MCU12/0012 - Applicants address to Council

Sunshine Coast Council				Charles Marais
9 Pelican Street					298 Tablelands Road
Tewantin Qld. 4565					Cooran Qld. 4565
3 July 2012

Jack Lewis

RE.: MCU12/0012 NOISE ASSESSMENT REVIEW

We urgently wish to resolve the noise testing results with Council and require Council agree on a method to do so.

We had done four on site noise review tests, all of which resulted in compliance to noise limits. One of these tests was performed by a representative of the quad bike manufacturer. After these tests, you and councils environment officer Rhian Davies attended an on site demonstration of the equivalent noise generation. Rhian Davies tested the equivalent generated motor noise to approximately 76dB(A). With this noise constant we all travelled to a point on the side of the road towards the Fowler residence and outside of 374 tablelands Road. At this point we all agreed the noise was barely audible let alone at any level to cause concern. I presumed that this simple demonstration resolved the noise issues.

However, only after further objections by the “Fowler/Schofield” attack did Council then request an independent acoustic engineers report. You issued us with the name of David Moore and Associates as a competent sound engineer who has done work both with and for council.

On advice from you and Rhian Davies we instructed David Moore to undertake the required sound testing. David Moore and Associates report was presented to council and with a few questions answered by David Moore to you, we concluded that the report was satisfactory.

However, again only after objections from the “Fowler/Schofield” attack did Council decide to employ the services of yet another independent acoustic engineer to review the report done by David Moore and Associates. Council also forwarded the letter from the “Fowler/Schofield” attack to the reviewing consultant. Council refused us permission to contact the reviewing consultant and or release the name of the reviewing consultant. However not only did the “Fowler/Schofield” letter get passed on to the reviewing consultant, but the “Fowler/Schofield” attackers obtained the reviewing consultants name. We presume they also made contact with the consultant.

Council then requested additional costly monitoring and assessment be undertaken by our acoustic consultant in a letter to us from Kerri Coyle dated 18 June 2012. Not surprising the requests are the same as the “Fowler/Schofield” letter. However to resolve any issues beyond doubt by way of a noise model (eg SoundPLAN), would be impossible.

As such we decided to undertake a basic on site noise test with all the neighbours present and additional witnesses to one of the tests. We also presented to you letters confirming the amenity of the area from all the neighbours to both our property and the national park. Obviously with the exception of the “Fowler” residence.

Council do not wish to accept this as proof that the original David Moore and Associates report is correct and for that matter the other four noise reports done.

We are now faced with further delays whilst Council attempts to find a practical solution to resolve this on going simple noise problem. This noise issue formed part of the Department of Environment and Resource Managements assessment of the approved commercial activity permit to use the Woondum National Park for the quad bike tours.

It is obvious that 12 quad bikes do generate some form of noise. We advised council of this proposal at the beginning of the assessment. Surely Council should have requested this information be part of our application if it was not to accept that the Department of Environment and Resource Management would have reviewed this issue.

We now ask council to confirm that repeating of the practical test and a short period of background noise testing is the final requirement to this issue. This can be done yet again at our expense using David Moore and Associates. The most frustrating part of all is the lengthy delays, costs and loss of income to us. We do hold council liable for these delays and costs, as these issues should have been part of the requested information for our application many, many months ago.

Can you now urgently respond to us with details of how we can resolve this matter. Include to us where you would like the period logger located and for what period and for what preferred day or days. That you will accept that a revised test be with an inexperienced rider on one quad bike. That the total noise calculated for 12 quad bikes can be generated using any form of motorised noise generation of the same or higher dB(A), namely a Kubota tractor with a mulching implement attached to generate the maximum noise possible by both bikes and patrons. The acceptance, of the previous positions at the three houses to be tested, namely 268, 295 and 374 tablelands Road. Also confirm to us that no further delays will be imposed on us due to this required test, as all your reports, recommendations etc. can be made subject to satisfactory results from this extra noise testing. That it is obvious that the result of this test will prove the noise issue for once and for all.

Please can you reply to us as a matter of urgency.

Yours Faithfully

Charles Marais