MCU12/0012 Objections to acoustic report for Noosa Quad Bike Tours

Page 2

     1.    Calibration certificated for noise measurements equipment


     2.    Measurement of Background noise levels across the expected hours of operation. We

           expect this would require noise logging at a location representative of the noise sensitive
           receivers for a 24hour period or at least across the daytime period 7am to 6pm. Inclusive of a

           weekend period, assuming the proposal is to operate on weekends


     3.    Details of the potential noise increase at each receiver due to adverse metrological conditions

           such as temperature inversions


     4.    Further justification of the 2dB(A) penalty applied for tonality. Expected that 5dBA penalty

           would have been applied


     5.     Further justification of the 10dB(A) deduction for applied for intervening vegetation.

                                                                              Qualifications: B.Eng (Mech).



Mr Shane Elkin, SLR Consulting Australia


     Mr Elkin provided his summation via phone call on 1 June 2012. Mr Elkin questioned the methodology

     process for which the source noise level was derived. He identified that the report lent itself to

     underestimations of the noise levels. He also stated that the Moore Report applied a ’very crude

     prediction technique’ and was missing proper modelling that would normally include such things as
     vegetation, terrain etc. In conclusion, Mr Elkin made the point "Could they (these points) make a material
     difference to the outcome, yes I think so!"

                                                                              Qualifications: B.Eng (Mech).

Summary of Reviews
The reviews by these consultants highlight the fundamental flaws within the Moore Report and its sho,rtfalls

in properly assessing the noise impact of this operation upon surrounding properties. These fundamental

issues also beg to que&tion other areas of concern that pertain to the Moore Report if and when a more

detailed review and assessment is carried out.




Other ncm compliant issues pertaining to the Moore Report:

In our layman review of the Moore Report we found it to be insufficient both in its methodology and in its

assessment and cannot be relied upon as a true acoustic assessment of the quad bike operation and their

noise impact upon surrounding properties. Below are the issues that pertain to this report and elaborations

on   key areas as well.


       .   No measure of noise in the afternoon or on weekends

       .   No measure of temperatures at time of assessment or weather conditions (raining,windy?)

       .   No measure of patron noise on site

       .   No measure of instructor noise on site

       .   No measure of the levels of ATV noise under higher power settings

       .   No measurement of atmospheric effects in focusing sounds within the gully and the surrounding

           properties a top of the ridge.
       .   No proper modelling using Sound plan or similar recognised modelling software

       .   No minimum and maximum noise level recordings were included

       .   No indication of ATV bike modification (though Mr Moore stated verbally he was aware of


                                                                                                               2

Page 3

          discussions    between Mr Marais and the supplier about modifications to the bike to reduce noise)

      .   Measurements were undertaken on one quad bike on&,(Mr Moore indicated that it was not

          possible to have 12 quad bikes on the training circuit as it would be too dangerous to have that
          many vehicles on the circuit at the same time)

      .   Measurement was undertaken using an experienced quad bike rider instead of inexperienced

          riders

      .   No measurement of noise as the bikes exit the steep slope from the base of the property or at the

          gate of the property which they will enter and exit, twice daily (4times per day)
      .   No calibration certification for noise measurement equipment.

      .   No measurement of activity on public road for local residents.

      .   No measure of employee’s parking activity noise

      .   No measure of minibus vehicle noise for patron pick up and drop off



1. Vegetation

The 1 OdBA deduction applied for intervening vegetation in the Moore Report is unsubstantiated, especially

since there has been considerable clearing on 298 Tablelands Road allowing clear views to the sheds and

the access road in and out-of the property. This is viewable from the road.


The satellite image of the property and the surrounding area included in the Moore report appears to be an

old Google Map image from 2006 and does not show the current cleared areas on the property. We have

included MyMaps from the Council Mapping System showing the variation in vegetation between 2006 and

2008 for 298 Tablelands Road. 2008 shows considerable clearing undertaken by Mr Marais who purchased

the property in that year. Since 2008 much more significant clearing has been undertaken on the property.

In attempt to meet MCU guidelines for the property, the applicant has undertaken the removal of vegetation

which provides a clear view of the site area. See attached satellite mapping images.



2. Separation Distances.

The proximity of neighbouring properties in the Moore Report are understated and no scaling has been

included in the map. The scaling system on the 2008 MyMaps show the properties at a closer proximity to

the quad bike tour site. We questi   n   why Mr Moore would use an olq map when more recent maps are

readily available on council website? We also question the many approximations used for distances when

they could have been measured more accurately?


3. Terrain and altitude of Neighbouring       Properties
Moore report states that the neighbouring properties are over the ridge from the quad bike tour site therefore

noise would not be audible, however many       surrounding properties are at the top of the ridge and not beyond
it.


The quad bike tour site is approximately at 199m above sea level whilst the surrounding properties are at

greater heights, some at 280m and more. The sit~ is located within a natural amphitheatre setting, this
makes the noise level inclination at some of the surrounding properties situated at a higher altitude.




4. ATV Noise levels

Nick from Noosa Motorcycles on Eumundi Road, in speaking with Ms Fowler, a local resident, was asked if

different brands of quad bikes make different levels of noise. Nick replied they are all pretty much the same

in noise levels when looking at the quad bike output when they are similar in size.

                                                                                                                3

Page 4

If a Honda     (4Stroke) TRX 420 at 15m measure at 82 dB(A) in the Palmer Report for Peter Gates
NUMINBAH VALLEY, how is it possible that 12 Kymko 300 quad bikes at 10m measure at 74.2 dB(A)?


If the quad bikes were modified to reduce the noise level and meet the standards, why weren’t the

modifications to the bikes identified in the report, especially if the condition of approval would be based on

this? By omitting any details about the bike’s modifications in any way, this raises serious questions of

transparency of the Moore report provided by the applicant. As you can see the only reference to the bike is

quite ambiguous and infers that there will be other models of bikes used by the operation:

    "On Wednesday 18 April 2012 David Moore & Associates Pty Ltd conducted a noise assessment of the

    quad bike to be used for the tours, namely a Kymco MXU 300 quad bike with automatic transmission
    and a 270cc engine. This assessment was conducted with the quad bike being ridden around the

    tesUtraining circuit, together with a background noise assessment"


5. Recovery Vehicle Noise

The Kawasaki Mule recovery vehicle was not tested for noise impact on site and was not included in

calculations in the Moore report with regards to noise levels.



6. Noise impact on local residents along Tablelands Rd

Due to the quad bike tour taking place outside the boundaries for over’ 75% of the time, that being along

Tablelands Road and the Woondum National Park, it would be quite reasonable and fair to argue that the

consideration of noise impact upon local residents should also have been considered and included in this

assessment as this is part of the whole business activity proposed by the applicant.


It is arguably unreasonable for the Council Planning and Development Department, who have a ’statutory

responsibility’ as managers of information to provide a real and ’not illusory’ process of assessment and
scrutiny of this proposal, especially with full council knowledge that the tour will take place outside of

people’s homes and properties. It is clear to all concerned parties that this is the main part of the activity and

disregarding this aspect for an acoustic assessment would ’effectively result in the community being

misinformed as to the impact of noise by this proposal and of the community’s prospects of

opposing the proposal.’ 1


7. The characteristics of the local environment to focus noise and through atmospheric effects

to diffract sound back onto local areas.

If it was provided by Palmer Acoustics that:

"The Numinbah valley could be described as a pristine acoustic environment. The valley in effect encloses

the proposed ATV park and will result in reflections that will ensure that sound from this proposed use will be

clearly audible in the region. In particular at times of temperature inversions (increasing temperature with
altitude   usually in early cool mornings) the effect will be to focus ATV noise back into the valley ensuring
           -




potential audibility up to 2.5 km away around the valley. Such inversions can increase the noise levels
by 10 to 15 dB at distances of more than 1km."2 Then it would be fair and reasonable to assume, being in a
similar acoustic environment, that the Cooran Tablelands have a similar acoustic qualities and range of noise

over   greater distances.

1. Referenced from Gates & Ors 11 Gold Coast City Council & Ors [2011J 120 Section 6

2. MCU 201100604 Submission PGates to GCCC 10 May 2012




                                                                                                                 4

Page 5

The Palmer Report has provided a fuller and more considered report and assessment of the ATVs upon the

environment which the Moore Report lacks.



Council Advice for a Proper Assessment:

We are concerned with the variations in advice by the council to the applicant in regards to an independent

noise assessment.


Originally Jack, you had formally advised Mr Marais on 4 April 2012 that the assessment had originally

provided was inadequate and required the following information, which appears you have extracted from an
email from Mr Rhian Davies, MEnvMan (Cleaner Production) BAppSci (Env Health), Environmental Officer,

SCRC:

      "Council considers this outstanding information to be a relevant community concern and it must be provided
      in order to objectively assess the impacts on adjacent noise sensitive premises. Therefore it is required

      the appli ant address this by engaging the services of a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to
                                                                                                    that may be
      prepare and submit a noise impact assessment addressing the potential noise impacts
      generated by the use (e.g. 12 quad bikes in operation at once, other noise sources such as patron
      noise and vehicles arriv ng and departing etc). Where potential impacts are identified which can be

      viably controlled, then the assessment must make recommendations for noise amelioration accordingly.
      This assessment must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and in accordance with the Ecoaccess

      Guideline Planning For Noise Control, the Environmental Protection (Noise)Policy 2008, the EPA Noise
      Measurement Manual and relevant Australian Standards, e.g. AS1055 series."



However Mr Moore has stated in his report:

      "In accordance with an emai/ from Rhian Davies, Environment Officer, Sunshine Coast RegiOnal

      Council, Noosa Quad Bike Tours are required to conduct a noise assessment of the quad bikes using
      the testltraining circuit at 2~8 Tablelands Road, Cooran, for up to 12 quad bikes, to determine noise

      impact at all of the nearby residences (located as detailed above)."

There appears a disparity between the initial instructions by Mr Davies as to what is required and what is

stated and acted upon by Mr Moore in his actual assessment and report. This raised many questions in our

community as to why there was such an apparent inconsistency in instructions by the council’s
environmental officer in th s assessment.



Summary
In summation of the Moore Report and the deficiencies that have been highlighted, we find the report

insufficient in its ability to adequately assess the noise impact of this MCU application that stands before

council for decision. We have no faith in this report as a community and any further assessments need to

address all issues presented within this letter. As it stands it is highly contestable not only by the community

but also by expert acoustic consultants. We thoroughly concur with Judge Newton in Gates & Ors v Gold

Coast City Council & Ors [2011J 120and its application to other relevant bodies:

"The assessing authority should not be relieved of its statutory responsibility to act as a manager of
information which affords the community a genuine and not an illusory ability to scrutinise
              "
applications.


Yours Sincerely

{)j

                                                                                                                  5

Page 6

Uktn ..C’fIfu,,"   "_UiIl’lCy ..liIa IPtHn’. "...hl’ Ut. $ifll"irlt Ct.", CfI"Cjl
                   .
          l’!!aW 11’1, ttotthtll;ilOt\. 6’ wtl’f.lnlltt _bOI/t i6 .iCCutacy. ftiaDiit,.
                                                                                          Sunshine
                Pfrtic.!tr ~f’PO’. and drtd.lm. 1111 "lPOn"~Jtr an’ AI hbUy
               irt fttf:.acnc,)"r I’                      ~mat... faC\l-lJnt ~4"cu
                                                              -
                                                                                          Coast
                                                                      lIIfiuM’lfn

                                                                                          Council

Page 7

            Sunshine Coast
                                          il



                                                       Uf
                                          [’.


              . . . . " .,
                    t f’li!-f1 "’~Il



    ,_.:"        ,ent CJ’ . " . ,
                      ’ ’~I
                  "’loft
                           8
                              . .~

                           f."_’,~   .1
                                          _.:t,u<"~I




.


[OCR of page images]
gaoe dey [louno, jseoD ourysung

—7 pS

gaa Fey [Jouno.) 1se0,) ouTysuNS

frounog / .
seo : 2

aulysuns