Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|1999-06-30|Before: Mr Sidney J

Leslie v Nillumbik SC [1999] VCAT 132 (30 June 1999)

Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant Susan E. Leslie

Application under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of conditions in a permit.

The subject land has a frontage to the eastern side of Thomas Road of 23m and an overall area of 6.27ha.

Lot 4 on Plan of Subdivision No. 57996 Certificate of Title held in Volume 9648 Folio 157

Under the Nillumbik Planning Scheme, the subject site and surrounds are zoned Conservation Farming.

1. The use of the site for the purpose of an equestrian centre shall be restricted to the following:

No more than 3 persons shall be tutored in any one day.

4. The area set aside on the endorsed plan for the parking of vehicles and associated horse floats together with the associated access lanes shall:

b) be paved with crushed rock or gravel of adequate thickness to prevent the information of potholes and depressions according to the nature of the subgrade and the vehicles which will use the area;

8. The use of a megaphone in conducting clinics must be limited to:

A megaphone must not be used when a clinic is not being conducted.

10. That any animal manure, from clinics in particular, be contained to prevent nutrient run-off into stream catchment areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. Stressed trees in the horse grazing areas shall be protected by appropriate means and supplemented by the planting of appropriate understorey vegetation.

1. That private tuition Mon - Sat be held during the hours of 9.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m.. This is unacceptable as most clients either work or are at school and need to attend lessons in the evenings. By the time they get to my place it is 5.00 p.m. or 6.00 p.m. at the earliest.

2. That the area endorsed for parking be paved with crushed rock and not be used for any other purpose - private tuition clients park on a gravel area. For the clinics being 12 days per year the clients park in a paddock. This paddock is used for grazing the rest of the year and I don't want to graze my horses on a gravel parking area. Also the car park is supposed to be treated to prevent loss of amenity to the neighbourhood through dust and drainage. The nearest house would be 500m away and the paddock is a grazing paddock so this is ridiculous.

3. The megaphone in conducting clinics shall be used from 10.00 a.m. until 5.00 p.m. on any day. The clinics start at 9.00 a.m. The megaphone is needed at the beginning of the day. Also one hour per day is unacceptable under medical terms for a registered coach.

4. That any animal manure be contained to prevent nutrient run-off. Horse manure is and always will be collected as part of property management. Other animals I have little control of - birds native animals, I think neighbours should look at their own cows!!

5. Stressed trees in the horse grazing areas shall be protected. The trees mentioned were planted in a laneway between paddocks last summer. They were transplanted from suburban Melbourne and never survived. They died upon planting so I believe planting understorey vegetation around them will achieve very little.

Mr John Panozzo, Statutory Planner, represented the Responsible Authority.

Mr David B. Mitchell, Lawyer, appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

Mr Andrew Sherman, Solicitor of the firm Russell Kennedy, appeared on behalf of the objectors: P.V. and G. Corr, H.R. and B.D. McCarthy and B.D. and A.C. Donelly. He called Mrs Corr, and Messrs McCarthy and Donelly to give evidence.

Mr Sidney J. Myers, another objector, appeared in person.

I inspected the subject site in company with representatives of the parties, and viewed it from the Donelly and Corr properties on Friday 14th May. I also inspected the general locality, alone.

This application for review is one brought by the permit applicant against certain of the conditions included on a permit granted by the Responsible Authority for the use of her property in Arthurs Creek as an equestrian centre.

The subject land is one of nine rural residential properties all of a similar size to the subject site, which have frontage to Thomas Road - which is a dead-end gravelled road running north from the Cottlesbridge-Strathewen Road. The subject lot is one of the two northernmost lots in the subdivision.

The land is steeply undulating with a ridgeline peaking approximately 30m to the south of the site and 50m east of Thomas Road. The land falls sharply to the west and to the east of the ridgeline. The ridgeline runs across Thomas Road itself providing a crest in the road approximately 200m south of the subject land.

A dwelling, sheds and stables, yards and a menage have all been developed on a relatively flat area central to the subject site. The remainder of the site supports grasses and stands of native vegetation.

All other lots in Thomas Road contain dwellings with the nearest dwelling being some 325m to the west of the Menage (the Donellys' dwelling). The nearest dwelling to the south is approximately 100m away - the Milopoulos' residence. This "dwelling" is a rough collection of sheds. The next property to the south also contains a dwelling, but the occupiers were not objectors to the appeal. The next dwelling to the south is that occupied by the Corrs and it is located approximately 450m from the subject site. The Milopoulos and Corr dwellings, and the intervening dwelling are all located upslope of the subject land, and have a direct line of sight to the menage. The Donelly dwelling also has a direct line of sight to a low bank of approximately 2m in height which is located on the western side of the menage. Mr McCarthy occupies a property at the intersection of Thomas Road and the Cottlesbridge-Strathewen Road and the Myers' property is located between the McCarthy and Corr properties.

Thomas Road itself is a well formed gravel road with a dual carriageway, except for a 140m single lane section where vehicles cannot pass.

The permit application sought retrospective approval for the operation of an equestrian centre on the land. Mrs Leslie established the centre there when she purchased the property in the early 1990s.

The business has two components. Mrs Leslie conducts individual private lessons on a daily basis on the site. She runs up to three one hour lessons per day. The Responsible Authority's view was that this, at least so long as it was the only commercial activity on the site, was ancillary to the residential purpose for which the land was used. That use has been permitted to continue while the planning permit for the wider use has been considered. Mr Sherman's view was that that use was not ancillary but might be viewed as a home occupation which is nevertheless as of right in the zone.

Mrs Leslie also seeks permission to conduct riding "clinics" on the land. These are three day schools in which 15 to 20 riders participate. She has run and seeks permission to run, the clinics "back to back" that is where two clinics run over a combined period of six days.

Mrs Leslie in response to the neighbours' concerns about numbers of horse floats coming and going on a daily basis to the clinics, has proposed that the participants, with their families if appropriate, be permitted to stay on the subject property for the period of the relevant clinic. It is proposed that these people would camp or stay in floats or vehicles, in a designated yard. Some might be accommodated in the dwelling itself. Barbecue and toilet facilities would be provided.

It is proposed that all horse riding activities would be conducted on a designated part of the site which would include the menage. There would be no horse trail riding activities.

The use of a megaphone by Mrs Leslie would be required as part of the clinic activities. It was explained that Mrs Leslie has throat and voice problems, which arise from or are aggravated by the nature of her occupation, and she needs an artificial device to assist her to project her voice. The frequency with which Mrs Leslie is permitted to use the megaphone is an issue in this appeal.

In the Conservation Farming Zone of the Nillumbik Planning Scheme, planning permission is required to use the land for the purpose of an "outdoor recreation park", which is defined as including an equestrian centre. That zone has no general requirement for planning permission for buildings and works.

At the outset of the appeal hearing, Mr Sherman raised concerns that no development application had been made for the proposed equestrian centre, as distinct from an application for use. However, I indicated at the hearing that I agreed with Mr Mitchell's submissions that having regard to the general way in which the application was described on the notice of application, both use and development were intended to be covered. I also agreed with Mr Mitchell that the true nature of the application was apparent from the supporting material available at the time of advertising of the application. More importantly, I agreed with his further submission that no planning permission was required for development of the land per se: Clause 113-4 simply calls for the preparation of a development plan preparatory to the development of buildings and works. Mr Mitchell conceded that the plans which accompanied the application may not show all of the items required by that clause of the Planning Scheme. Nevertheless he said that this was a matter which might be remedied by further conditions. In order to tidy up this matter of the buildings and works permission, I indicated I believed that it would be appropriate also to amend the heading of the subject permit to refer only to the use of the land for the purpose of an equestrian centre.

Mr Sherman also raised concerns about the accommodation component of the application which he argued was a somewhat ill-thought through response to the objectors' concerns about clinic traffic on Thomas Road. He expressed concerns that the accommodation might not be properly viewed as ancillary to the use of the land as an equestrian centre and separate planning application was required to be made for this. He said that in his view at least some conditions needed to be included on the permit about the accommodation component of the use. He said this may arise from consideration of appealed Condition 1(b). Mr Mitchell then agreed that the accommodation might be regulated such that it is permitted only on 12 days per year.

I was satisfied from the arguments that accommodation was a component of the application and would be ancillary to the primary use of the land as an equestrian centre. Also, while I had some concerns about the workability of the casual accommodation arrangements proposed, in combination with the frequency and intensity of the accommodation activities, I was nonetheless of the view that Condition 3(a) adequately responded to those concerns.

Clause 113-6 of the Planning Scheme includes a list of matters which guide the exercise of discretion in relation to applications to use or subdivide land, or construct buildings or works in the Conservation Farming Zone. Those same matters also provide assistance in guiding the exercise of discretion in relation to the matters which are the subject of the conditions appeal. They include:

"* Whether the site is suitable for the use and will not be detrimental to the traditional rural activities of the neighbourhood.

* Whether the use caters primarily for people not living in the zone and will have a detrimental effect on the natural resources and environment of the neighbourhood.

* Whether the use would cause a significant increase in traffic and whether the site:

Also relevant are the purposes of the zone which include:

"* To conserve and permanently maintain the existing rural character of the area by encouraging suitable agricultural pursuits while conserving the existing environmental characteristics.

* To encourage development that is in harmony with the rural landscape.

* To conserve water quality and ... air quality and noise levels."

Mr Panozzo also referred to the Council's draft Municipal Strategic Statement which was exhibited from July to September 1997 and is intended to form part of the Nillumbik new format Planning Scheme. The vision statement of the MSS includes:

"All future land use and development will enhance the aesthetic qualities of the urban and rural environment, responding in particular to the character defined by land form, vistas and vegetation cover. Creative approaches to sustainable land use and development, and land management, will be encouraged to maintain and enhance the significant environmental values of the Shire ..."

"The community of Nillumbik values the Shire's natural landscape, rural character and cultural heritage. The energies of Council will be directed to enhancing the environmental conditions that enrich the area and promoting development which meets present needs without compromising the future wellbeing of the Shire."

Under the heading of "Economic Development and Tourism", the MSS advocates:

"The challenge is to balance development with environmental conservation and also protect and enhance the lifestyle valued by the Nillumbik community."

Upon receipt of the application the Responsible Authority had required it to be advertised and in response 10 objections were received. Letters of support were forwarded by five individuals. The officer's report to the Responsible Authority on this application summarised the grounds of objection as follows:

"a) increased traffic causing: loss of amenity; increased noise; increased vehicle congestion on Thomas Road (especially at the narrow section); safety concerns at intersection of Thomas Road and Cottlesbridge-Strathewen Road; increased dust from Thomas Road; deterioration of Thomas Road surface;

c) future cost to residents to maintain or upgrade Thomas Road;

d) no certainty about the number of people that would visit the site;

e) car and floats would cause safety issues at the intersection of Thomas Road and Cottlesbridge-Strathewen Road, and are more difficult to reverse if it is required along the narrow stretch of Thomas Road;

f) a business should not be conducted in a rural residential area;

h) security concerns with increased number of people not local to the area;

j) sanitation concerns considering the number of riders on site at the one time; and

k) detrimental to the environment by way of air and noise pollution and unsightliness of toilets, catering etc. "

Despite its planning officer's recommendation to refuse the application on the basis of unsuitable access and the detriment to the amenity of Thomas Road properties, the Responsible Authority determined to grant the permit imposing 12 conditions. Mrs Leslie then sought a review of four of the conditions. Many of the objectors pursued their concerns to the Tribunal hearing.

It is convenient to deal with the issues in this appeal by considering each of the appealed conditions separately.

Condition 1 limits the hours of operation and intensity of the use. Private tuition is restricted by Condition 1(a) to Monday to Saturday 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m., with no more than three persons being tutored on any one day.

In her grounds of appeal, Mrs Leslie argued that these hours were unacceptable as most of her clients either work or are at school and need to attend lessons in the evening. Frequently they do not attend her property until 5.00 p.m. or 6.00 p.m. at the earliest, she said. At the appeal hearing, Mr Mitchell clarified that Mrs Leslie was seeking private tuition hours of 9.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. during daylight saving times and 9.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. for the remainder of the year.

Mr Panozzo argued on behalf of the Responsible Authority that the times chosen by the Responsible Authority were specifically designed to result in least impact on the amenity and lifestyle values of residents in Thomas Road, having regard to the nature of the environment and the wellbeing of residents as referred to in the MSS. He argued that a 6.00 p.m. closure was a reasonable time for visitors to leave the site without disturbing other residents of Thomas Road.

Mr Sherman submitted that a 7.00 p.m. closure might be permitted but the lessons should finish at 6.30 p.m. This would allow clients a 30 minute period for unsaddling and brushing down the horses before departure. He noted that those time limits would allow Mrs Leslie to commence lessons of up to one hour in duration as late as 5.30 p.m. He indicated that he believed that this was reasonable.

While acknowledging Mr Mitchell's submission that the traffic movements attributable to the private lessons would not be significantly more than those generated by surrounding properties, having regard to the fact that the evidence given by Mrs Corr was that Mrs Leslie's voice could be heard at surrounding properties, even when unassisted by a megaphone, I believe that a 6.30 p.m. finishing time for lessons is appropriate to avoid undue disturbance to the amenity of the neighbours' properties. The condition has been drafted in such a way that any required dressing of horses etc. can occur beyond this time but it would be expected that most horse floats would have left Thomas Road by approximately 7.00 p.m.

Condition 1(b) relates to the clinic component of the use. The need for its amendment arose from consideration of Condition 1(a). It restricts clinics to the hours of 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on all days of the week. It is clear that this condition must relate to the tuition component of the clinic, in as much as persons are to be accommodated overnight. The wording of this condition has also been clarified.

Certain concessions were made at the appeal hearing concerning the operation of the clinics during public holidays. Mr Mitchell suggested that the operation of the clinics might not be permitted on Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day. This modification to Condition 1 has also been made by the Tribunal with the consent of the applicant.

Condition 4(b) relates to the area for the parking of vehicles on the site. It requires the area to be paved with crushed rock or gravel, drained and levelled and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Condition 5 is a related condition requiring the surface of the car park area to be treated so as to prevent loss of amenity to the neighbourhood by the emission of dust and the discharge of drainage.

Mr Panozzo supported the retention of both of these conditions on the basis that otherwise, in dry conditions dust emissions as a result of vehicle movement and parking would be problematic; and in wet conditions the paddock parking area might be unusable due to mud. He argued that it was not a major erosion of the grazing resources of the property to have this area permanently given over to car parking.

Mr Mitchell's submission was that there needs to be some proportionality between the permitted use and the conditions attached to the permit concerning car parking. He said it was inappropriate to require a paddock of about 1.5 acres in a 15.5 acre site to be set aside permanently as a gravel car park when the permitted activity giving rise to the requirement could only occur on not more than 12 days per year. He submitted that Conditions 4 and 5 should be replaced by the following new Condition 4:

"The area set aside on the endorsed plan for the parking of vehicles and associated horse floats together with associated access lanes shall:

(a) be provided in accordance with the requirements of this condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of the use of the site for clinics;

(b) be used for that purpose when a clinic is being held;

(d) thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority."

Having regard to the only infrequent use for car parking activities of this paddock and its location towards the top of the ridgeline, with a gentle grade to the north, I am content to adopt the condition suggested by the applicant to replace Conditions 4 and 5. It will provide a workable car parking arrangement and at the same time it will allow the area to continue to be used for grazing when not required for clinic parking.

This issue has been perhaps the most difficult to determine in relation to this application for review, in as much as it involves an assessment of what is a reasonable amenity impact in the context of this rural residential locality and in the absence of any empirical acoustic evidence. Conditions 8 (a) and (b) regulate the use of the megaphone, to between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on all days, with a maximum period of use of one hour per clinic per day. Condition 8 also provides that the megaphone must not be used when clinics are not being conducted.

While accepting that the megaphone use be restricted to clinics, the applicant wishes to be able to use the megaphone for up to three hours per day during the clinics. It was said that the megaphone would be used intermittently throughout the course of the day, but more in the morning during dressage instruction, rather than for jumping in the afternoon. It was Mr Mitchell's submission that the type of megaphone used has the lowest output available (6 watts with a maximum capacity of 10 watts) and the megaphone had an audible range at a maximum volume of 200m in city or suburban conditions. He conceded, however, that the objectors would hear Mrs Leslie's voice through the megaphone, or indeed unassisted, from time to time, particularly when there was a northerly wind. He also said that having regard to the fact that the clinics may only be conducted on 12 days per year, and on some of those days the prevailing south-westerly winds (which would carry noise away from objectors' properties) would occur, the amenity impact for neighbours would not be unreasonable. He also acknowledged that while Mrs Leslie had earlier conceded use of the megaphone during clinics for only one hour per day, this concession had been given under some duress. Mr Mitchell indicated that his client requested that the 3 hours of use of the megaphone per day might occur within a modified time band of 9.15 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. (in contrast to the 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. referred to in Condition 8).

In relation to this issue, Mr Sherman submitted that the area is characterised by exceeding quiet during the day and into the evenings. He said that the megaphone use is and would be intrusive and irritating and would interrupt normal outside conversation on the Corr property. He said also that because the use of the megaphone would be intermittent and not constant it would be more irritating. Residents would hear the megaphone start at any time and have absolutely no certainty when it might stop and start again, Mr Sherman said.

Mr Sherman went on to say that alternatives to megaphone use are readily available. He said that microphones are frequently used in other horse training activities. Cheap versions of those units ranged in price from $70 to $130 he said.

Some time at the hearing was indeed spent considering other options to the proposed use of the megaphone. Mr Mitchell, for Mrs Leslie, indicated that FM radio connections between the instructor and rider were not an option in as much as 15 sets would have to be supplied, and observers of the activities on the menage would be deprived of the opportunity to listen to the instructions. It was also said that fixing a loud speaker at the side of the menage with the speaker directed away from surrounding properties would be an awkward arrangement for the instructor.

I have assessed this issue, including by an inspection of the subject land and surrounds. The Donellys, to the west of the subject land have advised that they are not disturbed by teaching activities on the subject land. This may be due to the fact that a shallow bank runs along the western side of the menage. However, the Milopoulos and Corr properties and the intervening property, all have uninterrupted lines of sight to the menage. Mrs Corr's evidence was that she could clearly hear Mrs Leslie's voice on the subject property, even unassisted by the megaphone.

It is my assessment that having regard to the acoustic environment of the area(and in particular the low background noise levels), and the unfixed direction of the amplified noise, that the tuition noise would generally carry to the properties to the south-east. I specifically find that the carrying distance of 200m referred to for this type of megaphone in suburban or city locations, would be exceeded in this acoustic environment. Further, I agree with the submission for the objectors that the intermittency and variable duration of the nose would add to its amenity-eroding character. I find therefore that the Council restriction of use of the megaphone for one hour per day during the clinics, is a reasonable condition and should be retained. However, it seems to me that if the direction of noise from the megaphone were oriented away from the surrounding properties - towards the north or east where there are no houses within line of sight (that land is occupied by a 1,000ha grazing property) - that longer hours of use might be acceptable. Proper acoustic evidence, however, would be necessary to confirm the acceptability of such an arrangement. I nevertheless propose to modify the Council's condition to permit the one-hour use of the megaphone to occur within the modified time band sought by the permit applicant.

Condition 10 provides that any animal manure, from "clinics in particular" be contained to prevent nutrient run-off to stream catchment areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. As submitted by Mr Mitchell, the condition is presently too wide and would encompass manure from dogs and chickens. He also indicated that at present horse manure is collected and used in Mrs Leslie's vegetable garden or sold. He suggested the condition be re-worded as:

"Any horse manure arising from the use hereby permitted must be contained to prevent nutrient run-off into stream catchment areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority."

Mr Panozzo for the Responsible Authority conceded the difficulty with the condition and in fact suggested that only horse manure from the menage and yards used for clinics and private tuition must be so contained. I am of the view that this further modification to the condition is appropriate.

Condition 12 requires that stressed trees in the horse grazing areas are to be protected by an appropriate means and supplemented by the planting of appropriate under-storey vegetation.

It seems that this condition arose as a result of an objector approaching the Responsible Authority about the poor condition of vegetation generally on the property. As Mr Panozzo rightly submitted the condition must relate to the permitted use and cannot extend beyond the areas which are to be used for the horse training activities. He also noted that there was originally a row of native non-indigenous trees planted along the western boundary of the designated car and horse float parking area on the endorsed plan. Those trees have since died and Mrs Leslie has had them removed. Mr Panozzo submitted that the proper outcome in relation to this condition was its modification to require a landscaping plan related to the western and northern boundaries of the car and horse float parking area. Mr Mitchell agreed to that modification to the condition. I also believe that such a modification is appropriate.

During the course of the hearing, some other issues to do with the regulation of on-site activities were discussed. They were seen as arising from the appeal concerning the hours of operation of the use and the disturbance to surrounding properties.

It was accepted on behalf of the permit applicant that if a condition were to be imposed restricting the noise generated by persons staying on the property overnight that this would be acceptable.

Also in the interests of minimising disturbance to neighbours as a result of road usage by horse floats and other vehicles associated with the riding establishment, consideration was given to introducing a condition designed to ensure that persons associated with the clinic were generally accommodated on the site, rather than having them travel to and from the site each day. There was a thought that it was adequate to have the horses accommodated on the site, rather than their owners, as this would reduce the use of the road by horse floats, which is seen as causing the most difficulty for other road users. However, Mrs Leslie assured the Tribunal that horse owners would not find this arrangement acceptable (finding it at least as unacceptable as having to leave their children on the site overnight!) Further, the difficulty of drafting a condition which would encourage staying on the property but not require it, and which would allow for exceptions and emergencies, was also discussed.

I believe that such a condition is desirable and can be drafted. It has been included on the permit granted below.

There were also concerns expressed about the number of vehicles to be accommodated on the site and the best means to reduce the amount of traffic on Thomas Road. It was suggested that a condition might be imposed which restricted vehicles to one per attendee. An objection to this course, however, was raised in that if the parents of a person attending the riding school were separated, two parents may wish to attend in separate vehicles. In my view, the likelihood of multiple vehicle attendance per attendee is low and I have imposed a condition that not more than 20 vehicles associated with the horse riding clinics may be accommodated on the site at any one time (exclusive of the operator's own vehicles). Further, to avoid the temptation to park any extra cars on the surrounding road reserve, the condition also provides that no vehicles may be parked in that location.

In conclusion, the Tribunal would observe that the assessment of this application by the Responsible Authority seems to have been less than thorough. It has been the good will on the part of the objectors and the applicant which have led to the further "consent" conditions which my order adds to the permit. I believe they are necessary in order to regulate the permitted activities in a manner appropriate to the environment in which the site is located.

The order of the Tribunal is that Application for Review 1998/071401 is allowed in part and the Responsible Authority's decision is varied. The Tribunal directs:

* That the heading of Permit 970481 be amended by the deletion of the words "and develop".

* Condition 1 shall be amended to read as follows:

"The use of the site for the purpose of an equestrian centre shall be restricted to the following times:

Instruction of pupils must not occur outside the following hours -

Not more than three persons shall be tutored on any one day.

A maximum of four clinics may be conducted in any calendar year.

The number of participants in any clinic must not exceed 15 persons.

Not more than two consecutive clinics (occupying six consecutive days) may be held in any calendar year.

No clinic may be conducted on Christmas Day, Good Friday or Anzac Day.

No clinic may be conducted on a day of declared total fire ban.

Horse riding tuition must not occur outside the hours of 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m."

* Conditions 4 and 5 shall be deleted. The following condition shall be inserted:

"4. The area set aside on the endorsed plan for the parking of vehicles and associated horse floats together with the associated access lanes shall:

a) be provided in accordance with the requirements of this condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of the use of the site for clinics;

b) be used for that purpose when a clinic is being held;

c) be adequately drained and maintained to a suitable condition for its intended use during clinics; and

d) thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority."

"The use of a megaphone in conducting clinics must:

a) not occur outside the hours of 9.15 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. on any day; and

A megaphone must not be used when a clinic is not being conducted."

* Condition 10 must be amended to read as follows:

"Any horse manure from within the menage and yards used for clinics and private tuition as part of the use hereby permitted must be contained to prevent nutrient run-off into stream catchment areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority."

* Condition 12 must be deleted and replaced by the following:

"By the 31st of August 1999, three copies of a landscape plan for the western and northern boundaries of the car and horse float parking areas must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed accordingly and will then form part of the permit. Planting in accordance with the endorsed landscape plan must be completed within two months thereafter. The plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design. It must provide for indigenous trees and shrubs to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and in accordance with the Responsible Authority's publication "Live Local Plant Local"."

* The following additional conditions shall be included on the permit:

- "Without the further consent of the Responsible Authority , no more than 20 vehicles associated with the permitted use (exclusive of those owned by the operator under this permit) may be accommodated on the site at any one time.

No vehicles associated with the use hereby permitted may be parked on the adjacent road reserve."

- "The accommodation of persons on site for the purpose of teaching clinics must be managed in such a way that there is no noise disturbance to surrounding properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority."

- "The operator under this permit must manage the clinic component of the use in such a way that persons attending the clinic and their horses stay overnight during the course of the clinic, unless this is not possible due to medical or pressing personal reasons, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. To this end, the operator under the permit must prepare a set of guidelines which are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for distribution to prospective attendees at clinics advising of this requirement, and the circumstances in which they may be exempted from the requirement to be accommodated on-site during the course of the clinic."

The Responsible Authority is directed to amend Planning Permit 970481 accordingly, including by sequentially numbering the revised conditions.

Leslie v Nillumbik SC [1999] VCAT 132

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (129 paragraphs)

Leslie v Nillumbik SC [1999] VCAT 132 (30 June 1999)

Parties