Ranch Riding Club v Maitland City Council

[2006] NSWLEC 806

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Ranch Riding Club v Maitland City Council [2006] NSWLEC 806
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Ranch Riding Club RESPONDENT Maitland City Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	10581 of 2006
CORAM:	Brown C
KEY ISSUES:	Development Application :- consent orders for temporary use of land for a one day equestrian event
LEGISLATION CITED:	Maitland Local Environmental Plan 1993
DATES OF HEARING:	11/11/06
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	11/11/2006
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr R Malik, solicitor SOLICITORS Malik Rees Solicitors RESPONDENT Mr G Williams, solicitor SOLICITORS Thompson Norrie Solicitors

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Brown C

11 November 2006

10581 of 2006 Ranch Riding Club v Maitland City Council

JUDGMENT

1 This matter comes before the Court for Consent Orders in relation to the temporary use of the land at 396 Anambah Road, Anambah (the site) for an equestrian cross country event.

2 The subject site comprises lot 332 in DP 1045837 and Lot A in DP 431719 and has an approximate area of 69 ha. The land has frontage to the Hunter River and has been cleared of significant vegetation. The surrounding area consists of rural lands, which are predominantly utilised for grazing purposes. A quarry is operating upon an adjacent allotment west of the subject site.

3 Development consent was originally sought for a biannual equestrian event to be held in April and July of each year. The application was amended on 5 May 2006 for a single equestrian event to be held in July 2006. The current application has been amended for the event to be held on 4 February 2007. The event forms part of a two day equestrian event to be held within the Maitland local government area. The first day is to be held at Maitland showground and the second day at the site for a cross country event.

4 The cross country event will commence with the first rider on the course at 9 am. This is likely to require the first competitor to arrive at the site around 7.30 am. The last rider shall be on the course by around 4.30 pm. Given intervals within the program, presentations are expected to be completed by 5 pm with most competitors leaving progressively throughout the day as they complete their individual events. It is anticipated around 100 riders and 200 spectators shall attend the event. Traffic control will be provided at the event for safe vehicle movement. An on-site parking area is proposed to minimise conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.

5 The site is zoned pt 1(a) Prime Rural Land and pt 1(b) Secondary Rural under Maitland Local Environmental Plan 1993 (LEP 1993). The proposal relies on the provisions of cl 47 which state:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this plan, the Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development on land for any purpose (not being designated development) for a maximum period of 28 days, whether consecutive or non consecutive in any one year.

6 As cl 47 does not specifically rely on the zoning provisions contained within LEP 1993, consideration of any application under cl 47 must be undertaken through the heads of consideration as set out in s 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EPA Act).

7 In accordance with the Court’s Practice Direction, persons who objected to the development may be heard in the Court’s considerations of the Consent Orders. In this regard, Mr and Mrs Clark of 394 Anambah Road and Mr and Mrs Dean of 392 Anambah Road attended the site and provided evidence opposing the development. Their concerns were similar and related to:

(1) dust from the access road and the effect on their water supply;

(2) reduced security from people attending the event;

(3) noise from the proposed public address system. Mr Clark specifically requested the prohibition of any public address system.

(4) a change in the character of the quiet and peaceful rural setting;

(5) the use of the right of way.

8 On the question of dust, the applicant proposes the use of a water cart during the day of the event. While I did not understand this to overcome the concerns of Mr and Mrs Clark and Mr and Mrs Dean, I accept that it is a reasonable and practical means of dealing with the issue of dust. In coming to this conclusion I am very mindful that the application only seeks to use the site for only one day.

9 I am also not satisfied that the one day event will translate into a potential threat to the security of adjoining properties. There is no evidence to suggest that this could be a potential problem.

10 Mr Steve Brady, an acoustical engineer from Reverb Acoustics, addresses the noise from the PA system through a separate acoustical report. The report concludes that the event is not expected to exceed the relevant noise criterion at the nearest residence to the south under neutral and noise enhancing atmospheric conditions during the day. While the results do not suggest that the noise will not be audible, it correctly addresses the appropriate noise criteria. Overall, noise would not be a matter that would lead to the refusal of the application based on the acoustical report submitted with the application. Consequently, I am not prepared to prohibit the use of a public address system at the event.

11 Mr Geoffrey Garry, a traffic engineer, addressed the traffic and access issues. He concludes that Anambah Road has sufficient spare capacity to cater for the expected traffic generation from the proposed development. Also, the existing access road within the right of way generally complies with the requirements for access within Australian Standard AS2890.1 for the proposed development and is considered suitable for use for the development without the need for any upgrading works. Further, sight distances achieved at the right of way meet current AUSTROAD guidelines and thus the intersection is considered safe and suitable for use for the proposed development.”

12 On this basis, I accept that the access and the potential impact of traffic on the right of way and Anambah Road would not be a reason to refuse the application.

13 On the issue of the impact on the character of the area, I accept that there will be one day that will be different to the largely quiet and peaceful atmosphere around the site. In my view, this is not sufficient to conclude that there is an overall unacceptable impact. The use is rural based and the impact of the one day operation is not a sufficient reason to refuse the application.

14 There being no matters raised by the objectors that warrant the amendment or refusal of the application and after considering their concerns against the heads of consideration in s 79C of the EPA Act, the Orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Development Application 06-337 for the temporary use of 396 Anambah Road Anambah for an equestrian event is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

3. Exhibit 1 is returned.

___________________

G T Brown
Commissioner of the Court