However, Councillors have deferred a final decision to give the developer the opportunity to respond to the objections raised by Council’s planning department.

At Thursday’s meeting, Mr. Justin Kell, of LandTeam (Goulburn), acting for Shannon McCuskey, told Council that he would have his response in within a fortnight.

However, because of the need for any proposed changes to go on public exhibition for 28 days, it is unlikely the matter will come before Council for final determination before the May meeting.

Council’s final decision could have implications for a similar development mooted for the Pomeroy area – much closer to Crookwell.

The Ladevale  proposal included three motocross tracks, a clubhouse, three helipads, spectator areas parking areas and gravel access roads  and three “offset areas” totalling 95 hectares.

The plan aroused a storm of protest from residents in the area – and Council received 56 written submissions, all objecting to the development.

The objections included noise, traffic safety, bushfire hazard, land use conflict, dust, pest and weed control, land degradation, privacy, socio-economic impact, water quality, visual impact, waste and effluent disposal.

Council’s meeting chamber was overflowing with more than thirty people in the public gallery on Thursday.

Mr. Gary Prattley, of MacroPlanDimagi, Canberra, outlined the main reasons for the strong opposition to the development.

He said there were 40 residences within five kilometres of the proposed motocross tracks, and supported the various other objections made in the public submissions.

Cr. John Searl and Cr. Malcolm Barlow moved that Mrs. Dodson’s recommendation to refuse the application be adopted.

However,  Councillors had tabled before them a letter from LandTeam asking that the decision be held over to allow time to respond the Planning Department.

The letter, signed by Mr. Kell, commented: “Shannon (McCluskey) is a young man with a vision who has not only invested substantial money into the application, but also his personal self in believing what he proposes would be beneficial to the Gunning locality and the Council in general.”

The letter further indicated that the revised application would propose reduced hours and days of operation, would detail the economic and social benefits, detail why it is not inconsistent with Council’s Local Environment Plan, and further address noise issues.

Crs. James Wheelwright, Brian McCormack and Paul Culhane voiced concerns about the legality of carrying the refusal motion without giving the applicant the opportunity to respond

Cr. McCormack commented: “It’s a concern to me if we do not give the applicant time to respond to the Planning Department’s decision.

“It would need serious changes for me to change my mind (against the application).

“We will see more developments like this from people coming out of Sydney, particularly with the Badgery’s Creek airport, and this Council has got to be strong.”

Crs Barlow and Searl both indicated they could not envisage what modifications could be made which would make the application acceptable, and stuck to their motion.

The refusal motion was defeated, with only Crs. Barlow and Searl in favour.

Finally, Cr. Darren O’Brien moved, “as a matter of fairness”, that Mr. Kell be given the opportunity to respond.

“Adverse environmental impact” cited against motorcross plan

The effect of the development of a motorcross racing facility at Ladevale on the rural environment and its failure to meet the Local Environment Plan are cited as major reasons to refuse the project.

In her report to Upper Lachlan Council’s meeting last Thursday, Planning Director Mrs. Tina Dodson, commented that the application was not considered to have demonstrated that the development would be of greater economic benefit in the locality and the Shire than if the land were used for agricultural and related purposes for which it is zoned.

Her report points out that the development was not consistent with the Local Environment Plan or with SEPP (the State Environment Planning Policy for rural lands).

Other points Mrs. Dodson made included:

 # The development was likely to have a significant negative impact upon the context and setting of the site, the surrounding land and the locality.

 # The operation was likely to have a significant negative impact on the amenity of the locality because of noise emissions.

 # Information accompanying the application did not satisfactorily demonstrate the development would have a greater economic impact in the locality than if the land were used for an extensive agricultural of related purpose, for which is it primarily zoned.

 # The application fell short of clearly demonstrating the development would not have a significant negative flora and fauna impact, on which basis LEP specifies Council must not grant consent to it.