in the matter of amendment c82 - hobsons bay city … the matter of amendment c82 amendment c82...

In the matter of Amendment C82

Amendment C82

Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister

219915

Issue | 30 May 2012

Arup Arup Pty Ltd ABN 18 000 966 165

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.

Job number 219915

Arup Level 17 1 Nicholson Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia arup.com.au

219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup

J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX

Document Verification

Job title Amendment C82 Job number

219915

Document title Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister File reference

Document ref 219915

Revision Date Filename Expert Evidence _KAB_Issue.docx

Issue 30 May 2012

Description Issue

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Kym Burgemeister Kym Burgemeister Kym Burgemeister

Signature

Filename Description


Name

Signature



Name

Signature



Name

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister

219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Contents

Page

1 Name and Address 1

2 Area of Expertise 1

3 Experience 2

4 Documents Reviewed 5

5 Review of Initial Noise Impact Assessment 6

6 Additional Site Noise and Vibration Measurements and Analysis 11


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 1

1 Name and Address

1.1 Dr Kym Burgemeister

Arup

Level 17, 1 Nicholson Street

Melbourne VIC 3000

2 Area of Expertise

2.1 My area of expertise is acoustic engineering.

2.2 My qualifications and experience are detailed below:

BE (Hons) Mechanical Engineering

PhD (Adel) Acoustics & Vibration

Member, Australian Acoustical Society

Member, Acoustical Society of America

2.3 I regard myself sufficiently expert to make this statement because;

1. I have substantial national and international experience in the prediction and assessment of noise from railways, roads and industry.

2. I was the principal reviewer of the following document:

Report: C82, The Former Caltex Terminal, South Kingsville, Noise and Vibration Measurements by Arup dated 13 April 2012.

3. I was the principal author of the following document:

Letter Report: Amendment C82, Former Caltex Terminal, South Kingsville - Review of Noise Impact Assessment, by Arup dated 10 May 2010


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 2

3 Experience

3.1 I have experience on the following projects (and others):

3.2 Regional Rail Link, Melbourne

Technical lead for the acoustic predictions and assessment for the Regional Rail Link (RRL) in Western Melbourne. RRL comprises approximately 50 km of new railway through existing and new corridors, and includes a 2 km tunnel option through Footscray.

3.3 VicTrack Guidelines

Development of guidelines for assessment of noise and vibration impacts on developments adjacent to the rail corridor.

3.4 Springvale Road Rail Grade Separation, Melbourne

Acoustic and vibro-acoustic engineering for the new grade separation and premium station at Nunawading, Melbourne. Prediction, assessment and monitoring of construction noise and vibration, particularly night-works and piling operations. Acoustic design of PA and EWIS systems for the station and platforms.

3.5 North Sydney Freight Corridor (NSFC) Epping to Thornleigh Third Track

and Gosford Passing Loops, Project Definition

Acoustics technical leader for the preliminary noise assessment undertaken for the NSFC ETTT and GPL project definition stage works.

3.6 South Sydney Freight Line

Technical lead for the local authority review of the South Sydney Freight Line noise and vibration assessment, including re-modelling of the proposed route and assessment in accordance with IGANRIP.

3.7 South West Rail Link

Project director for noise and vibration input to the South West Rail Link tender design for Laing O’Rourke. Tender stage modelling of the proposed alignment and assessment in accordance with IGANRIP.

3.8 Northbridge Development, East Perth

Review of the groundborne noise and vibration assessment and track design parameters for the Northbridge Development, East Perth.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 3

3.9 Brisbane Airport Corporation, New Parallel Runway

Development of a brief for the noise assessment, including a detailed robust assessment and prediction methodology, procurement advice and peer review of noise assessment.

3.10 ECRL Groundborne Noise and Vibration Review and Community

Consultation, Eastwood.

Assessment and review of predicted groundborne noise and vibration impacts from underground sections of the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link affecting two residences in Eastwood.

3.11 Bruce Highway, Gympie

Route selection stage studies for proposed development of the Bruce Highway near Gympie. This included evaluation of Arup’s innovative Community Noise Burden for each of the shortlisted route options to aid the assessment.

3.12 Gungahlin Drive Extension, EIS Peer Review

Peer review of the noise and vibration working paper for the EIS of a proposed 8km dual-carriageway road in Canberra, ACT.

3.13 Caboolture to Landsborough Rail Upgrade

Noise and vibration assessment for route selection studies for proposed amplification of the Caboolture to Landsborough railway north of Brisbane, QLD.

3.14 Parramatta Rail Link, Tender Support

Design advice to contractor including groundborne noise and vibration assessment and vibro-acoustic design of track for of twin-bore tunnel section under residential areas of Sydney, Australia.

3.15 Channel Tunnel Rail Link, UK

Noise and vibration assessment and track design for the 40 km twin-bore London Tunnels section under residential areas of East London to St. Pancras Station. Floating Track Slab design for the East Coast Mainline Bridge near St. Pancras Station. Track design for new St. Pancras Station platforms over heritage listed structure to protect concessions and ticketing halls from structureborne noise and vibration.

3.16 Upgrade of the Pacific Highway, Moorland to Herons Creek

Noise and vibration assessment for the route options development stage, assessing twelve route options around the townships of Kew and Johns River.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 4

Implementation of an overall 'noise exposure' methodology that rates the potential for annoyance of nearby residents. Preparation of noise and vibration assessment for the EIS.

3.17 Upgrade of the Pacific Highway, Karuah

Noise and vibration assessment and mitigation design for the upgrade of the Pacific Highway to bypass the township of Karuah in New South Wales.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 5

4 Documents Reviewed

4.1 In May 2010, I was asked to undertake a peer review of the original ViPAC Noise

Impact Assessment (NIA) presented in support of the rezoning application for the

Caltex Site. The key aims of my peer review were to determine whether:

the recommendations made in ViPAC’s NIA are appropriate.

there are any alternative measures to what is proposed in the NIA.

there are any other considerations that have been overlooked in the NIA, and what are the implications.

4.2 The two reports that I reviewed were:

Former Caltex Terminal, Blackshaws and Sutton Roads, South Kingsville, Architectus Group Pty Ltd, February 2010.

Caltex Site, South Kingsville, Noise Impact Assessment, Report No. 30B-09-0219-DRP-442897-2-Final, ViPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd, 1 March 2010.

4.3 I have also reviewed the Witness Statement and Noise and Vibration Assessment

for the site prepared by Jim Antonopoulos of SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd1,

and the Statement of Evidence prepared by Robert Burton of Burton Acoustic

Group2.

1 Noise and Vibration Assessment, Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82, Former Caltex Site, Blackshaws Road, South Kingsville, SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd Report No. 640.10353-R1, 18 May 2012. 2 Former Caltex Site, Blackshaws Road, South Kingsville, Statement of Evidence, Burton Acoustic Group, 21 May 2012.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 6

5 Review of Initial Noise Impact Assessment

5.1 The following section provides my review of the original ViPAC Noise Impact

Assessment (NIA) presented in support of the rezoning application for the Caltex

Site.

5.2 The site Masterplan included in those documents indicates that the site will

generally comprise of residential townhouses and apartments. The development

site is adjacent to Spotswood Maintenance Centre (SMC) to the North/North East

and existing industrial facilities to the West. The NIA identifies major noise

sources as the SMC, freight rail travelling on the rail line and noise associated

with the industrial areas to the East of the site.

5.3 It is helpful to understand that the freight rail line to the North of the site is the

main Standard Gauge interstate freight line to Adelaide and Perth, carrying freight

from Melbourne’s primary port and Dynon Yards via Tottenham Yards and

Brooklyn.

5.4 The train schedule shown in ViPAC’s report is based on ARTC’s published

schedule and looks reasonable.

5.5 Table 2 of the NIA provides a summary of ambient noise monitoring undertaken

on the site. The report should explicitly state time periods for each of the Day,

Evening and Night periods, for the average noise levels (Leq) (this is shown with

respect to SEPP N-1, in Section 4 of the report; ViPAC needs to confirm that this

is also relevant to Table 2). The report does not provide a subjective description of

the dominant noise sources during these periods (eg. distant or local road traffic

noise, industrial noise, noise from the SMC) which would be helpful in

understanding, more generally, the noise exposure of the site.

5.6 Table 3 provides the measured railway source noise level, but it is not clear how

many railway movements were measured, and whether the freight train bypass

level of 79 dB(A) was for a single movement, or an average of multiple

movements. Furthermore, the freight train source level shown in the table appears


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 7

to be between 10–20 dB lower than measured using the unattended noise logging

undertaken on the site boundary, which shows what are presumed to be freight

pass bys at between 90–100 dBLAmax. This suggests that the noise predictions

based on the source noise levels in Table 3 may under-predict the impacts.

5.7 Criteria

5.8 With respect to the potential industrial noise impacts on the site, the SEPP N-1

limits developed in the report appear reasonably high. ViPAC need to provide

additional details regarding their determination of the SEPP Noise limits,

including;

Locations of the measurement positions used to determine the background noise levels.

Whether the background noise levels used to derive the SEPP limits were made in the absence of the industrial noise, or made at a derived location not affected by industrial noise.

Assumptions used regarding railway zoning (Schedule B2, part 3(d) of SEPP N-1 specifically defines the railway in this area as being type 3).

5.9 In terms of rail noise intrusion, the Vipac NIA relies on ‘sleep disturbance’

criteria developed by the NSW EPA for their road traffic noise criteria. On this

basis, ViPAC state that maximum internal noise levels between 50–55 dB(A) are

unlikely to cause awakening, and one or two events with internal noise levels

between 65–70 dB(A) are not likely to adversely affect health and wellbeing. It is

not explicitly stated which of these limits has been ultimately chosen for the

assessment.

5.10 The application of the NSW EPA criteria for sleep disturbance from road traffic

noise to railway noise impacts is questionable. The NSW EPA acknowledges that

the results from research into sleep disturbance from night-time noise are highly

variable, and no clear conclusion is evident. However, their main recommendation

is that the ‘emergence’ of individual maximum noise events above the average

noise level should be limited to 15 dB. This criterion is not discussed in the

ViPAC assessment. Furthermore, while there is no Victorian legislation or

guidance which set limits on noise from railway operations, railway noise limits


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 8

have previously been established for the Melbourne Airport Rail Link Project, and

in various Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decisions. There

are also many other directly relevant guidance documents for railway noise

published interstate or overseas which should have been considered. For

example, NSW and QLD have well established railway noise guidelines,

including the NSW Department of Planning’s Development Near Rail Corridors

and Busy Roads - Interim Guideline.

5.11 Generally this other guidance suggests external night-time noise limits of between

55 to 60 dBLAeq,9hr and 80 dBLAmax measured externally to the residence. The

NSW DoP’s guidance, in particular, recommends internal limits in bedrooms of

35 dBLAeq,1hr at night-time. Overseas, the UK’s Planning Policy Guidance 244 and

the American Public Transit Association (APTA) also provide directly relevant

guidance that is commonly used to inform such impact assessments. While it is

somewhat complicated to directly compare the criteria suggested in the guidelines

with those adopted for the NIA, it would appear that the guidelines would

generally recommend a more onerous limit than that adopted in the NIA.

5.12 Typical railway noise and vibration impact guidance also recommends limits for

vibration from rail operations. The NIA does not address potential impacts from

vibration from the freight railway.

5.13 Noise Modelling

5.14 The noise assessment presented by ViPAC is based on a SoundPLAN computer

model of the site. However, the particular noise propagation model (eg.

CONCAWE, ISO) is not documented. The number, type and location of noise

sources is not explicitly documented (although it can be somewhat inferred from

the noise modelling results).

5.15 ViPAC need to document whether this is a typical scenario, or worst case. It is not

clear if terrain modelling has been included (although this may not be significant,

if the site is relatively flat - but if so, it should be stated). The noise modelling

results presented in the Appendix do not indicate whether the noise levels are


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 9

supposed to represent the instantaneous, average (LAeq) or maximum (LAmax) noise

levels. As a result they cannot be adequately interpreted.

5.16 The computer noise model shown in the figures considers only the ‘industrial’

sources. Computer noise modelling does not appear to have been undertaken for

the railway. However, the report states that noise from train passbys at the Caltex

site would comply with the noise limit for sleep disturbance. The calculation that

supports this assertion needs to be documented. In particular, railway noise needs

to be separately modelled as a noise source using a railway noise model such as

the Nordic Method (Kilde), or a more simple environmental propagation model.

In either case, the predicted average and maximum railway noise levels should be

explicitly documented.

5.17 Noise levels from the industrial sites are predicted to exceed the SEPP N-1 criteria

by between 10–12 dB(A), and noise mitigation in the form of a 4 m barrier on the

northern side of the site is recommended. The report does not indicate what the

residual impacts (if any) would be following treatment.

5.18 Further ‘building envelope’ improvements are recommended for dwellings that

have a ‘direct line of sight to the noise barrier’. (It is presumed that this should in

fact refer to dwellings that have a direct line of site over the noise barrier to the

industrial site.) The building envelope improvements include thicker glazing, and

sound insulating ceilings. The report does not indicate whether there are likely to

be any residual impacts in buildings that adopt the building envelope

improvements.

5.19 Discussion

5.20 Generally, the original NIA is not considered to provide sufficient information

regarding the noise and vibration impacts on the site on which a decision to re-

zone the site could reasonably be based, particularly with regard to noise and

vibration from adjacent railway operations. The noise study is not sufficiently

well documented to demonstrate that the correct inputs and modelling parameters

have been adopted.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 10

5.21 Documentation of measured noise levels require clarification, including explicitly

stating time periods for average noise level measurements, and providing a

qualitative description of the ambient noise environment.

5.22 The assessment of ‘average’ night-time (LAeq,9hr) and maximum event (LAmax)

railway noise impacts should be made in relation to relevant guidelines, and a

railway vibration assessment should be included in the assessment.

5.23 The computer noise modelling that was undertaken for the project required

additional documentation to allow the validity of the methodology to be assessed.

While the overall approach to noise mitigation (a barrier on the ‘railway’ side of

the site, and architectural treatments) does appear broadly reasonable, the benefits

that the proposed noise mitigation will provide, and what residual noise impacts,

if any, will remain, need to be quantified.

5.24 While noise barriers are a common approach to noise control, they are visually

intrusive, block solar access (particularly on a northern aspect such as this) and

their use in or adjacent to railway corridors is plagued with security, safety and

maintenance issues. Alternative options, such as providing greater setbacks, or

earth bunding, should have be explored or discussed.

5.25 With regards to architectural treatments proposed in the NIA, none of the

approaches appear to be particularly onerous, however where sealed windows are

considered necessary to achieve the noise goals, the issue of ventilation

(particularly natural ventilation) requires consideration.

5.26 The lack of rigour in the technical documentation provided by ViPAC leaves

significant risks in approving, or not, the application. It is not clear from the NIA

that future noise impacts on residents will be adequately controlled by the

proposed mitigation (they may be, but the assessment does not contain the

necessary technical information to allow it to be relied upon). This could expose

Hobson’s Bay City Council to future complaints or legal action from the residents

regarding noise.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 11

6 Additional Site Noise and Vibration Measurements and Analysis

6.1 In 2012, I was engaged by Hobson’s Bay City Council to prepare a report

addressing the following issues:

Noise and vibration levels on the Former Caltex Terminal Site (the Site) over a 24 hour period.

Identification of acoustic criteria (noise and vibration) for a multi-storey residential development. This includes criteria for industrial noise, railway noise and vibration and road traffic noise. The criteria will set an appropriate amenity for proposed development on the Site.

Identification of statutory noise limits which would apply to the Site.

A SEPP N-13 assessment. Determination of the noise limits that would apply at future residences on the Site.

Assessment of the noise and vibration levels measured on site to determine if they are suitable for residential uses (assuming 6 storey towers).

Determine if the noise levels on the Site exceed the noise criteria.

Identification of in-principle noise mitigation options on the Site to meet the acoustic criteria and statutory noise limits.

6.2 The results of this study are documented in the Report: C82, The Former Caltex

Terminal, South Kingsville, Noise and Vibration Measurements and Assessment,

dated 23 May 2012.

6.3 This work was undertaken prior to the Expert’s Conclave, and informed my input

to that meeting. The following results therefore do not counter matters that were

agreed at the Expert’s Conclave and are documented in the minutes of the

meeting.

6.4 The site is exposed to a number of noise sources including road traffic noise.

Railway noise and industrial noise and is shown in Figure 1 below.

3 State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1, Published 15 June 1989.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 12

Figure 1 Overall site plan.

6.5 Acoustic criteria have been developed for the project to achieve an appropriate

acoustic amenity for a residential development.

6.6 In terms of appropriate criteria for operational railway noise, it is noted that there

are no specific limits for railway noise in Victoria, but that specific railway noise

levels have been considered for the following projects by VCAT.

Lazzcorp Brunswick Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC, VCAT ref. P771/2002.

Kilker v Stonnington CC, VCAT ref. P2470/2003.

Pomeroy Pacific Pty Ltd v Moreland CC No. 2, VCAT 475.

Richmond Icon Pty Ltd v Yarra CC (Dimmey’s), VCAT ref. P623/2011.

Australia Post v Darebin CC, VCAT ref. 2180/2011.

6.7 Based on national and international standards and guidelines, and the local VCAT

decisions, the acoustic criteria that we have recommended for various noise

sources are detailed below.

6.8 For railway airborne noise: 55 dBLAmax (bedrooms); 60 dBLAmax (living room

areas)

Spotswood Maintenance Centre

Western industrial

plant

Interstate Freight Rail Line

The Site

SMF Engineering


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 13

6.9 For railway groundborne noise: Daytime 40 dBLAmax,slow; Night-time

35 dBLAmax,slow

6.10 These limits are the same as those that have been recommended by SLR

Consulting’s Noise and Vibration Assessment.

6.11 Road Traffic Noise: Internal noise levels are to comply with Australian Standard

AS/NZS 2107:2000 Acoustics – Recommended design sound levels and

reverberation times for building interiors as provided in the Table below:

Type of occupancy / activity Recommended design sound level LAeq (dB)

Satisfactory Maximum

Houses and apartment near minor roads

Living areas 30 40

Sleeping areas 30 35

Work areas 35 40

Apartment common areas (foyers, lift) 45 55

Houses and apartment near major roads

Living areas 35 45

Sleeping areas 30 40

Work areas 35 45

Apartment common areas (foyers, lift) 45 55

6.12 Industrial Noise: To comply with noise limits in State Environment Protection

Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1.

6.13 Vibration: To comply with the vibration curves in Australian Standard

AS 2670.2-1990 Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration -

Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80 Hz).

6.14 Vibration Velocity Limits from AS2670.2 are provided in the table below.

Place Time

Multiplying Factors (Curve No.)

Continuous Vibration

Intermittent or Impulsive

Residential Day 2 60

Night 1.4 20


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 14

Typically, curve 1.4 is taken to be the threshold of perception.

6.15 Vibration in buildings, AS2670.2 – combined direction peak velocity curves are

provided in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 Combined direction peak velocity curves, ref: AS2670.2.

6.16 These limits have also been adopted by SLR Consulting in their Noise and

Vibration Assessment.

6.17 Sleep Disturbance: Criteria have not been recommended specifically for sleep

disturbance as the other criteria provided will reasonably cover the potential for

sleep disturbance effects.

6.18 Acoustic Measurements

6.19 Noise and vibration measurements have been conducted across the site. These

have included:

(i) Unattended measurements on the Site (noise loggers installed).

(ii) Attended measurements on the Site in accordance with SEPP N-1.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 15

(iii) Attended background noise measurements at a location representative of the residential location on the Site but where industrial noise is not audible. This has been used to determine a derived noise limit.

6.20 All noise measurements have been conducted in general accordance with

AS 1055.1. The parameters recorded include LAmax, LAeq, LA90 and LAmin.

6.21 The locations of the measurement positions, noise logger positions and vibration

logger positions measurements are shown in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3 Noise and vibration measurement location plan.

6.22 Attended measurements were conducted at Positions P1 to P5 during the Daytime

Period (Monday 20 February 2012 from 14:30 to 16:10 hours) the Evening Period

(Wednesday 29 February 2012 from 19:10 to 20:45 hours) and the Night Period

(Thursday 23 February 2012, 23:00 to 00:15 hours on Thursday 24 February

2012). There periods are defined in SEPP N-1.

P6

LEGEND

Noise Logger

Vibration Logger

Attended Measurements

P2

P3

N4

P1

P4 P7 N3

N1

V1

P5

N2


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 16

6.23 Attended Background Measurements were conducted at Position P6 on the corner

of Elizabeth Street and Junction Street in Newport, on the nature strip of property

94 Elizabeth Street, Newport.

6.24 Background noise measurements were conducted at this location as it is expected

to represent background noise levels on the Site without the influence of industrial

noise.

6.25 The instrumentation used to undertake the noise and vibration measurements all

had current NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities) calibration

certification and the calibration of equipment was checked before and after each

set of measurements.

6.26 All measured data was checked with respect to the meteorological conditions and

any measurements adversely affected were not included.

6.27 The summary of the unattended noise measurements are provided in the Tables

below.

6.28 The time periods are described as follows:

Day 07:00 to 18:00 hours

Evening 18:00 to 22:00 hours

Night 22:00 to 07:00 hours

Table 1 Summary of Logger Results at Position N1 (dB re 20 x 10-6 Pa)

Average Day Noise Levels

Average Evening Noise Levels

Average Night Noise Levels

Day, Date LAeq LA90 LAeq LA90 LAeq LA90

Monday, 20/01/12 56 51 60 48 53 43

Tuesday, 21/01/12 56 49 60 50 55 46

Wednesday, 22/01/12 58 51 58 51 56 48

Thursday, 23/01/12 57 51 59 51 54 47

Friday, 24/01/12 56 50 58 49 56 49

Saturday, 25/01/12 57 50 56 49 50 48

Sunday, 26/01/12 58 49 56 51 58 50


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 17






Monday, 20/01/12 65 55 61 46 53 39

Tuesday, 21/01/12 64 49 63 49 54 42

Wednesday, 22/01/12 63 48 61 46 55 45

Thursday, 23/01/12 65 52 61 47 55 43

Friday, 24/01/12 63 49 62 50 57 49

Saturday, 25/01/12 61 48 59 48 55 47

Sunday, 26/01/12 59 50 60 50 56 49






Monday, 20/01/12 54 48 57 47 50 39

Tuesday, 21/01/12 55 48 56 46 52 43

Wednesday, 22/01/12 54 46 53 45 51 43

Thursday, 23/01/12 57 50 55 46 51 43

Friday , 24/01/12 55 48 56 46 53 47

Saturday, 25/01/12 53 48 55 47 49 47

Sunday, 26/01/12 54 48 54 48 55 48






Monday, 20/01/12 52 46 51 45 49 43

Tuesday, 21/01/12 53 44 53 46 50 45

Wednesday, 22/01/12 53 45 51 45 53 48

Thursday, 23/01/12 53 47 55 48 49 44

Friday, 24/01/12 53 47 54 50 54 51

Saturday, 25/01/12 52 48 52 48

Sunday, 26/01/12


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 18

6.29 Results of the attended measurements are provided below.

Table 5 Results of attended noise measurements during the Day Period on Monday, 20 February 2012 (dB re 20 x 10-6 Pa)

Position Start time (hours)

End time (hours)

Duration (minutes)

LAmax LAeq LA90 Notes

P1 14:30 14:33 3 59 49 46 General factory noise from Sutton St industries. Occasional hammering, around 20% of the time. Hammering not heard in remaining measurements.

P2 14:37 15:09 31 69 56 54 Fan/suction noise from high level louvers in small SMC workshop. Measurement distance is about 35 m from source. Faint noise of a loose grille audible throughout. Noise had no tonal characteristics, was continuous throughout the period, and had no impulsive or intermittent characteristics.

P3 15:12 15:25 12 77 56 52 Factory noise from the Sutton St industrial plants was audible. Sounded like a constant mechanical hum. Some siren noise from a factory was just audible.

P4 15:29 15:32 3 66 54 49 Measurement was conducted roughly in the middle of the site. Some knocking sounds from SMC were audible. Additionally, sandblasting from SMF Engineering was also audible.

P5 15:33 15:39 6 76 68 64 Measurement conducted close to SMF Engineering at a distance of approximately 25 m. Sound similar to sand blasting could be heard loudly and continuously.

Background Noise Measurements at Residential Location

P6 15:54 16:07 12 - 56 42 Background noise measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment. Distant traffic noise from Melbourne Road audible. Some traffic noise from adjacent local roads could also be heard. No industry noise from identified noise sources audible.

P6 16:08 16:21 10 - 61 43 Second background noise measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 19

Table 6 Results of attended noise measurements during the Evening Period on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 (dB re 20 x 10-6 Pa)

Position Start time (hours)

End time (hours)

Duration (minutes)


P1 19:12 19:22 10 67 59 50 Occasional car passby. No industrial noise audible. Cricket noise constant– this was the dominant noise source.

P3 19:36 19:46 10 60 54 53 Cricket noise dominant. Occasional car passby, distant road traffic and train noise just audible. No industrial noise audible.

P7 20:05 20:11 5 62 59 55 Cricket noise dominant. No industrial noise audible. Road traffic noise just audible. Light rain started four minutes into the measurement.


P6 20:28 20:40 10 - 51 41 Background noise measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment. Very light rain at start of measurement. Occasional car passbys on Blackshaws Road.

P6 20:41 20:51 10 - 54 42 Background noise measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 20

Table 7 Results of attended noise measurements during the Night period on 23 February 2012 (dB re 20 x 10-6 Pa)

Position Start time (Hours)

End time (Hours)

Duration (minutes)


P5 23:02 23:23 10 73 59 43 Occasional car passby on Blackshaws Road. Distant traffic noise from Melbourne Road. No industrial or mechanical noise audible.

Included freight train noise of 2.5 minute duration.

P2 23:09 23:10 1 95 83 72 Measurement of freight train which started about 50 m away. Measurement position was 10 m away from tracks.

P2 23:12 23:18 6 60 47 46 No fan/suction noise audible unlike daytime measurements. Only a distant faint tapping noise was barely audible from the SMC main workshop. Cricket noise was constant throughout the measurement. It was the dominant noise source. Some distant road traffic noise from Melbourne Road & occasional metro train (Williamstown line) passby.

P1 23:21 23:31 10 63 49 44 Constant cricket noise- this was the dominant noise source. Some traffic in the background. No industrial/mechanical noise audible. Car passby noted as 55 dB (A) but excluded from overall measurement.

P3 23:24 23:30 6 62 55 53 Incessant and very loud cricket noise. No industrial noise audible, cricket noise very loud. Distant traffic noise from Melbourne Road. Distant occasional metro train noise heard in the distance.

P5 23:40 23:50 10 56 46 44 Some distant noise from SMC just audible at the start of the measurement. Cricket noise was audible –and the dominant noise source.

P7 23:47 00:20 30 58 43 40 Intermittent clanging noise (throughout) - 1 to 3 sec intervals. 2 x knocks - 51 dB(A). Occasional forklift engine – up to 50 dB(A). Very short duration.

Music noise from radio just audible throughout.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 21

Position Start time (Hours)

End time (Hours)

Duration (minutes)



P6 00:02 00:12 10 - 43 40 Measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment. Distant traffic noise from Melbourne Road and occasional metro train (Williamstown line) audible. Cricket noise constant throughout - dominant source.

P6 00:14 00:24 10 - 48 40 Measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment. Distant traffic noise from Melbourne Road and occasional metro train (Williamstown line) audible. Cricket noise constant throughout - dominant source.

6.30 Background noise measurements were undertaken at locations where the noise

level at the residences was expected to be equivalent to the proposed locations on

the Site but not effected by noise from Commerce, Industry or Trade.

6.31 An arithmetic average of two measurements of minimum 10 minute duration

during these time periods has been used to obtain the representative level of the

background noise level.

Table 8 Measured Background Noise Level at Position P6

Time Measurement 1 Background Noise Level, LA90 (dB)

Measurement 2 Background Noise Level, LA90 (dB)

Average Background Noise Level, LA90 (dB)

Daytime 42 (15:54 hours) 43 (16:08 hours) 43

Evening 41 (20:48 hours) 42 (20:41 hours) 42

Night time 40 (00:02 hours) 40 (00:14 hours) 40

6.32 Vibration measurements on the site indicated that the typical vibration levels were

between 0.3–1.0 mm/s Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). There were, however,

vibration levels up to 4.5–5.0 mm/s PPV. The highest levels were associated with

full speed freight train passbys which occurred during the day, evening and night

time periods.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 22

6.33 Throughout the measurement period, freight passby events were calculated to

have occurred between 20–30 times within each 24-hour period (including freight

train siding movements into SMC).

6.34 These vibration levels are comparable to those measured by SLR Consulting, and

documented in Section 5.2 of their Noise and Vibration Assessment.

6.35 SEPP N-1 Assessment

6.36 The noise level measurements used to determine the SEPP N-1 Effective Noise

Levels during the daytime, evening and night-time periods are summarised in the

table below:

Table 9 Measured and Effective Noise Levels

Period Measured Noise Level, LAeq(dB) on the Site

Adjustments

Tonality (T) Duration (D) Intermittency (I) Reflection (R) Indoor (I)

Effective Noise Level, LAeq(dB)

Comments

Daytime 56 - 56 Mechanical services noise measured from small workshop of the SMC.

Evening - - - No industrial noise audible during evening measurement.

Night time 43 - 43 Mechanical services measured from the SMC.

6.37 During the daytime attended measurements, it was observed that the noise levels

generated from SMF Engineering was subjectively high (68 dB LAeq,6 mins). This

noise is likely to be due to sandblasting activities occurring within the facility.

Observations on site indicate that events of such high noise level emissions occur

at random intervals. However, when these do occur, the duration of each event

can sometimes be sustained over an extended period of time (i.e. in excess of 15

minutes).

6.38 The influencing factors and zoning levels used in the calculation of the SEPP N-1

limits vary across the Site. Zoned land uses around the proposed site include


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 23

Mixed Use Zone (MUZ), Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z), Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z), a

railway corridor (PUZ4), Road Zone 1 (RDZ1) and Residential 1 Zone (R1Z).

6.39 A map summarizing the locations that have been assessed is shown below.

Figure 4 SEPP N-1 Assessment locations.

LEGEND

SEPP N-1 Assessment

locations

Z1

Z2

Z3 Z5

Z4


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 24

6.40 In the calculation of the Zoning Level, the Site proposed for redevelopment has

been assumed to be a Residential 1 Zone (R1Z). The assessed locations have been

correlated with noise logger locations, with an additional location (Z5) included

(which represents the minimum residentially zoned land within the calculation of

the SEPP N-1 influencing factor). These locations have been selected as they

provide a good representation of the variations of noise limits typically expected

across the Site.

6.41 A summary of the Zoning Levels and noise limits is provided below to represent

the wide range of assessed criteria across the Site.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 25

Table 10 Summary of calculated SEPP N-1 Zoning Levels and Noise Limits at various locations around the Site

Location Period Zoning Level, dB(A)

Noise Limit, LAeq (dB)

Z1 Day 59 56

Evening 52 50

Night 47 47

Z2 Day 52 52

Evening 46 46

Night 41 43

Z3 Day 58 55

Evening 52 50

Night 47 47

Z4 Day 52 52

Evening 46 46

Night 41 43

Z5 Day 60 56

Evening 53 51

Night 48 48

6.42 These SEPP N-1 limits broadly correspond with those determined by SLR

Consulting, and documented in Table 2 of their Noise and Vibration Assessment.

6.43 Impact Assessment

6.44 Rail Noise: A freight train passing recorded a level of up to of 95 dB LAmax at

Location P2. Noise logger data recorded at Position N1 and N3 recorded several

noise events in excess of 90 dB LAmax up to a maximum of 100 dB LAmax. These

noise levels are associated with freight train passby. External noise levels of this

order will significantly exceed the internal criteria for railway noise if there are

habitable rooms overlooking the railway.

6.45 Road Traffic / Site Noise: The weekday average LAeq noise levels measured on

the Site varied between the values provided the table below. These values

included all noise on the Site including road traffic noise.


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 26

Table 11 Variation of Noise Levels

Position Day LAeq (dB)

Evening LAeq (dB)

Night LAeq (dB)

N1 56 to 58 58 to 60 53 to 56

N2 59 to 65 61 to 63 53 to 57

N3 54 to 57 53 to 57 50 to 53

N4 52 to 53 51 to 55 49 to 54

6.46 The noise levels measured varied across the Site. Assuming a reduction across an

open window of 15 dB4 then the AS/NZS 2107 maximum recommended design

sound levels for houses/apartments near major roads will potentially be exceeded

for sleeping areas at all locations except Location N4. At Location N1 and

Location N3 the excesses are up to 5 dB while at Location N2 they are significant

(up to 10 dB).

6.47 Industrial Noise: Attended noise levels were measured on the Site in compliance

with SEPP N-1. During the day period the noise level due to industrial noise

measured at Location P2 would potentially exceed the daytime noise limit of

55 dB LAeq (at the nearest location where a SEPP N-1 limit has been calculated,

Location Z3). Industrial noise associated with SMF Engineering would potentially

exceed the noise limits determined at Location Z2 due to sandblasting activities.

6.48 During the evening period, industrial noise (from Sutton Street industries, SMC

and SMF Engineering) was not audible and as such would comply with the

evening time noise limit.

6.49 During the night period noise from the SMC was just audible. However, the

measured noise levels would comply with the night time noise limit at

Location N3/Z3.

6.50 It should be noted that if the noise levels at the industrial facilities increase over

time there may be increased excesses to the noise limits.

4 World Health Organization (1999), Guidelines for Community Noise, Section 4.3.1 Dwellings


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 27

6.51 Vibration: The only significant source of vibration on the Site is from the freight

rail movements which are an intermittent source. As there are no continuous

vibration sources impacting upon the Site the continuous vibration limit will be

met.

6.52 Typically the intermittent vibration levels measured at Location V1 were between

0.3 and 1.0 mm/s PPV. These levels comply with both the day and night

intermittent criteria.

6.53 However, the vibration levels associated with freight passbys were typically up to

4.5 to 5.0 mm/s PPV. Vibration levels of this order will meet the vibration limits

for intermittent activity during the day period (8.4 mm/s PPV) but will exceed the

vibration limits for intermittent activity during the night period (2.8 mm/s PPV)

by 2.2 mm/s PPV for the highest recorded vibration levels.

6.54 This corresponds with the analysis undertaken by SLR Consulting. Similarly, an

analysis of the Vibration Dose Value, determined in accordance with BS 6472,

and shown in Section 6.3.2 of their report, also indicates that the vibration dose

would be likely to result in adverse comment at night-time in close proximity to

the railway (at least within 11 m).

6.55 In Principle Options for Noise and Vibration Mitigation

6.56 Only generic options for noise mitigation are provided because detailed treatments

will be dependent upon the layout and orientation of the buildings.

6.57 Noise: The development will need to provide mitigation with respect to noise

from freight rail; road traffic on Blackshaws Road and the industrial facilities

SMC and SMF engineering.

6.58 Noise barriers alone are unlikely to achieve the criteria as residences on the higher

levels will not benefit from the acoustic shielding. I note that SLR Consulting’s

report suggests that noise barriers up to 10 m high might be required on the

northern boundary of the property. While not unheard of, noise barriers of this


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 28

size would require significant engineering to withstand structural and wind loads,

and could be visually intrusive.

6.59 To achieve the railway noise criterion, it is recommended that no noise sensitive

space has a line of sight to the railway line (and consequently SMC as well). This

can be achieved through the layout and orientation of the buildings i.e. orientating

the sensitive spaces away from the railway. It is also recommended that non noise

sensitive buildings i.e. garages, car parks, utilities buildings be used to shield the

residential areas from the railway i.e. be located between residential and the noise

source.

6.60 Higher floors of buildings, above the height of any noise barrier, are less likely to

benefit significantly from low-level shielding or barriers on the Site, and it will be

more difficult to provide mitigation for multi-storey buildings. Therefore the

height of buildings near the railway should be minimised as far as practicable –

except where they are designed to shield noise sensitive buildings on the Site. It is

sometimes possible to incorporate noise shielding into various building elements

of multi‐storey buildings for example by using solid balcony fronts and

wintergardens.

6.61 Recreational spaces and carparks can also be used to provide some distance and

acoustic shielding between the rail and residential areas.

6.62 Ideally noise sensitive spaces should not overlook Blackshaws Road or the

industrial facilities of SMF Engineering although noise from these sources may be

able to be addressed using specific noise treatments.

6.63 In general, the sound insulation of the building envelope should be designed to

achieve the recommended internal noise levels. The most onerous levels are

associated with the railway and significant constructions (for example thick

double glazing) may be required depending on orientation and layout. Noise from

traffic on Blackshaws Road is also predicted to exceed the internal noise limits.

Depending upon the development proposals, building facades facing Blackshaws


219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup


Page 29

Road are likely to require an upgraded facade. Additionally options for natural

ventilation may need to be reduced and incorporate air-conditioning.

6.64 Vibration: Vibration isolation is not commonly provided for residential

buildings, since it results in significantly higher construction costs. It is therefore

recommended that the buildings be set back from the railway. This set back would

ideally be of the order of at least 20 m from the closest section of railway track.

The developer should be required to show that the vibration criteria will be

achieved at the residential sites within the development.

6.65 This broadly corresponds with the recommendations from SLR Consulting’s

Noise and Vibration Assessment, where a similar setback is recommended.

6.66 It is recommended that the Developer provide the council with evidence showing

how the acoustic criteria are going to be met, prior to approval of any masterplan

for the site. It is also recommended that a noise commissioning report be issued

to the council to demonstrate that any noise control treatments have been

implemented adequately and the acoustic criteria have been achieved, prior to

occupancy. If they have not been achieved then the Developer should be required

to undertake remedial actions.

6.67 In my opinion, the draft Schedule to the DDO included in SLR Consulting’s

Noise and Vibration Assessment contains the appropriate conditions on

development to ensure that noise and vibration goals, commensurate with those I

have recommended, will be achieved in practice.