Report comment

In Kulnura NSW on “Extension to existing...” at 351 Greta Road Kulnura NSW 2250:

Andrew and Chrissi Nicholas commented

Dear Julie Garratley
Our response to the DA at 351 Greta Rd Kulnura is that it is a cynical re-application to increase the capacity of this Poultry Farm. It has already been considered and refused, so why bother going through the whole process again?
Will this DA rear its ugly head every 2 years? We bought our property late last year at 344 Greta Rd for a tranquil rural coexistence and have to accept the existing stinking enterprise. Does anyone ever inspect the place to see if it's compliant now? I would have thought that’s the first stage of consideration – to see if the current operation complies with its Environmental Management Plan. I hope that's the case, because it's a major factor in the initial stages of considering an extension/enlargement. I guarantee there will be some close monitoring from now on.
This area is agricultural, not heavy industrial. Greta Rd (a minor road, not wide nor strong enough) cannot safely handle more trucks; neither can the residents, nor the many walkers on the Great North Walk. The existing stink of rotting carcasses hopefully is only that and does not carry airborne germs etc. I hope Council has inspected/audited the Plan requirements. The applicants and representative themselves refer to their interest as an “industrial activity”. Since when was this area zoned as “industrial? What a flagrant distortion of land use with residential homes situated only about 20 meters away? There are now far more residential uses of land in this area than industrial/commercial’ uses. The orchards and horse studs make no noise or acrid smells.
Their land, 9+ hectares is too small for this industry. Ingham’s guidelines for anyone joining are 45 hectares being the minimum desired size. “Role of the producer or investor: Provide the land. The land generally needs to be at least 45ha in size and located so as to comply with local council bylaws and regulations for broiler chicken production (which may, among other requirements, increase the size of land necessary).” Source: http://www.inghams.com.au/enterprises/media/plb/inghams_about_opportunity_120111i.pdf
It’s hard to believe that the existing operation has no water licence. I presume the proposed over development will also not include a commercial water licence. “A water licence or other approval from the NSW Office of Water is generally required to extract water from rivers or aquifers to use for commercial purposes.” Source http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-licensing/About-licences/About-licences/default.aspx

Everyone has a right to enjoy and have their amenity in this area. The only canker around here is the poultry enterprise at 351. Nothing has occurred to improve the chances of this repeated DA being approved. Indeed some things have deteriorated. Greta Rd has worn badly and been repaired - damage mostly due to heavy vehicles and rain.
When considering the proposed extension one must ponder: what if by increasing the movements of so many huge trucks two meet head on or one wipes out a resident pulling out of their driveway? These will become distinct possibilities. There is already a great deal of legitimate early morning traffic on Greta Rd, mostly "tradies" doing 80kph on their way to work. The location of the business is on a bend narrow road. Add many more huge trucks and you can imagine what will happen. I believe someone has analysed and supplied you with the actual truck movements. The width of Greta Road in the area of the subject poultry farm was about 17ft wide - cold bitumen laid upon only graded clay. Does RMS support oversize vehicles frequently using narrow, sub-standard country roads that have never been properly engineered with no centre lines marked?
Now to the EIS. It is nothing but a massive smoke screen of generic statements designed to wear down the poor person who has to try to delve through its mass of nonsense and deceptive misleading statements. It's a case of quantity over quality and who in Council possesses the skills, resolve and experience to decipher the facts from the subterfuge.
People come to this delightful area to live, picnic, walk, drive and an increasing number of tourists enjoy Kulnura and its beautiful surrounds. As Council has previously determined, this is an over development of an existing risky enterprise.
We most strongly urge you to again, for the same reasons to refuse this DA. This response is a work in progress and I respectfully request some more time to supply more information on this very important issue.
Thank you,
Andrew Nicholas

delivered to the planning authority

This form is for reporting comments that should be removed. Reasons can include that the comment is spam, abusive, unlawful or harassing — in other words, where people are going out of their way to cause harm. Please explain clearly why you think the comment should be removed.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible 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