Residents surrounding Wakefield Park have claimed they have been abused for airing noise complaints about the motor racing circuit.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
They have also alleged the raceway's operators "did nothing" to stop or mediate abusive social media comments aimed at them.
READ MORE:
The claims came amid a three-day NSW Land and Environment Court hearing into the Braidwood Road facility's future operation. The hearing, before Commissioner Tim Horton, started at Goulburn Courthouse on Tuesday.
"Wakefield Park and the keyboard warriors say that we should just handle the noise," one resident said.
"They publish our names, addresses and details in the media and Wakefield Park does nothing about it. Not once has anyone said 'that's not fair.' We don't have a voice. This (hearing) is our voice."
Several have also challenged the raceway's noise methodology used in a development application to expand its range of offerings, upgrade infrastructure, build a new off-road experience area, host short-term camping during race events and hold 12 markets annually. The DA sought to formalise the terms of a 2020 noise prevention notice issued to Wakefield, following complaints.
One resident told Commissioner Horton that despite "repeated requests" Wakefield's experts could not tell her the predicted noise level at her home several kilometres away.
"I can see no goodwill on Wakefield Park's part, only a desire to run with the existing consent," she said.
"...Their high-handedness has contributed greatly to my stress. They've had six years to adapt to a new noise model and they haven't."
The circuit's owner, Benalla Auto Group, is challenging Goulburn Mulwaree Council's July, 2021 consent conditions for the raceway. The company argues that a colour-coded regime, including a maximum 50 race days at 95 decibels in the red category in 2022 and 125 days at 85 decibels (amber) will render it unviable. The number of race days at these levels would reduce over three years. However the number of days for quieter events, not exceeding 75dBA would increase over the same period.
Benalla has threatened to take part of Wakefield's business to the ACT in response. Owners previously said they wanted 75 racing days of up to 95dBA.
The case is shaping up as a battle of the noise experts. The council's acoustic expert, Stephen Gauld will face off against Wakefield's Dr Renzo Tonin.
In court on Wednesday, the company's barrister, Nick Eastman, signaled some concessions on the number of 'red' and amber' category days.
But he told the Commissioner he intended to also argue the decreased operations, "by dint of conditions" would make the business unviable. He cited case law that economic impact was a relevant consideration to run alongside the acoustic evidence.
The council's barrister, Michael Wright SC, took aim at two supplementary reports by Dr Tonin which he said he only received on March 4 and 6. Mr Eastman described them as "clarifications" of his earlier noise report.
"The problem Mr Eastman's case presents, in putting the cart before the horse, is that it (contains) underlying factual evidence that should have informed the conclusions reached by (Wakefield's economic expert) Mike Ruzzene and (accounting expert) Adam Giliberti," he said.
"We received that evidence with very little time to respond."
Mr Wright said he had also only received Wakefield operation manager Dean Chapman's evidence late last week.
He and Mr Eastman were to confer about the changes overnight and how they should be treated in court.
'Historic consent'
Mr Wright argued the existing 1993 raceway approval, which Benalla assumed with its 2007 purchase, was for a historic motor racing circuit with a maximum 48 meetings a year.
"(It) very clearly is a historic car club circuit with a vintage theme," he said.
It was also to have basic noise limits, not exceeding 95dBA measured at 30 metres from the track, noise monitoring and attenuation.
He highlighted a condition that Wakefield had to adhere to the approval "unless otherwise directed by consent conditions."
Mr Wright and the council maintained that activities had intensified and that noise levels had exceeded the original approval.
Benalla Auto Group sought to rectify this with the most recent DA. But Mr Wright said it relied on limits in the January, 2020 noise prevention notice which the council contended was never a "baseline" for a future DA.
"There is a world of difference between the council's and the applicant's interpretation of this document," he said.
"...A great deal of caution needs to be given in regard to the prevention notice and how it relates to ongoing operation."
He will argue during the case that Wakefield's past conduct of the raceway is a "relevant consideration."
The council and residents maintained the 95dBA level has been breached on multiple occasions.
Several neighbours referred to a "drifting day" in January, which they said Wakefield Park had previously banned. The council has also claimed the raceway's noise reached a maximum 124 dBA on February 18 to 20.
In court, resident Kerrie Moore said she and her family did their due diligence before buying their "forever home," some 1.6km from Wakefield Park. They were advised it was a historic car club circuit but Ms Moore said the "screeching of tyres" and engine noise had impacted her home for five to six days a week.
"The noise is inescapable in every room and in many ways we have become prisoners in our own home. We have not entertained visitors since 2013," she said.
"...Those not on the receiving end of this noise just don't have a clue."
Ms Moore questioned why the raceway's economic viability should be considered more important than the physical wellbeing of people living within 10km, "whether they complained or not."
She accused Wakefield Park of having "utter disregard" for environment and planning regulations.
Mr Wright said it was critical that any conditions should be clearly defined by the court. "Inevitably" these would involve a noise plan of management.
Ms Moore and Mr Wright have also challenged the facility's permissability in the RU1 primary production zone, saying it conflicts with the dominant land use and is prohibited. In addition, Mr Wright will argue the proposed markets are a separate use to the motor racing circuit.
The hearing continues in Sydney on Wednesday and Thursday.
Do you have something to say about this issue? Send a letter to the editor. Click here for the Goulburn Post
Did you know the Goulburn Post is now offering breaking news alerts and a weekly email newsletter? Keep up-to-date with all the local news: sign up below.
Louise Thrower
If you have a story to tell, drop me a line at louise.thrower@austcommunitymedia.com.au or call 0418 229 678.
If you have a story to tell, drop me a line at louise.thrower@austcommunitymedia.com.au or call 0418 229 678.
