Issuu on Google+

ICR1142538

AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

Your Ref: A209460/PA35123/P2115135 Our Ref: Enquiries: G Wright Telephone: 0427907769

*ICR11 Dec No: ~qle C,:~te Of[~cer

August 3, 2011

City of Albany Records ICRl142538 A209460 03 AUG 2011 SPLAN1

~k['[ach BOX \/01 ~.0x'+VoL

The Chief Executive Officer City of Albany PO Box 484 ALBANY WA 6331

~ Z,'. C ~'~'~ CITY OF ALBANY / ~ .~.~ NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSENT LOT 1005 CATALINA ROAD, LANGE To The Chief Executive Officer, Thank you for your letter dated July 7 2011 regarding the above and the invitation to comment on this proposal. By way of an introduction, we are the owner/occupiers of Lot 38 Catalina Road which is adjacent to the land being developed by Kingopen P/L and includes Lot 1005 Catalina Road, the subject of this submission. As you are aware, Lot 1005 is currently zoned Mixed Business with the associated land use providing a transition buffer between the existing shopping centre to the west and R20 residential land on the adjacent Lot 1002 immediately to the east. The Mixed Business zoning was an agreed zoning based on a previous development application submitted by the current landowner. To now seek a change as proposed represents a significant shift in land use type and purpose that is inconsistent with the built environment. I question the integrity of the noise assessment that underpins the statement made by Herring generated from the shopping centre is at acceptable levels for nearby residents From our experience, this is not the case, the lacks statement credibility and it should not be accepted at face value by Council. Noise from stock delivery activities to the service entry of Woolworths that occur 6 nights of every week [previously between 11.30pm and 2.30am, now between 4am and 7am and at other various times of the day] will be an issue for the occupiers of these dwellings. I base this statement on actual experience that we have had to endure over the past several years. Sound travelling some 350 metres to our dwelling is challenge enough, let alone for residents only 30 metres away from the source of the noise.

1


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES Of particular concern is the lack of detail with regard to the management of the increased volume of stormwater and rainfall run−off that will be generated by this development. Council officers are well aware of the current water logging of our land caused by increased frequency, intensity and duration of overland flow as well as continuous discharge of water stored in the attenuation basin located on portion of Lot 1002 at our western property boundary. For those officers to dismiss the issue with a simplistic view that flows are no more than those that existed at pre−development is both inaccurate and unacceptable. That perspective is fundamentally flawed when there is no recognition of the increased frequency and duration of the modified discharge rate. Despite numerous requests to have this shortcoming addressed with a satisfactory outcome by Kingopen over the past several years, no attempt has been made to respond to our communications nor take responsibility for their actions and restore our property to pre−development conditions. This is a most untenable situation that must be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity. To add further detriment by proceeding with additional development proposals is disrespectful of other property owners' legal rights and it should not be supported until appropriate and effective remedial works have been implemented. The proposed development will provide a means to increase the direct and continual discharge of stormwater across our property. It can be very clearly demonstrated that our property has suffered, and continues to suffer detrimental impact as a direct result of the development activities from the adjoining land. In our opinion, the proposal represents a frontier type development that does not integrate with the existing local amenity and environment nor does it contribute to the overall orderly progression of utility services and supporting community infrastructure. Having said that, we are not opposed to land development opportunities however these should integrate with and complement the existing environment not disregard it and provide conflict. Yours sincerely,

Graham Wright __/ Christine Waugh PO Box 1736 ALBANY WA 6331

~. ,−

(~ :>~It;"..

2

"


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

3


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

4


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

5


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

6


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

7


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

8


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

9


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

10


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

11


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

12


Rochdale Holdings Pty Ltd A.B.N. 85 009 049 067 trading as:

HERRING STORER ACOUSTICS

AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

Suite 34, 11 Preston Street, Como, W.A. 6152 P.O. Box 219, Como, W.A. 6952 Telephone: (08) 9367 6200 Facsimile: (08) 9474 2579 Email: hsa@hsacoustics.com.au

Our ref: 13119-2-11045 24 May 2011 Kingopen Pty Ltd C/o LM Investment Management Ltd PO Box 485 SURFERS PARADISE, QLD, 4217

Attention: Scott King Address: sking@lmaustralia.com

Dear Scott, LOT 1005 CATALINA ROAD, ALBANY ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT Herring Storer Acoustics have been commissioned by Kingopen Pty Ltd to carry out an assessment of noise received at Lot 1005 Catalina Road from the adjoining shopping centre complex. It is proposed that Lot 1005 Catalina Road, Albany be a residential development. Noise monitoring of activities associated with the neighbouring shopping centre complex was carried out on the 29th and 30th March 2011. The objective of the monitoring was to: •

Measure noise levels received within the proposed development from the adjoining Shopping Centre access way and loading docks which adjoin Lot 1005.

Assess noise emissions onto the proposed residential units at Lot 1005 Catalina Road.

In the event of high noise levels, provide input into suitable design treatments along the western boundary of Lot 1005 to reduce noise levels to acceptable parameters.

As part of this study, a noise assessment has been carried out with regards to the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. This work was instigated to accompany a development application to council for the proposed residential development.

13


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

Herring Storer Acoustics Our ref: 13119-2-11045

2

SUMMARY Noise level emissions associated with the loading dock comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 for day time activities. It is understood that deliveries occur at 0600 and 1600 hours only. Additionally, from information received from the client, mitigation measures will include the construction of a 1.8m high wall along the western boundary of the shopping centre. Construction of the wall will comprise blockwork adjoining parallel parking areas along this boundary. Remaining fencing will be overlapping timber or Colourbond panel fencing. Expectations are that noise levels may be reduced a further 5 dB(A) with the inclusion of this wall. It is also noted that the noise emissions from the loading dock are based on noise received at the nearest residence (units) at the proposed development. This represents a worst case assessable noise level, with reductions in noise expected the further away the units are in location to the loading dock. Compliance with the regulation noise levels is achieved for the activities as outlined by the shopping centre manager and as measured on site during the 29 and 30 March 2011.

CRITERIA The allowable noise level at the surrounding locales is prescribed by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Regulations 7 & 8 stipulate maximum allowable external noise levels determined by the calculation of an influencing factor, which is then added to the base levels shown below. The influencing factor is calculated for the usage of land within two circles, having radii of 100m and 450m from the premises of concern. Table 1 - Baseline Assigned Outdoor Noise Level Premises Receiving Noise

Noise sensitive premises

Note:

Time of Day 0700 - 1900 hours Monday to Saturday (Day) 0900 - 1900 hours Sunday and Public Holidays (Sunday / Public Holiday Day Period) 1900 - 2200 hours all days (Evening) 2200 hours on any day to 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 0900 hours Sunday and Public Holidays (Night)

Assigned Level (dB) LA 10

LA 1

LA max

45 + IF

55 + IF

65 + IF

40 + IF

50 + IF

65 + IF

40 + IF

50 + IF

55 + IF

35 + IF

45 + IF

55 + IF

LA10 is the noise level exceeded for 10% of the time. LA1 is the noise level exceeded for 1% of the time. LAmax is the maximum noise level. IF is the influencing factor.

It is a requirement that received noise be free of annoying characteristics (tonality, modulation and impulsiveness), defined below as per Regulation 9. “impulsiveness�

means a variation in the emission of a noise where the difference between LApeak and LAmax Slow is more than 15 dB when determined for a single representative event;

14


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

Herring Storer Acoustics Our ref: 13119-2-11045

“modulation”

3

means a variation in the emission of noise that – (a) is more than 3dB LA Fast or is more than 3 dB LA Fast in any onethird octave band; (b) is present for more at least 10% of the representative assessment period; and (c) is regular, cyclic and audible;

“tonality”

means the presence in the noise emission of tonal characteristics where the difference between – (a) the A-weighted sound pressure level in any one-third octave band; and (b) the arithmetic average of the A-weighted sound pressure levels in the 2 adjacent one-third octave bands, is greater than 3dB when the sound pressure levels are determined as LAeq,T levels where the time period T is greater than 10% of the representative assessment period, or greater than 8 dB at any time when the sound pressure levels are determined as LA Slow levels.

Where the noise emission is not music, if the above characteristics exist and cannot be practicably removed, then any measured level is adjusted according to Table 2 below. Table 2 - Adjustments to Measured Levels Where tonality is present

Where modulation is present

Where impulsiveness is present

+5 dB(A)

+5 dB(A)

+10 dB(A)

Note: These adjustments are cumulative to a maximum of 15 dB.

As nearest potential noise sensitive premises to the shopping centre the IF factors for the proposed development have been identified using the area map in Figure 1.

Adjoining Shopping Centre

Proposed Development Lot 1005 Catalina Rd

Commercial Zoning

Figure 1 – Location Plan

15


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

Herring Storer Acoustics Our ref: 13119-2-11045

4

The influencing factor at the closest identified premises (the proposed residential development at Lot 1005) has been assessed at 4 dB, with the calculation based on the following: Commercial Premises within inner circle 50 % + 2.5 dB Commercial Premises within outer circle 25 % + 1.25 dB Hence, Table 3 summarises the Assigned Noise Levels for residences identified in Figure 1. Table 3- Assigned Outdoor Noise Level Premises Receiving Noise

Noise sensitive premises

Note:

Time of Day

Assigned Level (dB) LA 10

LA 1

LA max

Day

49

59

69

Sunday / Public Holiday Day Period

44

54

69

Evening

44

54

59

Night

39

49

59

LA10 is the noise level exceeded for 10% of the time. LA1 is the noise level exceeded for 1% of the time. LAmax is the maximum noise level.

MEASUREMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS During the site visit that occurred on 29th and 30th March 2011, two forms of noise measurements were carried out. Firstly, short term hand held measurements of noise emissions from delivery trucks were recorded. These measurements were used to establish base noise levels emissions of vehicle events. The results from these measurements are as follows; Table 4- Measured Noise Level Time

Noise Level LA10 dB(A)

Noise Emission

07:17

Bread Truck with reversing beeper, went down into RHS loading dock

51

08:57

Freight delivery by a courier (3 tonne truck)

50

09:34

Yellow wheelie bin delivery/pickup on open backed truck

48

Background, no traffic, but includes some AC plant

46*

*LAeq Secondly, continuous noise monitoring utilising noise data loggers was conducted from 18:30 on the 29th to 10:00 on the 30th March 2011. The noise logger was set to capture noise levels at one minute intervals. Measurements of noise levels were continuous over a 14 hour period. It is understood from information provided by the shopping centre that the loading dock is utilised in the morning and afternoon periods. Observations were that 3 trucks used the loading dock between 07:00 and 10:00. Graphical representation of the noise levels are shown plotted against time in Figure 2. This plot shows the noise levels from all noise sources including other noise not associated with the neighbouring loading dock, i.e. traffic on roadways etc. As can be seen, the higher level event, which have been correlated against known times of truck movement in the loading dock, represent short term noise event. Due to the duration of the truck movement (loading dock noise) being infrequent and short term, the assessable criteria has been taken to be the LA1 descriptor.

16


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

Herring Storer Acoustics Our ref: 13119-2-11045

5

Figure 2 – Continuous Noise Monitoring

ASSESSMENT The applicable adjustments to the calculated noise levels, in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, are listed in Table 5. Based on experience with similar projects, the noise emissions are considered likely to contain tonal characteristics. Table 5 – Applicable Adjustments and Assessable Level of Noise Emissions – Loading Area, dB(A) Noise Source Truck Event

Calculated Noise Level, dB(A)

Applicable Adjustments To Measured Noise Levels, dB(A) Tonality

Modulation

Impulsiveness

Assessable Noise Level, dB(A)

+5

-

-

56

Where Noise Emission Is Not Music

51

Hence, Table 6 summarises the applicable Assigned Noise Levels, and assessable noise level emissions, for both scenarios considered. Table 6 – Assessment of Loading Dock Noise Levels Assessable Noise Level, dB(A)

Applicable Times of Day

Applicable LA1 Assigned Noise Level (dB)

Exceedance to Assigned Noise Level (dB)

56

Day

59

Complies

As can be seen from the above tables, noise level emissions associated with the loading dock are calculated to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 for day time activities. It is understood that deliveries occur at 0600 and 1600 hours only.

17


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

Herring Storer Acoustics Our ref: 13119-2-11045

6

Additionally, from information received from the client, mitigation measures will include the construction of a 1.8m high wall along the western boundary of the shopping centre. Construction of the wall will comprise blockwork adjoining parallel parking areas along this boundary. Remaining fencing will be overlapping timber or Colourbond panel fencing. Expectations are that noise levels may be reduced a further 5 dB(A) with the inclusion of this wall. It is also noted that the noise emissions from the loading dock are based on noise received at the nearest residence (units) at the proposed development. This represents a worst case assessable noise level, with reductions in noise expected the further away the units are in location to the loading dock. I trust the above meets your requirements on this matter. Should you have any further queries, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours faithfully, For HERRING STORER ACOUSTICS

Paul Daly

18


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

WOOD AND GRIEVE ENGINEERS SERVICING REPORT

19


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

20


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

21


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

SITE / SURROUNDS SURVEY

22


AGENDA ITEM 2.3 REFERS 23 PAGES

23


/aa_2.3_oct11