1 By close of business on Monday 4 June 2007, the Respondent (the South West Go Kart Club) must notify the Tribunal and other parties to this Application for Review in writing whether or not an acoustic report will be prepared to respond to the Tribunal's direction summarised in paragraph 25 of the Tribunal's reasons. [An application in writing may be made to the Tribunal for an extension of time]. If no reply is received, or if the Applicant states it will not obtain an acoustic report, the Tribunal will proceed to make a final determination in relation to this Application.

2 If the Respondent intends to obtain an acoustic report, documents must be prepared, filed and served no later than six weeks from the date of the Applicant's stated intention to obtain that report. [An application in writing may be made to the Tribunal for an extension of time]. The report(s) and any accompanying submissions must be filed with the Tribunal and served on the Responsible Authority and the Applicant.

3 Within four weeks of the date of receipt of the acoustic report(s) and any accompanying submissions, any party may file a written submission with the Tribunal responding to that further material.

4 A copy of any submission filed with the Tribunal in accordance with Order No. 3 must be served at the same time on all other parties to this Application for Review.

5 Any party to the Application for Review may request that the proceeding be brought on for further hearing in order that submissions may be made orally or evidence called. That hearing can occur in Camperdown. In absence of such a hearing request, and unless the Tribunal of its own volition determines that a further hearing is required, the Application will be decided on the basis of all written and oral submissions presented at the Hearing on 1 May 2007 (and statements of grounds filed prior to that time) plus the supplementary material filed in accordance with the Tribunal's directions.

Mrs M Grainger, Manager Planning & Building Services.

1 Mrs Reynolds and a number of other residents objected a permit application made by the South West Kart Club to use an existing go kart track on the outskirts of Cobden for motor bike racing five weekends per year. The Corangamite Shire Council decided to grant a permit for that proposal on the basis that only three events be allowed in any calendar year until September 2009 when the permit would expire. Review of the Council's decision has been sought by Mrs Reynolds on behalf of 12 residents. The Tribunal must decide whether the permit should be granted.

2 The determinative issue is whether the noise impacts associated with the proposal would be acceptable although other matters were raised in submissions concerning, for example, rubbish, security and traffic. Having considered all submissions, assisted by my inspections of the site and locality before and after the hearing, I have decided to issue this interim decision requiring an acoustic report to be obtained by the Respondent. In setting out my reasons for adopting this course, I do not recite all of the material presented as all documentation is held on the Tribunal's file.

3 Located just beyond the north-western edge of Cobden, the review site is developed and used for go kart racing.[1] It is on Council-owned land within a larger precinct containing a miniature railway and mini golf course that front Grayland Street. Those recreational activities abut Grayland Street while the go-kart track is accessed via a road to the south-east corner of the precinct. That road is gravel (except for a short sealed section directly off Grayland Street) and leads to the go-kart facility. The go kart complex is surrounded by trees and includes clubrooms and some earthen mounding.

4 Current approved hours for the go-kart facility are:

•

Wednesday - Friday 12 noon - 4.00pm (5.00pm in daylight savings);

•

Saturday & Sunday & Public holidays 11.00am - 6.00pm; and

•

last Sunday each month - 10..00am - 5.00pm.

5 An airfield is to the west of the review site. To the east, on the opposite side of Grayland Street, are several dwellings and a technical school. The closest dwelling is around 110 metres from the review site. An industrial area is further to the south (including a large dairy plant). To the north of the review site are grazing land and some dwellings in Hallyburtons Road.

6 Approval was sought by the Respondent to use the existing go kart track for "Supermotard" motorbike racing events on five weekends per calendar year. I understand that each event involves 16 races with up to 24 bikes in any one race. Races can occur in all weather conditions. The Council's uncontested conditions on the Notice of Decision allow races three weekends per year, limit the hours to 9am - 5pm, and require the permit to expire on 26 September 2009. I was advised that all racing would be allocated to events. Two Supermotard events were held on the review site in 2005 and 2006[2], the latter providing an opportunity for noise testing.

7 A permit is required to use the land for "leisure and recreation" under the Corangamite Planning Scheme.[3] No Overlays apply to the land.

8

The review site is in a Rural Zone and is positioned at the edge of urban development comprising a number of dwellings and a school on the east side of Grayland Street. The wider area includes industrial activity and an airport. The physical setting is mixed when also considering the leisure uses abutting the review site.

9

The strategic directions contained in the Planning Scheme provide the planning context for this review. They include:

•

developing and promoting the "Camperdown, Cobden and Terang triangle" as an integrated service area for community and commercial activities[4];

•

consolidating the Cobden township via infill development on vacant land within the town boundaries with no further residential rezonings until land supply is reduced to 10 years;

•

developing vacant land east of the town for future residential use;

•

promoting industrial development within the industrial precincts such as around the old railway line; and

•

supporting tourist development and protecting assets that are linked to tourism.[5]

10

Importantly, Clause 21.04 contains a Township Structure Plan for Cobden. On my reading, the long term settlement policy does not encompass additional dwellings and urban development close to the review site rather the existing houses appear to be outside the nominated town boundary for residential development. That is consistent with the fact that the most affected dwellings in this proceeding are zoned for non-urban purposes.[6] Moreover, although not highlighted in submissions, Clause 21.04 identifies the area of the review site as "Recreation Promote as extensive recreation area" [sic]. Thus, emphasis is given by the Council through its Scheme to the role of this recreational area in strategic terms.

11

In planning terms, the reasonable amenity expectations for residents varies having regard to the physical context that applies, zoning of the land and strategic directions of the Scheme. In this case, those expectations must be assessed in the context of the rural zoning of the review site and closest dwellings, the lack of any apparent or immediate prospect of the land being viewed differently in terms of its urban development potential, and the strategic directions included in the Scheme in promoting the review site for recreation. These considerations do not mean that residents' amenity is disregarded, but they do give weight to the proposed short term and confined recreational use of the land being favourably considered.

Is the proposal acceptable in terms of noise impacts on nearby dwellings?

12

Mrs Reynolds explained the concerns of residents about the excessive noise associated with the motor bike racing, contrasting with the generally accepted level of noise emissions resulting from the regular go-kart activities. Noise associated with the motor bike racing was described as intolerable for residents, forcing some to leave their homes, disturbing the sleep of night shift workers, causing migraines, preventing people from having a conversation in their homes, and impacting on older residents. The other main source of noise emissions that was raised as a concern was the use of the public address system. Mrs Reynolds expressed concern about the lack of any independent noise testing. She questioned the benefit of the proposed events to Cobden and felt residents' objections and the impacts of the events had not been properly or fairly considered by the Council.

13

In response, Mrs Grainger acknowledged noise emissions from the activities would exceed EPA levels for country Victoria and for construction noise. That is based on noise measurements taken by Mr Weel, in the presence of a Councillor, at a Supermotard event in March 2006 at Cobden using a hand held meter. The results were provided to the Council and contained in Mrs Grainger's submission. Mrs Grainger and Mr Weel referred to the economic benefits to the locality and Shire that, they say, outweigh the environmental impact to a small sector of the community from noise.

14

Mrs Grainger placed significant weight on the Council's decision to limit the number of events to three per year, two of which would be championship events that she said could be expected to be well patronised and well run. She also referred to a proposed condition that 30 days notice of an event would be given to the Council and nearby residents, and another condition requiring the public address system to be limited. On the information provided to the Council by the Respondent, there is no scope to muffle or mitigate the noise by modifying the bikes.

15

I accept the Applicants' concern about a lack of independent noise assessment to fully understand the noise emissions that would be expected, despite two events giving experience of noise emissions. It is common sense that noise associated with the bikes that are the subject of this permit application is loud and would be potentially very intrusive to the five closest dwellings on the east side of Grayland Street given the relatively narrow separation distances and existing background noise levels. The data sourced from the hand held meter show this to a degree, but I have no information as to the precise nature of the measure. The series of numbers I have are a background reading of 48dB(A) with readings between 73.6 and 79.8dB(A) 40 metres in front of one dwelling, in the driveway of a second dwelling and an unstated location for the third dwelling. On the east side of Grayland Street opposite the entry to the model railway, four measures range from 86.4 - 91.7dB(A). Many questions arise in my mind when reviewing this information. For example, are the series of recorded decibel readings maxima or averages? What was the frequency of the levels recorded? What were the weather conditions during the measurements? What number and types of motor bikes were participating at the time of the measurements?

16

There are no directly applicable guidelines to provide some standard for motor bike noise. Noise from sporting activities is exempt from SEPPN-1[7]. The motor bike noise could be expected to well exceed a standard of 45dB(A) that would apply to rural areas via the EPA's Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria 198 which the EPA cited in its referral response. Mrs Grainger also referred to standards for construction noise[8] as a comparison, at 68 dB(A), again which would be exceeded if the measures undertaken by the Club are referred to.

17

I have reviewed information from other states including the Chapter 152 of the NSW Environmental Noise Control Manual and the later Noise Guide for Local Government as well as the ACT Motor Sports Noise Environment Protection Policy amended in 2002. Guidelines usually link acceptable noise levels to the extent to which they exceed background noise levels. The types of benchmarks adopted for noise emissions are, on their face, lower than evident in the meter measurements near to dwellings that have been tendered by the Council (based on readings by the Club) in this case.

18

Although standards or benchmarks cannot simply be translated from another place, the material confirms my feeling that noise impacts for the closest dwellings would be very substantial if the permit is granted. That raises the question as to whether the impacts are acceptable even for a confined number of events in a calendar year.

19

The public address system is different insofar as its noise can be tied to the EPA's Technical Guideline TG 302-92. I note that Guideline also links emissions with background noise levels which will be influenced by noise on-site. Whether or not compliance could be achieved with the Guideline would depend on the design of the public address system and how it was used including the orientation and position of speakers.

20

The Council's decision is based on "net community benefit". That is, the event would bring wider social and economic benefits that outweigh the environmental impact to a small sector of the Cobden community from noise disturbance.[9] A similar submission was made by the Club. Mrs Grainger said the Council specifically required two of the three events to be rounds of the Australian and Victorian championships to maximise the benefits. She also stated the Council has not sought to impose noise testing or a maximum noise level, rather, it decided to limit the number of events to three per year with the permit to expire on 26 September 2009 [a Saturday].

21

Thus the Council has sought to balance the obvious impact of noise with the frequency of events. Its position would allow a maximum of nine events before the permit expired.

22

The Council's emphasis on ensuring two of the events are championship events can be liked with its argument that the events bring significant economic and social benefits to the district. I agree with that logic in the circumstances of this case. However, there is insufficient information as to the precise noise impact to properly inform a judgement as to what number, if any, events may be reasonable over a specified time period. Similarly, I have no information to suggest how the very high noise levels might be managed; the position seems to have been to accept the noise as part and parcel of a limited number of events, but I am not persuaded that is an acceptable approach when one contemplates the apparent magnitude of noise impact upon the closest dwellings having regard to the limited data that is available to me.

23

Correspondence from the Director of Supermotard to Council in 2006 says:

Supermotard have never been asked to prepare noise reports previously, all competition vehicles must comply with Governing body rules set out in the Motorcycling Australia manual of sport. Some of Supermotard Australia's events have been noise tested to ensure compliance within noise limits and we have not had reports of any breaches.

24

My review of the very detailed manual[10] establishing rules for motorcycling sport cites maximum emissions from bikes at 102 dB(A) based on a variety of testing conditions. The manual does not address noise emissions outside venues on nearby sensitive uses. Moreover, I do not find significant the suggestion that Supermotard has not been required to submit an acoustic report before. It is possible that sites selected for previous events do not have homes within 100-200 metres and/or noise impacts have been able to be confined given mounding or other acoustic attenuation measures. I do not have information available to draw comparisons or sound conclusions.

25

The cited correspondence could be interpreted in several ways but it is possible that there is some data in relation to off-site noise emissions at other locations. Testing might need to be conducted to obtain data. But without an independent acoustic assessment to inform my decision, I am not prepared to affirm or vary the Council's decision, rather, I will refuse the permit application. Thus, I am directing the permit applicant to obtain a noise impact assessment report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced independent acoustic engineer. That report must address the expected noise emissions from the proposed events and assess the impacts that might be experienced by the dwellings in Grayland Street and Hallyburtons Road against any applicable guidelines. An experienced acoustic engineer will be familiar with the types of matters to be addressed in an assessment but, at minimum, a report must include:

•

a statement of background noise levels at the noise sensitive receivers;

•

data/noise readings or estimates for events of a scale and type as proposed;

•

estimates of expected noise levels outside dwellings in Grayland Street and Hallyburtons Road (plus an estimate of noise levels within houses, albeit they should be less than the external measures);

•

a statement of the noise measures and climatic conditions associated with data/noise readings;

•

a statement of assumptions upon which the estimated noise levels at the dwellings have been derived;

•

recommended attenuation measures on-site if required including consideration of options, if available, for mufflers or other devices to reduce the noise emissions from bikes.

Are there other issues warranting rejection of the proposal?

26

A number of other matters were raised by Mrs Reynolds on behalf of local residents upon which I set out my findings below.

27

Rubbish. Litter left on and around the site was referred to and the Council's proposed condition requiring rubbish bins was said by Mrs Reynolds to be inadequate. Rubbish around the area may be blown from various sources although the principle of the site being cleaned up after an event is reasonable. The conditions contained on the Notice of Decision require adequate garbage bins on site but the condition can be extended to require the site to be cleaned up after an event. Mr Weel did not oppose this type of condition when I raised it with him at the hearing.

28

Traffic. Mrs Reynolds described dangerous driving by those departing the site and noted the lack of give way and stop signs. This was another matter I raised with the Council and Mr Weel at the hearing. The installation of signage is a simple matter and although it may not stop all discourteous driving it may be beneficial. This can also be addressed by a permit condition which again I note was not opposed at the hearing by Mr Weel.

29

Security. The ability for patrons to sneak through broken fencing was mentioned by Mrs Reynolds. I expect this can be managed by an event organiser potentially via a management plan relating to patron activity.

30

People staying on the land. I was told that people sometimes stay on the site during an event. This is a matter for the Council to potentially take up through its lease and there may be other regulatory issues arising if such occupation does occur.

31

Non-compliance with conditions. Mrs Reynolds submitted the permit applicant does not abide by the conditions restricting its hours at present and expressed concern about the extension of hours granted by the Council without residents' knowledge. She submitted the Club operates on its own rules as there is no-one to police the current permit conditions. She said the same could happen again in this case.

32

I have not investigated alleged breaches of the permit although Mrs Grainger indicated that the Council would pursue this matter. I understand residents may be reluctant to contact the Club directly but they can contact the Council. Similarly, enforcement proceedings can be brought by affected persons before the Tribunal.

33

Additional requests for more activities. The possibility of additional requests for more races and more bikes was also raised by Mrs Reynolds. That prospect is correct but any such requests would have to be by a fresh permit application. Any fresh permit application, whether for the same or a larger number of events, will be decided on its merits, having regard to the circumstances and provisions of the Scheme that apply at that time.

34

Information flow during the processing of the permit application. Mrs Reynolds referred to a number of aspects of the proposal that had changed over time such as the number of cars driving at one time. I understand this point but the decision I must make is based on the information before me plus the additional material I am directing to assist me to make a decision.

35

My conclusion from the above is that revised permit conditions could address some of the additional matters raised by the Applicants and other matters do not cause the permit application to fail.

36

What is lacking to enable an informed decision to be made on the planning merits of this proposal is an independent analysis of noise emissions expected from events of the scale proposed. Thus, I have decided to issue this interim decision to enable an acoustic report to be submitted by the Respondent. I expect the Club may need the assistance of Supermotard for this task to be undertaken.

37

I have adopted this approach, rather than refusing the permit, for three main reasons. First, I accept there are potential economic and social benefits to Cobden and the wider region if state and national events were permitted. Second, I give weight to the policies set out in the Scheme promoting recreation at the review site. Third, I give weight to the Council's support for the proposal.

38

I have set out the matters to be address in an acoustic report at paragraph 25. I have also established a process for this material to be filed, should the permit applicant elect to do so, and responses provided by other parties including the option for any party to request a further hearing.

[1] The go-kart facility operates under Permit 98/124 issued in February 1999 and amended in April 2003.

[2] The supermotard web-site shows photos from these events on http://www.supermotard.com.au/web\_galleries/

[3] The subject site is zoned Rural pursuant to Clause 35.01. Consideration must be given to the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including Clauses are 11, 14, 15.05, 17.04, 21, 22.01 (Settlement Policy), 22.03-4 (Tourist Use and Development) and 65 (general decision guidelines).

[4] Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.03 of the Planning Scheme.

[6] I was advised that some 7-8 years ago the dwellings on the east side of Grayland Street were within a residential zone.

[7] State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) Part III.

[8] Also cited in the Interim Guidelines.

[9] Mrs Grainger's submission at page 7, paragraph 49.

[10] Refer Motorcycling Australia's website http://www.ma.org.au/