Lowesdale Breeder Farm

Objection to SSD-93649710

I object to the proposed Lowesdale Breeder Farm.
I have lived at Farleton Farm for the past 26 years. During that time, I have operated a mixed farming business consisting of broadacre cropping, hay and grain production, breeding Clydesdale show horses and grazing.
Farleton Farm is also home to a long-established Clydesdale stud that has operated on this property since 1926. It is part of the agricultural history of this district and attracts visitors with an interest in Clydesdale horses and rural heritage.
I have read the Environmental Impact Statement and the supporting reports. And, I do not believe the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed breeder farm can operate without unacceptable impacts on surrounding farming businesses, natural resources.
Our property relies entirely on a stock and domestic bore approximately 80 feet (24 metres) deep. This is consistent with the shallow groundwater system identified in the EIS. This is why groundwater protection is my greatest concern. The EIS states that additional monitoring is required and that baseline groundwater conditions, flow direction and groundwater quality still need to be established before and during operation. As a neighbouring landholder who depends on this groundwater for all my domestic and farming, I do not believe approval should be granted. My wellness, my property and animals should not be put at risk by the applicant who has clearly not researched the detrimental effects seepage will have on human and stock life.
It is not clear in the EIS, however it should be questioned whether veterinary medicines and other contaminants in the effluent will not adversely affect soil, groundwater or surrounding land over the long term.
Open effluent ponds are known to harbor mosquitos who carry Japanese Encephalitis, this is mentioned in the EIS but only that monitoring of ponds is to be carried out. The impact of Japanese Encephalitis on human life including neurological damage or death is to great and It appears there is no serious plan in place to prevent this.
I believe there is a safety concern to the current road users with children accessing school buses and families using the road daily to access schools, sporting clubs and neighboring towns. The road requires significant signage and turning lanes.
I question whether enough research has been done into odor control with filtration systems not being mentioned in the EIS. The EIS claims weather reports were used, however this is a very unstable measuring system and should not be the basis of decision making.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that the development can operate without any unacceptable risk to human, livestock and groundwater along with the surrounding environment and it is clear they cannot do this. Therefore I STRONGLY object to this submission.

Gayle Watson
Farleton, Riverina HWY, Hopefield. NSW

ODOUR AND AIR QUALITY
The scale of effluent generated by thousands of pigs will be substantial. Our family residence is located approximately 2.1 km from the boundary of the proposed piggery site, with wastewater irrigation proposed within 500 metres of our home (as shown in the attached diagram).
This raises serious concerns regarding persistent odour and potential impacts on air quality. We are particularly concerned about the direct exposure our household will face, and the likely negative effects this will have on our day-to-day living conditions and overall quality of life.
HEALTH AND BIOSECURITY
Aerosol drift from effluent irrigation also presents significant health risks, particularly given the limited buffer distance between the proposed irrigation pivot and our residence.
There are also serious biosecurity concerns, as waste spreading may contribute to the transmission of pathogens. In addition, plant disease has been observed in other applications due to pollutants remaining on vegetation after water evaporation. This is particularly concerning as our adjoining paddock is only 60 metres from the proposed irrigation area.
Spray irrigation systems disperse effluent through the air, increasing the risk of pathogens becoming airborne and potentially affecting neighbouring properties and residents.
Fencing at the site and along One Tree Lane is currently inadequate and, in some areas, non-existent. This creates difficulties for farmers moving stock between properties. The proposed irrigation paddock also lacks adequate fencing and gateways to prevent stock intrusion. This is particularly important given that the Riverina Highway is a registered stock route.
WATER QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
There is a heightened risk of nutrient leaching and runoff into local water systems. This is of significant concern given the reliance of surrounding landholders and the wider community on clean and safe water sources.
The proposed use of irrigation to manage effluent also increases the risk of surface runoff if sufficient controls are not established and maintained.
JBS has advised that, in the event of extreme rainfall, additional irrigation will be activated to prevent flooding of the catchment ponds. However, it is unclear how this practice can be safely implemented if adjoining paddocks serviced by the centre pivot are already saturated due to rainfall.
A recent flood event at the Redlands site reportedly resulted in effluent contamination of a neighbouring property. This contamination was confirmed through independent soil sampling conducted by the affected landholder.
It is also concerning that when the farmer contacted the local EPA office regarding this incident, the office was located within the JBS (formerly Rivelea) site itself. This raises serious concerns about transparency and independence in the management of environmental complaints. As adjoining neighbours, it is difficult to feel confident that our concerns will be managed impartially and appropriately under such arrangements.
AMENITY, LIFESTYLE, AND PROPERTY VALUE
The proposed development is likely to significantly reduce the amenity, enjoyment, and liveability of our property, which is our family home.
Increased noise, traffic, odour, and general operational impacts associated with a large-scale piggery are likely to adversely affect our lifestyle and wellbeing. Additionally, the proximity of such a development to our residence is likely to negatively impact property values.
TRAFFIC AND ROAD SAFETY
The proposed use of One Tree Lane presents significant safety risks for all road users, including staff travelling to and from the site.
One Tree Lane connects to a major highway and is subject to double line restrictions, preventing right-hand turns when entering from Corowa and when exiting to travel toward Lowesdale.
Recently, there was a near-miss incident involving a slow-moving vehicle attempting to turn right that was overtaken by a road train. Fortunately, this incident resulted only in minor damage to both vehicles.
On numerous occasions, I have had to take evasive action due to oncoming vehicles veering across the road. This issue becomes particularly dangerous during winter, when heavy fog significantly reduces visibility as the intersection is in a low depression.
The surface of One Tree Lane road is also unsuitable to accommodate increased traffic volumes, particularly in wet weather. There is also concern regarding responsibility for road maintenance. Local council already struggles to maintain existing rural roads, as evidenced by the condition of Tom Roberts Road, which currently experiences regular use by JBS employees travelling between sites.
The east end of One Tree Lane has also become difficult, and at times unsafe, to navigate due to large potholes that have developed over time because of inadequate maintenance. This raises further concerns regarding emergency access and evacuation, as poor road conditions may hinder both staff exiting the site during emergencies and emergency services accessing the site from Hopefield road if required.
PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
JBS is currently decommissioning its Bungowannah site due to the number of nearby residential properties and the potential expansion of residential allotments east of Albury.
Given this, it is difficult to understand how the proposed One Tree Lane site is considered appropriate when there are approximately 30 residents, as well as a public school, located within a 5 km radius of the proposed One Tree Lane site. It is unclear how this situation differs from the issues currently affecting residents near the Bungowannah site.
PERSONAL IMPACT
I have recently been diagnosed with metastatic cancer secondary to prostate cancer. In addition to my concerns regarding exposure to pathogens and pollutants, this proposal is causing significant stress and anxiety at an already extremely difficult time for myself and my family.
The potential health, environmental, and lifestyle impacts of this development are deeply concerning, and we respectfully ask that these matters be carefully considered.

I support the project

This project is not in a suitable area for development.
All neighbouring properties are to close and fear the following.
Noise, odours, extra traffic and risks of water contamination are four of many examples. Should this project go ahead what are the guarantees that local residents are not affected???
In the event of flooding in the area what happens to the effluent? This was a disaster for neighbouring properties several years ago at the Redlands site.
JBS can tell us that effluent can be used to water crops, this is correct but in a wet season or flood event no crops need extra water and therefore what happens then.
My property is just east of the proposed site and I object to it entirely.
Should the prevailing westerly winds continue, I guess
we can say goodbye to a quiet afternoon bbq on the lawn.
Regards
Anthony Booth

I object completely due to the reasons written in the attached letter