and predictions based on comparisons with
long-term average conditions at Tewantin, about 20 km away. Odour calculations can be
inaccurate without site-specific data.

• It is widely accepted that modelling results are dependent on the inputs of the model.
Without verifying (in detail) the inputs used, it is difficult to determine the accuracy of the
model results. We request that Council complete a rigorous assessment of the models,
prior to considering the recommendations of this report.

3.3.3
• Odour generated from the catchout times, removal and loading the trucks with the
spent litter, and shed cleaning has not been considered.

• The odour modelling (Attachment 7 - Figure AI) shows that the odour emissions
would extend beyond the property boundary of the site. Whilst the model does not show
the plume extending into locations of existing dwellings, it does show that nuisance
impacts would extend into the associated properties.

It is also likely that this would result in nuisance complaints being lodged to Council.
Council would be well aware of the likely costs associated with the management of
resultant complaints and execution of compliance actions.

• The Environmental Protection Act 1994, defines odour as a contaminant and therefore
nuisance odour needs to be dealt with under provisions of the EP Act.

• Considering the odour modelling results (Attachment 7 - Figure AI), it would not be
feasible to place conditions that prohibit odour, noise and dust nuisance beyond the

                                                                                               5