proposed residential development harmony palmview unity … · 2020-06-23 · in 2018, avid...

Acoustics RB Pty Ltd

Report No. 18-993.R01 Proposed Residential Development Harmony Palmview Unity Precinct

Assessment and Control of Intrusion of Noise from Road Traffic on Bruce Highway COPY 2 June 2020

Harmony Unity Precinct – Assessment of Noise from Road Traffic on Bruce Highway June 2020

Acoustics RB Pty Ltd HB/18-993.R01.Rev3 of 55

DOCUMENT CONTROL PAGE Proposed Residential Development Harmony Palmview Unity Precinct Assessment and Control of Intrusion of Noise from Road Traffic on Bruce Highway Report No. 18-993.R01

Report Prepared by Report Prepared for Acoustics RB Pty Ltd AVID Property Group Pty Ltd PO Box 150 Harmony Boulevard Wilston Q 4051 off Peter Crosby Way Palmview Q 4553 Ph: 07 3356 5555 e-mail: [email protected] Attention: Mr Chris Howard Status: Final Author: Hugh Brown Copy No: 2 Date of Issue: 18 June 2020

History of Revisions

Date Version Changes / Page Reference

9 August 2018 Draft 10 August 2018 Final

10 September 2018 Rev1 Change to design of the earth mound to SAHAB and removal of free-standing acoustic fence component of the acoustic barrier and increase height of earth mound correspondingly.

04 December 2018 Rev2 Change to design of the earth mound to SAHAB to take account of aesthetic and overland flow issues.

18 June 2020 Rev3 Change to take account of amended plan of development received on 15 June 2020.

Record of Distribution

Copy No. Revision No. Destination

1 Rev3 File - Controlled copy 2 = electronic Rev3 AVID Property Group Pty Ltd

Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs jointly to Acoustics RB Pty Ltd (ACN 129 541 671) and may not be used, transferred, sold, copied or reproduced in whole or part without the prior written consent of Acoustics RB Pty Ltd.

mailto:[email protected]



SUMMARY In 2018, AVID Property Group Pty Ltd lodged an application for approval of residential development over the Unity Precinct of the Harmony Masterplan Development located at Palmview. The site adjoins Bruce Highway to the west. Bruce Highway is a State-controlled road under the control of Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR). Because of the proximity of the site to Bruce Highway, DTMR required that an assessment of the extent of road traffic noise intrusion onto the site be conducted and that a road traffic noise impact assessment report be prepared accordingly. Consequently, Acoustics RB Pty Ltd was engaged by AVID Property Group Pty Ltd to conduct the required assessment and to prepare a report detailing the extent of noise intrusion due to road traffic on Bruce Highway onto the site, together with recommendations for the appropriate measures to adequately control any excessive levels of road traffic noise intrusion. This road traffic noise intrusion assessment report was prepared accordingly. It is noted that this report is the third revision of the original version of the report. The original version made recommendations for the construction of an acoustic fence and earth mound combination to control road traffic noise intrusion. This current version presents the results of a reassessment of the extent of road traffic noise intrusion to take account of recent changes made to the plan of development, specifically changes to Release 13. From the results of the assessment presented in this report, the following conclusions can be drawn:- • If the height of the earth mound is limited to 3.0m, ie to the height of the mound that is required to be

constructed within the SAHAB as a matter of course, the degree of noise intrusion into private open space areas will be such that the 60dBA free field L10(18hour) noise level limit will be exceeded on all lots within the TNC. In addition, the 63dBA facade-corrected L10(18hour) noise level limit applying to residential facades will be exceeded on more than half of the “front row” lots.

• Consequently, it will be necessary to upgrade the acoustical performance of the earth mound within the SAHAB to ensure that (i) the 60dBA free field L10(18hour) noise level limit is met in all private open space areas and (ii) compliance with the 63dBA facade-corrected L10(18hour) noise level limit is achieved at all lowset residences.

• To achieve the necessary reduction in the degree of noise intrusion onto the site, it will be necessary to increase the height of most of the mound beyond 3.0m. Overall, the mound will be 3.0-5.9m high. In addition, it will be necessary to construct an earth mound return at the northern extent of the mound. The horizontal and vertical alignment of the earth mound arrangement is shown in Calibre Consulting Drawing Nos 15-000256.09-108 and 15-000256.09-109, both dated 27 November 2018; as well as 15-000256.09-110 to 15-000256.09-116, all dated 22 November 2018. These drawings are attached as Figures 13A-13I.

• With the 3.0-5.9m high 1:3 earth mound arrangement in place, the extent of road traffic noise intrusion onto the site will be as shown in Figures 10-12. In these figures, it can be seen that (i) there will be no intrusion of the 60dBA free field L10(18hour) noise level contour onto any of the lots of Unity Precinct, (ii) there will be no intrusion of the 63dBA facade-corrected L10(18hour) noise level contour onto any lowset residences or onto the lower level facades of any highset dwellings on any of the lots and (iii) for all one lot, the degree of road traffic noise intrusion to the upper level of highset residences will be less than 63dBA L10(18hour) facade-corrected.

• Overall, the extent of road traffic noise intrusion onto the site will comply with the requirements of Condition 4 Managing Noise Impacts of Concurrence Agency Response – Preliminary Approval Only (with Conditions) ref SDA-0416-029516.

To adequately control the intrusion of noise from road traffic on Bruce Highway onto all lots within Unity Precinct, it is recommended that the barrier arrangement shown in Figures 13A-13I be adopted. Specifically, the 3.0-5.9m high earth mound should be constructed as shown in the earthworks design drawings prepared by the Project Civil Engineers, Calibre Group (ie Drawing Nos 15-000256.09-108 and 15-000256.09-109, both dated 27 November 2018; as well as 15-000256.09-110 to 15-000256.09-116, all dated 22 November 2018). Because the earth mound is being constructed to attenuate noise from road traffic on a State-controlled road, it will be necessary for the mound to be designed in compliance with the relevant requirements of DTMR. Refer to the relevant sections of (i) Part C – Chapter 3 - Urban Design of DTMR Road Landscape Manual and (ii) DTMR Transport Noise Management Code of Practice Volume 1 – Road Traffic Noise. With the 3.0-5.9m high earth mound barrier in place, the resultant QDC MP 4.4 noise categories applying to each lot can be determined by reference to Table 6 of this report.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 5

2.0 Existing Situation and Proposed Development ........................................................................................... 5

2.1 Existing Situation ..................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Proposed Development ........................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Transport Noise Corridor ......................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Current Approval ..................................................................................................................................... 7

2.5 Previous Road Traffic Noise Assessment ............................................................................................... 10

2.6 Letter from Council dated 30 August 2018 ........................................................................................... 10

3.0 DTMR Transport Noise Management Code of Practice – Volume 1 Road Traffic ..................................... 11

4.0 QDC MP 4.4 – Buildings in Transport Noise Corridors .............................................................................. 13

4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Determination of Noise Categories ....................................................................................................... 15

5.0 Current Road Traffic Noise Levels and Derived Noise Level Limits ........................................................... 16

5.1 General .................................................................................................................................................. 16

5.2 Road Traffic Noise Levels and Derivation of External Limits ................................................................. 17

6.0 Road Traffic Noise Model .......................................................................................................................... 18

6.1 Preparation of Road Traffic Noise Model .............................................................................................. 18

6.2 Road Traffic Noise Model Validation ..................................................................................................... 19

6.3 Road Traffic Noise Prediction Scenarios ................................................................................................ 20

7.0 Discussion of Results ................................................................................................................................. 21

7.1 Extent of Road Traffic Noise Intrusion without Barrier ......................................................................... 21

7.2 Extent of Road Traffic Noise Intrusion with Barrier .............................................................................. 21

7.3 Barrier Alignment .................................................................................................................................. 22

7.4 QDC MP 4.4 Noise Categories ............................................................................................................... 22

8.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 24

9.0 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 25

Attachment A ........................................................................................................................................................ 26

Attachment B ........................................................................................................................................................ 31

Figure 1 – Site Location ......................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 2 – Locations of Harmony Development and Unity Precinct within Palmview Master Planned Area ....... 33

Figure 3 – Staging Plan for Unity Precinct ............................................................................................................. 34

Figure 4 – Typical Cross-Section through Scenic Amenity and Highway Acoustic Buffer ..................................... 35

Figure 5 – Noise Categories by Reference to DSDMIP SPP IMS Website .............................................................. 36

Figure 6 – Monitored Noise Levels at Location “M” – Wednesday 12 July 2017 .................................................. 37

Figures 7-12 ........................................................................................................................................................... 38

Figures 13A-13I ..................................................................................................................................................... 46



1.0 Introduction In 2018, AVID Property Group Pty Ltd lodged an application for approval of residential development over the Unity Precinct of the Harmony Masterplan Development located at Palmview. The site adjoins Bruce Highway to the west. Bruce Highway is a State-controlled road under the control of Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR). Because of the proximity of the site to Bruce Highway, DTMR required that an assessment of the extent of road traffic noise intrusion onto the site be conducted and that a road traffic noise impact assessment report be prepared accordingly. Consequently, Acoustics RB Pty Ltd was engaged by AVID Property Group Pty Ltd to conduct the required assessment and to prepare a report detailing the extent of noise intrusion due to road traffic on Bruce Highway onto the site, together with recommendations for the appropriate measures to adequately control any excessive levels of road traffic noise intrusion. A road traffic noise intrusion assessment report, ie Report No. 18-993.R01, was prepared accordingly. It is noted that the original version this report was prepared on 10 August 2018. The August version of the report made recommendations for the construction of an acoustic barrier constructed as an acoustic fence and earth mound combination. Subsequently, on 30 August 2018 and on direction from Sunshine Coast Regional Council, it was necessary to modify the design of the acoustic barrier so that it is constructed simply as an earth mound. As a result, it was necessary to reassess the extent of road traffic noise intrusion onto Unity Precinct by taking account of the replacement of the recommended acoustic fence and earth mound combination with an earth mound of approximately equal height. The results of the reassessment were presented in Report No. 18-993.R01.Rev1 dated 10 September 2018. Thereafter, on 11 October 2018 and on further direction from Council, it was necessary to again modify the design of the noise control mound. Specifically, the western slope of the earth mound was required to be no steeper than 1:3 and to be slightly further removed from the common boundary with the road reserve of Bruce Highway. Consequently, it was necessary to reassess the extent of road traffic noise intrusion onto Unity Precinct to take account of the required modifications to the earth mound. The results of re-assessment were presented in Report No. 18-993.R01.Rev2 dated 04 December 2018. More latterly, on 15 June 2020, at the request of AVID Property Group Pty Ltd, it has been necessary to reassess the extent of road traffic noise intrusion on Unity Precinct again to take account of recent changes made to the plan of development, specifically changes within Release 13 of Unity Precinct. The results of this re-assessment are presented in this updated version of the report, ie Report No. 18-993.R01.Rev3.

2.0 Existing Situation and Proposed Development 2.1 Existing Situation The location of the subject site is shown in Figure 1. At the time of preparation Acoustics RB Report Ref RB/18-993 in August 2018, the real property description of the site was Part of Lot 2 on SP304859 and Lot 3 on SP299776. The local authority is Sunshine Coast Regional Council. In August 2018 the site was vacant. Currently, approved development is underway on-site.



2.2 Proposed Development Harmony Masterplan Development is situated within the Palmview Master Planned Area as designated under Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014. The locations within the Palmview Master Planned Area of the Harmony development and the Unity Precinct are shown in Figure 2. The staging plan for the Unity Precinct development over the subject site is shown in Figure 3. As can be seen in Figure 3, it is proposed to re-develop the site to generate 764 allotments for detached residences in seven releases. in addition, although not shown explicitly in Figure 3, the re-development of the site will also involve the provision of a district recreational park and community use allotment as well as a centrally located local park. The breakdown of residential component of the development by release is detailed below.

• Release 8: 116 allotments







• Undesignated: 14 allotments As is also evident in the Figures 2 and 3, an 80m wide Scenic Amenity and Highway Acoustic Buffer (SAHAB) has been provided between the internal road system serving Unity Precinct and Bruce Highway. A typical cross-section through the SAHAB is shown in Figure SC 6.20A of Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014. This figure has been reproduced in Figure 4. In this figure, it can be seen that a 3m high earth mound was required to be constructed within the buffer as a matter of course. As is apparent in Figure 3, Releases 9, 10 and 13 adjoin the western boundary of the 80m wide buffer. It is noted that the scenic amenity and highway acoustic buffer currently accommodates an open table drain providing drainage in a generally north-south direction. It is also noted that the section of Bruce Highway adjacent to the subject site is being upgraded as part of the Bruce Highway Upgrade Project (BHUP). 2.3 Transport Noise Corridor Under Sections 246Z and 246ZA of Building Act 1975 and by reference to the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDMIP) State Planning Policy (SPP) Interactive Mapping System (IMS) website, a Transport Noise Corridor (TNC) has been designated along both sides of Bruce Highway. The TNC extends onto the site for a distance of 250m from the closest running lane of Bruce Highway. By reference to Figure 5, it can be seen that the western extent of Unity Precinct is located within the TNC.



All dwellings constructed on lots located within the TNC are subject to the provisions of Queensland Development Code Mandatory Part 4.4 – Buildings in a transport noise corridor (QDC MP 4.4). This Code was gazetted on September 2010. The current version of QDC MP 4.4 commenced on 17 August 2015, replacing the version gazetted in 2010. It controls the acoustical design of residences in a TNC 1. Consequently, for all residences proposed to be constructed on lots located within the TNC, the provisions of QDC MP 4.4 will be triggered at BA. Refer also further discussion at Section 4.0 following. 2.4 Current Approval The subject site has the benefit of a development approval issued on 7 November 2016. Negotiated Decision Notice for Application No. MCU16/0085 refers. Concurrence Agency Response – Preliminary Approval Only (with Conditions) issued by Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (ref SDA-0416-029516) on 16 September 2016 forms part of the Negotiated Decision Notice. At Condition 4 Managing Noise Impacts, DILGP has imposed the specific requirements with respect to control of noise intrusion from the adjoining State-controlled road, ie Bruce Highway. These requirements are reproduced overpage. It is noted that DILGP/DTMR Harmony State-controlled Road Amenity Code also has relevance to the assessment of road traffic noise intrusion onto the site. The Code is presented in full in Attachment A. The noise level limits applying under AO1.1-AO1.4 and AO2.1 of Harmony State-controlled Road Amenity Code are the same as those set under Condition 4 Managing Noise Impacts.

1 It is noted that the provisions of QDC MP 4.4 will override any separate conditions of the regulatory authorities that are imposed at DA

requiring that the design of residences be undertaken in accordance with other policies, guidelines or standards. This includes the acoustical design requirements of any Council policies.



Definitions:

L10(18hour) is defined by DTMR in their Road Traffic Noise Management: Code of Practice and by UK DoE in their Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, as the arithmetic mean of each of the eighteen hourly L10,1hr levels between 6:00am and 12:00 midnight on an average weekday where L10,1hr is the noise level measured in dBA that is exceeded for 10% of the specific one hour period. While this terminology is not in strict accordance with the recommendations of Standards Australia because it does not identify the A-weighting requirement, it is adopted here to maintain consistency with common practice and with the terminology of the Code of Practice. LA90(8hour) is defined as the arithmetic mean of each of the eight hourly LA90,1hr levels between 10:00pm and 6:00am on an average weekday. LA90(18hour) is defined as the arithmetic mean of each of the eighteen hourly LA90,1hr levels between 6:00am and 10:00pm on an average weekday. LA10(12hour) is defined as the arithmetic mean of each of the twelve hourly LA10,1hr levels between 6:00am and 6:00pm on an average weekday.

Further advice regarding the acoustical design of residences to control road traffic noise intrusion into habitable spaces and the relevant DTMR technical standards and publications which may have applicability to the assessment of road traffic noise intrusion onto the subject site is presented that Attachment 3 of the Concurrence Agency Response – Preliminary Approval Only (with Conditions). This advice is reproduced below.



2.5 Previous Road Traffic Noise Assessment In August 2017, an assessment of the extent of road traffic noise intrusion onto the subject site was conducted by TTM. As part of that assessment, and as required by the DTMR Traffic Noise Management: Code of Practice Volume 1 – Road Traffic Noise (CoP), TTM installed a noise logger at a location adjacent to the western boundary of scenic amenity and highway acoustic buffer. Refer also Figure 1 for the location of the logger and Section 3.0 following for the relevant details of CoP. 2.6 Letter from Council dated 30 August 2018 By letter dated 30 August 2018 (Council ref. RN18/0030), Council provided “further information and required changes for AVID to undertake to ensure that the Work Contribution for the SAHAB is satisfactory to Council.” Specifically, Council required that the design specification of the Infrastructure Contribution must be undertaken as follows: “(1) Mound Only

The Scenic Amenity and Highway Acoustical Buffer (SAHAB) must be delivered in accordance with the current Mound Only requirements detailed in the Palmview Infrastructure Agreement (PIA) and Palmview Structure Plan (PSP).

“(2) Detailed Acoustical Assessment

The PSP requires delivery of the 80m wide SAHAB without the need for acoustical. The design specification of the work contribution must be prepared in accordance with detailed acoustical assessment of the SAHAB based on a mound only option.

“(3) Scenic Amenity and Acoustical Values

it is acknowledged that to achieve the required acoustical outcomes, mound will likely be located close to the Bruce Highway is possible to reduce the overall height of the mound. Nonetheless an appropriate set back and variations of the mound (including batters must be incorporated to provide opportunities for the SAHAB to achieve scenic amenity values as viewed from the Bruce Highway and required by the PIA and PSP.

…

… ”



3.0 DTMR Transport Noise Management Code of Practice – Volume 1 Road Traffic General Advice 2 above makes reference to the DTMR technical standards and publications which may have applicability to the assessment of road traffic noise intrusion onto the subject site. The primary documents are (i) DTMR’s Traffic Noise Management: Code of Practice Volume 1 – Road Traffic Noise November 2013 (CoP) and (ii) Technical Specification MRTS15 Noise Fences July 2018. Having due regard to (i) Chapters 4, 7 and 8 of CoP and (ii) the constraints imposed by the provisions of QDC MP 4.4 (refer Section 4.0 following), the major points of relevance of DTMR’s CoP to the subject site can be summarised as detailed below. 1. Criteria for acceptable levels of road traffic noise intrusion onto the site have been set by the

Department’s Policy for Development on Land Affected by Environmental Emissions from Transport and Transport Infrastructure (EEP). The criteria from the EEP have been adopted in Condition 4 Managing Noise Impacts of Concurrence Agency Response – Preliminary Approval Only (with Conditions) ref SDA-0416-029516 which forms part of the Negotiated Decision Notice.

2. The assessment should address the likely future noise conditions for a 10 year planning horizon. “For the 10 year horizon prediction, only State-controlled roads should be included in the assessment and noise attenuation strategies (should be) developed for the noise level contribution from State-controlled roads.”

3. In private open spaces (ie outdoor recreational areas of residential developments and on the balconies of attached dwelling or highrise developments), limits for acceptable levels of road traffic noise intrusion are set relative to the currently prevailing L10(18hour) noise levels. (Refer also Condition 4 Managing Noise Impacts of SDA-0416-029516.) If the LA90(18hour) is ≤40dBA, the noise level limit is set at 57dBA L10(18hour) free field. Otherwise, the limit is set at 60dBA L10(18hour). These limits are equivalent to facade-corrected limits of 60dBA L10(18hour) and 63dBA L10(18hour), respectively.

4. In recent times, DTMR has issued further clarification about the application of the noise level limits to private recreation areas of multi-level residential developments. Specifically, DTMR has advised that the objective criteria are to be met in the courtyard outdoor recreational space areas and communal outdoor recreational areas.

5. For residential units where the designated private open space is an upper level balcony 2, it is desirable that the limit be met wherever possible. In the event that this is not practical, these limits do not need to be met provided design solutions are adopted which achieve the best, most-practical outcomes, eg the use of solid balustrading and sound absorbent materials to the undersides of the soffits of the balconies. Refer also Managing Noise Impacts 1 (2) of Attachment 3 of SDA-0416-029516.

6. Detailed determination of the degree of compliance with the target L10(18hour) limits should be undertaken by a combination of measurement and calculation. Measurements of the current level of noise intrusion are to be conducted at at least one representative location over a 48-hour weekday period. More complex sites may warrant noise level measurements being conducted at more than one location.

2 This relaxation applies to balconies in high-rise developments where there is no potential to provide individual private open space areas

at ground level. In situations where two outdoor recreational spaces have been provided for a residential unit, each of which achieves compliance with the local authority is minimum area requirements, compliance with the relevant external noise level limit need be achieved on only one of the outdoor recreational space areas. For example, if a courtyard area and the upper level balcony are both provided and each meets the minimum area requirements of Council, the requirement to achieve control of road traffic noise intrusion applies to only one space. The other space need not be protected.



7. A prediction model should be prepared for the site to determine the level of noise expected to be emitted over the site or at appropriately selected individual locations. When conducting a detailed determination of the extent of noise intrusion, the prediction model is to be checked against the measured noise levels. The difference between the measured and predicted noise levels is to lie within a band with bounds equal to ±2dBA.

8. All designs for the acoustic fence part of noise barriers adjacent to State-controlled roads are to conform to the requirements and minimum standards of Main Roads’ Standard Specification MRTS 15 Noise Barriers.

9. For new residential development adjacent to new roads, the preferred maximum height of the acoustic fence part of a noise barrier is 4m. For existing roads, the preferred 3 maximum height of the acoustic fence part of a noise barrier is 6m.

10. In public passive recreation areas, ie park allocations dedicated to Council for recreational purposes, a noise level limit of 63dBA L10(12hour) free field has been set. From previous correspondence with DTMR, further clarification has been provided with regard to the extent of the area of the park that needs to meet this limit. From that advice, it has been determined that it is advisable to control road traffic noise intrusion such that noise levels are no greater that 63dBA over a minimum area of 2000m2 of the total park allocation. The area so protected should be located close to the residential allotments/units.

11. Even though the provisions of QDC MP 4.4 (refer also to Section 4.0 following) will drive the acoustical design of the new residential premises adjacent to a State-controlled road and that this will occur irrespective of the external level of road traffic noise impinging upon the dwellings, DTMR also require that, as part of the noise assessment for single storey and two-storey residential development, information be provided to establish the height of any noise barriers required to achieve compliance with DTMR's external noise target at each occupied level of the dwellings.

At most sites, practical-height barriers can only be constructed to control noise to ground level residential premises. At heavily traffic sites, the height of the barrier required to completely control road traffic noise intrusion at sites located in close proximity to the State-controlled road may exceed the reasonable barrier height constraints, even for lower level facades. Consequently, while it is a desirable goal to attempt to fully control road traffic noise intrusion to upper level facades, it is seldom possible to achieve this outcome. In these circumstances, the appropriate means of controlling noise intrusion is to ensure that the external facade of the upper level of the dwelling is designed at BA to ensure that full control of noise intrusion into the upper level habitable spaces is achieved.

12. DMTR also require that noise contour plots be prepared to show the refinement of the actual QDC MP 4.4 Noise Categories applicable to each level of the development for future guidance at BA.

3 It is understood that some DTMR Districts have adopted greater height limits in some circumstances. Even so, barriers up to 6.0m high in

residential locations are seldom acceptable to the local authority.



4.0 QDC MP 4.4 – Buildings in Transport Noise Corridors 4.1 Overview QDC MP 4.4 – Buildings in a Transport Noise Corridor was gazetted on September 2010. The current version of QDC MP 4.4 commenced on 17 August 2015, replacing the version gazetted in 2010. QDC MP 4.4 applies to Class 1, 2, 3 and 4 buildings constructed within a Transport Noise Corridor (TNC). The stated purpose of QDC MP 4.4 is "to ensure habitable rooms of Class 1, 2, 3 and 4 buildings located in a Transport Noise Corridor are designed and constructed to reduce transport noise.” Noise Categories 4 apply to allotments located within a TNC. Under Sections 246Z and 246ZA of Building Act 1975, a Transport Noise Corridor (TNC) has been designated along both sides of Bruce Highway. By reference to the DSDMIP SPP IMS website, the TNC extends onto the site for a distance of 250m from the closest running lane of Bruce Highway. By reference to Figure 5, it can be seen that the western extent of Unity Precinct is located within the TNC. By further assessment of the degree of intrusion of the TNC onto Unity Precinct, it can be determined that 175 lots lie within the TNC. Consequently, any new residential buildings constructed on any of these lots will be subject at BA to the acoustical design requirements of QDC MP 4.4. Constraints on the adoption of QDC MP 4.4 are discussed further in Attachment B. The Code describes five noise categories for acoustical upgrade of residential premises, ie Noise Categories 0-4. Noise Category 0 is the lowest category requiring no upgrade be implemented. Noise Category 4 is the highest category requiring very substantial upgrade of the external facade. Commonly, most residential development located in close proximity of any State-controlled road is located within the Noise Category 2 and 3 bands. Notes:

Under the somewhat conservative deemed-to-comply building constructions of QDC MP 4.4, modest upgrades to the acoustical performance of glazing are required for residences located in Noise Category 1. In practice, however, when a site-specific design of the residence is conducted in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard, ie AS3671 - 1989, as permitted by QDC MP 4.4 and DTMR’s CoP, it can be readily established that there is no requirement to upgrade the acoustical performance of almost all residences located in Noise Category 1. Refer also Footnote 7 following.

The noise categories shown in Figure 5 have been determined using current 5 DSDMIP noise model which takes no account of the requirement for the 3.0m high earth mound to be constructed within the scenic amenity and highway acoustic buffer or the changes to the alignment of Bruce Highway being made as part of the BHUP.

4 It should be noted that Construction Categories as defined by AS3671 - 1989 Acoustics - Road Traffic noise Intrusion - Building Siting and

Construction are not the same as noise Categories as defined by QDC MP 4.4. 5 Refer also Queensland Government Gazette – Extraordinary, No 21 of Vol 383, dated 29 January 2020.



Table 1 of QDC MP 4.4 sets noise categories depending upon the external noise level to which the dwellings are subjected when measured at a distance of 1m from the facade of the proposed or existing building 6. The noise category levels as stated in QDC MP 4.4 are reproduced in Table 1.

Noise Category State-Controlled Roads and Designated Local Government

Roads, L10(18hour) (dBA)

Railway Land Single Event Maximum Noise Level,

LAmax passby (dBA)

Category 4 ≥ 73 dBA ≥ 85 dBA

Category 3 68 - 72 dBA 80 - 84 dBA



Category 0 ≤ 57 dBA ≤ 69 dBA

Table 1 – Noise Category Levels Reproduced from QDC MP 4.4 Note:

Recognising the discontinuities and resultant practical uncertainties evident in the noise level class intervals ascribed by Table 1 7, DTMR has issued a recent directive requiring that, in the case of State-controlled roads, the class intervals be adjusted. The new class intervals for road traffic noise are presented in Table 2 together with, for consistency, the class intervals for rail noise reconciled in the same manner.

For completeness, the Single Event Maximum Noise Levels presented in Table 2 for each noise category have been adopted and applied accordingly.

Noise Category State-Controlled Roads and

Designated Local Government Roads, L10(18hour) (dBA)

Railway Land Single Event Maximum Noise Level,

LAmax passby (dBA)

Category 4 ≥ 73 dBA ≥ 85 dBA

Category 3 68-73 dBA 80-85 dBA



Category 0 ≤ 58 dBA ≤ 70 dBA

Table 2 – Corrected Noise Category - QDC MP 4.4

6 In contrast to other Codes and Guidelines, QDC MP 4.4 permits assessment of extent of road and rail noise intrusion onto the site to take

account of shielding provided by existing and approved buildings, only where “approved buildings” refers to (i) buildings for which formal building approval has been granted, or (ii) in the case of the specific building being assessed, where building approval is being sought. It does not allow the shielding of future yet-to-be-constructed buildings which are not part of the application being made to be taken into account when determining the extent of noise intrusion onto other parts of a site that will ultimately be shielded, rather in whole or in part, by future intervening buildings.

7 The discontinuities are the gaps between the upper bound of one noise category and the lower bound of the next higher noise category.

Discontinuities give rise to resultant practical uncertainties. For example, should the residence subjected to an external noise level of 62.5dBA L10(18hour) be ascribed a Noise Category 1 designation or a Noise Category 2 designation? To resolve this uncertainty, the upper bound of one noise category must be equivalent to the lower bound of the next higher noise category. The corrected noise categories are presented in Table 2.



4.2 Determination of Noise Categories QDC MP 4.4 permits building upgrade requirements to be determined by reference to either (i) the noise categories determined from the DSDMIP SPP IMS Website, or (ii) from the results of an alternative development site specific noise assessment conducted at DA. The more accurate method is to adopt the noise categories determined from the results of the alternative assessment conducted at DA. In fact, as noted at Item 12 in Section 3.0 above, DMTR also require that the actual QDC MP 4.4 Noise Categories applicable to each level of the development be prepared at DA for future guidance at BA. To ensure that the assessment conducted at DA achieve the optimum outcome, it is necessary to give due regard to the specific characteristics of the site, notably the effect of site topography and the presence of any existing buildings as well as existing or recommended noise barriers. In the case of development applications lodged for multi-unit developments, due account may be taken of the beneficial shielding provided by the building bulk of the buildings for which DA approval is being sought. Thereafter at BA, a lot-specific acoustical design review may be undertaken for each individual residence. In each instance, the objective of the lot-specific assessment would be to refine the extent of road traffic noise intrusion across any particular dwelling, or group of dwellings, and by application of AS3671-1989 to determine the optimum degree of acoustical upgrade required to be implemented into the design of the residence to achieve compliance with the recommended indoor noise levels of AS/NZS 2107:2000 (now AS/NZS 2107:2016). Or more simply, when a site-specific noise assessment is conducted, the building upgrades can be tailored specifically to the building design to achieve the optimum and, hence, the lowest cost of building upgrade. Note:

For residential premises located within a TNC, the provisions of QDC MP 4.4 to control road traffic noise intrusion into internal spaces will override any separate conditions of the regulatory authorities that are imposed at DA requiring design of residences in accordance with other policies, guidelines or standards. This includes the acoustical design requirements of any Council policies. Consequently, and as is evident in Condition 4 Managing Noise Impacts, there is no warrant within the conditions of approval to impose any requirement to acoustically design future residences to achieve any specific internal noise level limits. The acoustical design of such residences, notably all residences within the TNC, will be addressed as a matter of course that DA in accordance with requirements of QDC MP 4.4.

When applying the alternative site-specific noise assessment method to the determination of either the noise categories or the building upgrade requirements that apply to any specific residence located within a TNC, DTMR has advised that due consideration may be given to several matters. These are as follows:-

1. Site topography. 2. Beneficial shielding provided by any barriers – either existing or required to be constructed as a

condition of the approval of the Development Application over the subject site. 3. Acoustical shielding provided by existing and approved buildings, where “approved buildings”

refers to (i) buildings for which formal building approval has been granted, or (ii) in the case of the specific building/s being assessed, where building approval is being sought.

4. Determination of the relevant noise category may be made on a facade-specific basis and where a facade of a habitable space is exposed to two or more noise categories, the higher noise category would apply to the whole facade of a particular habitable space. Where a residence lies outside the TNC, no consideration need be given to the acoustical design.



In addition, and as a result of advice provided by DTMR, the following refinement to the site-specific noise assessment is also applicable:-

5. In April 2012, updated advice from DTMR resulted in further refinement of the acoustical design procedures. This updated advice contends that in situations where noise contours can be plotted at fine gradation around the external facades of the building being assessed, such that noise levels can be determined with precision at individual building facade elements, the calculation procedures of AS3671–1989 Acoustics - Road Traffic Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction may be adopted in lieu of the noise categories and the minimum Rw values presented in Schedule 1 of QDC MP 4.4 to determine the precise level of building upgrade required to be implemented to achieve compliance with the internal sound level of AS/NZS 2107:2000 Acoustics – Recommended Design Sound Levels and Reverberation Times for Building Interiors 8 (now AS/NZS 2107:2016) that is applicable to the specific space.

Each of these items of advice has been endorsed in DTMR’s Transport Noise Management Code of Practice, November 2013.

5.0 Current Road Traffic Noise Levels and Derived Noise Level Limits 5.1 General The prediction of road traffic noise intrusion onto any site can be conducted by using the CRTN ’88 9 algorithms. These algorithms have been validated for Australian conditions. Even so, it has been well established that the algorithms generally over-predict the level of road traffic noise. The extent of the over-prediction tends to be site-specific. The degree of over-prediction is generally greater at sites with complex topography and significant distances of separation from the road as well as at sites located adjacent to signalised intersections.

8 The minimum Rw values presented in Schedule 1 of QDC MP 4.4 were determined for a generic building design by applying the calculation

techniques of AS3671 – 1989 to achieve compliance with the satisfactory (ie minimum) internal sound levels of AS/NZS 2107:2000 at the time of the highest (ie maximum) external road traffic noise levels. Refer also tabulation of Referenced Documents of QDC MP 4.4. Because it was necessary to cover a moderately wide range of functional variances for each particular space (ie number of exposed facades, floor areas, areas of glazing, ceiling height, presence of roof/ceiling construction, presence of entry door, et cetera) in doing so, as well as deal with (i) a 5dBA spread of noise levels within each noise category and (ii) generalised (and usually conservative) offsets between (a) L10(18hour) and LAeq,1hrnight values and between (b) L10(18hour) and LAeq,1hrday values, a significant degree of conservatism was built into the minimum Rw values of Schedule 1.

In addition, the minimum Rw values of Schedule 1 have been determined on the basis that equal levels of acoustic energy are transmitted via each of the specific building elements. In practice, the acoustical performance of wall and roof/ceiling constructions, even under “standard construction” conditions, often exceeds the minimum Rw values of Schedule 1. As a result of this, a re-balancing of the Rw performance requirement for glazing can be undertaken without increasing the level of noise intrusion and without jeopardising compliance with the relevant internal sound levels of AS/NZS 2107:2000.

Furthermore, and as noted above, when the calculation techniques of AS3671 – 1989 are used to achieve compliance with the satisfactory (ie minimum) internal sound levels of AS/NZS 2107:2000 at the time of the highest (ie maximum) external road traffic noise levels, it follows that at all other times, the level of road traffic noise intrusion will be below the satisfactory (ie minimum) internal sound levels of AS/NZS 2107:2000. This is an unwarranted degree of conservatism. Rather, a more appropriate approach is to adopt the midpoint value of the range between the satisfactory and maximum internal sound levels set by AS/NZS 2107:2000 as the compliance target for the level of noise intrusion at the time of the highest (ie maximum) external road traffic noise levels. In this way, the net result will be levels of road traffic noise intrusion that line in the lower half of the range between the satisfactory (ie minimum) and maximum internal sound levels set by AS/NZS 2107:2000, ie in the range defined by the satisfactory (ie minimum) level and the midpoint value. Refer also to the footnote to Section 6.1 for further discussion on this matter as it pertains to the current version of the Standard, ie AS/NZS 2107:2016.

When due consideration is also given to the actual level of noise exposure at the facade, rather than adoption of the applicable 5dBA noise category band, a further refinement of the Rw requirement for glazing can be conducted, again without jeopardising compliance with the appropriate internal sound level requirement, ie compliance with the midpoint value of the range of satisfactory and maximum internal sound levels set by AS/NZS 2107:2000. As a result, when these refinements are adopted, it has been determined that, in almost all instances, the glazing to habitable spaces will not need to be upgraded to the degree stated in Schedule 1 of QDC MP 4.4. Furthermore and in particular, for spaces with relatively low areas of glazing and exposed to noise levels at or around 63dBA, it has been determined routinely that full compliance with the midpoint internal sound levels of AS/NZS 2107:2000 can be achieved without requiring any upgrade being made to the acoustic performance of the glazing beyond standard construction.

9 “Calculation of Road Traffic”, UK DoE, HMSO, 1988. This is the method endorsed by Queensland Department of Main Roads and various

local authorities.



In situations where the road has been formed and is operating with significant volumes of traffic, it is appropriate to conduct noise level measurements under the existing road traffic conditions. It is also a requirement of DTMR that this be done. The results of these measurements can be used (i) to validate/calibrate the noise prediction model for the site or the development and, (ii) where appropriate, to establish the appropriate parameter offset values so that the equivalent facade-corrected external L10(18hour) noise limits can be set. 5.2 Road Traffic Noise Levels and Derivation of External Limits Measurements of the level of noise generated by road traffic on Bruce Highway were conducted continuously at a representative location immediately adjoining the subject site. The noise level monitoring was undertaken from 11:15am Tuesday 11 July to 5:15pm Tuesday 18 July 2017. The measurement location is shown as “M” in Figure 1. The measurement height was 1.5m above ground level. The measurements were carried out in general accordance with AS 2702-1984 Acoustics - Methods for the Measurement of Road Traffic Noise. Weather conditions were generally fine. Test instrumentation consisted of a B&K 2250L Environmental Noise Logger (SN3004693). The results of the monitoring for a typical day (ie Wednesday 12 July 2017) are presented graphically in Figure 6. The resultant free field L10(18hour), L10(12hour), LAeq,1hr night, LAeq,1hr day, Maximum LAeq,1hr, LAeq,24hr, LA90(8hour) and LA90(18hour) values and relevant offsets have been determined accordingly. Refer Table 3 below.

Parameter

Measured Free Field

Noise Level, dBA

Derived Offset, dBA

(Parameter Value v L10(18hour))

Parameter

Measured Free Field

Noise Level, dBA

Derived Offset, dBA

(Parameter Value v L10(18hour))

L10(18hour) 74.7 0 Maximum LAeq,1hr

74.7 0.0

L10(12hour) 76.1 1.4 LAeq,24hr 72.0 -2.7

LAeq,1hr night 73.8 -0.9 LA90(8hour) 49.4 -25.3

LAeq,1hr day 74.7 0.0 LA90(18hour) 64.7 -10.0

Table 3 – Measured Free Field Noise Levels and Derived Offsets

From the results presented in Table 3, it can be seen that the measured LA90(18hour) values at Location M was 64.7dBA. This is well above the lower limit of 45dBA LA90(18hour) set by DTMR. The corresponding target external free field noise level limit adopted by DTMR and Condition 4 Managing Noise Impacts for private open space areas would be 60dBA L10(18hour) (ref. Sections 2.4 and 3.0 above). From the results presented in Table 3, it can also be seen that the measured LA90(8hour) value at Location M was 49.4dBA. This value is also well above the cut-off of 40dBA LA90(8hour) also set by DTMR and Condition 4 Managing Noise Impacts. The corresponding external facade-corrected noise level target for determining the height of acoustical barriers as stated at Item 11 of Section 3.0 above would be 63dBA L10(18hour).



6.0 Road Traffic Noise Model 6.1 Preparation of Road Traffic Noise Model The prediction of road traffic noise intrusion onto the site has been conducted using the CRTN ’88 algorithms as applied by the SoundPLAN 10 computer program. The lot layout has been determined from the electronic file provided by AVID Property Group for the current plan of development. The finished ground levels have been determined from the electronic files for the previously proposed development as provided by the Project Civil Engineers, Calibre Group ie Drawing Nos 15-000256.09-108 and 15-000256.09-109, both dated 27 November 2018; as well as 15-000256.09-110 to 15-000256.09-116, all dated 22 November 2018). The traffic volume, vehicle mix and road speed information for Bruce Highway under both contemporary (ie Year 2017 noise level monitoring) and design conditions (ie Year 2031) have been derived from traffic volume data and traffic growth rates supplied by DTMR. This information is reproduced below:- Year 2017 • Traffic Volume: 63618 AADT • Percentage Heavy Vehicles: 10.91% • Traffic Speed: 100km/h • Road surface: JRCC, ie concrete (Northbound), DGA (Southbound) Year 2031 • Traffic Volume: 49834 AADT (Northbound), 46453 AADT (Southbound) • Percentage Heavy Vehicles: 9% (Northbound), 10% (Southbound) • Traffic Speed: 100km/h • Road surface: SMA To determine the extent of road traffic noise intrusion onto the site, the following design assumptions have been adopted:- • Shielding effects: Nil expect where applicable, ie barrier shown in Figures 13A-13I. • Receiver heights: Facades: mid-window level, ie 1.8m agl and 4.6m agl. Private Outdoor Space: 1.5m agl. • Free field validation: -0.7dBA adjustment as per Table 4.3.2.1 of CoP. • Receiver facade effect: +0.8dBA adjustment, ie +2.5 plus -1.7 as per Table 4.3.2.1 of CoP.

The calculations also took account of the various site-specific variables and parameter settings which influence the level of road traffic noise emission onto the site. These included:- • Site topography • Distance from road • Road gradients and road surfaces

• Vertical alignment of road • Angle of view to road • Receptor height

10 SoundPLAN is an integrated software package for noise and air pollution evaluation developed in Germany by Braunstein + Berndt GmbH.

It has been configured to predict the extent of (i) road traffic noise intrusion by application of the CRTN ‘88 algorithms and (ii) industrial noise emission using the CONCAWE algorithms. It is in use in more than 48 countries and has had widespread application throughout Australia. It is endorsed by DTMR, DES, Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Brisbane City Council, GCCC, RCC, LCC, MBRC and most other State environmental authorities.



6.2 Road Traffic Noise Model Validation Two separate model validations were conducted. In the first instance, the 2017 noise model (ie with 2017 traffic volumes and road surface finishes and before upgrade of the Bruce Highway road alignment) was used to determine the predicted level of noise emission to Location M. The free field L10(18hour) noise level due to road traffic on Bruce Highway at 2017 was predicted to be 74.9dBA. This result agrees to within 0.2dBA of the measured free field noise level of 74.7dBA. The 2dBA tolerance set by DTMR was met as a result (ref. Section 3.0 Item 7). The accuracy of prediction is also within the range of variances established by others 11. In the second instance, the 2031 noise model (ie at 2031 traffic volumes and with the road surface finishes and highway alignment as currently designed by BHUP) was used to determine the predicted level of noise emission as a series of 3dBA wide noise contour bands for comparison against the results of the noise modelling shown in the noise report prepared for BHUP by report prepared by the noise consultants to the BHUP contractors, Fulton Hogan. The results are presented in Figure 7. In this figure, it can be seen that, across Unity Precinct, the red, yellow/orange and green contours generally match to within 1dBA of each other. This is a very satisfactory outcome. Note:

The minor degree of divergence that is evident between the two sets of noise contours is due primarily to the tighter grid spacing adopted within the newly prepared SoundPLAN noise model for the plotting of the noise contours for the red, orange and green contours, resulting in a higher level of precision of these contours.

11 Brown & Hollingsworth (1978) 90% confidence -0.3dBA +2.5dBA Urban freeways only Saunders et al (1983) 95% confidence -2.9dBA +4.3dBA Qld, Vic, WA free-field -3.3dBA +6.7dBA Vic facade Brown A R (1994) 95% confidence -0.9dBA +5.1dBA CRTN spreadsheet -2.1dBA +5.8dBA CRTN/SoundPLAN single point -1.7dBA +7.7dBA CRTN/SoundPLAN grid point

Brown R (2000 unpub.) 95% confidence -0.8dBA +3.6dBA CRTN/SoundPLAN single point Brown R (2004) 95% confidence -1.3dBA +2.6dBA CRTN/SoundPLAN single point All data are difference values between predicted and actual. (+ve values indicate over-prediction, -ve under-prediction.)



6.3 Road Traffic Noise Prediction Scenarios To adequately control road traffic noise intrusion onto the site, it was determined that it would be necessary to construct an earth mound varying in height from 3.0m to 5.5m. Refer also barrier alignment shown in Figures 13A-13I. Five scenarios have been modelled accordingly. Two of these scenarios (ie Scenarios 1 and 2) include only the 3.0m high earth mound that is required to be constructed within the 80m wide SAHAB as a matter of course. The remaining three scenarios (ie Scenarios 3-5) include the 1:3 earth mound arrangement shown in Figures 13A-13I. The details of each scenario are presented below. Scenario 1: Receiver height set at 1.5m agl (ie private open space areas), Bruce Highway at 2031

traffic volume, 3.0m high earth mound only in place. Refer Figure 8 for 60dBA free field L10(18hour) noise level limit contour.

Scenario 2: Receiver height set at 1.8m agl (ie lower level facades), Bruce Highway at 2031 traffic volume, 3.0m high earth mound only in place. Refer Figure 9 for facade-corrected L10(18hour) noise levels at 2dBA intervals and Figure 9A for QDC MP 4.4 Noise Categories.

Scenario 3: Receiver height set at 1.5m agl (ie the private open spaces), Bruce Highway at 2031 traffic volume, 3.0-5.9m high 1:3 earth mound arrangement in place as shown in Figures 13A-13I. Refer Figure 10 for 60dBA free field L10(18hour) noise level limit contour.

Scenario 4: Receiver height set at 1.8m agl (ie lower level facades), Bruce Highway at 2031 traffic volume, 3.0-5.9m high 1:3 earth mound arrangement in place as shown in Figures 13A-13I. Refer Figure 11 for QDC MP 4.4 Noise Categories.

Scenario 5: Receiver height set at 4.6m agl (ie upper level facades), Bruce Highway at 2031 traffic volume, 3.0-5.9m high 1:3 earth mound arrangement in place as shown in Figures 13A-13I. Refer Figure 12 for QDC MP 4.4 Noise Categories.



7.0 Discussion of Results 7.1 Extent of Road Traffic Noise Intrusion without Barrier From the results presented in Figure 8 (ie private open space areas, 3.0m high mound in place), it can be seen that the 60dBA free field L10(18hour) noise level contour intrudes very significantly onto the site. All lots within the TNC will be adversely affected. Even though control of noise intrusion into private open space areas will be of concern only when the residences have been constructed (ie when the built form is in place which, in turn, will provide beneficial shielding to all other private open space areas adjoining to the east), it is evident that all of the “front row” lots, ie the western-most lots of Unity Precinct will be exposed to levels of noise intrusion from road traffic on Bruce Highway which exceed the 60dBA noise level limit applicable to private open space areas. In these circumstances, it will be necessary to upgrade the acoustical performance of the 3.0m high earth mound that is required to be constructed within the 80m wide SAHAB as a matter of course to ensure that the 60dBA free field L10(18hour) noise level limit applying to all private open space areas is met throughout. By way of further reference, with only the 3.0m high mound in place, the extent of road traffic noise intrusion expected to result across the site at lowset residences and at the lower facade of highset dwellings is shown in Figure 9 (2dBA contours) and Figure 9A (QDC MP 4.4 noise categories). In both cases, the predicted noise levels are presented as a series of facade-corrected L10(18hour) noise level contours. In these figures, it can be seen that the 63dBA facade-corrected L10(18hour) noise level limit applying to residential facades is exceeded on more than half of the “front row” lots. In view of this outcome, it is also necessary to upgrade the acoustical performance of the noise barrier within the buffer to ensure that the 63dBA facade-corrected L10(18hour) noise level limit is met at all lowset residences. 7.2 Extent of Road Traffic Noise Intrusion with Barrier With the 3.0-5.9m high earth mound barrier shown in Figures 13A-13I constructed in the 80m wide SAHAB, the extent of road traffic noise intrusion can be determined by reference to Figure 10 (ie private open space areas), Figure 11 (ie lowset residences and lower level of highset dwellings) and Figure 12 (ie upper level of highset residences). From the noise contours presented in Figure 10, it can be seen that with the upgraded barrier in place there will be no intrusion of the 60dBA free field L10(18hour) noise level contour onto any of the lots of Unity Precinct. That is, the extent of road traffic noise intrusion into all private open space areas will comply with the requirements of Condition 4 Managing Noise Impacts of Concurrence Agency Response – Preliminary Approval Only (with Conditions) ref SDA-0416-029516. Similarly, from the results shown in Figure 11, it is evident that with the barrier in place there will be no intrusion of the 63dBA facade-corrected L10(18hour) noise level contour onto any lowset residences or onto the lower level facades of any highset dwellings on any of the lots of Unity Precinct. That is, the extent of road traffic noise intrusion to lowset and lower level residential facades will also comply with the requirements of Condition 4 Managing Noise Impacts. Correspondingly, by reference to Figure 11, it can be seen that all lowset residences and the lower level of all highset residences constructed on the lots located within the TNC will lie within the Noise Category 1 band.



The extent of road traffic noise intrusion to the upper level of highset residences is shown in Figure 12. There are two points to make about the results presented in Figure 12. Firstly, as discussed at Item 11 of Section 3.0 above, at most sites practical-height barriers can be constructed to control noise to ground level residential premises only. While it is a desirable goal to attempt to fully control road traffic noise intrusion to upper level facades, it is seldom possible to achieve this outcome. In these circumstances, the appropriate means of controlling noise intrusion is to ensure that the external facade of the upper level of the dwelling is designed at BA to ensure that full control of noise intrusion into the upper level habitable spaces is achieved. Secondly, it is evident in Figure 12 that, somewhat fortuitously, the extent road traffic noise intrusion is controlled to the degree that only three lots, ie Lots 1491-1493, will be exposed to road traffic noise levels exceeding 63dBA L10(18hour) facade-corrected. Even then, by reference to Figure 12, it can be seen that the degree of exceedance is very minor, ie 0.1-0.2dBA. Furthermore, the 63dBA noise contour does not intrude past the front facade setback line on either Lot 1492 or Lot 1493. Only on Lot 1491 would there be any residual, but very minor, intrusion of the 63dBA contour past the building setback lines. In these circumstances, it would be sufficient to ensure that the upper level of any highset dwelling constructed on Lot 1491 is designed at BA to ensure that the relevant internal noise level limits are met. In fact, because Lot 1491 will be designated as lying within the Noise Category 2 band of QDC MP 4.4 in any event (refer also Section 7.4 following), there will be a mandatory requirement to ensure that the upper level of any highset dwelling constructed on this lot is designed so that the relevant internal noise level limits are met throughout. 7.3 Barrier Alignment The horizontal alignment of the previously proposed earth mound is presented in Calibre Consulting Drawing No 15-000256.09-108 and 15-000256.09-109, both dated 27 November 2018. These drawing are attached as Figure 13A and Figure 13B, respectively. The vertical alignment of the previously proposed earth mound is shown in Drawing ie Drawing Nos 15-000256.09-110 to 15-000256.09-116, all dated 22 November 2018. These drawings are attached as Figures 13C-13I. 7.4 QDC MP 4.4 Noise Categories With the 3.0-5.9m high earth mound barrier constructed in the buffer as shown in Figures 13A-13I, the resultant QDC MP 4.4 noise categories applying to each lot can be determined by reference to Figure 11 (ie lowset residences and lower level of highset dwellings) and Figure 12 (ie upper level of highset residences). The resultant QDC MP 4.4 noise categories are summarised in Table 6 overpage. Note:

A total of 176 allotments is shown in Table 6 overpage. These lots have been determined by reference to Figures 11 and 12. In each of these figures, the extent of intrusion of the TNC onto the subject site has been set in accordance with the procedures of DTMR which require that the outer extent of the TNC is to be 250m from the edge of the nearest running lane of the State-controlled road. In this case, the datum for the TNC is the outer edge of the southbound lanes of the Bruce Highway after completion of the current realignment of the highway. By reference to the mapping shown on the SPP website, however, the datum for the extent of the TNC has been set relative to the alignment of Bruce Highway before upgrade. As a result, Lots 1290 and 1311 (Release 9) and Lots 1403 and 1414 (Release 10) are shown in Table 6 but by reference to the SPP website are shown outside the TNC. Similarly, although the SPP website has not been updated to show any lots of Release 13, it is possible that Lots 1465, 1476 and 1509 shown in Table 6 may also lie outside the TNC shown on the SPP website. For each of these seven lots identified above, the requirement to design the residence in accordance with QDC MP 4.4 will be matter for determination by the building certifier.



Lot No

QDC MP 4.4 Noise Category

by Level Lot No


by Level Lot No


by Level Lot No


by Level

Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper

1290 1 1 1339 1 1 1395 1 1 1461 1 1 1291 1 1 1340 1 1 1396 1 1 1462 1 1 1292 1 1 1341 1 1 1397 1 1 1463 1 1 1293 1 1 1342 1 1 1398 1 1 1464 1 1 1294 1 1 1343 1 1 1399 1 1 1465 1 1 1295 1 1 1344 1 1 1400 1 1 1476 1 1 1296 1 1 1345 1 1 1401 1 1 1477 1 1 1297 1 1 1346 1 1 1402 1 1 1478 1 1 1298 1 1 1347 1 1 1403 1 1 1479 1 1 1299 1 1 1348 1 1 1414 1 1 1480 1 1 1300 1 1 1349 1 1 1415 1 1 1481 1 1 1301 1 1 1350 1 1 1416 1 1 1482 1 1 1302 1 1 1351 1 1 1417 1 1 1483 1 1 1303 1 1 1352 1 1 1418 1 1 1484 1 1 1304 1 1 1353 1 1 1419 1 1 1485 1 1 1305 1 1 1354 1 1 1420 1 1 1486 1 1 1306 1 1 1355 1 1 1421 1 1 1487 1 1 1307 1 1 1356 1 1 1422 1 1 1488 1 1 1308 1 1 1357 1 1 1423 1 1 1489 1 1 1309 1 1 1358 1 1 1424 1 1 1490 1 1 1310 1 1 1359 1 1 1425 1 1 1491 1 2 1311 1 1 1360 1 1 1426 1 1 1492 1 1 1317 1 1 1361 1 1 1427 1 1 1493 1 1 1318 1 1 1362 1 1 1428 1 1 1494 1 1 1319 1 1 1363 1 1 1429 1 1 1495 1 1 1320 1 1 1364 1 1 1430 1 1 1496 1 1 1321 1 1 1365 1 1 1431 1 1 1497 1 1 1322 1 1 1366 1 1 1444 1 1 1498 1 1 1323 1 1 1367 1 1 1445 1 1 1499 1 1 1324 1 1 1368 1 1 1446 1 1 1500 1 1 1325 1 1 1381 1 1 1447 1 1 1501 1 1 1326 1 1 1382 1 1 1448 1 1 1502 1 1 1327 1 1 1383 1 1 1449 1 1 1503 1 1 1328 1 1 1384 1 1 1450 1 1 1504 1 1 1329 1 1 1385 1 1 1451 1 1 1505 1 1 1330 1 1 1386 1 1 1452 1 1 1506 1 1 1331 1 1 1387 1 1 1453 1 1 1507 1 1 1332 1 1 1388 1 1 1454 1 1 1508 1 1 1333 1 1 1389 1 1 1455 1 1 1509 1 1 1334 1 1 1390 1 1 1456 1 1 1510 1 1 1335 1 1 1391 1 1 1457 1 1 1511 1 1 1336 1 1 1392 1 1 1458 1 1 1512 1 1 1337 1 1 1393 1 1 1459 1 1 1513 1 1 1338 1 1 1394 1 1 1460 1 1 1514 1 1

Table 6 – QDC MP 4.4 Noise Categories Applying to Lots within TNC



8.0 Conclusions From the results of the assessment presented above, the following conclusions can be drawn:-

• If the height of the earth mound is limited to 3.0m, ie to the height of the mound that is required to be constructed within the SAHAB as a matter of course, the degree of noise intrusion into private open space areas will be such that the 60dBA free field L10(18hour) noise level limit will be exceeded on all lots within the TNC. In addition, the 63dBA facade-corrected L10(18hour) noise level limit applying to residential facades will be exceeded on more than half of the “front row” lots.

• In view of this outcome, it will be necessary to upgrade the acoustical performance of the earth mound within the SAHAB to ensure that (i) the 60dBA free field L10(18hour) noise level limit is met in all private open space areas and (ii) compliance with the 63dBA facade-corrected L10(18hour) noise level limit is achieved at all lowset residences.

• To achieve the necessary reduction in the degree of noise intrusion onto the site, it will be necessary to increase the height of most of the mound beyond 3.0m. Overall, the mound will be 3.0-5.9m high. In addition, it will be necessary to construct an earth mound return at the northern extent of the mound. The horizontal and vertical alignment of the previously proposed earth mound arrangement is shown in Calibre Consulting Drawing Nos 15-000256.09-108 and 15-000256.09-109, both dated 27 November 2018; as well as 15-000256.09-110 to 15-000256.09-116, all dated 22 November 2018. These drawings are attached as Figures 13A-13I.

• With the previously proposed 3.0-5.9m high 1:3 earth mound arrangement in place, the extent of road traffic noise intrusion onto the site will be as shown in Figures 10-12. In these figures, it can be seen that (i) there will be no intrusion of the 60dBA free field L10(18hour) noise level contour onto any of the lots of Unity Precinct, (ii) there will be no intrusion of the 63dBA facade-corrected L10(18hour) noise level contour onto any lowset residences or onto the lower level facades of any highset dwellings on any of the lots and (iii) for all but one lot, the degree of road traffic noise intrusion to the upper level of highset residences will be less than 63dBA L10(18hour) facade-corrected.

• Overall, the extent of road traffic noise intrusion onto the site will comply with the requirements of Condition 4 Managing Noise Impacts of Concurrence Agency Response – Preliminary Approval Only (with Conditions) ref SDA-0416-029516.



9.0 Recommendations To adequately control the intrusion of noise from road traffic on Bruce Highway onto all lots within Unity Precinct, it is recommended that the barrier arrangement shown in Figure 13 be adopted. Specifically, the previously proposed 3.0-5.9m high earth mound should be constructed as shown in the earthworks design drawings prepared by the Project Civil Engineers, Calibre Group (ie Nos 15-000256.09-108 and 15-000256.09-109, both dated 27 November 2018; as well as 15-000256.09-110 to 15-000256.09-116, all dated 22 November 2018). Because the earth mound is being constructed to attenuate noise from road traffic on a State-controlled road, it will be necessary for the mound to be designed in compliance with the relevant requirements of DTMR. Refer also AO2.1 of Harmony State-controlled Road Amenity Code and to the relevant sections of the following documents:- 1. Part C – Chapter 3 - Urban Design of DTMR Road Landscape Manual

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standards-publications/Road-landscape-manual.aspx 2. Chapter 7 Integrated Noise Barrier Design of DTMR Transport Noise Management Code of Practice

Volume 1 – Road Traffic Noise

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standards-publications/Transport-noise-management-code-of-practice.aspx

With the previously proposed 3.0-5.9m high 1:3 earth mound barrier constructed in the buffer as shown in Calibre Group drawings attached, the resultant QDC MP 4.4 noise categories applying to each lot can be determined by reference to Table 6. At BA, the subsequent QDC MP 4.4 design of the residences to be constructed on lots within the TNC associated with Bruce Highway should be made by reference to the noise categories presented in Table 6. Report Prepared by Acoustics RB Pty Ltd

Russell Brown RPEQ2799

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standards-publications/Road-landscape-manual.aspx





Attachment A

Harmony State-controlled Road Amenity Code



Attachment B

Constraint on Adoption of QDC MP 4.4

The relevant of extracts from QDC MP 4.4 follow below.

As noted above, the purpose of QDC MP 4.4 is to ensure control of transport noise intrusion into particular residential buildings, ie “relevant residential buildings”, where as noted in the definition above, a relevant residential building must be located within a Transport Noise Corridor (TNC) as defined under Sections 246Z and 246ZA of Building Act 1975. Part of the subject site is located in a TNC, part is not. Therefore, the provisions of QDC MP 4.4 are triggered for only that part of the site that is located within the TNC. Whether it is possible to extend the application of QDC MP 4.4 beyond its purpose is a town planning/legal question. In the absence of an answer to that question and to avoid any inadvertent conflict by attempting to invoke QDC MP 4.4 where it cannot be properly applied, the appropriate means of controlling of road traffic noise intrusion to lots lying outside the TNC is to apply the more robust methodology of the calculation methods of AS 3671-1989 Acoustics – Road traffic noise intrusion - Building siting and construction to the design of noise affected residences, with the goal being to achieve compliance with the recommended internal sound levels of AS/NZS 2107:2000 Acoustics – Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors.



Figure 1 – Site Location



Figure 2 – Locations of Harmony Development and Unity Precinct within Palmview Master Planned Area

Harmony

Unity



Figure 3 – Staging Plan for Unity Precinct



Figure 4 – Typical Cross-Section through Scenic Amenity and Highway Acoustic Buffer (Ref. Figure SC 6.20A of Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014)



Figure 5 – Noise Categories by Reference to DSDMIP SPP IMS Website



Figure 6 – Monitored Noise Levels at Location “M” – Wednesday 12 July 2017



Figures 7-12

Noise Contour Plots



Figures 13A-13I

Barrier Alignment