material change of use development permit for medium ... · jt1582 – 310 gregors creek road –...

• Telephone 0417 727 981

• Facsimile 07 5530 7521 • ABN 68 467 757 073

Application Details

Application Type Material Change of Use – Development Permit

Defined Use Medium Impact Industry (Concrete Batching Plant)

Street Address 310 Gregors Creek Road, Gregors Creek

Client Edith Pastoral Company

Date December 2015

In support of an application for

Material Change of Use – Development Permit for Medium Impact Industry

Noise Impact Assessment - NIA

©This document is and will remain the property of JT Environmental Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned by and for Downer Australia and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commissioning, monitoring and modelling associated with this project. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited by any other parties than those associated with the Agreement dated 5th June 2012.

© 2015 – JT Environmental Pty Ltd ABN 64081048723

P.O Box 1057, Mudgeeraba Qld 4213P: 0417 727 981 F: 07 5530 7521

E: [email protected]

Limitations

This report was prepared for the sole use of Edith Pastoral Company in accordance with generally accepted consulting practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has not been prepared for use by parties other than the client, the owner and their respective consulting advisors. It may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties or for other uses. It is recommended that any works planned by others and relating specifically to the content of this report be reviewed by JT Environmental Pty Ltd to verify that the intent of our recommendations is properly reflected in the final design. To the best of our knowledge, information contained in this report is accurate at the date of issue.

Document Status

Rev No. Author Reviewer Approved for Issue

Name Signature Date

A BRS TCD TCD 30.11.15

B BRS TCD TCD 21.12.15

C BRS TCD TCD 18.01.16

mailto:[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 SITE DETAILS ............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 APPLICATION DETAILS ................................................................................................................................ 5

2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 6

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 8

3.1 SURROUNDING LAND USES......................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AERIALS, SEPERATION DISTANCES ...................................................................... 10 3.4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................. 12 3.5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS............................................................................................................................. 14 3.6 QUANTIFYING THE NOISE IMPACT ............................................................................................................... 14 3.7 PEN3D2000 MODELLING SOFTWARE AND SUITABILITY .............................................................................. 14

4.0 EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................ 17

4.1 INSTRUMENTATION .................................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE ..................................................................................................................... 17

5.0 MEASURED NOISE LEVELS .................................................................................................................. 18

5.1 MEASURED EXISTING ACOUSTIC ENVIRONEMNT ........................................................................................ 18 5.2 HOURS OF OPERATION............................................................................................................................... 19 5.3 METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 19

6.0 NOISE CRITERIA AND LIMITS ............................................................................................................ 20

1.1 EPP NOISE CRITERIA – EP (NOISE) POLICY 2008 ........................................................................................ 20

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF NOISE IMPACT ........................................................................................................ 21

7.1 POTENTIAL NOISE EMISSIONS FROM THE CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT .................................................. 22 7.3 PEN3D2000 MODELLING FOR CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT ONLY .............................................................. 25 7.3 PEN3D2000 MODELLING CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT WITH OTHER USES ON

THIS SITE THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS APPLCIATION. ............................................................................................. 26 7.4 PEN3D2000 MODELLING FOR TRUCKS ENTERING AND EXITING AT GREGORS CREEK RD................................ 27

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 29

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 30

10.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 31

11.0 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................ 32

11.1 APPENDIX A – SITE PLANS ....................................................................................................................... 32 11.2 APPENDIX B – NOISE SAMPLING .............................................................................................................. 40 11.3 APPENDIX C – PROJECT PHOTOS ................................................................................................................ 42

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Surrounding locality - source: Lockyer Design. 9

Figure 2: Land zoning under the Somerset Regional Council. 10 Figure 3: Aerial view of separation distances from proposed use to receptors - source: Lockyer

Designs. 11 Figure 4: Proposed development site of Extractive Industry - source: Lockyer Designs. 13

Figure 5: ML1 unattended ambient monitoring location 18

Figure 6: Noise monitoring graph. 19

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Measured Ambient Noise Levels ML1. 18

Table 2: Relevant EP (noise) P 2008 criteria from ambient data 20 Table 3: receptor separation distances 22

Table 4: Relevant noise levels from activities/equipment on-site Harlin Plant. 23 Table 5: Modelling results for the proposed concrete batching plant only 25

Table 6: Modelling results (accumulative) for proposed extractive industry & Concrete batching plant. 26

Table 7: Relevant EP (noise) P 2008 criteria from ambient data 27

LIST OF TERMINOLOGY

Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location

A-weighted sound level: A frequency weighting filter used to measure of sound pressure level designed to reflect the acuity of the human ear, which does not respond equally to all frequencies.

dB(A): Unit of sound level: The weighted sound pressure level by the use of the A metering characteristic and weighting specified in ANSI Specifications for Sound Level Meter.

Decibel (dB): A measure of sound. It is equal to 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of a given sound pressure to a reference sound pressure. The reference sound pressure used is 20 micropascals, which is the lowest audible sound.

L10: The sound pressure level that is exceeded for 10% of the time for which the given sound is measured, and takes account for all annoying peaks of noise.

L90: The A-weighted sound pressure level that is exceeded for 90% of the time over which a given sound is measured.

Leq: Equivalent sound pressure level: the steady sound level that over a specified period of time would produce the same energy equivalence

as the fluctuating sound level actually occurring

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 SITE DETAILS

Address of Site : 310 Gregors Creek Road, Gregors Creek

Name of Owner/s : Edith Pastoral Company

1.2 APPLICATION DETAILS

Type of Application : MCU - Development Permit for Medium Impact Industry (Concrete Batching Plant)

Applicant : Edith Pastoral Company

Contact Person: Tyson Dodd / Bradley Stewart

Our Reference : JT1582

This proposal seeks to locate a concrete batching plant over land at 310 Gregors Creek Road.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The following noise impact assessment is for a Medium Impact Industry which seeks to establish a concrete batching plant on the subject site having a gross floor area of no more than 750sqm, and no more than 1,500sqm of associated outdoor area.

The subject site is located over land at 310 Gregors Creek Road, Gregors Creek.

JT Environmental under took on-site unattended noise sampling to determine the ambient acoustic environment for modelling and assessment purposes. Additionally, samples were also obtained from an existing concrete batching plant to the north at Harlin (figure 1) to determine the future noise impacts of the proposed new batching plant at Gregors Creek Road.

The attached subject site plan has been considered appropriate for this report, however it is acknowledged that in the case of site layout amendments, this assessment report will be amended as appropriate and any modelling completed updated to reflect the proposal. On this basis, JT Environmental conducted modelling as per this layout. It is considered that a worse-case operational scenario be adopted for modelling purposes to provide a more appropriate avenue for this Noise Impact Assessment to consider the emissions on the Sensitive Receptor identified.

This report has been prepared to further support the location of the activity from an environmental noise perspective, together with ambient noise monitoring conducted at location ML1 (as detailed on the locality plans) and investigate the potential noise impacts associated with the proposed location plant on the Gregors Creek site. Long Term sampling (7 days) at the ML1 location was chosen for a number of reasons:

1. This is a location on the site that is close to sensitive receptors on the opposite side of the Brisbane River (albeit outside a 1000-m radius of the use). It is located some 1074-m from the concrete batching plant as detailed on the site plan prepared by Lockyer Designs.

2. This receptor demonstrates the clearest line of site to the proposed use area with negligible noise sources between the subject site and receptor;

3. Least intervening structures;

4. Considered to be best practice in Accordance with AS1055.

The topographical characteristics of the site, location and the orientation of the site facilitate sufficient attenuation from existing sensitive receptors within the locality.

The objectives of this Noise Impact Assessment are to:

• Establish noise level design goals (criteria) for the noise emissions associated with the new proposed plant;

• Assess the existing levels of noise emission in relation to the noise criteria for the nearest residences to the proposal;

December, 2015 Noise Impact Assessment

JT1582 – 310 Gregors Creek Road – NIA for CBP 7

• Determine future levels of noise emission from the site for the operation of the proposed plant, also included is a cumulative assessment for the operation of both the extractive industry (separate application) and the concrete batching plant for a worst case scenario from operation of both uses;

• Assess noise levels from proposed operations in relation to the noise criteria for the nearest residences to the proposed site; and

• Recommend noise mitigation measures to allow the relevant noise criteria to be achieved where required or where no compliance is expected to occur.

The purpose of the Noise Impact Assessment is to ensure that the proposed development does not impact negatively on the existing amenity for the locality. The Assessment will determine the level of noise impacts that currently occur within this locality and predict the future noise horizon associated with the site to determine if mitigation is required as part of this development application (expected to be minimal);

Furthermore, the report modelling has been conducted based on the details provided by the applicant regarding plant and equipment, tools, quantities of vehicles and scale. The noise assessment has been prepared with reference to the following;(i.) Australian Standard AS 1055:1997; (ii.) Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise Parts 1, 2 and 3, (iii.) AS2107; and (iv.) the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008.



3.1 SURROUNDING LAND USES

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 SURROUNDING LAND USES

Local Government Authority:

Somerset Regional Council

Address of Site : 310 Gregors Creek Road, Gregors Creek

Name of Owner/s : Edith Pastoral Company

The subject site is located in the locality of Gregors creek, which falls with the local Government area of Esk. The site is well connected by the Brisbane Valley Highway which runs past the western boundary of the site from north to south, ultimately providing ease of access to local towns and larger cities. The area surrounding the site is used for primarily agricultural purposes, with a small number of residential sensitive receptors in the locality.

Two existing quarries are located to the north of the site, off Sinnamons Lane and to the north of Gregors Creek Road, an existing sand extraction operation is located on the Brisbane River to the north-west of the site adjacent to Gregors Creek Road, and an approved quarry is located to the north-west of the site on Gregors Creek Road. The Brisbane Valley Highway is located to the west of the site, and dense bushland within a State reserve adjoins the eastern boundary of the site as detailed in figure 1.

Based on these existing uses in the area, the reduced scale of the proposed use on the site, and the separation distances and attenuation opportunities that exist, the proposed site is considered to be suitable for the proposed use.



Figure 1: Surrounding locality - source: Lockyer Design.



3.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The site is currently used for agricultural purposes as shown in the site photos in appendix c, with a large area of vacant land and dense bushland to the east of the site. A number of dams exist on site and as proposed by the applicant, these will be utilised as part of the new use for the plant operations.

The site is located within the Somerset Regional Council, under the former Esk local government area, and is contained in the Rural zone.

Figure 2: Land zoning under the Somerset Regional Council.

Furthermore, the location where monitoring has been conducted has the best line of sight to the subject site where the concrete batching plant is proposed to be located (figure 1). As detailed by the aerial survey and confirmed from a site inspection, the locality is significantly void of sensitive receptors within the 1km radius of the site, ultimately providing adequate separation distances to attenuate noise emissions at these receptors.

3.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AERIALS, SEPERATION DISTANCES

Figure 3 provides an aerial view of the site and surrounding locality, incorporating the location of the identified sensitive receptor locations which have been included in the noise assessment from the proposed use, to determine the future predicted impacts at these locations. Receptor R4 is the existing house on the subject site, while all other receptors are located on the opposite side of the Brisbane River.



Figure 3: Aerial view of separation distances from proposed use to receptors - source: Lockyer Designs.

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5



3.4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT

The following section outlines the proposed development environment to be located onsite at 310 Gregors Creek Road with respect to the proposed concrete batching plant.

It is proposed to develop the subject site as a modern concrete batching plant to adjacent to a proposed quarry (subject to a separate application).

The proposed site plan is shown in figure 4 and Appendix A.

This noise impact assessment considers all activities to be carried out for both operations with respect to vehicle manoeuvring on-site and along the haul road, and plant and equipment to be used for operations. As mentioned these impacts will be assessed separately for each use and then cumulatively for a combined total assessment report of the application.

The following outlines the equipment, various tools and machinery to be used for the concrete batching plant:

Pant and Equipment used for the Concrete Plant Operations

Truck and Dogs coming to and from the Plant site from Gregors Creek Road and the extraction pit (when operational) - both fully Loaded and unloaded;

A Grader to maintain Haul Roads; Water Truck for dust suppression; Concrete batching plant & associated machinery (driven by electric motors); Loading of raw material hoppers and conveyors; Water Pumps (driven by electric motors); Pressure Pumps; Concrete Agitator; Delivery Trucks for raw material (e.g. cement); Fuel Truck.

Tools

Compressor and hydraulic tools; Hand Tools; Welders and Oxy Equipment.



Figure 4: Proposed development site of Extractive Industry - source: Lockyer Designs.

November, 2015


3.5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Concrete batching plants must be located in an area where they will not pose a hazard to the environment or the amenity of the local community. It is noted that similar concrete batching plants observed in Harlin and general industrial areas are located directly adjacent to or close to surrounding houses, and do not contain the level of separation to surrounding houses that the subject site has.

The design incorporates specific features to minimise noise emissions including;

All buffer zones between the proposed uses on-site and the sensitive uses in the locality are located no less than a separation distance 1.1km (figure 3 above);

Haulage routes are to be designed and planned so as to not create unnecessary nuisance to surrounding residences;

The siting of the proposed development utilises the surrounding topography as a means of reducing line of sight to existing residential dwellings as shown in figure 4 below where the landform screens a large proportion of the use area.

3.6 QUANTIFYING THE NOISE IMPACT

The investigation’s purpose was to estimate the potential noise impact of the proposal on the existing ambient noise climate in the surrounding areas and on any potential sensitive receptors. This was achieved by measuring the existing ambient noise levels at the site and comparing with the predicted noise levels from future operations.

3.7 PEN3D2000 MODELLING SOFTWARE AND SUITABILITY

A digital terrain noise model of the site and surroundings has been developed using PEN3D. The PEN3D General Prediction Model (GPM) is based on the method documented by Bies & Hansen (1988 pages 117, 127). The implementation is a more complex variation of the approach to sound propagation described in Concawe. Concawe is one of the most commonly used methodologies to predict outdoor noise propagation from industrial sites. PEN also draws on aspects from ISO 9613-2. The PEN3D software was originally developed in 1993 and has been in constant development and review since. The basic equation adopted by the GPM is:

Lp = Lw - 20 log10(r) - 10log10(4π) + AE

November, 2015


Where Lp is the sound pressure level at an observer Lw is the sound power level of the source, in octave bands from 63 Hz to 8kHz 20 log10(r) + 10log10(4π) is the distance attenuation (spherical) AE is the excess attenuation factors.

The excess attenuation factors AE comprise:

AE = Aa + Ag + Am + Ab + Af

Where: Aa = Excess attenuation due to air absorption from Sunderland et. al. Ag = Excess attenuation due to ground reflection Am = Excess attenuation due to meteorological effects Ab = Excess attenuation due to barriers Af = Excess attenuation due to forests.

PEN is a sophisticated environmental noise model incorporating a 3D terrain model that permits accurate representation of the ground, ground cover, tree zones, mounds, barriers and weather conditions. PEN calculates a curved noise path based on surface friction, vertical temperature gradients and wind speed. All the noise calculations are based on this curved path. A finite differences approximation method is used to calculate the curved path. The curvature of the path determines the meteorology corrections. The meteorology corrections are frequency and distance dependent and are limited to +12 dB (downwind at night) and –7 dB (upwind and during the day) similar to the Concawe Category 1 and Category 6 meteorological corrections.

The excess attenuation due to ground reflection is obtained by combining the direct wave and the reflected wave incoherently, that is the energy from the ground wave is added to the direct wave. The ground reflection attenuation (or ground effects) will be between 0 and -3dB (a negative value is an increase in noise levels) for all cases. This contrasts with the coherent reflection approach. The coherent approach is considered to be an “exact” method. For those situations where the source and receiver are located close to the same very hard reflecting plane and the path difference between the direct path and the reflected path is small, then the addition of the reflected wave and the direct wave will result in 6 dB increases rather than a 3 dB increase. However, at large distances the sound pressure level reduces at 12 dB per doubling with the coherent model (not 6 dB as per the incoherent model). This approach, while “exact”, is dubious as DTM models are neither of sufficient accuracy nor can noise models truly account for the effects of atmospheric turbulence.

Other methods such as the Nordic method or ISO 9613-2 divide the region between the source and receiver into three zones, and those zones closest to the source and to the receiver can potentially have higher absorption values. Consequently, if a noise source was measured say at a distance of 30 m and the sound power level is calculated by the

November, 2015


commonly adopted formula PWL = SPL + 10log10(2 π r2) then the calculations using the PEN3D methodology would remain conservatively high for all distances.

The ground reflection (or ground effects) is a complex calculation using the flow resistivity for the surface likely to provide the ground reflection and the likely angle of incidence of the reflected wave to the ground. In those instances where the ground is highly absorptive the excess correction will approach zero. For those surfaces which are highly reflective the correction will be - 3dB, i.e. will lead to an increase in noise levels of 3 dB(A) (simulates hemispherical propagation).

While there are numerous methods to calculate ground effect (some of which providing significant attenuation (reduction of noise levels)), the PEN implementation is one of the more conservative estimates of ground effect in the far field. In the opinion of Bies & Hansen 1988, “as the distance from the source or frequency increases, the incoherent model will become more appropriate”.

The theoretical approach to meteorology implies that PEN is likely to provide more significant corrections than other models. Thus, at night or during downwind predictions, the PEN calculations are likely to result in conservatively high results. The likely barrier attenuations are calculated for four possible curved paths, namely:

source, to the top of barrier then to the receiver;

source, reflection from ground (source side), top of barrier, receiver;

source, top of barrier, reflection from ground (receiver side), receiver, and;

source, reflection from ground (source side), top of barrier, reflection from ground(receiver side), receiver.

These are combined to obtain effective barrier attenuation. In the situation where the source and receiver are well above the ground and the barrier just intercepts line-of-sight then the barrier effect will be 5 dB(A). However, if the source and receiver are close to the ground and the noise barrier just intercepts line of sight (a pebble) the barrier effect will tend to zero.

Once the most likely curved path has been calculated, the method determines if it intercepts any tree zones within the digital terrain model. If the curved noise path travels in the lower 75% of the tree zone then the full excess attenuation is applied for the distance travelled in the tree zone. If the curved noise path travels in the upper 25% of the tree zone then:

a) the average propagation height is determined;b) the length in the zone is determined, and;c) the forest excess attenuation is taken to be linearly interpolated between zero at

the top of the tree zone and full excess attenuation at 75% height.

Potentially tree zones can provide extremely high attenuations if the coverage of tree zones are large. However, in practice, the curved path adopted in the PEN methodology usually results in the noise rays passing above the tree zones (at night or during downwind

November, 2015


conditions) and only intercepting tree zones if they exist on the tops of hills or whenever the noise ray approaches the ground. Tree zones can potentially provide higher than expected attenuations during calm neutral conditions.

4.0 EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES

4.1 INSTRUMENTATION

The following instruments were used to measure environmental noise impact levels.

Norsonic 131 (Type 1) Noise Logger; and

Rion NC 73 Calibrator.

The operation of the sound level measuring equipment was field calibrated to the reference signal and checked at the end of each measurement session to ensure it was within 0.5dB of the reference signal. All instrumentation used in this assessment hold a current calibration certificate from a certified NATA calibration laboratory. Calibration Certificate for the 131 Type 1 is provided in the Appendix to this report. The Microphone of the SLM was at 1.5m above natural ground level and fitted with a Norsonic wind screen.

4.2 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE

Ambient noise was measured at the site from 18th to the 24th November 2015 (ambient) at ML1 indicated in Figure 6. The resultant noise levels are provided in Table 1 and graphical representation in the Appendix of this report. The weather conditions during the survey were noted as fine with a temperature of approximately 16-28oC and a negligible wind speed. The location was chosen as it best represents the acoustic environment for the existing locality. The noise logger was required to be elevated in a tree to avoid wildlife interfering with the equipment during monitoring.

November, 2015


Figure 5: ML1 unattended ambient monitoring location

5.0 MEASURED NOISE LEVELS

5.1 MEASURED EXISTING ACOUSTIC ENVIRONEMNT

Existing free-field noise exposure levels were determined and the typical noise levels measured at ML1 in order to characterise the existing acoustic environment at the surrounding sensitive receptors.

Summaries of these results are shown in Table 1.

The objective of the background noise survey was to measure ambient noise levels at a location representative of the nearest potentially affected residences during the day, evening and night-time periods to enable the determination of the noise criteria for the proposed use on-site

These ambient background samples have been collected in accordance with the requirements of EP (Noise) Policy 2008, the Ecoaccess Guideline: Planning for Noise Control and the principles of AS1055.3-1997 for the external monitoring at the nearest noise affected premise to the south of the site.

Table 1: Measured Ambient Noise Levels ML1.

Parameter Period Recorded Noise

Levels

LMAX Daytime (7am-6pm) 64.2

Evening (6pm-10pm) 62.1

Night-time (10pm-7am) 51.9

L10 Daytime (7am-6pm) 47.6


18 Hour 47.6


L90 Daytime (7am-6pm) 35.0



Leq Daytime (7am-6pm) 45.8



November, 2015


Figure 6: Noise monitoring graph.

5.2 HOURS OF OPERATION

The proposed concrete bathing plant will be operational over 12hrs of the day, however, for modelling purposes and to provide a conservative approach, modelling has been completed for the day-time, evening and night-time periods and assessed against the relevant criteria. This further demonstrates that even with 24-hr operations, the proposed development is compliant with the EP (Noise) Policy 2008.

5.3 METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

During wind and temperature conditions, project noise levels at the receptors may increase or decrease compared to noise levels during calm conditions. The change occurs due to refraction as a result of varying speed of sound with increasing elevation. Noise levels increase when the wind is blowing from source to receiver. Conversely, the noise level can decrease when the wind is blowing from receiver to the source.

November, 2015


6.0 NOISE CRITERIA AND LIMITS

1.1 EPP NOISE CRITERIA – EP (NOISE) POLICY 2008

In accordance with the agreed assessment methodology, the relevant noise criteria for assessment of impacts at sensitive receptors have been determined based upon the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 ‘controlling background creep’

As detailed in the EP (Noise) Policy, the objectives of a Noise impact Assessment is to determine and more so ensure that the Indicative Noise factors are achieved for the particular land use categories (in this case residential) from a proposed noise emitting operation on existing or future noise affected premises.

Controlling background creep:

(1) This section states the management intent for an activity involving noise.(2) Note—

See section 51 of the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008.

(2) To the extent that it is reasonable to do so, noise from an activity must not be—

(b) for noise that varies over time measured by LAeq,adj,T - more than 5dB(A) greaterthan the existing acoustic environment measured by LA90,T.

*EP(noise)P 2008

Table 2: Relevant EP (noise) P 2008 criteria from ambient data

Period Adopted Sensitive Receiver Noise limit LAeq,adj,T dB(A)

Derived from ambient data at ML1 location

7am to 6pm 50.8dB(A)

6pm to 10pm 51.8dB(A)

10pm to 7am 47.6dB(A)

As discussed in section 5.3, while operation hours have not been confirmed and as such to provide a potentially worst case scenario for the proposed site to demonstrate compliance, night-time criteria has been applied to the development and derived from the Ecoaccess Guidelines: Planning for Noise Control provides the relevant criteria for night-time assessment:

As a rule in planning for short-term or transient noise events, for good sleep over eight hours, the indoor sound pressure level measured as a maximum instantaneous value should not exceed approximately 45dBA maxLpA more than 10-15 times per night. The corresponding

November, 2015


external noise level, assuming partially closed windows, is 52dBA maxLpA, measured in the free field.

Therefore the night-time criteria to be adopted is LAmax 52dB(A) external to residential dwellings.

Appropriate noise assessment should consider the following:

Emissions of any contaminants including air pollutants, noise, and vibration do notcause environmental harm or nuisance.

The design of the proposal minimises noise impacts on surrounding uses.

Noise emission and vibrations from the site must not cause an environmentalnuisance to sensitive receptors.

The site design and layout locates potential noise sources away from sensitivesurrounding uses.

Major openings in buildings and all areas where work maybe conducted outside thebuildings are located away from the nearest sensitive receiving environment. Noiseemission and vibrations from the site must not cause an environmental nuisance

Where the site has a common boundary with a noise affected premise:

No openings occur in walls facing a common boundary or sensitive land uses;

Effective acoustic screening is provided; and

Noise emitting services are located as far away as possible.

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF NOISE IMPACT

As detailed in the attached aerial photograph drawings the closest noise affected premise to the proposed use is located to the north of the site of the proposed plant area at approximately 1130-metres. The next closest receptor is located at 1280-metres; this noise affected premise consists of one single detached dwelling which will not have a direct line of sight to the concrete batching site due to intervening ridges. The next closest receptor is just a further 233-meters north of the first dwelling with a separation distance to the plant of 1360-meters. A third dwelling is located a further 400-meters north with a separation distance of 1628k-metres to the proposed plant. It is expected that due to reduced line of sight with intervening structures and separation distances, noise impacts on these receptors will be in-audible. This will be justified by the modelling below.

The calculated reductions have been based on no reduction corrections applied for ground absorption and reduction of line of sight to a noise affected premise.

November, 2015


The acoustic levels presented in table 4 below have been derived from a previous noise assessment at 190-204 Montague Road, West End. These levels were taken as part of that assessment to determine the predicted noise emissions from an existing concrete batching plant to an adjoining residential development. As part of this assessment, the levels identified were compared to similar assessments of surrounding concrete batching plants by other consultancies.

Furthermore, JT Environmental conducted attended monitoring at the northern boundary of the Harlin Concrete Batching plant; however the levels identified were below the background levels for the locality, due to the scale and intensity of the plant. It is to note the plant being proposed is of a similar size to the Harlin plant mentioned above.

This general operational capacity has been utilised to determine the impacts on the closest noise affected premise of which demonstrates compliance with the EP (Noise) Policy 2008.

The design elements of the Site layout facilitate efficient truck movements on-site to reduce possible impacts on the sensitive receiving environments. All truck and vehicle movements on-site are expected to be in the forward gear as facilitated by the general design and layout of operational plants.

The overall approach of this noise impact assessment is to minimise noise nuisance from operations to sensitive receivers in the locality. And therefore all on-site activities and equipment proposed has been assessed below.

Table 3: receptor separation distances

Receptor 1 1280km

Receptor 2 1360km

Receptor 3 1628km

Receptor 4 1130km

Receptor 5 2223km

7.1 POTENTIAL NOISE EMISSIONS FROM THE CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT

This section briefly describes the activities on-site the concrete batching plant for reference to the accumulative assessment below.

Acoustically significant plant and equipment to be used on-site and the associated sound power levels are provided below and derived from previous assessments of similar batching plants in South East Queensland completed by this consultancy. The noise level of the concrete batching Plant, front end loaders, aggregate trucks, alarms and conveyer belts

November, 2015


were incorporated into the modelling for the cumulative assessment of both operations, with the processing and crushing unit and hard rock extraction activities assessed for the extractive industry only to provide individually emission sources and results.

The following activities and noise levels have been derived from batching plants of a similar scale and represent the type of activities and equipment to be used for operations:

Truck and front end loaders;

Pumps

Truck brakes;

Alarms;

Compressors; and

Air valves.

Both the PEN3d2000 model and the basic attenuation calculations have been conducted for all operations on-site to demonstrate that the proposed development can exist with minimal noise nuisance as possible. The following equations have been completed with the use of separation distances as detailed in section 7.1 above. It is important to note that these calculations provide a basic loss of noise over distance ONLY and do not cater for the intervening topography between source and receiver.

Note: only the closest receptor has been modelled with separation attenuation as a demonstration of compliance.

Table 4: Relevant noise levels from activities/equipment on-site Harlin Plant.

SOURCE LMAX

Concrete batching plant 115dB(A)

Concrete Mixing Truck 112dB(A)

Truck manoeuvring / loading 112dB(A)

Alarms 97dB(A)

conveyer belts 113dB(A)

A conservative reduction level for topography and soft ground cover between the source and sensitive receptor of 5dB(A) has been adopted for the below calculations.

(Note: The below Noise data was obtained from on-site attended monitoring at the Harlin Plant)

Concrete batching plant assessment: Receptor 4: Source noise level (Lp1): 115dB (A) at 3-metres Distance separation to Receptor 1 facade = 1130-metres (r2) Resultant noise levels at receptor 1 facade (Lp2): 60.48-dB (A) at receptor 1

November, 2015


Attenuation from ridge line and soft ground cover: (-5dB) = 55.48-dB(A) at receptor 4 From Lp2 = Lpi – 20 log (r2/r1)

Concrete mixing truck Receptor 4: Source noise level (Lp1): 112dB (A) at 3-metres Distance separation to Receptor 1 facade = 1130-metres (r2) Resultant noise levels at receptor 1 facade (Lp2): 65.48-dB (A) at receptor 1 Attenuation from ridge line and soft ground cover: (-5dB) = 60.48-dB(A) at receptor 4 From Lp2 = Lpi – 20 log (r2/r1)

Truck manoeuvring / loading Receptor 4: Source noise level (Lp1): 112dB (A) at 3-metres Distance separation to Receptor 1 facade = 1130-metres (r2) Resultant noise levels at receptor 1 facade (Lp2): 60.48-dB (A) at receptor 1 Attenuation from ridge line and soft ground cover: (-5dB) = 55.48-dB(A) at receptor 4 From Lp2 = Lpi – 20 log (r2/r1)

Alarms Receptor 4: Source noise level (Lp1): 92dB (A) at 3-metres Distance separation to Receptor 1 facade = 1130-metres (r2) Resultant noise levels at receptor 1 facade (Lp2): 40.48-dB (A) at receptor 1 Attenuation from ridge line and soft ground cover: (-5dB) = 35.48-dB(A) at receptor 4 From Lp2 = Lpi – 20 log (r2/r1)

Conveyer belt Receptor 4: Source noise level (Lp1): 113dB (A) at 3-metres Distance separation to Receptor 1 facade = 1130-metres (r2) Resultant noise levels at receptor 1 facade (Lp2): 61.48-dB (A) at receptor 1 Attenuation from ridge line and soft ground cover: (-5dB) = 56.48-dB(A) at receptor 4 From Lp2 = Lpi – 20 log (r2/r1)

November, 2015


7.3 PEN3D2000 MODELLING FOR CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT ONLY

POINT CALCULATIONS Pen3D2000 V 1.10.0

Project Code:JB.... Project Description:Noise assessment of ...

File:C:\PEN\Tests\Gregors Creek - CBP\concrete batching model.PEN

File Description:Data file covering area File Description:Data file covering area

Monday 30 Nov, 2015 at 09:37:10

Environmental Calculations All point and line sources included. Line source segmentation angle: 10 degrees. Calculations for specified meteorology.

Noise level results are the logarithmic addition of all the noise sources Noise level results incorporate the incoherent ground reflection algorithm

Meteorology :

Wind speed 0.0 (m/s) Wind direction 0 Mast height 10.0 (m) Temperature 20.0 (C) Temperature Gradient 0.0 (C/100m) Humidity 50.0 (%)

Surface Roughness of terrain 0.023000000 (m) Zero plane offset 0.080000000 (m)

Table 5: Modelling results for the proposed concrete batching plant only

RECEPTOR X POSN Y POSN HEIGHT GROUND NOISE LEVEL

(M) (M) (M) (M) (DB(A))

R1 438542.3 7011597.7 1.5 90.0 32.4

R2 438935.9 7011305.0 1.5 89.7 34.5

R3 439107.1 7011116.2 1.5 95.0 34.8

R4 439670.3 7012515.9 1.5 98.6 45.8

R5 438238.8 7012610.0 1.5 88.0 30.9

November, 2015


7.3 PEN3D2000 MODELLING CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT WITH OTHER USES ON THIS SITE THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS APPLCIATION.


Project Code:JB....

Project Description:Noise assessment of ... File:C:\PEN\Tests\Gregors Creek - CBP\CBP & Quarry cumulativel.PEN

File Description:Data file covering area

File Description:Data file covering area File Description:Data file covering area

Monday 30 Nov, 2015 at 10:14:35 Environmental Calculations

All point and line sources included. Line source segmentation angle: 10 degrees. Calculations for specified

meteorology. Noise level results are the logarithmic addition of all the noise sources Noise level results incorporate the incoherent ground reflection algorithm

Meteorology : Wind speed 0.0 (m/s) Wind direction 0 Mast height 10.0 (m) Temperature 20.0 (C) Temperature Gradient 0.0 (C/100m) Humidity 50.0 (%)

Surface Roughness of terrain 0.023000000 (m) Zero plane offset 0.080000000 (m

Table 6: Modelling results (accumulative) for proposed extractive industry & Concrete batching plant.


(M) (M) (M) (M) (DB(A))

R1 438542.3 7011597.7 1.5 90.0 32.4

R2 438935.9 7011305.0 1.5 89.6 34.6

R3 439107.1 7011116.2 1.5 95.0 34.8

R4 439670.3 7012515.9 1.5 100.6 45.9

R5 438238.8 7012610.0 1.5 88 30.9

The above PEN3D2000 modelling demonstrates the proposed medium impact industry - concrete batching plant can be reasonably conducted on-site while having no perceived audibility at the identified sensitive receivers. Furthermore, the accumulative assessment of both the Quarry (separate application) and the concrete batching plant also demonstrate compliance with all relevant criteria derived from the EP (Noise) Policy 2008.

November, 2015


7.4 PEN3D2000 MODELLING FOR TRUCKS ENTERING AND EXITING AT GREGORS CREEK RD

The following additional assessment demonstrates that trucks entering and exiting the site at Gregor's creek will have no audible impacts on the receptor closest to the crossovers at Gregors creek road. The modelling has been set up to represent two vehicles passing by simultaneously at 78dB(A), which is a level that was monitored during attended monitoring on the Rockwell Quarries site.

The results demonstrate that the closest receptor will not be impacted upon due to this activity on-site and no audible levels above those already experienced in the area will be perceived.

Table 7: Relevant EP (noise) P 2008 criteria from ambient data

Period Adopted Sensitive Receiver Noise limit LAeq,adj,T dB(A)

Derived from ambient data at ML1 location

7am to 6pm 50.0dB(A)

6pm to 10pm 45.7dB(A)

10pm to 7am 43.9dB(A)


Project Code:JB.... Project Description:Noise assessment of ...

File:C:\PEN\Tests\Gregors Creek - CBP\concrete batching model.PEN File Description:Data file covering area File Description:Data file covering area

Thursday 17 Dec, 2015 at 17:15:33

Environmental Calculations All point and line sources included. Line source segmentation angle: 10 degrees. Calculations for specified meteorology.

Noise level results are the logarithmic addition of all the noise sources

Noise level results incorporate the incoherent ground reflection algorithm Meteorology :

Wind speed 0.0 (m/s) Wind direction 0 Mast height 10.0 (m)

Temperature 20.0 (C) Temperature Gradient 0.0 (C/100m) Humidity 50.0 (%) Surface Roughness of terrain 0.027000000 (m) Zero plane offset 0.300000000 (m)

Truck pass by monitored by this consultancy to be 78dB(A) – representative of two trucks


(M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (DB(A))

TRUCKS 439578.8 7012777.9 95.0 95.0 41

November, 2015


ENTERING/EXITING AT RREC4

November, 2015


8.0 CONCLUSIONS

For the proposed establishment of the Concrete Batching Plant an assessment of the locality and surrounding uses has been conducted. As detailed in the modelling results for the operation, the significant separation distance for sensitive receptors (outside the 1km radius) demonstrate that the resultant noise impact level from all plant and on-site activities is well below the background noise levels measured at the closest noise affected premise at ML1 for both day and night background levels. The maximum possible impact level at the noise affected premise R4 – 45.9 dB(A).

Furthermore modelling scenarios have demonstrated that no audible change occurs at the receivers with batching plant located on-site.

As detailed in the Environmental Protection Policy (Noise) 2007:

Part 4—General noise control provisions 17—Application of Part Except as otherwise specified, this Part does not apply to noise to which the provisions of Part 6, or guidelines under Part 7, apply.

18—Compliance with noise goals satisfies general environmental duty (1) The general environmental duty under section 25 of the Act is satisfied in relation tonoise from a noise source, insofar as the noise affects particular noise-affected premises, ifthe noise complies with the noise goals.(2) The noise complies with the noise goals if measurements taken in relation to the noisesource and the noise-affected premises show that—

(a) the source noise level (continuous) does not exceed the background noise level plus 5dB(A); or COMPLIES(b) the source noise level (continuous) does not exceed the indicative noise level for the noisesource. COMPLEIS

The EP (Noise) Policy 2008 requires that the noise level at the identified sensitive uses in the locality must not exceed 50.0dB(A) between the hours of 7a.m and 6p.m (table 7). The above modelling results demonstrates that at the closest receptor to the site the maximum predicted noise level from the accumulated assessment scenario is 45.9dB(A) at receptor 4. Furthermore, the assessment for vehicle haulage on-site demonstrates that the maximum predicted noise level for two vehicles in passing by simultaneously is 41.0dB(A) (closest receptor to the entry/exit location for site access.

Ambient/background noise logging occurred at ML1 as detailed in the report.

November, 2015


9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

As demonstrated above the location of this use in the layout provided by the applicant can be conducted on this site with minimal annoyance to the nearest noise affected premise within the locality.

However based on the experience of this consultancy the following recommendations for the operation of this facility have been made to minimise noise generated from day operations;

Performance monitoring during operation of the plant is to be conducted oncecommissioning has occurred to ensure compliance with the indicated amenitylevels detailed in this report;

Proposed 20km/hour speed limit surrounding the processing and stockpile areas,and 40km/hr for all other areas and haul roads;

Actively maintaining all plant and machinery to reduce noise emissions;

Trucks reversing triggering the reverse beeper is to be minimized where possible –it is noted that the design accommodates forward motion of vehicle manoeuvringthrough the site wherever possible;

Ensure all staff and operators are aware of the noise guidelines and criteria to beachieved (provide copies of this report) and measures are taken to minimiseemissions from the site.

It is concluded, based on site inspections and noise level predictions from an environmental noise perspective that this plant can be established with negligible noise impacts on sensitive receptors within the surrounding area based on the above-mentioned recommendation.

November, 2015


10.0 REFERENCES

Australian Standard (AS 2107:2000). Acoustics—Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors.

Australian Standard AS3671 (1989). Acoustics—Road traffic noise intrusion—Building siting and construction.

Australian Standard 1055 (1997). Acoustics—Description and measurement of environmental noise Part 1: General procedures.

Adelaide Noise Generating Development Operational Guidelines.

SA EPA, The Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 and its impact on existing and proposed developments (June 2009).

SA EPA, Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007

November, 2015


11.0 APPENDIX

11.1 APPENDIX A – SITE PLANS

November, 2015


November, 2015


11.2 APPENDIX B – NOISE SAMPLING

November, 2015


November, 2015


11.3 APPENDIX C – PROJECT PHOTOS

November, 2015


Site photos of proposed plant site.

November, 2015


Location of noise logger on-site the 310 Gregors Drive

November, 2015


THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENTIONALLY.

material change of use development permit for medium ... · jt1582 – 310 gregors creek road –...

Documents