Another proposed motocross track at Adare? Rumour or fact?

 There is a rumour going around that someone is proposing a major motocross track at Adare.  No real facts, but lots of "detail" - some of which is contradictory and none of which can be confirmed at present.

One suggestion is that it involves a currently illegal motocross track that is seeking Council approval.  Location uncertain.

Colby Steer still has the (unapproved) motocross track on his land at Adare that he created around 2014.

Do you have any information about an application to Council for approval of a motocross track in the Lockyer Valley Region?

What kind of track would it have been anyway?

One of the strange features of the Drywound Appeal against the Lockyer Valley Regional Council's decision to refuse the application for a motocross facility at Adare was the number of proposed track designs that were brought up during the Appeal process - 10 in all, between mid-April and mid-December 2016.  Over one period of 170 days there was a new track layout every 19 days on average.

Colby Steer, the sole Director of Drywound, put quite a bit of emphasis on his expertise in motocross track design and construction at one point in the Appeal.

But why so many track designs?  That's a bit hard to understand.  Clearly there was a problem with getting the noise levels at nearby houses and the Lockyer National Park down to something vaguely acceptable.  But there was no consistent incremental improvement in the noise characteristics of the designs put forward, despite Colby Steer's self-proclaimed expertise as a track designer.

Was it "gaming" the Appeal process to confuse the other parties' experts, or to draw it out and make it more expensive for the Council and the Co-respondents? We will never know.  If it was this, it backfired because it was Colby Steer who ran out of money in the end (see here).

Did all this revision of track designs produce a better track for riders?  You be the judge.

This was the last track design - put to the Court in early December 2016

There are two significant features of this design.  One is the three dark green features with the black lines in their middles.  The other is the seven sections of the track outlined in red.

The dark green features are three earth bunds, 5m high and 12m wide at the base, with a 3m high noise barrier on top.  That makes a total barrier height of 8m, with three of these barriers having a total length of 575m.

These massive barriers were introduced about a year into the Appeal process when it became clear that getting noise levels down to anything like acceptable was going to be very difficult.

Can you imagine what it would be like to be a spectator watching the bikes on this track - or a parent of a young rider, trying to keep an anxious eye on the kid as he/she goes around the track.  From most positions, around half of the track would be obscured by the middle 8m high barrier.

Or as a rider you come belting around that tight left-hand corner at the end of the bund in the south-western part of the track - but you can't get a view around the end of the bund to see if anyone has come off on the track up ahead.  Adds a new element to extreme sport.

What about those red sections of track?

They are also about noise reduction.  As everyone knows, when bikes go fast they make more noise, and throttle use (opening it all the way out) also makes more noise.  Two characteristics of a good ride, but they're noisy.  Track in the red sections has been subjected to "acoustic treatments" by eliminating jumps and introducing obstacles designed to reduce speed and throttle use.  Nearly 20% (1/5) of the total track length has had this treatment.

Not exactly an exciting ride, and I doubt there's another adult track in South-east Queensland that has this extent of fun-spoiling "acoustic treatment".

One other important limitation that can't be seen in this track design is the restrictions that would have to be placed on changes to the track layout. This would clearly matter to riders - surveys done in Victoria indicate that regular modifications to track layout are one of the features that keeps riders coming back to a track.

However, because of the emphasis on getting noise at nearby dwellings and the National Park down to acceptable levels, and the recognition that track direction and the positions of jumps have an effect on noise levels, if the motocross facility had been permitted at Adare there would have had to be conditions requiring the track layout not to be modified.  Boring!!

Maybe if the operation hadn't been refused permission it would soon have gone broke once riders got bored with the track.  And that's without factoring in the impact of the recently opened Willowbank MX track in the Ispwich Motorsports Precinct.

It's over - there will be NO MOTOCROSS @ ADARE!!

Here’s some great news.

Last week, as we were preparing for a resumption of the final Trial Hearing on the motocross appeal, Drywound Pty Ltd's solicitor filed an application with the court to be taken off the record as its solicitor because he (and the barristers) were owed a considerable amount of money and the developer had not been returning his calls or emails for over a month (this was accompanied by a 63 page affidavit detailing the Drywound's debts to its lawyers and experts - see post here).

Late on Friday Colby Steer (sole Director of Drywound Pty Ltd) sent the parties to the appeal copies of a “letter of demand” that he had sent to the Council for payment of $501,057 which he claimed to have spent on legal and professional costs, arguing that the Council had intially expressed “tremendous support and encouragement” at the initial meeting in 2014, but had been putting difficulties in his way since then.

The tone and content of his letter suggest that he has not adequately understood the nature of the Development Application or Planning and Environment Court Appeal processes.  However, in fairness, it is also quite possibly a factor contributing to his current problems that, as an "outsider" in the Lockyer Valley, he might not have recognised in time that any support, encouragement and assurances he had received from the then Mayor of the LVR Council would not necessarily outlast his untimely demise.

On the morning of Monday 23rd of January Mr Steer was in the Planning and Environment Court (self-represented) when it met to resume the Trial Hearing.  He advised the Judge that he wanted to withdraw from the Appeal and had no intention of pursuing the Trial Hearing.  On hearing this, the Judge dismissed his Appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse the application for a material change of use to allow the establishment of a motocross facility on the land in Adare Road.

It's over.

The Council’s decision to refuse the Development Application stands.

The voices of the 232 objecting submitters to the Development Application have prevailed.

This was always an inappropriate development for the proposed location, and that would have been recognised in the Trail Hearing had it gone ahead.  Drywound's withdrawal has saved the community from yet more unnecessary expense in fighting an appeal that should not have been launched in the first place.

Helmets Don't Prevent Kids' Motocross Concussions

Helmets Don't Prevent Kids' Motocross Concussions - that's the headline of a post on the Medlineplus.gov website two weeks ago which reported the preliminary results of a long-term study.

A team of investigators tracked 35 boys ages 8 to 17 who competed in motocross events on tracks sanctioned by the American Motorcycle Association over a 10 year period to 2014.

All routinely wore mandated safety equipment: helmets, shatterproof goggles, protective boots and pants, and long-sleeve jerseys, the researchers said.

More than 85 percent (30 riders) were injured while competing or practising, and nearly half suffered concussion despite the use of helmets.  One of the boys died from his injuries.

Nearly three-quarters suffered some orthopedic injury. Among 32 fractures, broken legs were most common, but broken arms, ankles and collarbones were reported, too.

Lower extremity fracture risk was found to be twice as high as upper extremity risk, and surgery was performed in more than 80 percent of the lower fracture cases, the study revealed.

 The study concluded that competitive motocross athletes younger than 18 years suffer serious, potentially life-threatening injuries despite the required use of protective safety equipment in AMA sanctioned events. Injuries were more common during competition (30) than during practice (5).

Go here and search on "motocross" to find a detailed summary of the study as presented on Sunday 23 October at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics in San Francisco.

Addressing misconceptions about the approval and appeal process

There is currently a lot of talk on the closed Facebook page group Memories of Gatton about the proposed motocross facility and the opposition to it.  Unfortunately a lot of what is being said is based on misunderstandings or misinformation.

I think it's time to address some of the claims being made.

Only six people are opposing the motocross facility

232 people formally opposed the proposal during the Development Application process.

The advertising of the proposal in late November 2014 led to 232 objecting submissions being lodged with the Lockyer Valley Regional Council by the cut-off date in mid-December.  This was an incredible response, given that because of the way it was advertised the proposal did not begin to be known by more than the immediate neighbours until there were only 10 days of the public notification process remaining.  Had the process gone on longer there would have been many more objecting submissions.

Those objecting submissions will be considered by the Judge of the Planning and Environment Court who will decide whether or not the appeal should be allowed.

Only two supporting submissions were made.

When the developer (technically Drywound Pty Ltd, but it's sole shareholder is Colby Steer) lodged an Appeal in the Planning and Environment Court against the Council's unanimous refusal of the development application, the Lockyer Valley Regional Council was the "Respondent" i.e. they formally opposed the appeal which sought to overturn their decision.

Six members of the community nominated to become "Co-respondents" to the appeal.  That is, they agreed to respond alongside the Council, to oppose the appeal.  In effect, they stand as the representatives of the much larger group of those in the community opposing the motocross facility.

This is a particularly brave stance for ordinary people like retirees, farmers, and small business owners, because in 2012 the LNP State government overturned a long-standing principle that people who stand up for their rights in town planning appeals should only have to pay their own costs.  The LNP changed the law so that there is the potential for co-respondents to be required to pay the costs of the appellant.  Had this not been the case there would likely have been several tens of co-respondents, as in the Bella Creek moto park appeal in the Gympie Regional Council area some years ago, prior to the LNP changes.  By the way, like many motocross proposals these days the Bella Creek proposal did not go ahead.

In addition, a local community group also elected to become a Co-respondent in the appeal.

None of this changes the fact that the main respondent to the appeal is the Council, acting on behalf of the Lockyer Valley community, because they made a decision to refuse the application based on what was in the best interests of the whole community, not just the wishes of a single-interest group.

"The six complainants have hardly spent a dime..."

The six co-respondents have to raise the money to pay their solicitor, barrister, noise expert, koala ecology expert, and town planning expert.  As you would expect, this is an expensive proposition.

Luckily, because there is so much opposition to the proposed motocross facility, the community has been willing to assist with the costs and a large number of people (including the co-respondents) have contributed several tens of thousands of dollars.

As the number of objecting submissions showed, the proposal is opposed by a community, not by six individuals.

The motocross proposal comes from a "locally owned and operated business"

The proposal comes from a company with only one shareholder.

That company is not registered to an address in the Lockyer Valley Regional Council area.

The sole shareholder does not live in the Lockyer Valley Region and does not own any operating business in the area.

Those opposing the motocross proposal are putting a financial burden on the community by way of Council's legal costs

Once someone lodges an appeal, the Council has no option but to oppose an appeal against their properly made decision.

That the Council took nearly six months to assess and evaluate the proposal shows that they did not make their decision in haste or carelessly.  Further, the Council's decision was unanimous.  It wasn't a "near thing" - every Councillor was opposed to the proposal.  Not only that, the Council's planning staff, who submitted their report to the Council meeting where the decision was made, recommended, for a wide variety of reasons, that the development not be approved.

Thus, the situation is this:

• a record number of objecting submissions were received by the Council; 
• the Council planning staff recommended for a range of reasons that the development not be approved; and 
• every Councillor voted to refuse the development application;

 and in the face of this, the developer (Colby Steer) still decided to lodge an appeal!

It's clearly not those opposing the proposal who have been the cause of the Council's expenses in fighting this appeal.

People don't understand why there is opposition to the motocross proposal

Colby Steer has posted the Council's grounds for continuing to oppose the appeal on the Memories of Gatton website.  Admittedly those grounds are framed in difficult to understand town planning terms, but that is because the application was made under the Gatton Planning Scheme which uses the same language.

To get a more digestible version of the reasons you could go to the minutes of the Council meeting where the application was refused and read the staff report which recommended against approval.

You could also have gone into the Council office any time in the nearly six months when the application was under consideration and had a look at the submissions from the 232 people who don't want this development to go ahead.

Or to get a feel for the reality of motocross impacts you could have a look at some of the heartfelt comments of people who have had to live with motocross operations in their area.  There's more here  and here.

A lot of these impacts on people living with motocross activities have to do with noise.  It often isn't until people have to live with motocross noise that they realise that the problem isn't just the loudness.  Check this out for an overview of the health impacts of motocross noise.

Progress with the Adare motocross facility Appeal

It's more than one year since the Lockyer Valley Regional Councillors unanimously refused permission for the motocross training facility at Adare, citing a range of grounds based on non-compliance with the Gatton Planning Scheme.

This followed a public notification process in which 232 objecting submissions were received and only 2 supporting submissions.

On 3 July 2015 the applicant (Drywound Pty Ltd - sole shareholder Colby Steer) lodged an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court.  From that date, under the Court rules he had six weeks to progress the appeal.  In fact it was around four months before he took any further action.  That delay was a foretaste of the way he was to conduct the appeal until now.

I'll skip the intervening stages until on 3 March 2016 the Judge in the Planning and Environment Court issued a Court Order setting out the substantive stages in the appeal process, leading to a Court Hearing in September this year if no agreement on a mutually acceptable outcome had been found before that.

First there was a Mediation Meeting in mid-April to see whether was any commonly agreed outcome possible at that stage.  Unsurprisingly, there wasn't.

The next two stages in the process were to be the nomination of experts by the parties in relevant specialist fields.  This was to be done by 29 April.  By that date the Council had nominated experts in the fields of noise, ecology and town planning, and the group of six Co-respondents who are being assisted with fundraising by Lockyer Community Action Inc. had nominated experts in the fields of noise, koala ecology and town planning.

Drywound had not nominated any experts by the deadline.

The next deadline was to be meetings of the experts in the various fields, which were to be convened by 13 May (apart from town planning, which group meets later and has access to the reports of the other groups).

As of 13 May, Drywound had still not nominated any experts, so the expert group meetings had not been able to be held.

For a man who has apparently been so keen to get his motocross facility up and running, Colby Steer has been remarkably casual about pursuing the appeal process.

In the 49 weeks from when Colby Steer lodged his appeal until 12 June this year, more than 34 weeks had been wasted as a result of his non-compliance with deadlines set in Court Orders and the Planning and Environment Court's Practice Directions.

That amounts to 70% of the elapsed time.  Keen to get the track operational?  It doesn't look like it.

In commenting on his review of the progress of the Appeal the Judge commented that if an application were to be made for dismissal of the Appeal on the grounds of further delays, he would be inclined to look favourably on it.

The Appeal is now in the stage of Joint Expert Group meetings where the experts nominated by the various parties meet in "subject" groups (e.g. noise, ecology, town planning) to determine what they are able to agree on about the proposed development and where their areas of disagreement lie.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.