Sorry it has taken a few days to get around to updating the situation here.
We won!!
After so many months of not really feeling that we were getting anywhere, we still had no good feel for which way the decision would go, right up until the Council's Assessment Manager read out the Council staff recommendations on the proposal.
What a fantastic win for the community and the environment! And so good to see that it was unanimous, though it would have been difficult to imagine another outcome after the summary of the staff findings in relation to town planning issues.
It took a while to fully believe that we had won. Then so
many people to thank. An incredible number of people and organisations have supported us,
provided advice on different issues, and taken their own initiatives in
response to the motocross proposal.
If you are among the (hopefully small) number who haven't yet received a phone call or email thanking you for your support, please take this as a heartfelt "thank you" for your input. The Adare / Vinegar Hill community - and those in the wider Lockyer Valley community who understand the real and varied impacts of motocross operations - owe you all a debt of gratitude.
I'll post the Council staff report and recommendations on this website when I get a chance.
Of course there is still the possibility of an appeal by the applicant, but to judge from the verbal summary of the report given before the Councillors voted on the application, it sounds like a pretty tight argument. We will be ready to deal with an appeal if it happens.
Saturday 30 May 2015
Monday 25 May 2015
Council meeting on Wednesday 27 May 2015
UPDATE - 12.15pm Tuesday 26 May
Confirmation from Council - the Motocross application will be decided on Wed 27th
27 May, starting at 10.00am
upstairs in the Council Offices in Railway Street Gatton
Please be there - numbers count. Get there early to secure a seat.
NOTE: There will be presentations by Lockyer Community Action and the Applicant at the meeting.
+++++
Friday 22 May 2015
A surprise letter from a Councillor - and some advice
Nowadays it is very rare to receive a personal letter in the mail, and much more unusual to receive a carefully handwritten letter.
The other day I received the following from an ex-Councillor in Tenterfield Shire. I should point out that I had not contacted John prior to receiving his letter and did not know of his existence. He does not say how he got my address. I have John's permission to pass this on:
My name is John Macnish and I was a councillor on Tenterfield Shire Council when we made the ill informed and wrong decision to allow that Mx bike park called Emu Creek Extreme Retreat.[material removed here that may identify certain individuals]
On reflection we should have been more diligent and saved the local people down there 10 years of torment as this ‘business’ was totally inappropriate for the area. I guess the message from all of this is to closely scrutinize the council proceedings when dealing with your case. Councillors are not infallible and when the council staff, for whatever reason, do not follow correct procedures, poor decisions can be made and these can be very hard to reverse.
The locals at Emu Creek under Christine and Brian Baker did a fantastic job of organising the protests and coordinating the action against this park and through their persistence got this venue closed.
All the very best in your endeavours
John Macnish
+++
John's reference to “10 years of torment” reminded me of the file that I have been compiling for the last few months of people's experiences of living with motocross in many different places. You can see some selected quotes here.
The other day I received the following from an ex-Councillor in Tenterfield Shire. I should point out that I had not contacted John prior to receiving his letter and did not know of his existence. He does not say how he got my address. I have John's permission to pass this on:
My name is John Macnish and I was a councillor on Tenterfield Shire Council when we made the ill informed and wrong decision to allow that Mx bike park called Emu Creek Extreme Retreat.[material removed here that may identify certain individuals]
On reflection we should have been more diligent and saved the local people down there 10 years of torment as this ‘business’ was totally inappropriate for the area. I guess the message from all of this is to closely scrutinize the council proceedings when dealing with your case. Councillors are not infallible and when the council staff, for whatever reason, do not follow correct procedures, poor decisions can be made and these can be very hard to reverse.
The locals at Emu Creek under Christine and Brian Baker did a fantastic job of organising the protests and coordinating the action against this park and through their persistence got this venue closed.
All the very best in your endeavours
John Macnish
+++
John's reference to “10 years of torment” reminded me of the file that I have been compiling for the last few months of people's experiences of living with motocross in many different places. You can see some selected quotes here.
Motocross Training Facility or Trojan Horse?
Trojan horse (n): a trick or stratagem whereby something that has been made to appear desirable actually contains within it something harmful, dangerous or threatening.
The application for a Material Change of Use of the land at the end of Adare Road north of Gatton to allow a "motocross training facility" to be established describes a two-stage development, which in total appears to be considerably beyond motocross training. Let's take a look at different aspects of the application, starting with Stage 1 and Stage 2. Keep the Trojan Horse in mind.
Stage 1 will involve:
The Application document for Stage 1 stands out in a number of ways, few of them good. For the purposes of this discussion it is notable that it has been cleverly "trimmed" so that there is virtually nothing in the Stage 1 application which is going to require the involvement of State or Commonwealth government agencies. And it's wrapped in a warm and fuzzy "training facility" blanket.
But Stage 2 will add:
All of the harder to sell stuff is in Stage 2:
This property at Adare where the proposed motocross activity would be located is not in such a precinct, and the area would be unlikely to be declared a motor racing precinct through any transparent and public process. Maybe labelling Stage 1 as a "training facility" might just sneak in?
But, if this is about “training", where are the trainers and trainees?
The Adare Road Stage 1 application is for a "motocross training facility". However, the words "train", "trainer(s)" and "trainee(s)" do not appear anywhere in the Application document. Neither is there any reference to "pupil(s)", "student(s)" (at least, not in relation to the proposed activity), "practise"/"practice" (except in "Practice/Training Sessions").
There will be a full-time staff of four - but their list of duties do not include the words "training" or "coaching", and there is no mention of any intention to employ part-time trainers.
In a Gatton Star article on 17 December, the owner of the applicant company made much of the intention to train and provide coaching for "kids" and "recreational beginners" in a "family" sport. But, the following relevant words DO NOT appear in the Application: child, kids, recreational beginners, beginners, or coaching. "Children" occurs, but not in relation to the proposed motocross activity. "Family" occurs but only in relation to biological taxonomy. Remember, this is in addition to the missing words: train, trainer(s), trainee(s), pupil(s), student(s), practise and practice as mentioned above.
No trainers? No trainees?
Also, if this is about a “training facility” where is the demand and business case?
So far as can be ascertained, there are no other motocross operations in Australia that are solely training facilities. Apparently no one else has identified sufficient market demand to base a motocross business solely on training. This would be something new and different.
Strangely, the application contains not a single word about the need that the proposed "motocross training facility" will be serving. Nothing about the size of the market or the demographics and ability to pay of the potential client base. In fact there's no demonstration of need or likely financial viability at all.
This is important because "training" implies something different to what users get at a recreational motocross facility.
It implies instruction, personal attention from qualified trainers, and care and attention to safety, because it is catering in part for newcomers to the sport who can be expected occasionally to do stupid things. But even for more advanced trainees, "training" implies that they are being taken to a higher level of skill, being pushed beyond their current abilities and limits. Again, extra service, care and individual attention beyond what is the norm at a recreational motocross facility. And presumably extra risk (remember this is an extreme sport) and higher insurance premiums.
In every way, this extra level of attention and care would unavoidably mean extra costs for a business running this kind of training, and this extra cost will have to be passed on in higher charges to patrons than are being levied by existing recreational motocross tracks.
So a demonstrated demand and a business case are important - if only to convince us that this really is intended to be a training facility, and not just a cover for a recreational motocross track that will later become a race event facility.
The application does say that the number of patrons on the site at any one time will be limited to 150 but does not say specifically that these will be trainees. In fact, if there were to be 150 trainees at one time, you'd expect to see a quite a lot of trainers on the staff, at least on weekends when you maybe could get 150 actual trainees.
The need to provide an adequate ratio of trainers to trainees is important, certainly to the proponent, and certainly to people who send their kids along to a training facility to learn an extreme sport. It is no less important to those of us who might be impacted by a recreational/racing motocross track masquerading as a training facility.
No identified market? None of the training-related words in the Application? No estimate of number of trainees at any one time? No trainers? No business case?
Then there's "practice": what’s the difference between practice and recreational motocross riding? The application makes it clear that the activities that will be undertaken at all times in Stage 1 will be "Practice/Training Sessions". Maybe there will be "practice" but without any training? How does that kind of practice differ from the kind of recreational riding that is done at any motocross track? It seems like the same activity to me. Same motocross bikes going round and round, up and down. Same 'as fast as they can go' riding. Same very, very noisy activity - the type of activity that is very difficult to get approved in any area where there are 900 people living within four kilometres.
Trojan Horse? Couldn't happen - the Council wouldn't be so silly?
It's happened before - remember Black Duck Valley (three deaths, multiple serious injuries, massive noise impact on local people - that Black Duck Valley) - well that was permitted by Council as a Material Change of Use for Outdoor Entertainment Off Road Education.
The application for a Material Change of Use of the land at the end of Adare Road north of Gatton to allow a "motocross training facility" to be established describes a two-stage development, which in total appears to be considerably beyond motocross training. Let's take a look at different aspects of the application, starting with Stage 1 and Stage 2. Keep the Trojan Horse in mind.
Stage 1 will involve:
- creation and operation of 1 Motocross Track;
- providing a sealed access from the property frontage to the track area, including a culvert creek crossing;
- constructing and operating a canteen for up to 150 people;
- constructing a toilet suitable for 150 people per day;
- operating hours from Tuesday to Friday 4.00pm to 9.00pm; and Saturday and Sunday 9.00am to 4.00pm;
- traffic volume around opening and closing times of up to 150 vehicles per hour.
The Application document for Stage 1 stands out in a number of ways, few of them good. For the purposes of this discussion it is notable that it has been cleverly "trimmed" so that there is virtually nothing in the Stage 1 application which is going to require the involvement of State or Commonwealth government agencies. And it's wrapped in a warm and fuzzy "training facility" blanket.
But Stage 2 will add:
- four more Motocross Tracks, to make a total capacity of 200 bikes at a time on the tracks;
- camping and cabin accommodation for 100 people;
- expanded toilet and shower amenities;
- expanded canteen;
- a caretaker's residence;
- "occasional" "event weekends" (racing) when the opening hours on Saturday and Sunday will be from 9.00am to 9.00pm;
- more noisy nights (6/week instead of 4/week when events are held);
- noise going later at night because of campers and cabin occupants;
- at least five times the traffic on local roads (5 x no. of bikes + campers).
All of the harder to sell stuff is in Stage 2:
- 200 bikes at one time;
- the possibility of clearing vegetation to fit in the extra tracks, the camping and accommodation;
- the expanded sewage treatment and disposal; and particularly
- the "events", which can only be a weasel word for someone who doesn't want to say "race meetings" out loud.
This property at Adare where the proposed motocross activity would be located is not in such a precinct, and the area would be unlikely to be declared a motor racing precinct through any transparent and public process. Maybe labelling Stage 1 as a "training facility" might just sneak in?
But, if this is about “training", where are the trainers and trainees?
The Adare Road Stage 1 application is for a "motocross training facility". However, the words "train", "trainer(s)" and "trainee(s)" do not appear anywhere in the Application document. Neither is there any reference to "pupil(s)", "student(s)" (at least, not in relation to the proposed activity), "practise"/"practice" (except in "Practice/Training Sessions").
There will be a full-time staff of four - but their list of duties do not include the words "training" or "coaching", and there is no mention of any intention to employ part-time trainers.
In a Gatton Star article on 17 December, the owner of the applicant company made much of the intention to train and provide coaching for "kids" and "recreational beginners" in a "family" sport. But, the following relevant words DO NOT appear in the Application: child, kids, recreational beginners, beginners, or coaching. "Children" occurs, but not in relation to the proposed motocross activity. "Family" occurs but only in relation to biological taxonomy. Remember, this is in addition to the missing words: train, trainer(s), trainee(s), pupil(s), student(s), practise and practice as mentioned above.
No trainers? No trainees?
Also, if this is about a “training facility” where is the demand and business case?
So far as can be ascertained, there are no other motocross operations in Australia that are solely training facilities. Apparently no one else has identified sufficient market demand to base a motocross business solely on training. This would be something new and different.
Strangely, the application contains not a single word about the need that the proposed "motocross training facility" will be serving. Nothing about the size of the market or the demographics and ability to pay of the potential client base. In fact there's no demonstration of need or likely financial viability at all.
This is important because "training" implies something different to what users get at a recreational motocross facility.
It implies instruction, personal attention from qualified trainers, and care and attention to safety, because it is catering in part for newcomers to the sport who can be expected occasionally to do stupid things. But even for more advanced trainees, "training" implies that they are being taken to a higher level of skill, being pushed beyond their current abilities and limits. Again, extra service, care and individual attention beyond what is the norm at a recreational motocross facility. And presumably extra risk (remember this is an extreme sport) and higher insurance premiums.
In every way, this extra level of attention and care would unavoidably mean extra costs for a business running this kind of training, and this extra cost will have to be passed on in higher charges to patrons than are being levied by existing recreational motocross tracks.
So a demonstrated demand and a business case are important - if only to convince us that this really is intended to be a training facility, and not just a cover for a recreational motocross track that will later become a race event facility.
The application does say that the number of patrons on the site at any one time will be limited to 150 but does not say specifically that these will be trainees. In fact, if there were to be 150 trainees at one time, you'd expect to see a quite a lot of trainers on the staff, at least on weekends when you maybe could get 150 actual trainees.
The need to provide an adequate ratio of trainers to trainees is important, certainly to the proponent, and certainly to people who send their kids along to a training facility to learn an extreme sport. It is no less important to those of us who might be impacted by a recreational/racing motocross track masquerading as a training facility.
No identified market? None of the training-related words in the Application? No estimate of number of trainees at any one time? No trainers? No business case?
Then there's "practice": what’s the difference between practice and recreational motocross riding? The application makes it clear that the activities that will be undertaken at all times in Stage 1 will be "Practice/Training Sessions". Maybe there will be "practice" but without any training? How does that kind of practice differ from the kind of recreational riding that is done at any motocross track? It seems like the same activity to me. Same motocross bikes going round and round, up and down. Same 'as fast as they can go' riding. Same very, very noisy activity - the type of activity that is very difficult to get approved in any area where there are 900 people living within four kilometres.
Trojan Horse? Couldn't happen - the Council wouldn't be so silly?
It's happened before - remember Black Duck Valley (three deaths, multiple serious injuries, massive noise impact on local people - that Black Duck Valley) - well that was permitted by Council as a Material Change of Use for Outdoor Entertainment Off Road Education.
What it's like to live with motocross
I've been compiling a file for the last few months of people's experiences living with motocross in many different places, not just in South East Queensland but all over Australia. Here are some selected quotes gathered from personal interviews, messages people have sent to me, and other sources.
I hope you will read all of them and think about the lives of the many people behind these statements - and then think about the impact on the community at Adare and Vinegar Hill in the Lockyer Valley.
I hope you will read all of them and think about the lives of the many people behind these statements - and then think about the impact on the community at Adare and Vinegar Hill in the Lockyer Valley.
“The loss of peace and
quiet and our rights to quiet enjoyment of our property.”
“The barrage of threats from the owners
and users of the establishment, toward us living here in the valley ...”
“If
you are anywhere outside the house and visible from the road you are likely to
get abuse hurled at you by passing motocross traffic.”
“We had people in passing cars throwing
empty stubbies at cattle in the paddock.
There were stubbies, plastic bottles, bongs and other rubbish in the
crops near the road so that after it was ploughed it was impossible to walk
barefoot to adjust the irrigation.
In one paddock beside the road I picked up about 12 bongs, made from
plastic soft-drink bottles and bits of hose, in one day.”
“The health and
wellbeing of the community where the stress and strain ... put strains on
marriages and people’s health.”
“The valuations of our
properties dropping with nobody wanting to buy as soon as they heard the noise
from the place or heard there was a Mx Park down the road.”
“After five hours of
the noise you’d gladly take a chainsaw over there and have a go at them.”
“You’re saying, ‘God,
are the motorbikes going to start up?’ So even though they’re not there, you’re
on edge because you don’t know... you think, ‘next ten minutes will tell’ .... And like I say, it’s not [just] when
the noise is going, you’re on edge all the time.”
“Friends and family do
not want to come and visit anymore as we never know if we are going to be
subjected to offensive noise ....
No social life anymore.”
“We live 7.5km from
Echo Valley, luckily it only operates 2-3 times per month as the noise is
sometimes incredibly offensive”.
I've lived near there [at Vinegar Hill] previously for
the peaceful natural landscape and wildlife. I would like to think this is still
valued and protected. I've
experienced the fairly typical behaviours and attitudes of dirt bike
enthusiasts and have come away discouraged and dismayed about the self centered
uncaring nature of this "sport".
“We have first-hand experience of the excessive
noise created from 200+ motocross bikes after camping at the Western Trailhead
at Wyaralong Dam in July this year for a horse trail ride. The Western
Trailhead campsite is less than two kilometres from the Queensland Moto Park
and the noise created from the motocross park disturbed the amenity and in many
ways ruined the experience of camping in an otherwise quiet and peaceful
location.”
“Living near a
motocross track destroys your life in every way - emotionally, financially, and
your quality of life. It causes
enormous stress. This is your
home, you have nowhere else to go.”
“When I travel to the
family farm there is constant traffic on the road which at times when groups
[going to or from Qld Moto Park] are travelling on convoy and don't know the
road has been very dangerous at times. Also there are the usual testosterone
filled P-platers that can't handle the narrow windy road and there have been
several near misses.”
“We’ve had people in the farm sheds,
even driving in at 3am, looking around.
There have been fences pushed over and bikes riding around our
property.”
“The traffic on the road is horrific -
thrill seekers and adrenaline junkies - they drive the way they ride. Four times I came very close to an
accident because of them. The
creek crossing was a major risk area.”
“Kids without licences
and on unregistered bikes would ride for miles on back roads and across
country, cutting through fences if necessary, to avoid the coppers on the road
to the park.”
“I've experienced
first hand the impact that persistent motocross noise and activities can have
on a community. ... The noise was insistent and unsettling for all neighbours,
particularly as many had young families or had moved to the area for its'
lifestyle value - quiet and peaceful. The end result was a lengthy (years)
legal battle between Council, the Motocross enthusiasts and the surrounding
landholders. Three families sold their properties and left the homes where they
had intended to settle, including my own, because of the noise and disrespect
of the motocross users and lack of action from Council. It is not a small issue
that makes a family give up the home they have built and the place their
children have grown up in. I would strongly advise Council to reconsider the
application for the Motocross track at Adare and to listen to the concern of
the local residents.”.
“Stressful, depressing, suffering
physical & mental abuse, tension is causing me personal relationship
conflicts, lack of relaxation is health threatening, (hypertension) violation
of my chosen lifestyle & of raping me of my rights to enjoy my home in my
chosen location. I have lost my composure on numerous occasions screaming out
obscenities above the OFFENSIVE disturbing MX moto bike NOISE pleading for the
NOISE to STOP. I DO NOT LIKE THE WAY THIS NOISE TORTURE EFFECTS ME> live on
acreage & do not want to have to lock myself away from this offensive noise
with radio turned up full blast to disguise this invasive torturous din that envelopes
me on my own property.”
Thursday 14 May 2015
Flooding - Redbank Creek Crossing on Adare Road
The Redbank Crek crossing on Adare Road (the only access to and from the proposed motocross facility at Adare) flooded on the night of 1 May and the morning of 2 May.
To judge by falls recorded by residents in the hilly areas in the catchment, there had probably been 100-125mm of rain in the catchment in the 24 hours to 9.00am on 2 May - rainfall recorded at nearby properties in the Valley were less than 100mm.
This rain fell over an extended period, and in the Lilydale Creek catchment some three kilometres away was not heavy enough to cause any significant erosion on a recently graded track (Lilydale Creek is a tributary of Redbank Creek, joining it above the crossing).
This was not an unusual level of rain in 24 hours in this area. Rainfall events of around 150mm in a few hours when the ground is already saturated can cause flash flooding of Lilydale Creek. This would be expected to also apply to Redbank Creek at the crossing, which receives input from its own upstream catchment and that of Donnybrook and Lilydale Creeks.
We have had the experience of crossing a small tributary of Lilydale Creek at Vinegar Hill which as flooded but not dangerous, driving about 600m to Lilydale Creek and finding it impassable, then returning to the tributary, which had risen sufficiently in around 10 minutes to make crossing it a risky venture. The rainfall which caused that particular flood had mostly fallen higher in the catchment, so that the flooding was unexpected.
The motocross application document says that:
acceptable management practices can be put in place to ensure patrons remain put in a place of safety (ie the subject site) for the duration of any flood events affecting the road. Given the small catchment area, flooding times within Adare Road are not prolonged [Planning Assessment Report p.8].
I'd say that such an approach could be regarded as a calculated gamble when the ground has been saturated by previous rain events, even if the creek is not flowing strongly.
Saying that Redbank Creek "has a small catchment" is somewhat subjective. It's catchment extends west to Seventeen Mile Road, south to the Sandy Creek catchment and north to the Buaraba Creek catchment.
Locals report that the Redbank Creek crossing on Adare Road can be closed for some days as a result of high rainfall events, and may not be open immediately after the water goes down because of log-jams across the culvert.
.jpg) |
| The crossing at 8.00am on 2 May 2015. The water had been higher than this during the night. |
This rain fell over an extended period, and in the Lilydale Creek catchment some three kilometres away was not heavy enough to cause any significant erosion on a recently graded track (Lilydale Creek is a tributary of Redbank Creek, joining it above the crossing).
This was not an unusual level of rain in 24 hours in this area. Rainfall events of around 150mm in a few hours when the ground is already saturated can cause flash flooding of Lilydale Creek. This would be expected to also apply to Redbank Creek at the crossing, which receives input from its own upstream catchment and that of Donnybrook and Lilydale Creeks.
We have had the experience of crossing a small tributary of Lilydale Creek at Vinegar Hill which as flooded but not dangerous, driving about 600m to Lilydale Creek and finding it impassable, then returning to the tributary, which had risen sufficiently in around 10 minutes to make crossing it a risky venture. The rainfall which caused that particular flood had mostly fallen higher in the catchment, so that the flooding was unexpected.
The motocross application document says that:
acceptable management practices can be put in place to ensure patrons remain put in a place of safety (ie the subject site) for the duration of any flood events affecting the road. Given the small catchment area, flooding times within Adare Road are not prolonged [Planning Assessment Report p.8].
I'd say that such an approach could be regarded as a calculated gamble when the ground has been saturated by previous rain events, even if the creek is not flowing strongly.
Saying that Redbank Creek "has a small catchment" is somewhat subjective. It's catchment extends west to Seventeen Mile Road, south to the Sandy Creek catchment and north to the Buaraba Creek catchment.
Locals report that the Redbank Creek crossing on Adare Road can be closed for some days as a result of high rainfall events, and may not be open immediately after the water goes down because of log-jams across the culvert.
Monday 11 May 2015
Where's the news about the motocross track campaign?
Sorry, things have been pretty hectic lately, so it has been a while since I had time to post anything here about what has been happening.
You won't have seen anything in the Gatton Star either.
Unfortunately back in the middle of December last year the Gatton Star decided to impose a gag on the topic of the proposed motocross track until the application goes to Councillors for debate (on the basis that some letters to the editor which had been submitted to them “contained personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims, which could be judged as defamatory or slanderous”).
They haven't explained how the Star are not able to either bin letters to the editor which appear to be legally suspect, or refer them to their lawyers for advice. They are part of the APN group of regional newspapers, and it's hard to imagine the group doesn't have specialist lawyers on tap, if not on staff, to deal with this sort of thing.
You won't have seen anything in the Gatton Star either.
They haven't explained how the Star are not able to either bin letters to the editor which appear to be legally suspect, or refer them to their lawyers for advice. They are part of the APN group of regional newspapers, and it's hard to imagine the group doesn't have specialist lawyers on tap, if not on staff, to deal with this sort of thing.
They say that they are "conscious of the importance of encouraging debate on this during the public comment period". And that they will gladly resume publication after the application goes before the Council. What good is debate after the Council has made a decision? That shows a disingenuous ignorance of the meaning of the term "public comment period" - it's not the time when the public at large are commenting about and discussing the proposal (obviously), but the small window of time when the public are able to lodge submissions with the Council in relation to a Development Application. There has been a lot of public comment since the window for lodging submissions closed - but there would have been a whole lot more if the Star had fulfilled its obligations as a community newspaper.
This is a major local issue. How many Development Applications get 232 submissions opposing the proposed development
This is a major local issue. How many Development Applications get 232 submissions opposing the proposed development
Even supposing that this is a reasonable position for a local newspaper to take, are they so ignorant of the processes of our local government that they are not aware that this matter is being raised in "workshops" between Councillors and Council staff? It is "before" the Council and has been for a long time.
Cast your mind back to the days of the Gas Power Station fight. Do you remember the Star not reporting on it or not publishing letters to the editor because the matter hadn't gone to the Councillors for discussion? Or not publishing anything because the appeal hadn't been heard by the Land and Environment Court?
Way back in my environmental activist days I'd often be part of a group being shown around mining revegetation sites by their PR people. I quickly learned that if they wanted me to look in a certain direction there was almost always something behind me, or just over the nearest ridge, that they didn't want seen.
Defamatory or slanderous letters to the editor??
I think I'll go and look over that ridge.
Way back in my environmental activist days I'd often be part of a group being shown around mining revegetation sites by their PR people. I quickly learned that if they wanted me to look in a certain direction there was almost always something behind me, or just over the nearest ridge, that they didn't want seen.
Defamatory or slanderous letters to the editor??
I think I'll go and look over that ridge.
Monday 4 May 2015
The offical view on Councillors talking with constituents about Development Applications - or anything else
An LVRC ratepayer has written to the Deputy Mayor, Tanya Milligan, seeking clarification of the legal basis for suggestions that Councillors should be careful in having contacts with constituents who oppose a development application as it may cause a conflict of interest or an impression of bias that may interfere with the decision making process of Councillors.
I referred to this in my last post here and gave the example of the role and views of one Brisbane City Councillor as a contrast with the above view.
A reply to the ratepayer's letter has now been received from the Lockyer Valley Regional Council CEO - this is normal practice in the LVRC when a Councillor believes that they are being asked for the Council's position on something rather than their own opinion. Just why a Councillor can't be trusted to convey the Council's position on something when it is an apparently clear and long standing policy (at least since the early days of this Council's tenure) is unclear.
Anyway ... the CEO's letter is enlightening, not least because it does not even attempt to provide any legal or policy basis for the stance. Here it is:
.jpg)
.jpg)
The letter contains some useful guidelines and principles worth summarising.
There are some points in the letter with which I strongly disagree, but these concerns in no way detract from the significance of having the LVRC CEO's clarification of the Councillors' duties and rights regarding their contacts with constituents.
First, it is wrong to state that Councillors are required to be "neutral in the decision making process". Councillors can be red-hot opposed to a development application or fervently in favour of it without this giving any cause for concern. What the law requires is impartiality. Councillors cannot favour one outcome or another without valid reasons - but there is no requirement that they not be strongly committed to their arguments for one position or the other. The words "neutral" and "neutrality" do not appear in the Local Government Act.
Second, it is highly unlikely that there would be causal link between a lack of impartiality in decision making and a conflict of interest on the Councillor's part. Impartiality has to do with even-handedness in approaching a decision, and weighing up both sides of the argument fairly. Conflict of interest has to do with whether or not the Councillor has some personal, family or business interest which could be advantaged by a decision going in a particular direction. One can be lacking in impartiality without having any vested interest in the outcome - for example if one has taken a dislike to one party and lets that influence ones willingness to engage or the way one votes in a council meeting. (On the other hand, a conflict of interest can, of course, lead to a lack of impartiality, but that is not the issue here.)
It would require a stretch of the imagination to even suggest that a conflict of interest which did not exist before could arise from a Councillor consulting with his or her constituents to find out their views and concerns in relation to an issue. Yet, this conflict of interest stick has been used to dissuade Councillors from consulting with the community, and vice versa.
It goes without saying that Councillors should consult with their constituents, whether as individuals or as members of a community group. They cannot fulfil their duties, including those described at 4(2)(c) and 12(1) of the Local Government Act, without such consultation. And, of course, in this context "consult" includes both actively seeking out the views and concerns of residents, and being available to hear those views and concerns when contacted by residents.
With regard to Councillors and community groups, the Local Government Act, at Section 173(3) specifically says: "A councillor does not have a conflict of interest in a matter merely because of an engagement with a community group ... undertaken by the councillor in his or her capacity as a councillor".
I sincerely hope that this letter from the CEO setting out the guidelines (as well as, of course, better awareness of the relevant parts of the Local Government Act, including particularly Sections 4, 12(1-3), and 173) will clear the way for both Councillors and community members to engage in necessary dialogue on important issues in the government of the Lockyer Valley Region - and not just on issues restricted to the Adare motocross proposal.
I referred to this in my last post here and gave the example of the role and views of one Brisbane City Councillor as a contrast with the above view.
A reply to the ratepayer's letter has now been received from the Lockyer Valley Regional Council CEO - this is normal practice in the LVRC when a Councillor believes that they are being asked for the Council's position on something rather than their own opinion. Just why a Councillor can't be trusted to convey the Council's position on something when it is an apparently clear and long standing policy (at least since the early days of this Council's tenure) is unclear.
Anyway ... the CEO's letter is enlightening, not least because it does not even attempt to provide any legal or policy basis for the stance. Here it is:
The letter contains some useful guidelines and principles worth summarising.
- Under the Local Government Act 2009 Councillors are required to effectively consult and liaise with their community members, ratepayers and residents.
- Councillors have a responsibility to be informed of matters requiring a decision of Council.
- Councillors who feel that attending a meeting with their constituents opposed to a development application would be beneficial in gathering further information that would assist in making their decision on the proposal may do so.
- In reaching their decision Councillors need to give due consideration to: the matters put forward by the Applicant in respect of the proposal; submissions received from submitters; the detailed assessment report provided by the Council's officers; and information gathered during the decision making process.
There are some points in the letter with which I strongly disagree, but these concerns in no way detract from the significance of having the LVRC CEO's clarification of the Councillors' duties and rights regarding their contacts with constituents.
First, it is wrong to state that Councillors are required to be "neutral in the decision making process". Councillors can be red-hot opposed to a development application or fervently in favour of it without this giving any cause for concern. What the law requires is impartiality. Councillors cannot favour one outcome or another without valid reasons - but there is no requirement that they not be strongly committed to their arguments for one position or the other. The words "neutral" and "neutrality" do not appear in the Local Government Act.
Second, it is highly unlikely that there would be causal link between a lack of impartiality in decision making and a conflict of interest on the Councillor's part. Impartiality has to do with even-handedness in approaching a decision, and weighing up both sides of the argument fairly. Conflict of interest has to do with whether or not the Councillor has some personal, family or business interest which could be advantaged by a decision going in a particular direction. One can be lacking in impartiality without having any vested interest in the outcome - for example if one has taken a dislike to one party and lets that influence ones willingness to engage or the way one votes in a council meeting. (On the other hand, a conflict of interest can, of course, lead to a lack of impartiality, but that is not the issue here.)
It would require a stretch of the imagination to even suggest that a conflict of interest which did not exist before could arise from a Councillor consulting with his or her constituents to find out their views and concerns in relation to an issue. Yet, this conflict of interest stick has been used to dissuade Councillors from consulting with the community, and vice versa.
It goes without saying that Councillors should consult with their constituents, whether as individuals or as members of a community group. They cannot fulfil their duties, including those described at 4(2)(c) and 12(1) of the Local Government Act, without such consultation. And, of course, in this context "consult" includes both actively seeking out the views and concerns of residents, and being available to hear those views and concerns when contacted by residents.
With regard to Councillors and community groups, the Local Government Act, at Section 173(3) specifically says: "A councillor does not have a conflict of interest in a matter merely because of an engagement with a community group ... undertaken by the councillor in his or her capacity as a councillor".
I sincerely hope that this letter from the CEO setting out the guidelines (as well as, of course, better awareness of the relevant parts of the Local Government Act, including particularly Sections 4, 12(1-3), and 173) will clear the way for both Councillors and community members to engage in necessary dialogue on important issues in the government of the Lockyer Valley Region - and not just on issues restricted to the Adare motocross proposal.
Wednesday 29 April 2015
Should Councillors talk to constituents to hear their views on development applications?
Ever since the Lockyer Valley Mayor addressed a community meeting last December, we have been hearing that Councillors need to be very careful about meeting with people objecting to the motocross application, or being seen to allocate more time to objectors than to the applicant, lest they be accused of bias or impartiality.
It was suggested at the 18 March Council meeting that Councillors who might consider accepting an invitation to a community meeting where they could hear the remainder of a presentation on community concerns about the motocross proposal and have the opportunity to ask questions that they should "seek advice".
This whole line or argument seems to fly in the face of Councillors' responsibilities and duties, and even to be contrary to the provisions of the Local Government Act. I've lost count of the number of people who were dumbfounded when they heard that this could even be an issue. The way it has been presented seems to cast Councillors in the role of a "jury" which should not be contaminated by seeking information or understanding outside of that provided by the Council staff (and possibly also the applicant). Clearly Councillors are not a jury - they are elected representatives of their constituents.
So my attention was grabbed last night when there was an item on the TV news showing Brisbane City Councillor Helen Abrahams addressing a rally in West End against a highrise development application, and apparently siding with the protesters. Didn't she realise the risks she was taking?
This morning I checked out her website - she's even inviting people to discuss the details of the application with her! Here's an excerpt from her website page which deals with this application:
The application is Impact Assessable and so neighbours will be notified and it will be advertised on the property boundary. There is a right of appeal of Council’s decision. You can view the development application at The Gabba Ward Office, 2/63 Annerley Road, Woolloongabba or at a Customer Service Centre. Alternatively you can view the application on line at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au and click on view development applications and follow the prompts.
You may wish to make a submission on the application. The submission should be addressed to Mr Colin Jensen, CEO, Brisbane City Council, GPO Box 1434, Brisbane Q 4001. If you wish to discuss the details of this application with Councillor Helen Abrahams please ring 3403 2160.
How could the situation be so different in the Lockyer Valley Region?
Helen Abrahams has been a Councillor since 2003, thus she should be pretty knowledgeable about potential issues of bias and partiality which might arise when dealing with her constituents. So I phoned her and asked whether her close involvement with her constituents' issues has ever been raised as a possible basis for charges of bias or lack of impartiality within the Brisbane City Council.
Her response was one of surprise at the questions, and incredulity when I described the warnings issued to LVRC Councillors. Her view is that, as a Councillor, her constituents' problems are her problems. She believes that she needs to know about them and understand them, and to advocate on behalf of her constituents. I gathered from what she said that doing this is not in any way in conflict with the well informed impartiality that she brings to bear in the Council decision-making process as a Councillor. It is what is expected of Councillors and her role has never been challenged in terms of partiality or of bias.
Brisbane City Council operates under the City of Brisbane Act 2010 - but, much of that Act (including the parts dealing with Councillors' responsibilities, conflict of interest, and impartiality) mirror the Local Government Act 2009. Neither piece of legislation has any prohibitions on Councillors informing themselves of the views and expectations of their constituents, even in relation to development applications. There's nothing about allocating "equal time" to constituents and applicants either.
On that basis, you'd have to wonder where this "policy" that is being applied to the LVR Councillors comes from, and whose interests it is serving.
It was suggested at the 18 March Council meeting that Councillors who might consider accepting an invitation to a community meeting where they could hear the remainder of a presentation on community concerns about the motocross proposal and have the opportunity to ask questions that they should "seek advice".
This whole line or argument seems to fly in the face of Councillors' responsibilities and duties, and even to be contrary to the provisions of the Local Government Act. I've lost count of the number of people who were dumbfounded when they heard that this could even be an issue. The way it has been presented seems to cast Councillors in the role of a "jury" which should not be contaminated by seeking information or understanding outside of that provided by the Council staff (and possibly also the applicant). Clearly Councillors are not a jury - they are elected representatives of their constituents.
So my attention was grabbed last night when there was an item on the TV news showing Brisbane City Councillor Helen Abrahams addressing a rally in West End against a highrise development application, and apparently siding with the protesters. Didn't she realise the risks she was taking?
This morning I checked out her website - she's even inviting people to discuss the details of the application with her! Here's an excerpt from her website page which deals with this application:
The application is Impact Assessable and so neighbours will be notified and it will be advertised on the property boundary. There is a right of appeal of Council’s decision. You can view the development application at The Gabba Ward Office, 2/63 Annerley Road, Woolloongabba or at a Customer Service Centre. Alternatively you can view the application on line at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au and click on view development applications and follow the prompts.
You may wish to make a submission on the application. The submission should be addressed to Mr Colin Jensen, CEO, Brisbane City Council, GPO Box 1434, Brisbane Q 4001. If you wish to discuss the details of this application with Councillor Helen Abrahams please ring 3403 2160.
How could the situation be so different in the Lockyer Valley Region?
Helen Abrahams has been a Councillor since 2003, thus she should be pretty knowledgeable about potential issues of bias and partiality which might arise when dealing with her constituents. So I phoned her and asked whether her close involvement with her constituents' issues has ever been raised as a possible basis for charges of bias or lack of impartiality within the Brisbane City Council.
Her response was one of surprise at the questions, and incredulity when I described the warnings issued to LVRC Councillors. Her view is that, as a Councillor, her constituents' problems are her problems. She believes that she needs to know about them and understand them, and to advocate on behalf of her constituents. I gathered from what she said that doing this is not in any way in conflict with the well informed impartiality that she brings to bear in the Council decision-making process as a Councillor. It is what is expected of Councillors and her role has never been challenged in terms of partiality or of bias.
Brisbane City Council operates under the City of Brisbane Act 2010 - but, much of that Act (including the parts dealing with Councillors' responsibilities, conflict of interest, and impartiality) mirror the Local Government Act 2009. Neither piece of legislation has any prohibitions on Councillors informing themselves of the views and expectations of their constituents, even in relation to development applications. There's nothing about allocating "equal time" to constituents and applicants either.
On that basis, you'd have to wonder where this "policy" that is being applied to the LVR Councillors comes from, and whose interests it is serving.
Monday 20 April 2015
The proposed Adare motocross facility exceeds even its own maximum noise limits
The Noise Impact Assessment presented in the Development Application for the Adare motocross facility has some interesting bits in it. Here are a few.
The table below presents three different measures of background noise, extracted from the same data set. These represent the three main ways of measuring background noise.
The L90 measurements are similar to the values recorded for background noise at properties near the Emu Creek motocross track (before it ceased operating). They are more or less what would be expected in a quiet rural/natural environment such as we have here in Adare/Vinegar Hill.
In such a rural/natural environment with high amenity values (and high resident expectations) for "peace and quiet" then the maximum acceptable imposed noise level should be no more than background+5dB. This standard has been used at other locations in Queensland and in NSW.
So, taking Leq readings, the maximum acceptable noise levels for daytime operation (7am to 6pm) would be 37+5dB = 42dB. And for evenings (6pm to 10pm) it would be 30+5dB = 35dB. Note that background noise levels were measured in the open air, so indoor background levels would be lower and imposed noise maxima would also be lower than these figures.
These are the predicted noise levels for daytime operation (9am to 4pm). Note that the Applicant has chosen to adopt the criteria of 50dB for daytime operation and 35dB for evening operation. No justification is provided for this in the Application, and there has been no attempt to relate these values to measured background levels or to take into account annoyance effects of motocross noise.
Nevertheless, if we just take the Applicant's maximum noise values, the 50dB value is exceeded at two locations outdoors (whereas background+5=42 is exceeded at eight locations). For indoors, the Applicant's criterion of 35dB is exceeded at eight locations.
The Applicant has used the same maximum noise levels for evening operation as he used for daytime (50dB outdoors and 35dB indoors). This is completely unacceptable, considering that the evening background values he measured are 7dB(Leq) lower than daytime backgrounds. The proposed outdoor 50dB maximum is equalled or exceeded at 11 locations, and the indoor 35dB maximum is exceeded at 14 of the 18 locations.
In summary, the Applicant is not able to meet even his own unjustifiably high maximum noise limits - and I have bee advised that these are 15-20dB(A) higher than those used by another Council.
Background Noise
Background (ambient) noise measurements were done over a one week period in August 2014.The table below presents three different measures of background noise, extracted from the same data set. These represent the three main ways of measuring background noise.
In such a rural/natural environment with high amenity values (and high resident expectations) for "peace and quiet" then the maximum acceptable imposed noise level should be no more than background+5dB. This standard has been used at other locations in Queensland and in NSW.
So, taking Leq readings, the maximum acceptable noise levels for daytime operation (7am to 6pm) would be 37+5dB = 42dB. And for evenings (6pm to 10pm) it would be 30+5dB = 35dB. Note that background noise levels were measured in the open air, so indoor background levels would be lower and imposed noise maxima would also be lower than these figures.
Predicted Noise Levels at Houses
The table below is a key to the locations of "Receivers" (i.e. houses) for which noise levels were predicted by the acoustic model used by the consultant. The two tables after it refer to Receivers No. 1-18, and the street addresses of these are given in the right-hand column of the table below. | |||
| Receiver Locations for Noise Predictions in Following Tables (none of the directions given are accurate - the consultant fails to understand that "due" means "exactly" in this context) |
Nevertheless, if we just take the Applicant's maximum noise values, the 50dB value is exceeded at two locations outdoors (whereas background+5=42 is exceeded at eight locations). For indoors, the Applicant's criterion of 35dB is exceeded at eight locations.
In summary, the Applicant is not able to meet even his own unjustifiably high maximum noise limits - and I have bee advised that these are 15-20dB(A) higher than those used by another Council.
The Bella Creek Motorsports Facility is not going to happen!!
This news came in around the middle of March but I forgot to report it. The proposed development, in the Gympie Regional Council area, would have included five motocross tracks, as well as four-wheel-drive tracks, camping, etc.
The Bella Residents Action Group made the announcement on their Facebook page.
Well...for all of you who have been waiting with bated breath and are not on a mailing list - we are now well past the period within which an appeal against the refusal of Mr Canty's DA had to have been lodged.
A conversation with Council has confirmed that there has been NO such lodgement. The 2nd application for the Bella Creek motorsports facility is now as dead as the first. After 4 1/2 years we can finally take a deep breath and exhale.
Thank you to all who have been following and offering support in our battle to prevent this misplaced idea from becoming a reality, you have been wonderful. After such a long time it seems hard to believe that this may finally be behind us; in light of the proponents past ability to offer up unpleasant surprises, we remain somewhat wary. We are nonetheless looking forward to drinking that champagne we've been storing. Raise a toast wherever you are and give yourselves a pat on the back, you deserve it!
The Gympie Regional Council's Planning and Development Section report on the application can be found here. It has a number of interesting things to say, many of which are relevant to the proposal for a motocross operation at Adare in the Lockyer Valley.
The development is proposed in a quiet rural area that is removed from the urban area. The application has not adequately demonstrated that noise from the development will not cause a nuisance to the immediate area. Further, it is likely that the traffic that could be generated is estimated to significantly increase when compared to the current low volumes of traffic in the locality, which will also cause adverse impacts upon the amenity and character of the area.
The locality is characterised by rural, rural residential and education uses and has a high level of amenity. Consequently, the development is likely to cause significant adverse changes to the acoustic environment of adjoining and surrounding premises and significantly impact upon the existing amenity of the locality.
The application was subject to a large number of objections [205] who have raised valid concerns about the proposal’s impact on the amenity of the area. ...
Concerns relate to character of the area being threatened, intrusion in lifestyle for a rural community, loss of privacy, unlawful entry onto neighbouring properties and inconsistencies with rural and rural residential land use in the area. ...
The concerns raised in the submissions are outlined in the report the majority of which raise valid planning issues. The number of and quality of the submissions, demonstrate that the development is contrary to community expectations and is not in the public interest.
Implementation of these [proposed] measures could be conditioned on any approval. However, the protection of the environmental values on the site cannot be guaranteed in regards to maximising protection of Koala Habitat Areas and having no adverse environmental impacts.
It is accepted that the proposed development will have some community benefit. However, the applicant has not provided any justification that there is a need for the facility, in particular at this location.
and
The applicant has not provided supporting information from an economic expert about the level of economic need for this type of facility. However, it is accepted that there is some community benefit in providing for this type of facility. However, the planning need for the facility at this location has not been demonstrated.
Having regard to the number of objections and concerns expressed in the submissions received, the proposed development is contrary to community expectations and is not in the public interest.
As mentioned above, the Bella Creek proposal gave rise to 205 objecting submissions of which 57% were from the Gympie Regional Council area. The Adare proposal has given rise to 232 objecting submissions 95% of which came from the Lockyer Valley Region.
In addition to the 205 objecting submissions, the Gympie Regional Council received 582 submissions in support of the Bella Creek proposal (85% of them from outside the Council area). The Adare motocross proposal elicited only two (2) supporting submissions.
The Bella Residents Action Group made the announcement on their Facebook page.
Well...for all of you who have been waiting with bated breath and are not on a mailing list - we are now well past the period within which an appeal against the refusal of Mr Canty's DA had to have been lodged.
A conversation with Council has confirmed that there has been NO such lodgement. The 2nd application for the Bella Creek motorsports facility is now as dead as the first. After 4 1/2 years we can finally take a deep breath and exhale.
Thank you to all who have been following and offering support in our battle to prevent this misplaced idea from becoming a reality, you have been wonderful. After such a long time it seems hard to believe that this may finally be behind us; in light of the proponents past ability to offer up unpleasant surprises, we remain somewhat wary. We are nonetheless looking forward to drinking that champagne we've been storing. Raise a toast wherever you are and give yourselves a pat on the back, you deserve it!
The Gympie Regional Council's Planning and Development Section report on the application can be found here. It has a number of interesting things to say, many of which are relevant to the proposal for a motocross operation at Adare in the Lockyer Valley.
Noise and Amenity
... there remains considerable doubt that the proposed development can operate without causing significant adverse noise impacts given the scale of the proposed development.The development is proposed in a quiet rural area that is removed from the urban area. The application has not adequately demonstrated that noise from the development will not cause a nuisance to the immediate area. Further, it is likely that the traffic that could be generated is estimated to significantly increase when compared to the current low volumes of traffic in the locality, which will also cause adverse impacts upon the amenity and character of the area.
The locality is characterised by rural, rural residential and education uses and has a high level of amenity. Consequently, the development is likely to cause significant adverse changes to the acoustic environment of adjoining and surrounding premises and significantly impact upon the existing amenity of the locality.
The application was subject to a large number of objections [205] who have raised valid concerns about the proposal’s impact on the amenity of the area. ...
Concerns relate to character of the area being threatened, intrusion in lifestyle for a rural community, loss of privacy, unlawful entry onto neighbouring properties and inconsistencies with rural and rural residential land use in the area. ...
The concerns raised in the submissions are outlined in the report the majority of which raise valid planning issues. The number of and quality of the submissions, demonstrate that the development is contrary to community expectations and is not in the public interest.
Impact on Koala Population
In relation to the koala population on the Applicant's land that would be subjected to adverse impacts from the proposed activity, the Council Planning report says:Implementation of these [proposed] measures could be conditioned on any approval. However, the protection of the environmental values on the site cannot be guaranteed in regards to maximising protection of Koala Habitat Areas and having no adverse environmental impacts.
Community Benefit and the Need for the Development
Referring to the questions of community benefit and need for the development the report says:It is accepted that the proposed development will have some community benefit. However, the applicant has not provided any justification that there is a need for the facility, in particular at this location.
and
The applicant has not provided supporting information from an economic expert about the level of economic need for this type of facility. However, it is accepted that there is some community benefit in providing for this type of facility. However, the planning need for the facility at this location has not been demonstrated.
Number of Submissions
One of the grounds on which the Gypmie Councillors refused the application was that:Having regard to the number of objections and concerns expressed in the submissions received, the proposed development is contrary to community expectations and is not in the public interest.
As mentioned above, the Bella Creek proposal gave rise to 205 objecting submissions of which 57% were from the Gympie Regional Council area. The Adare proposal has given rise to 232 objecting submissions 95% of which came from the Lockyer Valley Region.
In addition to the 205 objecting submissions, the Gympie Regional Council received 582 submissions in support of the Bella Creek proposal (85% of them from outside the Council area). The Adare motocross proposal elicited only two (2) supporting submissions.
Gympie Regional Council's Conclusion
Having regard to the planning scheme as a whole and the level of conflict identified, there are not sufficient grounds to allow the development despite the conflict. Consequently, the development application should be refused.Sunday 12 April 2015
A very interesting analysis of case for nuisance against a motorsports operation
This "Case Note"¨ [Ned Westaway
(2014) Coventry v Lawrence: Nuisance Redefined. Environmental Law Review: July 2014, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 211-218.] has some very interesting things to say about "amenity nuisance" in relation to motorsport noise.
There is also some very interesting stuff on pages 214 and 215 about the character of the locality and the relevance of planning permission in relation to seeking damages for nuisance. For example:
"The court signalled a move away from the ‘character of the locality’ as a yardstick in considering the reasonableness of a defendant’s activities in nuisance claims; instead it settled on a more nuanced gauge – ‘the established pattern of uses’ in the locality.(17) Lord Carnwath referred to the ‘varied pattern of uses all of which need to coexist in a modern society’.(18) This must be welcomed: it provides a more fact-sensitive framework against which nuisance may be assessed."
and
"If demonstrating compliance with conditions may indicate that a party is not responsible for a nuisance, so 'evidence of failure to comply with such conditions, while not determinative, may reinforce the case for finding for nuisance under the reasonableness test.(28)'
It makes an interesting read.
There is also some very interesting stuff on pages 214 and 215 about the character of the locality and the relevance of planning permission in relation to seeking damages for nuisance. For example:
"The court signalled a move away from the ‘character of the locality’ as a yardstick in considering the reasonableness of a defendant’s activities in nuisance claims; instead it settled on a more nuanced gauge – ‘the established pattern of uses’ in the locality.(17) Lord Carnwath referred to the ‘varied pattern of uses all of which need to coexist in a modern society’.(18) This must be welcomed: it provides a more fact-sensitive framework against which nuisance may be assessed."
and
"If demonstrating compliance with conditions may indicate that a party is not responsible for a nuisance, so 'evidence of failure to comply with such conditions, while not determinative, may reinforce the case for finding for nuisance under the reasonableness test.(28)'
It makes an interesting read.
Allowable noise levels should be related to the frequency of the noise event
It is not uncommon for regulatory authorities to consider the frequency of noise events in determining the allowable noise levels. From memory, this was the approach taken by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in determining how often the McAdam Park motocross facility at Barrabool would be allowed to operate during the "wind-up" phase prior to their legally mandated closure.
The extract below is from a New Zealand study.
"To prepare this noise management plan an event schedule was developed in an attempt to achieve a balance between how loud each motor racing event was and how often they occur. In the example given, Council decided that 50 events with a noise level of “background plus 5dB” would be permitted in any 12 month period. Where events were likely to be noisier than this, the number of events would reduce in accordance with Graph 1 below which is taken from the Guide. An event that exceeds the background noise level by 8dBA would count as two events. An excess of 30dBA is deemed to have a noise exposure equivalent to 10 events."
Citation: Marshall Day Acoustics (2007). Ruapuna Park and Christchurch Kart Club Noise Assessment. Christchurch, New Zealand. http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/districtplanning/cityplan/proposedplanchanges/PC52AcousticsReportOctober2007.pdf
p.16
The extract below is from a New Zealand study.
"To prepare this noise management plan an event schedule was developed in an attempt to achieve a balance between how loud each motor racing event was and how often they occur. In the example given, Council decided that 50 events with a noise level of “background plus 5dB” would be permitted in any 12 month period. Where events were likely to be noisier than this, the number of events would reduce in accordance with Graph 1 below which is taken from the Guide. An event that exceeds the background noise level by 8dBA would count as two events. An excess of 30dBA is deemed to have a noise exposure equivalent to 10 events."
 |
| dB above background vs annual events |
Citation: Marshall Day Acoustics (2007). Ruapuna Park and Christchurch Kart Club Noise Assessment. Christchurch, New Zealand. http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/districtplanning/cityplan/proposedplanchanges/PC52AcousticsReportOctober2007.pdf
p.16
A good overview of noise issues, measurement and regulation
Here's a really good technical (but very readable) article on noise: it's impacts on health; the measurement of different aspects of noise; enforcement of compliance with noise controls; and a whole lot more.
A whole lot of it is relevant to motocross noise, even though the article is focussed on traffic noise, and there are many things that will give you ideas to follow up in relation to motocross noise issues.
Just as a small taste of a much longer document:
"Unwanted noise has wide-ranging effects on human health to a far greater extent than merely to cause damage to hearing. Noise results in cardiovascular issues, sleep disturbance, headaches, nausea, impaired task functioning, depression and is implicated in many other health problems as well as inducing anti-social behaviours. (references 3,4,12,13,17,23) These unwanted health problems occur with noise levels which are a lot less loud than that which would cause hearing damage. Effects are also cumulative. The costs to health-care systems is enormous and researchers are finding more and more stress related problems that can be attributed to noise.
Governments, city planners and local councils are, in general, aware of the noise problem, and try to provide urban planning guidelines and rules to mitigate noise, but prefer to take 'baby-steps' and are over-cautious in order to avoid the creation of higher compliance costs. In most cases, authorities do not apply sufficient urgency or big enough solutions to the problem. There are already a large number of studies and comprehensive research documents published on the subject. No more are needed. Instead, some definitive progress is called for, which will certainly have a cost. However, studies have already shown that the costs of healthcare triggered by unwanted noise is more than a hundred times than what is currently spent on reducing or mitigating noise from vehicular traffic."
The article is from the website of a New Zealand company (Axino-tech Consulting and Services Ltd) and appears to be offered as a contribution to wider understanding of noise issues. There should be more companies sharing their expertise in such an altruistic way.
A whole lot of it is relevant to motocross noise, even though the article is focussed on traffic noise, and there are many things that will give you ideas to follow up in relation to motocross noise issues.
Just as a small taste of a much longer document:
"Unwanted noise has wide-ranging effects on human health to a far greater extent than merely to cause damage to hearing. Noise results in cardiovascular issues, sleep disturbance, headaches, nausea, impaired task functioning, depression and is implicated in many other health problems as well as inducing anti-social behaviours. (references 3,4,12,13,17,23) These unwanted health problems occur with noise levels which are a lot less loud than that which would cause hearing damage. Effects are also cumulative. The costs to health-care systems is enormous and researchers are finding more and more stress related problems that can be attributed to noise.
Governments, city planners and local councils are, in general, aware of the noise problem, and try to provide urban planning guidelines and rules to mitigate noise, but prefer to take 'baby-steps' and are over-cautious in order to avoid the creation of higher compliance costs. In most cases, authorities do not apply sufficient urgency or big enough solutions to the problem. There are already a large number of studies and comprehensive research documents published on the subject. No more are needed. Instead, some definitive progress is called for, which will certainly have a cost. However, studies have already shown that the costs of healthcare triggered by unwanted noise is more than a hundred times than what is currently spent on reducing or mitigating noise from vehicular traffic."
The article is from the website of a New Zealand company (Axino-tech Consulting and Services Ltd) and appears to be offered as a contribution to wider understanding of noise issues. There should be more companies sharing their expertise in such an altruistic way.
Monday 6 April 2015
Does the total number of objecting submissions matter?
There were 232 objecting submissions to the Development Application for the motocross facility at Adare. I doubt that any planning application in the Lockyer Valley Regional Council area has given rise to as many objections.
I've lost count of the number of people who have asked me questions along the lines of: "Why is it taking the Council so long to deal with this application if there were 232 objections?".
I can understand the the Planning Department is making sure that they do a thorough job of assessing all relevant aspects of the application and the submissions received, and I would not want them to do anything else. Good governance is in all our interests.
Does the total number of objecting submissions matter?
In its reasons for refusing the Bella Creek Multi Sports Park (i.e. motocross and 4-WD) development application the Gympie Regional Council included the following:
Having regard to the number of objections and concerns expressed in the objections, Council considers that the proposal is contrary to community expectations and not in the public interest.
In case you are wondering, there were 179 objecting submissions to that application. (The proponent later made a revised development application which was again refused.)
One of the other reasons given for the refusal that is relevant to the Adare motocross proposal was that:
The development will result in an unacceptable impact on rural character and amenity of the area.
Clearly an issue for anyone who lives in or has visited the Adare/Vinegar Hill area.
The property below is less than one kilometre* from the proposed motocross property and was photographed from a neighbouring property - pretty much fits the description of rural amenity in the quote from the Strategic Framework for the new LVRC Planning Scheme (which may be released for public comment at the end of April).
* I use distances from the edge of the proposed motocross property rather than from the Stage 1 track because the proponent has not given any indication of where the four additional Stage 2 tracks will be built. It seems likely due to considerations of vegetation, slope and conservation values that they will be in the area closest to surrounding properties.
I've lost count of the number of people who have asked me questions along the lines of: "Why is it taking the Council so long to deal with this application if there were 232 objections?".
I can understand the the Planning Department is making sure that they do a thorough job of assessing all relevant aspects of the application and the submissions received, and I would not want them to do anything else. Good governance is in all our interests.
Does the total number of objecting submissions matter?
In its reasons for refusing the Bella Creek Multi Sports Park (i.e. motocross and 4-WD) development application the Gympie Regional Council included the following:
Having regard to the number of objections and concerns expressed in the objections, Council considers that the proposal is contrary to community expectations and not in the public interest.
In case you are wondering, there were 179 objecting submissions to that application. (The proponent later made a revised development application which was again refused.)
One of the other reasons given for the refusal that is relevant to the Adare motocross proposal was that:
The development will result in an unacceptable impact on rural character and amenity of the area.
Clearly an issue for anyone who lives in or has visited the Adare/Vinegar Hill area.
The property below is less than one kilometre* from the proposed motocross property and was photographed from a neighbouring property - pretty much fits the description of rural amenity in the quote from the Strategic Framework for the new LVRC Planning Scheme (which may be released for public comment at the end of April).
Wednesday 11 March 2015
The magical motocross tour
The Lockyer Valley Regional Councillors are off on a tour this morning that will take in the Queensland Moto Park motocross operation at Wyaralong between Boonah and Beaudesert and the motocross track at Adare.
We did up a brief 'tour guide' for them, suggesting aspects of both sites that they might want to have a good look at or ask questions about. You can download the tour guide here.
They'll have a much better trip out to the proposed Adare motocross development site than most people do. The Council had a crew out there on Tuesday and Wednesday with a grader, roller, dump truck and a ute with a herbicide sprayer, and eight staff including the drivers and the traffic controllers.
The workers said that they had been told the work was in preparation for a mountain bike event, and that they had to be off the road by 2.30pm yesterday. In fact, there is a mountain bike event at Adare Homestead, but it's not until Sunday. They were actually on site until 12.30pm today, Thursday 12 March. They must have meant that they had to be out of there by 2.30pm today, because that's about the time the Councillors would be getting back from their visit to Wyaralong.. But the road has been graded, gravelled, rolled and buffed better than most unsealed roads in the Lockyer Valley Region. Either the Queen is going mountain-biking on Sunday or this is all for the Councillors.
Actually we were out on Adare Road on the day of Race 1 of the Wild West Enduro Series at Adare Homestead on 11 January this year. There were more than 150 riders at that, from Toowoomba, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Townsville and Armidale. Not a minor event, but there was no evidence of any roadwork having been done on Adare Road in preparation it.
You can see a video of the dust problem on the unsealed section between the crossing and the proposed motocross track entrance on the day of the January mountain bike Enduro event here.
Even if the roadworks were being done in preparation for the mountain bike event at Adare Homestead some questions need to be asked about the cost of the operation and the reason this bit of road got priority.
There are only two houses served by the section of road that was upgraded. Coles Road, also in Adare and running off Redbank Creek Road, is only two kilometres long, is unsealed and serves four houses. It's currently a rough, rutted and narrow track. Residents have been trying for a long time, without any success to get Council to do some maintenance work on this road. The money and effort put into this bit of Adare Road would have made a substantial improvement to Coles Road.
The Council might argue that the Adare Homestead mountain bike operation is providing an economic benefit to the Lockyer Valley Region, but if they did it would be interesting to see a justification. Here's what prospective competitors at a 2013 event were told about the site:
Venue address: Adare Homestead, 583 Adare Road Gatton. Adare Homestead is located at the end of Adare Rd. Approximately 10 kilometres north of Gatton township and 70 minutes from the CBD.
Directions from the East: From Brisbane travel west out the Warrego Highway towards Toowoomba. Take the Gatton exit and follow Eastern Drive, right onto Old College Road, turn right into Allan Street, at the bottle shop, go straight ahead into Adare Road and head north. The sealed road ends and continue north on the gravel road over the causeway to Adare Homestead.
From the West: Travel east along the Warrego Highway towards Brisbane. At the end of Gatton Bypass, exit head into Gatton and follow the same directions as above.
i.e. no one needs to go through the Gatton CBD, or even past any food outlets to get to the venue. (These are the same directions that would be needed to get to the proposed motocross operation on Adare Road.)
What to bring. Bring all the items required to support your race including track pump, spares, sunscreen, shade shelter (pop up tent), table, chairs, food and water (cup of cement is optional). Don't to forget to bring all your riding kit and a sense of humour!
We provide limited water, ablutions and mechanic service. If you run into trouble, you can purchase sports nutrition, tubes and spares from Sheryl from MTB Mechanic.
People are told to bring their own food and everything else they might need. Water is available on site, as are a mechanic service, sports nutrition, tubes and spares. The accompanying map showed a site labelled 'coffee', so presumably that essential is also provided. What reason would patrons have to to into Gatton for anything?
If the roadworks were for the benefit of the mountain bike operation and not just to give the Councillors a better impression of the access to proposed motocross facility, where is the economic justification for the expenditure of public money?
Me? I think it was all to make the motocross operation look good for the Councillors - at public expense.
We did up a brief 'tour guide' for them, suggesting aspects of both sites that they might want to have a good look at or ask questions about. You can download the tour guide here.
They'll have a much better trip out to the proposed Adare motocross development site than most people do. The Council had a crew out there on Tuesday and Wednesday with a grader, roller, dump truck and a ute with a herbicide sprayer, and eight staff including the drivers and the traffic controllers.
 |
| Smoother, cleaner but still dangerous - check out that blind crest in the background. |
Actually we were out on Adare Road on the day of Race 1 of the Wild West Enduro Series at Adare Homestead on 11 January this year. There were more than 150 riders at that, from Toowoomba, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Townsville and Armidale. Not a minor event, but there was no evidence of any roadwork having been done on Adare Road in preparation it.
 |
| Even the weeds were getting a wash. Wonder if they polished the road signs too? |
 | |||||
| This is what the Redbank Creek crossing looked like last time with the mountain bike traffic. |
Even if the roadworks were being done in preparation for the mountain bike event at Adare Homestead some questions need to be asked about the cost of the operation and the reason this bit of road got priority.
There are only two houses served by the section of road that was upgraded. Coles Road, also in Adare and running off Redbank Creek Road, is only two kilometres long, is unsealed and serves four houses. It's currently a rough, rutted and narrow track. Residents have been trying for a long time, without any success to get Council to do some maintenance work on this road. The money and effort put into this bit of Adare Road would have made a substantial improvement to Coles Road.
The Council might argue that the Adare Homestead mountain bike operation is providing an economic benefit to the Lockyer Valley Region, but if they did it would be interesting to see a justification. Here's what prospective competitors at a 2013 event were told about the site:
Venue address: Adare Homestead, 583 Adare Road Gatton. Adare Homestead is located at the end of Adare Rd. Approximately 10 kilometres north of Gatton township and 70 minutes from the CBD.
Directions from the East: From Brisbane travel west out the Warrego Highway towards Toowoomba. Take the Gatton exit and follow Eastern Drive, right onto Old College Road, turn right into Allan Street, at the bottle shop, go straight ahead into Adare Road and head north. The sealed road ends and continue north on the gravel road over the causeway to Adare Homestead.
From the West: Travel east along the Warrego Highway towards Brisbane. At the end of Gatton Bypass, exit head into Gatton and follow the same directions as above.
i.e. no one needs to go through the Gatton CBD, or even past any food outlets to get to the venue. (These are the same directions that would be needed to get to the proposed motocross operation on Adare Road.)
What to bring. Bring all the items required to support your race including track pump, spares, sunscreen, shade shelter (pop up tent), table, chairs, food and water (cup of cement is optional). Don't to forget to bring all your riding kit and a sense of humour!
We provide limited water, ablutions and mechanic service. If you run into trouble, you can purchase sports nutrition, tubes and spares from Sheryl from MTB Mechanic.
People are told to bring their own food and everything else they might need. Water is available on site, as are a mechanic service, sports nutrition, tubes and spares. The accompanying map showed a site labelled 'coffee', so presumably that essential is also provided. What reason would patrons have to to into Gatton for anything?
If the roadworks were for the benefit of the mountain bike operation and not just to give the Councillors a better impression of the access to proposed motocross facility, where is the economic justification for the expenditure of public money?
Me? I think it was all to make the motocross operation look good for the Councillors - at public expense.
Monday 9 March 2015
Motocross traffic on Adare Road - we stand to lose more than you think
I've posted before about the unsuitability of Adare Road for large amounts of traffic.
There's more to that issue and I'll come back to it in another post.
There are unsuspected losses associated with traffic on Adare Road that we face if the proposed motocross development is allowed to go ahead.
One of these relates to the Gatton Light Horse Troop. You might be familiar with their role in the Anzac Day celebrations in Gatton and other localities in the Lockyer Valley.
What you wouldn't know, unless you are out toward the end of Adare Road early on a Saturday or Sunday, is that the Horse Paddock beside Adare Road,on the right just before the Redbank Creek Crossing, is one of their training grounds.
If there are up to 150 vehicles travelling down Adare Road on a Saturday or Sunday morning, the Horse Paddock will become unsuitable for Light Horse training exercises.
There's another group in the community (this time a much wider community) who know of the Adare Road Horse Paddock. They are the birdwatchers, and the trees and bushes around the edges of the Horse Paddock are one of several regular birding spots for many visitors.
Adare road has been visited with increasing regularity by local, Brisbane, interstate and overseas birders over the last 20 years. The location features regularly in online lists of the interesting or rare species which have been seen there.
It continues to be something of a 'hot-spot' where visitors can find a selection of scarcer species which can be difficult to locate elsewhere in the region.
There are many birdwatchers who visit Adare Road regularly, some every couple of months, some every week. There are also bird clubs which make annual trips to the area.
A lot of the most interesting birding is done along the road verges, including along the sides of the Redbank Creek crossing. Motocross traffic in the mornings and evenings (when most birders visit) is going to turn birdwatching along Adare Road into an extreme sport - not to mention being extremely unpleasant with all the dust and noise. It can be pretty confidently predicted that the beginning of motocross traffic will be the beginning of the end of birdwatching on Adare Road.
There's more to that issue and I'll come back to it in another post.
There are unsuspected losses associated with traffic on Adare Road that we face if the proposed motocross development is allowed to go ahead.
One of these relates to the Gatton Light Horse Troop. You might be familiar with their role in the Anzac Day celebrations in Gatton and other localities in the Lockyer Valley.
 |
| The Gatton Light Horse Troop in the Anzac Day parade in 2012. A friend in Germany sent this to me, which shows how far the knowledge of our Light Horse Troop has spread. |
_small.jpg) |
| It's a stirring sight to see them practising mounted military manoeuvres at full speed. |
There's another group in the community (this time a much wider community) who know of the Adare Road Horse Paddock. They are the birdwatchers, and the trees and bushes around the edges of the Horse Paddock are one of several regular birding spots for many visitors.
Adare road has been visited with increasing regularity by local, Brisbane, interstate and overseas birders over the last 20 years. The location features regularly in online lists of the interesting or rare species which have been seen there.
 |
| Two of the visitors in this group were from Japan |
There are many birdwatchers who visit Adare Road regularly, some every couple of months, some every week. There are also bird clubs which make annual trips to the area.
A lot of the most interesting birding is done along the road verges, including along the sides of the Redbank Creek crossing. Motocross traffic in the mornings and evenings (when most birders visit) is going to turn birdwatching along Adare Road into an extreme sport - not to mention being extremely unpleasant with all the dust and noise. It can be pretty confidently predicted that the beginning of motocross traffic will be the beginning of the end of birdwatching on Adare Road.
Thursday 26 February 2015
Nice try. More work needed - and in another location, without all the people living nearby
The proposed motocross development at Adare could possibly, with a lot more work on the concept and the details, be a good idea. But not at Adare.
It's just in the wrong location, even if judged only on the number of people impacted.
The Qld Moto Park at Wyaralong, on the other hand, is an example of a properly located motocross facility - there are only about 120 people living within 4km. At the Adare site, here are 900 people living within 4km of the proposed motocross property, including a lot of young people who don't need their nights and weekends blighted by motocross and traffic noise.
[1] Compiled using the 2011 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census Data for the localities closest in proximity to the proposed development. Where census data is not available at the necessary scale for a locality, extrapolations have been made from an adjacent locality close to the proposed development.
[2] Note: 0-19 years includes those aged 0-14 years.
[3] Sources: http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/quickstats and Google Earth imagery and overlays to locate houses and properties within specified radii of the properties.
________________________________________________________
The $4 million QMP (Queensland Moto Park) facility between Beaudesert and Boonah was developed through the efforts of the SEQ Council of Mayors, the SEQ Councils, and the State Government.
The LVRC Mayor, Steve Jones, as the Chair of the SEQ Council of Mayors Trail Bike Task Force, played a significant part over a number of years in the development of the project. The QMP Wyaralong facility is a well-planned site following strict design and operating criteria.
Clearly, even judging only by the number of dwellings and residents adjacent to the site, the location of the proposed Adare development has not been well planned.
It's just in the wrong location, even if judged only on the number of people impacted.
The Qld Moto Park at Wyaralong, on the other hand, is an example of a properly located motocross facility - there are only about 120 people living within 4km. At the Adare site, here are 900 people living within 4km of the proposed motocross property, including a lot of young people who don't need their nights and weekends blighted by motocross and traffic noise.
[1] Compiled using the 2011 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census Data for the localities closest in proximity to the proposed development. Where census data is not available at the necessary scale for a locality, extrapolations have been made from an adjacent locality close to the proposed development.
[2] Note: 0-19 years includes those aged 0-14 years.
[3] Sources: http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/quickstats and Google Earth imagery and overlays to locate houses and properties within specified radii of the properties.
________________________________________________________
The $4 million QMP (Queensland Moto Park) facility between Beaudesert and Boonah was developed through the efforts of the SEQ Council of Mayors, the SEQ Councils, and the State Government.
The LVRC Mayor, Steve Jones, as the Chair of the SEQ Council of Mayors Trail Bike Task Force, played a significant part over a number of years in the development of the project. The QMP Wyaralong facility is a well-planned site following strict design and operating criteria.
Clearly, even judging only by the number of dwellings and residents adjacent to the site, the location of the proposed Adare development has not been well planned.
The LVRC makes an important contribution to setting the standard for motcross facility location and design
MEDIA RELEASE
Wyaralong trail bike facility on track for 2011 opening
May 27, 2010
The $4 million regional trail bike facility at Wyaralong is on track to open in 2011 with the State Government and South East Queensland Councils committing over $2 million to develop the park.
The Council of Mayors (SEQ) today announced a $1.25 million commitment from SEQ Councils, subject to council budgets being confirmed over the next month.
Queensland Minister for Sport, The Hon. Phil Reeves MP, also confirmed the State Government‟s $1 million contribution, in addition to providing the $1.5 million 745-hectare site.
Mr Reeves joined V8 Supercar driver and trail bike enthusiast Craig Lowndes, Council of Mayors (SEQ) Trail Bike Taskforce Chair and Lockyer Valley Mayor Councillor Steve Jones and Mayor of the Scenic Rim Councillor John Brent in inspecting the site today.
Cr Jones said the Wyaralong facility was a positive step in dealing with illegal riding problems in local council areas.
“Eight SEQ Councils within 90 minutes of the Wyaralong facility have committed $1.25 million in funding for the project, in addition to the State Government‟s contribution of $1 million,” Cr Jones said.
“This is great news for SEQ‟s 230,000 trail bike riders who currently have few safe, legal riding options.
“Research carried out for the Council of Mayors (SEQ) shows that over 86% of riders are likely to ride at a regional facility and 67% said they would be less likely to ride at illegal sites.
“And in more good news for trail bike enthusiasts, riders from participating councils will receive significant discounts on entry to the facility and priority during busier times.”
Cr Jones said the Wyaralong trail bike park would be a family friendly recreational facility.
“Our research challenged the stereotype of trail bike riders, indicating that almost half of riders surveyed were „family men‟, with 25% regularly riding with family members and 40% of rider‟s children also involved in trail bike riding.”
The financial contributions from the State Government and SEQ Councils will fund the development of essential site infrastructure, such as access roads, water, energy and basic camping facilities.
Cr Jones said the Council of Mayors (SEQ) will now seek an experienced commercial operator to develop and manage the site effectively and safely, a process that will take three to four months.
“We are looking for a commercial operator that is going to provide an exceptionally high standard of service to SEQ trail bike riders and make a significant financial contribution to further develop the site,” Cr Jones said.
“We have been pleased with the significant amount of interest shown by commercial entities and individuals following local and national advertisements of the upcoming Expression of Interest (EOI) process.
“Following the Council of Mayors (SEQ) briefing with industry stakeholders yesterday, we will finalise the EOI document and formally commence the search for a commercial operator,” Cr Jones said.
Wyaralong trail bike facility on track for 2011 opening
May 27, 2010
The $4 million regional trail bike facility at Wyaralong is on track to open in 2011 with the State Government and South East Queensland Councils committing over $2 million to develop the park.
The Council of Mayors (SEQ) today announced a $1.25 million commitment from SEQ Councils, subject to council budgets being confirmed over the next month.
Queensland Minister for Sport, The Hon. Phil Reeves MP, also confirmed the State Government‟s $1 million contribution, in addition to providing the $1.5 million 745-hectare site.
Mr Reeves joined V8 Supercar driver and trail bike enthusiast Craig Lowndes, Council of Mayors (SEQ) Trail Bike Taskforce Chair and Lockyer Valley Mayor Councillor Steve Jones and Mayor of the Scenic Rim Councillor John Brent in inspecting the site today.
Cr Jones said the Wyaralong facility was a positive step in dealing with illegal riding problems in local council areas.
“Eight SEQ Councils within 90 minutes of the Wyaralong facility have committed $1.25 million in funding for the project, in addition to the State Government‟s contribution of $1 million,” Cr Jones said.
“This is great news for SEQ‟s 230,000 trail bike riders who currently have few safe, legal riding options.
“Research carried out for the Council of Mayors (SEQ) shows that over 86% of riders are likely to ride at a regional facility and 67% said they would be less likely to ride at illegal sites.
“And in more good news for trail bike enthusiasts, riders from participating councils will receive significant discounts on entry to the facility and priority during busier times.”
Cr Jones said the Wyaralong trail bike park would be a family friendly recreational facility.
“Our research challenged the stereotype of trail bike riders, indicating that almost half of riders surveyed were „family men‟, with 25% regularly riding with family members and 40% of rider‟s children also involved in trail bike riding.”
The financial contributions from the State Government and SEQ Councils will fund the development of essential site infrastructure, such as access roads, water, energy and basic camping facilities.
Cr Jones said the Council of Mayors (SEQ) will now seek an experienced commercial operator to develop and manage the site effectively and safely, a process that will take three to four months.
“We are looking for a commercial operator that is going to provide an exceptionally high standard of service to SEQ trail bike riders and make a significant financial contribution to further develop the site,” Cr Jones said.
“We have been pleased with the significant amount of interest shown by commercial entities and individuals following local and national advertisements of the upcoming Expression of Interest (EOI) process.
“Following the Council of Mayors (SEQ) briefing with industry stakeholders yesterday, we will finalise the EOI document and formally commence the search for a commercial operator,” Cr Jones said.
Saturday 7 February 2015
MX tracks and their poor relationships with neighbours and local government
The quote below is from the introduction to a review of the relationships between motocross tracks and their neighbours and local government agencies which includes reviews of the histories of eight existing or proposed motocross tracks in America.
At the Oct 21 Conditional Use Hearing regarding the Thomas Conditional Use proposal for motocross/camping in rural Clackamas County, testimony was given in support of the proposal based on claims that motocross was “family friendly”. A man stated that Washougal MX had expensive homes in the vicinity of the MX tracks and that local residents and the commercial MX business had happy relationships.
Extensive research into the functioning and relationships multiple MX facilities, whether permitted or unpermitted, have with their neighbors and with their County planning departments proves conclusively that it is totally false to claim motocross events can happily co-exist with residential areas.
Every case I researched, including Washougal MX, proved that residents within earshot of MX tracks are miserable and that they consider motocross a serious nuisance which steals their quality of life and degrades and pollutes land. Counties have extra work loads to enforce MX code infractions and have ongoing struggles related to traffic, crowd control, noise, and regulating environmental damage. Local police and emergency services are impacted as well.
Family-oriented
Any claims that the proposed Adare motocross track will be family oriented don't take into account the impacts on families among the 900+ people living in the vicinity of the track.
Emergency Services
It's worth noting the mention of impacts on police and emergency services as well. That has also been the experience with the Black Duck Valley and the Wyaralong tracks in Southeast Queensland.
Noise as an Amenity Impact
There's a nice quote from a county examiner (sort of like our LVRC Assessment Manager) in relation to noise [LVRC please note]:
pg. 24 item h. iii: “Even when the noise does not drown out conversation or disturb people sleeping or exceed 57 dbA, it increases the noise levels frequently enough and in amounts and for a duration that is enough to detract from the character of the area as rural residential. The examiner finds that such an impact is significantly detrimental to people nearest the site.”
Noise issues are NOT just about loudness as measured in decibels! They are about loss of rural/natural amenity, and about stress and anxiety caused by ongoing, long-term exposure to noise which is not part of the local environment.
Loudness Requirements Can Stop Motocross
But, in terms of loudness of MX noise, the article quotes a complaint that: … imposed sound limitations that are so restrictive they effectively deny the permit application.”
As if the fact that MX operations can't comply with mandated noise limits is somehow the fault of the legislators, or is a direct attack on MX as a business, instead of being a standard of what is reasonable noise in a particular environment.
Emu Creek track in the Tenterfield Council area is one example. After a lot of time, court cases and expense the Tenterfield Council imposed noise and operating time limits on the motocross activities at Emu Creek, which they claim they could not meet from a business point of view. They are still in business and seem to have moved to mountain bike and Bicycle MX activities to replace the motocross element of their custom.
It's also worth noting that in the case of the Emu Creek motocross, Tenterfield Council monitored maximum noise levels [L(A)max], rather than averaged noise levels over a (usually long) period [L(A)eq], because they said it was more objective when long-term, long period noise was considered. The Adare proponent's Noise Study uses averaged noise levels, which always appear more favourable to the proponent's case.
Costs to Council for Ongoing Compliance Action
The case studies refer to costs to all parties for the application (including appeals) procedures and for ongoing compliance. In our own area, the Emu Creek case mentioned above is said to have cost the Tenterfield Council in excess of $66,000 for compliance monitoring and court costs before it stopped the noise nuisance.
At the Oct 21 Conditional Use Hearing regarding the Thomas Conditional Use proposal for motocross/camping in rural Clackamas County, testimony was given in support of the proposal based on claims that motocross was “family friendly”. A man stated that Washougal MX had expensive homes in the vicinity of the MX tracks and that local residents and the commercial MX business had happy relationships.
Extensive research into the functioning and relationships multiple MX facilities, whether permitted or unpermitted, have with their neighbors and with their County planning departments proves conclusively that it is totally false to claim motocross events can happily co-exist with residential areas.
Every case I researched, including Washougal MX, proved that residents within earshot of MX tracks are miserable and that they consider motocross a serious nuisance which steals their quality of life and degrades and pollutes land. Counties have extra work loads to enforce MX code infractions and have ongoing struggles related to traffic, crowd control, noise, and regulating environmental damage. Local police and emergency services are impacted as well.
Family-oriented
Any claims that the proposed Adare motocross track will be family oriented don't take into account the impacts on families among the 900+ people living in the vicinity of the track.
Emergency Services
It's worth noting the mention of impacts on police and emergency services as well. That has also been the experience with the Black Duck Valley and the Wyaralong tracks in Southeast Queensland.
Noise as an Amenity Impact
There's a nice quote from a county examiner (sort of like our LVRC Assessment Manager) in relation to noise [LVRC please note]:
pg. 24 item h. iii: “Even when the noise does not drown out conversation or disturb people sleeping or exceed 57 dbA, it increases the noise levels frequently enough and in amounts and for a duration that is enough to detract from the character of the area as rural residential. The examiner finds that such an impact is significantly detrimental to people nearest the site.”
Noise issues are NOT just about loudness as measured in decibels! They are about loss of rural/natural amenity, and about stress and anxiety caused by ongoing, long-term exposure to noise which is not part of the local environment.
Loudness Requirements Can Stop Motocross
But, in terms of loudness of MX noise, the article quotes a complaint that: … imposed sound limitations that are so restrictive they effectively deny the permit application.”
As if the fact that MX operations can't comply with mandated noise limits is somehow the fault of the legislators, or is a direct attack on MX as a business, instead of being a standard of what is reasonable noise in a particular environment.
Emu Creek track in the Tenterfield Council area is one example. After a lot of time, court cases and expense the Tenterfield Council imposed noise and operating time limits on the motocross activities at Emu Creek, which they claim they could not meet from a business point of view. They are still in business and seem to have moved to mountain bike and Bicycle MX activities to replace the motocross element of their custom.
It's also worth noting that in the case of the Emu Creek motocross, Tenterfield Council monitored maximum noise levels [L(A)max], rather than averaged noise levels over a (usually long) period [L(A)eq], because they said it was more objective when long-term, long period noise was considered. The Adare proponent's Noise Study uses averaged noise levels, which always appear more favourable to the proponent's case.
Costs to Council for Ongoing Compliance Action
The case studies refer to costs to all parties for the application (including appeals) procedures and for ongoing compliance. In our own area, the Emu Creek case mentioned above is said to have cost the Tenterfield Council in excess of $66,000 for compliance monitoring and court costs before it stopped the noise nuisance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)