We won!!

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.

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.

+++++

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.

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:

• 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.  

The extreme noise produced by motocross bikes means that it is becoming more and more difficult to gain permission for establishing a motocross track, let alone multiple tracks.  Including racing events into the mix makes it even harder.   In general it is difficult to get permission for motor racing of any kind anywhere near a sizeable population.  This is particularly the case where the racing events will be frequent and will affect a significant number of residences.  Many jurisdictions require motor racing to be confined to special precincts.

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.

“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.”

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.

The crossing at 8.00am on 2 May 2015.  The water had been higher than this during the night.

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.

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.

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
 

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.

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:

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.

Of course Councillors who have properly informed themselves as to their role and responsibilities under the Local Government Act (and any community members who take an interest in how their local government works) are already aware of these points and more.

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.