Submission about Noise Level Assessment Report for Noosa Quad Bike Tours MCU12/0012 (24/07/2012)

From: Layla [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012 4:59:31 PM
To: Jack Lewis; Julie Edwards; John Knaggs; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; Cr Tony Wellington - Tewantin Office; P&M Schofield; Juliette Peters; A Website; [email protected]
Subject: Noise Level Assessment Report for Noosa Quad Bike Tours MCU12/0012 (24/07/2012)
Dear Jack
In regards to Mr Moore's recent review of the noise impact of
Noosa Quad Bike Tours proposal on 23 July 2012, we wish to advise
that we have sent the report for review at short notice to Mr
Palmer, who was one of the acoustic consultants who had provided a
critical analysis of the first Moore report.
Mr Palmer in his brief summation has forwarded the following
review today:
Layla
You
certainly have not given me much time, particular since I am in
Bangkok in transit to Dhaka.
However
in a preliminary review I note the following:
The
report does not respond to the RFI and many of the requests
were dismissed. 
I
am concerned not to see the graphed presentation of the
logged ambient noise.  The report does not statge what noise
logger was used and its noise floor.
Noise
modelling is appropriate for this type of exercise
particularly due to the varying nature of the bike paths. 
 The
calculation for tonality gives insufficient information to
assess its accuracy.
The
background levels have been averaged at 37 dB(A) and the
report is not using the real day time background levels. 
The report indicates that the background level can drop
 down to 23 dB(A)  at night and 25 dB(A) during day time
hours.   
 I
do not trust the noise data that is being used as it is my
experience that quad bikes can be a lot noisier.  The noise
data appears to be averaged and is not using the maximum
noise levels from the individual quad bikes.
The
explanation for the 10 dB attenuation from vegetation,
particularly when there will be line of site view to the
bikes at times, is not acceptable.  When there is line of
site view  there is no vegetation attenuation.
The
report makes no reference to the potential for much higher
noise impacts for times of atmospheric temperature
inversion.
 Again
this revised report under-estimates the true impact of noise
from the Quad Bikes.
 Regards
ROSS PALMER 
 CPEng RPEQ (3534)
Principal
PALMER ACOUSTICS
(Australia) Pty Ltd    
p. +61 7 3802 2155   f.  +61 7 3802 2166
m.  +61 411 883 
113 (Australia)  +66 81 94 552 144
(Thailand)
     +84 128 995 9079 (Vietnam)
[email protected]     
www.palmeracoustics.com
As can be seen, even a standard graphical representation that is a
basic requirement in reports has not been included in the Moore
Review, and we can see that there are more tonal impacts and
impulsive noise levels that have not been taken into account. The
consistent use of of averages in the Moore Reports have led to
misrepresentation of the real noise impact of the Noosa quad bike
tour proposal upon the residents and the community.
We can see by this brief review alone,  that the Moore report is not
a representation of the full activity of what is really going to
happen and its true impact upon this area, the residents and the
environment.
Despite council's delay in uploading the Moore review online for the
community to view, we can clearly see that this final review by Mr
Moore does not provide any real evidence to prove that noise will
not be an issue in the council's assessment of the MCU application.
Regards,
Layla Fowler