Rushes Creek Poultry Production Farm

Please be advised that I will be lodging an objection to this Development
proposal. A detailed submission will be sent to you in the near
future.

Oppose development.

As seen with these developments in the past, they have not created
extensive job opportunities to the local community as the majority of
the capital works (building process) has been contracted in by
large/commercial companies who can afford the extensive outlay of
supplying materials and insurance etc. So as predicted, this will not
directly boost local community's economy.

As far as ongoing job opportunities, I don't believe this will enhance
Manilla's unemployment rate at all. With those who can work, working
and the remainder on various disability pensions etc.

This is a major biosecurity risk to both native wildlife/birds and the
commercial broiler enterprise having such a mega farm backing onto the
shores of Lake Keepit with numerous native wildlife and no real
control about what can enter and exit the property via the air in such
close proximity to Keepit. Furthermore, the proximity to Russells
chickens just down the road (eg. Moving live birds past another
chicken farm, creating a biosecurity risk for those).

Other concerns include how waste will be managed, as any possible
issues could cause massive repercussions in the Lake Keepit ecosystem.
Various nutrient/waste leaks causing Algae Blooms, possible flooding
etc.

Final concerns would include neighbouring properties with reduced
visual amenity, increased odur, noise, dust and night lights of the
sheds in the proximity.

As a neighbor to the rushes creek poultry production farm. Have pleanty
of concerns about it. The closeness to our boundaries. They have got
plenty of country to move them further away. .The smell of 3051000
birds will be horrendous. The trucks (one an hour ) will be very
dangerous on this road. Let alone the noise from them. Also it's far
to close to Keepit Dam. One lot of sheds is only 850 metres from top
level shoreline. Will be one rotten recreation area.let alone if there
is a disease break out.

As an adjoining landholder, I'm objecting to the proposed poultry
development by ProTen at Rushes Creek.

My objections are based on the high levels of odour, noise and dust
that I'm going to experience according to modelling done through the
planning process.

My property adjoins the eastern boundary of the development, separated
only by the Rushes Creek Road and will have two access roads entering
the development site opposite my farm.

54 sheds in total are to be built on this site with 18 sheds situated
1,335 metres from my residence, marked as Receptor 24 (R24) on the
plans (Ref. Vol 1, Section 2, Part 2.5, pp 16-19)

I consider the predicted levels of odour at 4.20 o-units (ous) will be
intolerable (ref. Vol 1, Section 8, Part 8.1.5, pp 113-118)

A noise level, which is going to be exacerbated by compression braking
of trucks entering and exiting the site plus the level of dust
predicted to be 12.3 ugs per m3 - unacceptable! (Ref. Vol 1, Section
8, Part 8.8.3, pp 184-189 and Vol 1, Section 8, Part 8.2.5, pp
122-125).

I'm the third-generation owner of the property "Taronga", covering a
period of 100 years. I purchased "Taronga" from my parents in the Year
2000 and have been here all my life. My great grandparents owned the
property "Bundah" (which forms part of the proposed poultry
development) back in the 1920s.

The air in this area has always been odour-free and of good quality
and should remain so.

Why does a poultry development of this magnitude have to be built in a
populated area such as Rushes Creek to inflict the high impacts of
odour, noise and dust on the day-to-day lives and health of its
residents?

Surely a development like this, plus ancillaries such as processing
and rendering plants, feed mills, hatcheries etc could be situated on
a site in an outback location with a water source and wide-open spaces
- and no neighbours in close proximity to impact on.That would make
the most sense to me.

Finally, I would like to mention another major concern I have with
this poultry development - the devaluing of my land. Who would
purchase a farm so close to a poultry development of this size that
will create so many negatives?

This project is in the wrong location.

As an extended family member of an adjoining landowner (Receptor24) - and
as a concerned and environmentally and socially conscious citizen - I
am objecting to the proposed poultry development by ProTen at Rushes
Creek.

I object on the grounds of:
* excessive odour with predictions for an odour level of 4.2 units for
Receptor 24 who resides 1.35 kilometres from the sheds. A recent
public meeting revealed that property owners in a similar proximity to
a large-scale poultry business (Oxley Highway) find the odour at 4.0
units unbearable, particularly on a calm day. This defies the
measurements based on `wind' predictions.
* excessive noise with over 8,000 truck movements entering and exiting
the site per annum and the frequency of compression braking disrupting
sleep and day-to-day life
* unacceptable dust levels impacting health at a level of 12.3units
per m3
* the compromised integrity of waterways (including aquifers) in
proximity to the development site

I note that the consultation process has been less than adequate with
Receptor 24 having had no contact from the developer ProTen between a
public meeting on 15 December 2016 (which he couldn't attend but had
been promised follow-up papers which did not materialise) and the
recent meeting on 11 September 2018.

I also note that consultation with secondary property owners - e.g.
those living at the Manilla Ski Gardens on caravan or cabin sites and
who would be impacted by odour and dust - may not have been carried
out adequately.

The development of ProTen's poultry business will seemingly not
benefit the local community but will in fact draw most business,
contracts etc away from the local area.

The roads surrounding the development will be paid for by ratepayers
and council without an even return. Despite the planning notes citing
the suitability (via AusRoads study) of the main roads, the narrowness
of the main roads and susceptibility to damage from heavy truck
traffic must be considered.

Social cost
Receptor 24 and his ancestors have lived on and worked the land in
Rushes Creek for 100 years. Everyone knows the immense challenges that
are facing farmers today and this is just one more adversity that he
and his neighbours should not be facing.

The landowner and his neighbours have many ties to this local area.
His great grandfather owned `Bundah' in the 1920s and provided the
land for the Rushes Creek community hall - both now part of the
designated ProTen development.

The farmers of Rushes Creek are entitled to the same clean and
odourless air quality and quiet lifestyle that they have today to bear
the other challenges they face.

Recreational visitors to the area (e.g. boaters, paragliders, fishers)
also deserve better.

Economic impact
Potential loss of land values on neighbouring properties and income.

Outcomes
The ideal solution to all of the above would be the abandonment of the
development.

Otherwise, the only acceptable outcome would be major changes to the
scale, operation and constraints of ProTen's development, including
the following:

Mitigation
There MUST be mitigation beyond the modelling cited in this Plan,
namely:
* Substantially lowering of odour levels, using the latest in
technology, allowing regular testing - and any non-compliance should
lead to remediation and compensation for any affected parties.
* Substantially lowering of number of truck movements and banning of
compression braking
* Substantially lowering of dust levels to a realistically acceptable
level with regular health tests available to all neighbours near the
development - and any non-compliance should lead to remediation and
compensation for any affected parties.
* Testing of waterways (and underground water) in proximity to the
development for potential restriction or contamination

We do not support this submission. It will create too much odour and
traffic.

I object on the grounds of odour and traffic.

I object on the grounds of odour and traffic.

I oppose on the ground of excessive traffic noise and odour and that the
road is not wide enough or in a condition to handle such an increase
in traffic

As a current university student - bachelor of emergency management, I
find the current proposed submission appalling.

Where are the real world observations to substantiate your
projections?
what are variables considered in your modelling?
Where is the data available for independent analysis (ie local
recorded data and not projections)?

I would ask these questions:
Who will profit most?
At what impact?
What will the community benefit?

Culling the objectors is what Hitler commenced in 1938, is that what
our government has turned to?

The unexplored impacts are too many to list and require a substantial
amount of time to be allocated for suitably qualified professionals to
assess the proposed operational area for any potential issues/impacts.

This project "stinks" of rapid progression without compliance!

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to voice my concerns over the proposed Pro Ten Production
Farm Development on the Rushes Creek Road.
My first concern is the state of the Rushes Creek Road itself. Parts
of the carriageway are under 6 metres wide. This I believe proves to
pose an unnaccaptable risk to road users as the road is not wide
enough for two semi articulated vehicles to cross paths. This seems to
be an inevitable outcome as the 8455 indicated 1 way traffic movements
predicted by Pro Ten would result in upwards of 46 truck movements a
day. The outcome of this would be undoubtably lead to stone damaged
windscreens and an increased chance of major traffic accidents. This
concerns me greatly not only because of the risk to general road users
but also because to the route will be shared with the entrances to the
Lake Keepit Sport and Rec facilities and Water Park. Many local
schools visit these facilities throughout the school terms and the
turnoffs to the facilities are along one of there worst maintained
sections of the Rushes Creek Road. Coaches and families wishing to
visit the foreshore of Keepit would certainly be placed at undue risk
if the traffic on this route is further increased by the development.
My second major concern is that I feel that no account has been taken
into the devaluation of my own land and surrounding landowners. Due to
an increase in traffic, odour and noise existing operations will be
limited and land prices surrounding and adjacent to the Pro Ten
development will be severely affected. I understand that this
development will provide jobs and bring wealth to the area but this is
very unjust if it is at the expense of existing primary producers.
Another burden during a tough season would be grossly unfair to
existing primary production enterprises.
In summary I hope the NSW Planning Department will take into account
the impacts this development will have on road safety, the access to
recreational facilities in the area and the financial and ease of
operations for local primary producers.

Regards, Stephen McDonald

My wife & I own & operate an adjoining grazing property on the corner of
Rushes Creek Road & Ski Gardens Roads. There has been no direct
communication with us, initiated by the proponent, which I consider to
be poor consultation practice. Thankfully we were notified by Planning
& Environment.
My concern is the validity/accuracy of the weather data used in the
preparation of the EIS impacts for this project. The consultants to
the proponents have chosen to ignore over 100 years of available
weather data from the historical Manilla weather station closed in
2009. This station was <15km from the proposed project, and
potentially better reflects the project site. There has been NO
comparison made of the similarity or difference between the two site.
If similar, the proposal is valid, if different, the proposal should
be ammended to reflect that variation.
Irrespective of the outcome of the above, I recommend that the
proponent provided free access, to all adjoining/impacted landholders,
to the project's on-site weather monitoring data to enable on-going
validation/confirmation of the projections presented in this EIS.

The proposed development of Poultry Farm @ Rushes Creek

To Whom it may concern - As a professional heavy vehicle
owner/operator of 36 yrs and farmer of 25 yrs, the conditon of the
Rushes Ck road is under developed for the proposed increase in
traffic. The road is too narrow/uneven and definately unsafe at
100km/h. The narrowness will cause damage to vehicles with loose
stones on the edge of road. The safety of regular local road users is
a major concern. It is a major Tourists route and there caravans use
this thorough fare which has increased over the years.
Noise levels with heavy vehicles approaching the proposed farm
gateways due to engine breaking is unexceptable to close neighbours an
excellent example recently was the wood chipping. Noise levels change
significantly with weather system changes as well, there is an
increase in road noise levels.

Odour - we have just experienced S/W winds for the last 3 mths which
will definately blow odour directly to our home and neighbours. When
there is a prominent system change in the weather blowing from N/E the
neighbours on the southern end will experience odour from the proposed
farm 4.

Not discriminative against progress but have experienced 25 yrs of a
very peaceful community.
How many chicken farms do we need, ( description of farm does not take
in description of this business).

The proximity of the proposed development to Keepit Dam is the primary
concern for the following reasons:
1. Keepit Dam is one of the options that Tamworth Regional Council has
as a future water source for Tamworth. As a result, it should be
protected under Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Act 1999. and the project should therefore be referred to the
Commonwealth Environment Minister for approval.
2. Keepit Dam is a valuable recreation ground for fishing, camping,
sailing and relaxation and any impacts that may arise from the
proposal would greatly devalue such a pristine recreation area.
3. The threat of overflow from detention dams into Keepit dam during a
significant rainfall event has to be addressed.
4. Self-regulation to monitor pollution of waterways is not
acceptable.
5.Water quality of Keepit Dam should be undertaken before development
to obtain baseline data and subsequently on a regular basis.

I object to the proposal due to
1.Safety concerns regarding the 10,000 extra traffic movements per
year.
2. Road noise for local residents from these extra vehicle movements
especially the night movements.
3. Odour issues for locals and Lake Keepit users

Letter uploaded

The proposed development does not have adequate separation distance from
my home.
The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage website (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/air/odour.htm)
provides a meat chicken (broiler) level 1 odour assessment calculator
that allows meat chicken growers, their consultants, or council
planners to readily check the recommended separation distances, using
basic site information.
Using the meat chicken (broiler) farm level 1 odour calculator,
confirms that the proposed development significantly fails the level 1
assessment when applied to my property.
The odour calculator shows that
1) only 3.7 sheds are permitted 1,025 metres from my home
2) for a 54 shed farm the minimum separation distance from my home is
8,868 metres.
See copy of odour calculator attached.

I object to this development as stated in the attached document.

I object to this proposed development. Please see the attached document
for my detailed objections to this development proposal.

I object to this development proposal. Please see attached file for
detailed objection in relation to the proposed development.
A copy of this objection has been forwarded to my local member of
parliament Mr Kevin Anderson.