1939 Tarome Road, Moorang QLD 4340

Mcu rol

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website ago. It was received by them earlier.

(Source: Scenic Rim Regional Council, reference COMBn15/001)

5 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. rod davis commented

    We have grave concerns over the impact of this development on the native wildlife,the use of water and just the sheer number of sheds proposed.Trucks are now much bigger and heavier than ever and the roads are not of an adequate standard for this type of traffic. This part of the Bremer river catchment is well worth looking after and keeping these type of developments away.we also fear our quiet rural lifestyle and property values will be severely affected.

  2. Madeleine Luck-Grillon commented

    Moorang is a rural and not a Industrial community.
    Intensive Animal Industry has no place within the boundaries of a Council designated Wildlife Corridor for many reasons such as increased traffic, noise, air and water pollution. A very concerning and important fact is the absence of reliable annual rainfall. According to the southern oscillation index the forecast is for a prolonged EL NINO phase, the outlook for future Summers rainfall once again is dire. The farming community heavily relies on ground water supply during prolonged dry weather periods. Without any doubt poultry farms are heavy water users and will impact on water availability for the surrounding farmers and beyond. The possibility of groundwater contamination is all too real and a silent invisible threat for the surrounding farms and the farmers livelihood.At any given time during the Summer months Tarome road becomes impassable on both ends due to flooding, a given fact for all local residents who just have to put up with the situation. Tarome road is unreliable and constantly under repair; it can barely withstand the impact of the present traffic. Tarome road is not suited for increased traffic, especially when it comes to heavy vehicle traffic.
    The negative impact of such a development is colossal and will damage the image of the Bremer Valley/Scenic Rim. Such Industries are driven by substantial financial profits for powerful and well established companies. Unimproved capital values of our properties have recently been impacted and further property devaluations will be the consequence should the proposed development go ahead.
    I strongly object to the approval of any intensive Animal Industry in the Bremer Valley and hope that the SRRC will exhibit a respectful interest for the wellbeing of its residents, fauna, flora and the environment in the outer fringes of the Scenic Rim Shire.
    Fact: Healthy Economy goes hand in hand with a healthy environment

  3. Julie Lamont commented

    First of all we are told only a few sheds; then we are told 1.9 million chickens with double B's that will travel across the terrain 24/7. Impacts are assessed on the other sections of road, but no viable impact studies have been completed for the upper end of the corridor ie the gravel section running alongside the Bremer River headwaters. In constantly re-constructing and fixing the gravel road, water is constantly being taken out of the section of the river at the double crossing; some years almost to emptying point. When and if the double B's come through, the road maintenance will be enormous. One hopes the water to constantly be fixing up the road once the B doubles come through, due to the increased traffic associated with the sheds, will not be drawn from the crossing as this crossing is integral to the already existing water needs of the locals. This hazards of the road include sharp bends, blind corners, ruts, potholes, floods, washouts and fragile one lane bridges with very poor signage and no lighting. Pitch black! If this seems like a minor point, then I will continue on to more quantifiable points. The definition of quantifiable being something that is regarded as measurable. I was surprised when the councillor suggested that one's health is not measurable. Would they be saying this to their sons, wifes, daughter etc?. As anyone would know, the link between stressors that exacerbate illnesses can be directly linked to stress,impacts upon life style, financial issues, even noise. Any extra stress can impact on one's well being, and surely increased illness is measurable. Dust can also impact on ones well being. B Doubles create dust. B Doubles create noise. Noise is an identifiable and measurable stressor. Big trucks create or increase sleeplessness through the night both by lights and sound. I for one, am on the dirt section of the road. I, for one, am on a breathing machine at night, I then have to get up and go to work. Therefore sleeplessness, I would argue, is also quantifiable - and well being and loss of well being is measurable and comparable. To arrive home, after a very hard day and yearning for that silence, that reward for ones hard work - will be totally lost to the people along Tarome Road. Not only will our lifestyle be lost or altered, health will be put into more jeopardy because of the dust and the lights,and the financial situations into which we will be put - and the noise. Our section of the road is like a sound tunnell - the nights will produce a cacophony of vehicle sounds as trucks chunder along it. Wildlife will slowly disappear within the wildlife corridor. Their loss too, is measurable. Animals that use this corridor have been doing so for a very long time. They cross from the mountains to get water. We have seen huge pythons, goannas, tree snakes, gentle bettongs, wallabies, roos, echidnas, koalas, phascigales, glider possums, scrub turkeys, antechinus, possums, owls within this corridor. With the intense poisoning that will occur to keep rodents at bay, one hopes that it will only effect targeted species and not the owls etc that hunt the rats and mice. Some of the animals mentioned are engangered (the koala) or near endangered (the phascigales).

    There are reasons why this valley is considered quite scenically beautiful. Planting monoculture trees to replace the old habitat trees to create a facade around the sheds, suggests that council are aware that the scenic beauty of the area will be lost. They may try to hide it, but they know! We do not like the look or want to think about the cruelty of the chicken processing industry as it stands today. We do not want to live beside the sheds. Surely these things are quantifiable. The sad thing is, we have been told by a reliable source, that land values will be decreased by half, so for most of us there is little escape. Yet, we will still have to pay the high rates that come with living in the Scenic Rim. This is also quantifiable! Less money for us, more for the chicken industrialists.

    There is so much that is against the application being approved: for the reasons that the sheds and increased traffic will visually and quantifiably effect us. What about external lighting when the outside lights are reflected against the dark sky? What about the constant dull hum of the air conditioning units etc. at night for those close to the sheds? What about the trucks coming along a road that has no lighting, is extremely narrow, grinding through a noise tunnell in the middle of the night, shining lights into windows, and snaking around blind corners, hitting lifestock and dirtying the atmosphere with carbon monoxide and dust and we cannot escape it because our homes will be near impossible to sell? Where is our compensation - in our new rates notice? If there are fatalities on the road, will council assume any responsibility for ignoring our warnings? As this road is totally inappropriate for heavy vehicle traffic, I would encourage everyone to have a cam in the front of the car and at the back.To make it quantifiable!

    If all has to be quantifiable, then why does the Scenic Rim Councill bother with art, music, poetry, faith, loyalty, even God - ? Without moral values where would our civilisation be? Yes. Quantifiably dead!

  4. David lamont commented

    I am against this proposal for the following reasons:
    1) This road is already running at full capacity, especially the gravel sections where the sheds are planned to be. I believe it is irresponsible to allow such an increase in traffic in an already settled community and within a shire that is supposed to promote scenery, environment and lifestyle. This is a quiet and already productive place, that is seeing new growth from families who have come to this valley and settled along this road for its peace and beauty, with land being used for agriculture and cattle farming. This is why it is called the scenic rim. Why change such a beautiful place? Such environments take us back to our core values of community, hard work and a sense of safety. To allow such an increase in traffic as proposed (B Doubles running 24/7 along a narrow, quiet COUNTRY ROAD). with Noise that will reverberate off the gullies and from the mountains will be above normal tolerance levels. This is backed up by other areas where industries of this kind have been located. In summary, I believe this decision to rezone and allow heavy traffic along this road is irresponsible for the following reasons:
    - These trucks, just by their very nature, will cause destruction of the existing road which will in turn create disruptions and hazardous driving conditions, especially in wet times as well as a creating a noise level that is unacceptable to the people who live along this road.
    This noise will continue day and night!
    - This planned development will increase the danger of accidents for all who use it as it is not designed to take heavy traffic.
    At the end of the day, it is ratepayers who have to pay for the problems that this project will create. These include excessive noise, dust, traffic, lights, constant road repairs and a more dangerous road. As rate payers, we should not have to pay for the problems of excessive noise, road destruction, and the devaluation of our homes and properties, especially when this development proposed by council, would be an unpopular decision. We should not have to pay for unpopular council decisions that will contribute to and exascerbate health problems,and create more dangers on a narrow rural road already running at its capacity, and we would consider it unjust for council to make a decision to allow this to happen.

  5. Mrs Christine Turner commented

    I have been looking at real estate on Tarome Road with a view to buying there to get
    away from the factories at Wacol. Lots of B Doubles and other awful smelling industry
    in the area. Now thanks to Madeline Luck Grillon and her words above I will have to think
    long about buying the Taaffe-Grillon place. I had liked it before reading the comments.
    Naturally I can see how such a development would impact on me if I bought the place.
    My sympathies are with the people on Tarome Road. When we came to Wacol 43 years
    ago it too was quiet country. Now we have the train/ road to Springfield , Forest lake and much needed factories all around us.Soon the last few blocks beside us will be developed.It is necessary as the people need work. I guess I shall have to look elsewhere once again. I agree that the development should be rejected yet where can it go?

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Scenic Rim Regional Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts