I inspected the subject land and surrounds including objectors' properties one Sunday following the hearing.

1. The Cranbourne division of Australian Field & Game Inc. is looking for a new location for a clay target shooting range. It proposes to locate at the rear of an existing quarry and associated concrete batching plant off the Bass Highway within a broader context of farming properties. The facility would operate every alternate Sunday[1] with up to 80 shooters participating, using up to seven shooting stands.[2] Car parking would be provided on site.
2. A number of neighbours strenuously objected to the application on the grounds that it would unreasonably impact on their amenity and the viability and/or safety of their farming activities.
3. The responsible authority opposed the grant of a permit on grounds, in summary:
   • The proposal would be incompatible with surrounding agricultural uses and therefore inconsistent with planning policy.
   • The proposal would cause adverse amenity impacts.
   • It is likely that the proposal would exceed relevant noise standards and would constitute a nuisance.
4. The applicant submitted in reply that the site was ideally located for the use, particularly since it is on a site already used for extractive industry, and sits within a Farming Zone context. It further submitted that the range would have minimal impact on surrounding agricultural activities.
5. The Department of Primary Industries did not oppose the grant of a permit provided that all areas available for use by the Club and associated accessways would be fenced off from working areas of the site. In addition, the rear of the land to be used by the Club would need to be rehabilitated and would need to be permanently excised from the works approval area. The Club indicated that it and the owner of the land agreed to these conditions.

1. In isolation, the site itself would seem well suited to the proposed use. It has direct access from the highway and constitutes a highly modified land holding. Site boundaries are generally well screened by native vegetation and/or mounding from many vantage points. The site is located within a Special Use Zone and other activities on the site involve heavy machinery and vehicles. Moreover, there are a number of instances of local planning policy supporting uses that encourage tourism and recreational facilities in the Shire.
2. I find the general comment of Member Liston in Sporting Shooters Assoc of Australia v Macedon Ranges SC & Anor[3] helpful as a starting point in my analysis of this application, namely:

Given that target shooting is a legitimate, and moderately popular pastime the conclusion cannot be that shooting ranges are inherently inappropriate in rural environments. What then is the appropriate balance to be struck in this particular case having regard to the particular circumstances of the land.

1. There is no doubt that the immediate area is already exposed to noise emissions from the quarry and batching plant, highway and from farming activities. I also accept the evidence of both objectors that when the rifle range is operating on Crown Land to the north most Saturdays, this perceptibly impacts on the objectors' quality of life.
2. The shooting activities would occur from the northern boundary of the site and the fallout area and associated acoustic works would come quite close to the southern boundary. The fallout area would extend almost to the eastern boundary. This has consequences both in terms of acoustic impacts and also buffer distances from the nearby licensed cattle feed lot to the east.
3. On the one hand, the Club proposes to confine the activities to once a fortnight for a defined time period. On the other hand, it will no doubt produce noise levels affecting neighbouring amenity, the precise extent of which is yet to be determined. The question is whether the restriction of operations to fortnightly would result in an acceptable outcome in this setting.
4. I find this application unsophisticated compared with the level of detail that would be required to support a proposal of this kind. Specifically, the applicant failed to provide expert acoustic evidence to demonstrate that the proposed use would not result in an unacceptable detriment to amenity. I find this to be a crucial failing since I am not able to find that the acoustic impacts of the proposal would be acceptable.
5. I note that Mr Growcott in his statement to the applicant dated 16 February 2011[4] expresses the opinion that:

I have applied the EPA Guidelines to many shooting range applications and venues and I am of the opinion that they are still relevant and provide the correct balance between rights of the noise receivers and the noise makers.

This appears to be a position adopted by other divisions of this Tribunal in recent years.[5]

1. The preliminary acoustic report prepared by Mr Burton[6] suggests that noise levels would exceed the Interim Gunshot Noise Guidelines issued by the EPA[7] by 2-8 dB(A), even when these levels are adjusted for bi-monthly frequency and wind conditions. He also did not appear to account for noise emissions at the closest residence over the Bass Highway.[8] Ms Blackburn also pointed out a number of potential uncertainties within his report that I consider valid.
2. I accept that there may be some changes to background noise following the duplication of the highway with increased maximum speeds. However, this was not addressed in evidence, neither was the practical consequence for compliance with the Guidelines evaluated.
3. While there may be ways of designing acoustic works to bring the facility in line with the Guidelines as recommended by Mr Growcott in-principle, they have not been designed or modelled as part of the application and their effectiveness and visual impact cannot be assessed.

1. In the absence of evidence compiled for this case or any proven research, I am unable to find that the gunshot noise would negatively impact on the quality of meat production or animal comfort or welfare on adjoining properties.
2. One could speculate that if the noise levels associated with the nearby rifle range are as loud and impulsive as objectors claim but they have not noticed any reduction in quality or any obvious negative impact on animal behaviour, it is unlikely that the proposed facility would change this greatly.
3. To my mind, a more fundamental issue is whether the proposal would unreasonably restrain the current operations of the adjoining feedlot or its potential to expand. This is relevant in terms of the need under the Victorian Code for Cattle Feedlots[9] for a minimum separation distance of 1267 metres between this type of agricultural use and any recreational facility based on current approved capacity.[10]
4. The purposes of the Code can be summarised as assisting in the orderly development of the industry with a set of consistent standards and the provision of environmental standards in line with community expectations. In clause 5.1 it specifically identifies the need for councils to consider factors including the long term future for land in proximity of a feedlot and the likely use and development of the intervening land between the feedlot and an urban area. These broader strategic planning issues are part and parcel of orderly and proper planning and in my view apply reciprocally to proposals adjoining an existing feedlot.
5. The Walker & Argent feedlot and grazing operations are of long standing. This operation is entirely consistent with the principal purposes of the Farming Zone, within which it is located. There are numerous, consistent expressions of policy in the planning scheme seeking to protect the use of farming areas for agricultural pursuits.
6. By comparison, I find that the establishment of the target range within the Special Use Zone would not specifically further the objectives of that zone. While the applicant submitted that it was at least an interim use of the land compatible with the use of nearby land, I do not accept this submission. In addition, the application does not 'tip the scales' by demonstrating a need for this type of facility in this particular area.
7. The intensity of use of the Argent & Walker property (in terms of the number of head of cattle and time spent on the feed pad) varies in response to fluctuations in supply/demand costs, weather conditions and personal decisions made by the farm operators. Notably, the feed pad is the part of the property closest to the subject land, separated from it by approximately 600 metres.
8. As mentioned by the applicant, it may be possible for the Walker & Argent operation to seek a planning permit to reduce the buffer distance under the Code. This course of action would involve time, cost and risk[11] and potentially modified or constrained operations. I would regard this as an unacceptable impost if it was precipitated by the (potential) approval of the new shooting range.
9. I accept Ms Walker's submission that it is simply not feasible or indeed reasonable to expect them to employ additional staff every second Sunday and to shift the cattle away from the subject land to other parts of the property to eliminate the risk of them being startled. In any event, such a relocation would not alter the distance between the subject land and the feedlot which I regard as the key issue.
10. Fundamentally, I also accept Ms Walker's submission that it is not orderly and proper planning in the circumstances before me to allow the proposed use to rely on buffers that are comprised of adjoining farming land, rather than within the subject land itself.

1. Other grounds of opposition were raised in relation to the proposal, including potential to contaminate groundwater[12], create excessive dust and to frighten other animals such as kangaroos.[13] Gun security was also raised. I am not convinced that these issues are insurmountable, although I do not need to make a finding in relation to them given my underlying lack of support for the proposal.
2. Had all other matters pointed to the grant of a permit, I consider that issues of access and car parking could have been addressed by permit condition, as could the separation of the shooting range from the works approval area and its rehabilitation prior to use.

1. I recognise that opportunities to site new recreational shooting facilities near to Cranbourne, the existing base of the Club, are relatively constrained. At the same time, this particular site abuts a property with a particular sensitivity and is proximate to a number of dwellings.
2. These factors lead to my conclusion that the proposal would not be compatible with the licensed cattle feedlot use and would be contrary to orderly planning. In addition, the applicant has been unable to demonstrate that acoustic impacts of the proposal would be acceptable for the nearest residents, even if confined to fortnightly activities.
3. For these reasons in combination, I am unable to support the application as currently conceived. I will affirm the decision of the responsible authority and direct that no permit issue.

[1] 11:30am to 5pm as per the application documentation.

[2] Roughly estimated at 6,000-8,000 shots per event.

[3] [2003] VCAT 1002.

[4] The Club provided a letter from Mr Douglas Growcott of Watson Moss Growcott Acoustics Pty Ltd indicating that it may be possible to design such acoustic works/barriers for the site

[5] See, for example First Cashmore Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges SC & Anor [2005] VCAT, a decision of S. Member Byard and Member Harty.

[6] of Burton Acoustic Group, report dated 7 October 2008. Mr Burton undertook acoustic testing in connection with a test by two shooters on the subject land.

[9] August 1995. This is a document incorporated under the planning scheme.

[10] The assessment by Ms Walker of the category of this particular feedlot and the prescribed separation distance was not contested by the applicant.

[11] Particularly since the buffer distance would be halved.

[13] Some general comment was made about the second of these issues by the club in written documentation about its past experiences.