Authorization of a Shooting Range in the Intensive Renewal Zone

Facts

The political municipality of Wittenbach intends to discontinue its existing 300-m shooting range and build a new facility on parcel No. 2070. The target stand is planned on the other bank of the Sitter on the Waldkirch property No. 1089. At the same time, the Hubertus hunting club wants to renew its hunting and clay pigeon shooting range.

The building applications for the new construction of a 300-m shooting range, the renewal of the hunting and clay pigeon shooting range, and the relocation of the Erlenholzweg were filed in the municipal offices of Wittenbach and Waldkirch. Within the deadline, [X.] , [Y.] , and [Z.] filed an objection against the two construction projects.

The municipal councils of Wittenbach and Waldkirch rejected the objections and granted the building permits for the requested projects. The objectors appealed to the Building and Economic Affairs Department and to the Government of the Canton of St. Gallen.

The government partially upheld the appeals and supplemented the building permits with some conditions and amendments, but otherwise rejected the appeals. The SL, as well as [X.] , [Y.] , and [Z.] , complained to the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen, which dismissed the appeals with its decision of September 4, 2001, insofar as it considered them.

Considerations

The Federal Court has dealt with the administrative appeal by [X.] , [Y.] , and [Z.] against the decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen of September 4, 2001.

The appellants complained of an incorrect and incomplete determination of the relevant facts and the violation of various federal administrative law provisions as well as Art. 30 Cst. and Art. 6 ECHR.

The Federal Court has dismissed the appellants' complaint that the obligation to recuse was violated as unfounded. It also dismissed the complaint that the Administrative Court had not dealt with the grounds for recusal that had to be considered ex officio as unfounded.

The Federal Court has further dismissed the appellants' complaint that an environmental impact assessment was not carried out as unfounded. It has established that the project is not subject to the EIA obligation, since the 300-m shooting range only includes 12 targets and the hunting and clay pigeon…