Chipperfield v Maitland City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1115

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chipperfield v Maitland City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1115 Hearing dates: 8 May 2012 Decision date: 08 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Fakes C Decision: Appeal upheld Catchwords: CONSENT ORDERS: Development application - Animal establishment - Kennel and Cattery; acoustic issues Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 Maitland Local Environmental Plan 1993 Maitland Local Environmental Plan 2011 Category: Principal judgment Parties: R & H Chipperfield (Applicants) Maitland City Council (Respondent) Representation: Applicant: Mr G Long (Solicitor) Respondent: Mr M Bonanno (Solicitor) Applicant: Grant Long Law & Planning Respondent: Lindsay Taylor Lawyers File Number(s): 10215 of 2012

Judgment This decision was given as an extemporaneous decision. It has been revised and edited prior to publication. 1COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against Maitland City Council's refusal of a development application for an Animal Establishment - Kennel and Cattery on land known as 4 Krystyna Avenue, Windella. 2The proposed development comprises two steel-framed sheds, exercise yards, administration offices, carpark and access roads. The facility is designed for a maximum capacity of 42 dogs and 40 cats. 3The parties have resolved the outstanding matters between them, principally acoustic, and seek the Court to grant consent orders.

The hearing 4The hearing commenced on site and many local residents attended. In addition to written submissions, the Court had the benefit of hearing from several nearby long-term residents whose chief concerns can be summarised as: * Noise impacts on local residents who chose to live in a quiet rural-residential environment; * Potential impacts on a proposed new residential subdivision that adjoins the site; * Traffic and related safety matters (particularly in relation to school bus routes) that may arise as clients, who are unfamiliar with the roads, drop off and pick up their pets; and * Operational aspects of running a professional animal boarding facility. 5One non-local objector related his experiences of living within a kilometre of a kennel; specifically the insufficient noise amelioration afforded by a dense planting of trees. 6The residents engaged Mr Richard Bennett, a consultant town planner to prepare a submission and address the Court. Mr Bennett listed criteria he considered to be appropriate when siting such a facility; in essence, in his view, the end result should be a development that is not seen and not heard. 7The location of the proposed kennel was inspected; the area was pegged out. The applicants' property is a 42.48 ha undulating block currently containing a dwelling, farm shed, dressage ring, dam and other ancillary structures. The survey plan shows the selected site is approximately 340 m from the entry off Krystyna Avenue and 281 m from the nearest neighbouring dwelling. 8The site is located over the crest of a small ridge. The ridge separates the site from the area to the east that is proposed for future residential development. The sites for the proposed exercise yards fall gently to the north and south of the centrally located kennels/cattery. The outlook from the site is principally of rural land; the existing nearby residential subdivision was not visible. 9The heights of the proposed acoustic walls were discussed in relation to the sloping site and the position of the kennels. As a consequence, condition 11 - Noise - has been amended to ensure that the height of all external walls are measured relative to the finished floor level of the kennels to accommodate the fall of the slope.