In the matter of Amendment C82
Amendment C82
Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915
Issue | 30 May 2012
Arup Arup Pty Ltd ABN 18 000 966 165
This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client.
It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.
Job number 219915
Arup Level 17 1 Nicholson Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia arup.com.au
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Document Verification
Job title Amendment C82 Job number
219915
Document title Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister File reference
Document ref 219915
Revision Date Filename Expert Evidence _KAB_Issue.docx
Issue 30 May 2012
Description Issue
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Kym Burgemeister Kym Burgemeister Kym Burgemeister
Signature
Filename Description
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name
Signature
Filename Description
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name
Signature
Filename Description
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name
Signature
Issue Document Verification with Document
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Contents
Page
1 Name and Address 1
2 Area of Expertise 1
3 Experience 2
4 Documents Reviewed 5
5 Review of Initial Noise Impact Assessment 6
6 Additional Site Noise and Vibration Measurements and Analysis 11
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 1
1 Name and Address
1.1 Dr Kym Burgemeister
Arup
Level 17, 1 Nicholson Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
2 Area of Expertise
2.1 My area of expertise is acoustic engineering.
2.2 My qualifications and experience are detailed below:
BE (Hons) Mechanical Engineering
PhD (Adel) Acoustics & Vibration
Member, Australian Acoustical Society
Member, Acoustical Society of America
2.3 I regard myself sufficiently expert to make this statement because;
1. I have substantial national and international experience in the prediction and assessment of noise from railways, roads and industry.
2. I was the principal reviewer of the following document:
Report: C82, The Former Caltex Terminal, South Kingsville, Noise and Vibration Measurements by Arup dated 13 April 2012.
3. I was the principal author of the following document:
Letter Report: Amendment C82, Former Caltex Terminal, South Kingsville - Review of Noise Impact Assessment, by Arup dated 10 May 2010
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 2
3 Experience
3.1 I have experience on the following projects (and others):
3.2 Regional Rail Link, Melbourne
Technical lead for the acoustic predictions and assessment for the Regional Rail Link (RRL) in Western Melbourne. RRL comprises approximately 50 km of new railway through existing and new corridors, and includes a 2 km tunnel option through Footscray.
3.3 VicTrack Guidelines
Development of guidelines for assessment of noise and vibration impacts on developments adjacent to the rail corridor.
3.4 Springvale Road Rail Grade Separation, Melbourne
Acoustic and vibro-acoustic engineering for the new grade separation and premium station at Nunawading, Melbourne. Prediction, assessment and monitoring of construction noise and vibration, particularly night-works and piling operations. Acoustic design of PA and EWIS systems for the station and platforms.
3.5 North Sydney Freight Corridor (NSFC) Epping to Thornleigh Third Track
and Gosford Passing Loops, Project Definition
Acoustics technical leader for the preliminary noise assessment undertaken for the NSFC ETTT and GPL project definition stage works.
3.6 South Sydney Freight Line
Technical lead for the local authority review of the South Sydney Freight Line noise and vibration assessment, including re-modelling of the proposed route and assessment in accordance with IGANRIP.
3.7 South West Rail Link
Project director for noise and vibration input to the South West Rail Link tender design for Laing O’Rourke. Tender stage modelling of the proposed alignment and assessment in accordance with IGANRIP.
3.8 Northbridge Development, East Perth
Review of the groundborne noise and vibration assessment and track design parameters for the Northbridge Development, East Perth.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 3
3.9 Brisbane Airport Corporation, New Parallel Runway
Development of a brief for the noise assessment, including a detailed robust assessment and prediction methodology, procurement advice and peer review of noise assessment.
3.10 ECRL Groundborne Noise and Vibration Review and Community
Consultation, Eastwood.
Assessment and review of predicted groundborne noise and vibration impacts from underground sections of the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link affecting two residences in Eastwood.
3.11 Bruce Highway, Gympie
Route selection stage studies for proposed development of the Bruce Highway near Gympie. This included evaluation of Arup’s innovative Community Noise Burden for each of the shortlisted route options to aid the assessment.
3.12 Gungahlin Drive Extension, EIS Peer Review
Peer review of the noise and vibration working paper for the EIS of a proposed 8km dual-carriageway road in Canberra, ACT.
3.13 Caboolture to Landsborough Rail Upgrade
Noise and vibration assessment for route selection studies for proposed amplification of the Caboolture to Landsborough railway north of Brisbane, QLD.
3.14 Parramatta Rail Link, Tender Support
Design advice to contractor including groundborne noise and vibration assessment and vibro-acoustic design of track for of twin-bore tunnel section under residential areas of Sydney, Australia.
3.15 Channel Tunnel Rail Link, UK
Noise and vibration assessment and track design for the 40 km twin-bore London Tunnels section under residential areas of East London to St. Pancras Station. Floating Track Slab design for the East Coast Mainline Bridge near St. Pancras Station. Track design for new St. Pancras Station platforms over heritage listed structure to protect concessions and ticketing halls from structureborne noise and vibration.
3.16 Upgrade of the Pacific Highway, Moorland to Herons Creek
Noise and vibration assessment for the route options development stage, assessing twelve route options around the townships of Kew and Johns River.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 4
Implementation of an overall 'noise exposure' methodology that rates the potential for annoyance of nearby residents. Preparation of noise and vibration assessment for the EIS.
3.17 Upgrade of the Pacific Highway, Karuah
Noise and vibration assessment and mitigation design for the upgrade of the Pacific Highway to bypass the township of Karuah in New South Wales.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 5
4 Documents Reviewed
4.1 In May 2010, I was asked to undertake a peer review of the original ViPAC Noise
Impact Assessment (NIA) presented in support of the rezoning application for the
Caltex Site. The key aims of my peer review were to determine whether:
the recommendations made in ViPAC’s NIA are appropriate.
there are any alternative measures to what is proposed in the NIA.
there are any other considerations that have been overlooked in the NIA, and what are the implications.
4.2 The two reports that I reviewed were:
Former Caltex Terminal, Blackshaws and Sutton Roads, South Kingsville, Architectus Group Pty Ltd, February 2010.
Caltex Site, South Kingsville, Noise Impact Assessment, Report No. 30B-09-0219-DRP-442897-2-Final, ViPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd, 1 March 2010.
4.3 I have also reviewed the Witness Statement and Noise and Vibration Assessment
for the site prepared by Jim Antonopoulos of SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd1,
and the Statement of Evidence prepared by Robert Burton of Burton Acoustic
Group2.
1 Noise and Vibration Assessment, Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C82, Former Caltex Site, Blackshaws Road, South Kingsville, SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd Report No. 640.10353-R1, 18 May 2012. 2 Former Caltex Site, Blackshaws Road, South Kingsville, Statement of Evidence, Burton Acoustic Group, 21 May 2012.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 6
5 Review of Initial Noise Impact Assessment
5.1 The following section provides my review of the original ViPAC Noise Impact
Assessment (NIA) presented in support of the rezoning application for the Caltex
Site.
5.2 The site Masterplan included in those documents indicates that the site will
generally comprise of residential townhouses and apartments. The development
site is adjacent to Spotswood Maintenance Centre (SMC) to the North/North East
and existing industrial facilities to the West. The NIA identifies major noise
sources as the SMC, freight rail travelling on the rail line and noise associated
with the industrial areas to the East of the site.
5.3 It is helpful to understand that the freight rail line to the North of the site is the
main Standard Gauge interstate freight line to Adelaide and Perth, carrying freight
from Melbourne’s primary port and Dynon Yards via Tottenham Yards and
Brooklyn.
5.4 The train schedule shown in ViPAC’s report is based on ARTC’s published
schedule and looks reasonable.
5.5 Table 2 of the NIA provides a summary of ambient noise monitoring undertaken
on the site. The report should explicitly state time periods for each of the Day,
Evening and Night periods, for the average noise levels (Leq) (this is shown with
respect to SEPP N-1, in Section 4 of the report; ViPAC needs to confirm that this
is also relevant to Table 2). The report does not provide a subjective description of
the dominant noise sources during these periods (eg. distant or local road traffic
noise, industrial noise, noise from the SMC) which would be helpful in
understanding, more generally, the noise exposure of the site.
5.6 Table 3 provides the measured railway source noise level, but it is not clear how
many railway movements were measured, and whether the freight train bypass
level of 79 dB(A) was for a single movement, or an average of multiple
movements. Furthermore, the freight train source level shown in the table appears
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 7
to be between 10–20 dB lower than measured using the unattended noise logging
undertaken on the site boundary, which shows what are presumed to be freight
pass bys at between 90–100 dBLAmax. This suggests that the noise predictions
based on the source noise levels in Table 3 may under-predict the impacts.
5.7 Criteria
5.8 With respect to the potential industrial noise impacts on the site, the SEPP N-1
limits developed in the report appear reasonably high. ViPAC need to provide
additional details regarding their determination of the SEPP Noise limits,
including;
Locations of the measurement positions used to determine the background noise levels.
Whether the background noise levels used to derive the SEPP limits were made in the absence of the industrial noise, or made at a derived location not affected by industrial noise.
Assumptions used regarding railway zoning (Schedule B2, part 3(d) of SEPP N-1 specifically defines the railway in this area as being type 3).
5.9 In terms of rail noise intrusion, the Vipac NIA relies on ‘sleep disturbance’
criteria developed by the NSW EPA for their road traffic noise criteria. On this
basis, ViPAC state that maximum internal noise levels between 50–55 dB(A) are
unlikely to cause awakening, and one or two events with internal noise levels
between 65–70 dB(A) are not likely to adversely affect health and wellbeing. It is
not explicitly stated which of these limits has been ultimately chosen for the
assessment.
5.10 The application of the NSW EPA criteria for sleep disturbance from road traffic
noise to railway noise impacts is questionable. The NSW EPA acknowledges that
the results from research into sleep disturbance from night-time noise are highly
variable, and no clear conclusion is evident. However, their main recommendation
is that the ‘emergence’ of individual maximum noise events above the average
noise level should be limited to 15 dB. This criterion is not discussed in the
ViPAC assessment. Furthermore, while there is no Victorian legislation or
guidance which set limits on noise from railway operations, railway noise limits
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 8
have previously been established for the Melbourne Airport Rail Link Project, and
in various Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decisions. There
are also many other directly relevant guidance documents for railway noise
published interstate or overseas which should have been considered. For
example, NSW and QLD have well established railway noise guidelines,
including the NSW Department of Planning’s Development Near Rail Corridors
and Busy Roads - Interim Guideline.
5.11 Generally this other guidance suggests external night-time noise limits of between
55 to 60 dBLAeq,9hr and 80 dBLAmax measured externally to the residence. The
NSW DoP’s guidance, in particular, recommends internal limits in bedrooms of
35 dBLAeq,1hr at night-time. Overseas, the UK’s Planning Policy Guidance 244 and
the American Public Transit Association (APTA) also provide directly relevant
guidance that is commonly used to inform such impact assessments. While it is
somewhat complicated to directly compare the criteria suggested in the guidelines
with those adopted for the NIA, it would appear that the guidelines would
generally recommend a more onerous limit than that adopted in the NIA.
5.12 Typical railway noise and vibration impact guidance also recommends limits for
vibration from rail operations. The NIA does not address potential impacts from
vibration from the freight railway.
5.13 Noise Modelling
5.14 The noise assessment presented by ViPAC is based on a SoundPLAN computer
model of the site. However, the particular noise propagation model (eg.
CONCAWE, ISO) is not documented. The number, type and location of noise
sources is not explicitly documented (although it can be somewhat inferred from
the noise modelling results).
5.15 ViPAC need to document whether this is a typical scenario, or worst case. It is not
clear if terrain modelling has been included (although this may not be significant,
if the site is relatively flat - but if so, it should be stated). The noise modelling
results presented in the Appendix do not indicate whether the noise levels are
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 9
supposed to represent the instantaneous, average (LAeq) or maximum (LAmax) noise
levels. As a result they cannot be adequately interpreted.
5.16 The computer noise model shown in the figures considers only the ‘industrial’
sources. Computer noise modelling does not appear to have been undertaken for
the railway. However, the report states that noise from train passbys at the Caltex
site would comply with the noise limit for sleep disturbance. The calculation that
supports this assertion needs to be documented. In particular, railway noise needs
to be separately modelled as a noise source using a railway noise model such as
the Nordic Method (Kilde), or a more simple environmental propagation model.
In either case, the predicted average and maximum railway noise levels should be
explicitly documented.
5.17 Noise levels from the industrial sites are predicted to exceed the SEPP N-1 criteria
by between 10–12 dB(A), and noise mitigation in the form of a 4 m barrier on the
northern side of the site is recommended. The report does not indicate what the
residual impacts (if any) would be following treatment.
5.18 Further ‘building envelope’ improvements are recommended for dwellings that
have a ‘direct line of sight to the noise barrier’. (It is presumed that this should in
fact refer to dwellings that have a direct line of site over the noise barrier to the
industrial site.) The building envelope improvements include thicker glazing, and
sound insulating ceilings. The report does not indicate whether there are likely to
be any residual impacts in buildings that adopt the building envelope
improvements.
5.19 Discussion
5.20 Generally, the original NIA is not considered to provide sufficient information
regarding the noise and vibration impacts on the site on which a decision to re-
zone the site could reasonably be based, particularly with regard to noise and
vibration from adjacent railway operations. The noise study is not sufficiently
well documented to demonstrate that the correct inputs and modelling parameters
have been adopted.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 10
5.21 Documentation of measured noise levels require clarification, including explicitly
stating time periods for average noise level measurements, and providing a
qualitative description of the ambient noise environment.
5.22 The assessment of ‘average’ night-time (LAeq,9hr) and maximum event (LAmax)
railway noise impacts should be made in relation to relevant guidelines, and a
railway vibration assessment should be included in the assessment.
5.23 The computer noise modelling that was undertaken for the project required
additional documentation to allow the validity of the methodology to be assessed.
While the overall approach to noise mitigation (a barrier on the ‘railway’ side of
the site, and architectural treatments) does appear broadly reasonable, the benefits
that the proposed noise mitigation will provide, and what residual noise impacts,
if any, will remain, need to be quantified.
5.24 While noise barriers are a common approach to noise control, they are visually
intrusive, block solar access (particularly on a northern aspect such as this) and
their use in or adjacent to railway corridors is plagued with security, safety and
maintenance issues. Alternative options, such as providing greater setbacks, or
earth bunding, should have be explored or discussed.
5.25 With regards to architectural treatments proposed in the NIA, none of the
approaches appear to be particularly onerous, however where sealed windows are
considered necessary to achieve the noise goals, the issue of ventilation
(particularly natural ventilation) requires consideration.
5.26 The lack of rigour in the technical documentation provided by ViPAC leaves
significant risks in approving, or not, the application. It is not clear from the NIA
that future noise impacts on residents will be adequately controlled by the
proposed mitigation (they may be, but the assessment does not contain the
necessary technical information to allow it to be relied upon). This could expose
Hobson’s Bay City Council to future complaints or legal action from the residents
regarding noise.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 11
6 Additional Site Noise and Vibration Measurements and Analysis
6.1 In 2012, I was engaged by Hobson’s Bay City Council to prepare a report
addressing the following issues:
Noise and vibration levels on the Former Caltex Terminal Site (the Site) over a 24 hour period.
Identification of acoustic criteria (noise and vibration) for a multi-storey residential development. This includes criteria for industrial noise, railway noise and vibration and road traffic noise. The criteria will set an appropriate amenity for proposed development on the Site.
Identification of statutory noise limits which would apply to the Site.
A SEPP N-13 assessment. Determination of the noise limits that would apply at future residences on the Site.
Assessment of the noise and vibration levels measured on site to determine if they are suitable for residential uses (assuming 6 storey towers).
Determine if the noise levels on the Site exceed the noise criteria.
Identification of in-principle noise mitigation options on the Site to meet the acoustic criteria and statutory noise limits.
6.2 The results of this study are documented in the Report: C82, The Former Caltex
Terminal, South Kingsville, Noise and Vibration Measurements and Assessment,
dated 23 May 2012.
6.3 This work was undertaken prior to the Expert’s Conclave, and informed my input
to that meeting. The following results therefore do not counter matters that were
agreed at the Expert’s Conclave and are documented in the minutes of the
meeting.
6.4 The site is exposed to a number of noise sources including road traffic noise.
Railway noise and industrial noise and is shown in Figure 1 below.
3 State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1, Published 15 June 1989.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 12
Figure 1 Overall site plan.
6.5 Acoustic criteria have been developed for the project to achieve an appropriate
acoustic amenity for a residential development.
6.6 In terms of appropriate criteria for operational railway noise, it is noted that there
are no specific limits for railway noise in Victoria, but that specific railway noise
levels have been considered for the following projects by VCAT.
Lazzcorp Brunswick Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC, VCAT ref. P771/2002.
Kilker v Stonnington CC, VCAT ref. P2470/2003.
Pomeroy Pacific Pty Ltd v Moreland CC No. 2, VCAT 475.
Richmond Icon Pty Ltd v Yarra CC (Dimmey’s), VCAT ref. P623/2011.
Australia Post v Darebin CC, VCAT ref. 2180/2011.
6.7 Based on national and international standards and guidelines, and the local VCAT
decisions, the acoustic criteria that we have recommended for various noise
sources are detailed below.
6.8 For railway airborne noise: 55 dBLAmax (bedrooms); 60 dBLAmax (living room
areas)
Spotswood Maintenance Centre
Western industrial
plant
Interstate Freight Rail Line
The Site
SMF Engineering
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 13
6.9 For railway groundborne noise: Daytime 40 dBLAmax,slow; Night-time
35 dBLAmax,slow
6.10 These limits are the same as those that have been recommended by SLR
Consulting’s Noise and Vibration Assessment.
6.11 Road Traffic Noise: Internal noise levels are to comply with Australian Standard
AS/NZS 2107:2000 Acoustics – Recommended design sound levels and
reverberation times for building interiors as provided in the Table below:
Type of occupancy / activity Recommended design sound level LAeq (dB)
Satisfactory Maximum
Houses and apartment near minor roads
Living areas 30 40
Sleeping areas 30 35
Work areas 35 40
Apartment common areas (foyers, lift) 45 55
Houses and apartment near major roads
Living areas 35 45
Sleeping areas 30 40
Work areas 35 45
Apartment common areas (foyers, lift) 45 55
6.12 Industrial Noise: To comply with noise limits in State Environment Protection
Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1.
6.13 Vibration: To comply with the vibration curves in Australian Standard
AS 2670.2-1990 Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration -
Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80 Hz).
6.14 Vibration Velocity Limits from AS2670.2 are provided in the table below.
Place Time
Multiplying Factors (Curve No.)
Continuous Vibration
Intermittent or Impulsive
Residential Day 2 60
Night 1.4 20
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 14
Typically, curve 1.4 is taken to be the threshold of perception.
6.15 Vibration in buildings, AS2670.2 – combined direction peak velocity curves are
provided in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 Combined direction peak velocity curves, ref: AS2670.2.
6.16 These limits have also been adopted by SLR Consulting in their Noise and
Vibration Assessment.
6.17 Sleep Disturbance: Criteria have not been recommended specifically for sleep
disturbance as the other criteria provided will reasonably cover the potential for
sleep disturbance effects.
6.18 Acoustic Measurements
6.19 Noise and vibration measurements have been conducted across the site. These
have included:
(i) Unattended measurements on the Site (noise loggers installed).
(ii) Attended measurements on the Site in accordance with SEPP N-1.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 15
(iii) Attended background noise measurements at a location representative of the residential location on the Site but where industrial noise is not audible. This has been used to determine a derived noise limit.
6.20 All noise measurements have been conducted in general accordance with
AS 1055.1. The parameters recorded include LAmax, LAeq, LA90 and LAmin.
6.21 The locations of the measurement positions, noise logger positions and vibration
logger positions measurements are shown in Figure 3 below:
Figure 3 Noise and vibration measurement location plan.
6.22 Attended measurements were conducted at Positions P1 to P5 during the Daytime
Period (Monday 20 February 2012 from 14:30 to 16:10 hours) the Evening Period
(Wednesday 29 February 2012 from 19:10 to 20:45 hours) and the Night Period
(Thursday 23 February 2012, 23:00 to 00:15 hours on Thursday 24 February
2012). There periods are defined in SEPP N-1.
P6
LEGEND
Noise Logger
Vibration Logger
Attended Measurements
P2
P3
N4
P1
P4 P7 N3
N1
V1
P5
N2
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 16
6.23 Attended Background Measurements were conducted at Position P6 on the corner
of Elizabeth Street and Junction Street in Newport, on the nature strip of property
94 Elizabeth Street, Newport.
6.24 Background noise measurements were conducted at this location as it is expected
to represent background noise levels on the Site without the influence of industrial
noise.
6.25 The instrumentation used to undertake the noise and vibration measurements all
had current NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities) calibration
certification and the calibration of equipment was checked before and after each
set of measurements.
6.26 All measured data was checked with respect to the meteorological conditions and
any measurements adversely affected were not included.
6.27 The summary of the unattended noise measurements are provided in the Tables
below.
6.28 The time periods are described as follows:
Day 07:00 to 18:00 hours
Evening 18:00 to 22:00 hours
Night 22:00 to 07:00 hours
Table 1 Summary of Logger Results at Position N1 (dB re 20 x 10-6 Pa)
Average Day Noise Levels
Average Evening Noise Levels
Average Night Noise Levels
Day, Date LAeq LA90 LAeq LA90 LAeq LA90
Monday, 20/01/12 56 51 60 48 53 43
Tuesday, 21/01/12 56 49 60 50 55 46
Wednesday, 22/01/12 58 51 58 51 56 48
Thursday, 23/01/12 57 51 59 51 54 47
Friday, 24/01/12 56 50 58 49 56 49
Saturday, 25/01/12 57 50 56 49 50 48
Sunday, 26/01/12 58 49 56 51 58 50
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 17
Table 2 Summary of Logger Results at Position N2 (dB re 20 x 10-6 Pa)
Average Day Noise Levels
Average Evening Noise Levels
Average Night Noise Levels
Day, Date LAeq LA90 LAeq LA90 LAeq LA90
Monday, 20/01/12 65 55 61 46 53 39
Tuesday, 21/01/12 64 49 63 49 54 42
Wednesday, 22/01/12 63 48 61 46 55 45
Thursday, 23/01/12 65 52 61 47 55 43
Friday, 24/01/12 63 49 62 50 57 49
Saturday, 25/01/12 61 48 59 48 55 47
Sunday, 26/01/12 59 50 60 50 56 49
Table 3 Summary of Logger Results at Position N3 (dB re 20 x 10-6 Pa)
Average Day Noise Levels
Average Evening Noise Levels
Average Night Noise Levels
Day, Date LAeq LA90 LAeq LA90 LAeq LA90
Monday, 20/01/12 54 48 57 47 50 39
Tuesday, 21/01/12 55 48 56 46 52 43
Wednesday, 22/01/12 54 46 53 45 51 43
Thursday, 23/01/12 57 50 55 46 51 43
Friday , 24/01/12 55 48 56 46 53 47
Saturday, 25/01/12 53 48 55 47 49 47
Sunday, 26/01/12 54 48 54 48 55 48
Table 4 Summary of Logger Results at Position N4 (dB re 20 x 10-6 Pa)
Average Day Noise Levels
Average Evening Noise Levels
Average Night Noise Levels
Day, Date LAeq LA90 LAeq LA90 LAeq LA90
Monday, 20/01/12 52 46 51 45 49 43
Tuesday, 21/01/12 53 44 53 46 50 45
Wednesday, 22/01/12 53 45 51 45 53 48
Thursday, 23/01/12 53 47 55 48 49 44
Friday, 24/01/12 53 47 54 50 54 51
Saturday, 25/01/12 52 48 52 48
Sunday, 26/01/12
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 18
6.29 Results of the attended measurements are provided below.
Table 5 Results of attended noise measurements during the Day Period on Monday, 20 February 2012 (dB re 20 x 10-6 Pa)
Position Start time (hours)
End time (hours)
Duration (minutes)
LAmax LAeq LA90 Notes
P1 14:30 14:33 3 59 49 46 General factory noise from Sutton St industries. Occasional hammering, around 20% of the time. Hammering not heard in remaining measurements.
P2 14:37 15:09 31 69 56 54 Fan/suction noise from high level louvers in small SMC workshop. Measurement distance is about 35 m from source. Faint noise of a loose grille audible throughout. Noise had no tonal characteristics, was continuous throughout the period, and had no impulsive or intermittent characteristics.
P3 15:12 15:25 12 77 56 52 Factory noise from the Sutton St industrial plants was audible. Sounded like a constant mechanical hum. Some siren noise from a factory was just audible.
P4 15:29 15:32 3 66 54 49 Measurement was conducted roughly in the middle of the site. Some knocking sounds from SMC were audible. Additionally, sandblasting from SMF Engineering was also audible.
P5 15:33 15:39 6 76 68 64 Measurement conducted close to SMF Engineering at a distance of approximately 25 m. Sound similar to sand blasting could be heard loudly and continuously.
Background Noise Measurements at Residential Location
P6 15:54 16:07 12 - 56 42 Background noise measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment. Distant traffic noise from Melbourne Road audible. Some traffic noise from adjacent local roads could also be heard. No industry noise from identified noise sources audible.
P6 16:08 16:21 10 - 61 43 Second background noise measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 19
Table 6 Results of attended noise measurements during the Evening Period on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 (dB re 20 x 10-6 Pa)
Position Start time (hours)
End time (hours)
Duration (minutes)
LAmax LAeq LA90 Notes
P1 19:12 19:22 10 67 59 50 Occasional car passby. No industrial noise audible. Cricket noise constant– this was the dominant noise source.
P3 19:36 19:46 10 60 54 53 Cricket noise dominant. Occasional car passby, distant road traffic and train noise just audible. No industrial noise audible.
P7 20:05 20:11 5 62 59 55 Cricket noise dominant. No industrial noise audible. Road traffic noise just audible. Light rain started four minutes into the measurement.
Background Noise Measurements at Residential Location
P6 20:28 20:40 10 - 51 41 Background noise measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment. Very light rain at start of measurement. Occasional car passbys on Blackshaws Road.
P6 20:41 20:51 10 - 54 42 Background noise measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 20
Table 7 Results of attended noise measurements during the Night period on 23 February 2012 (dB re 20 x 10-6 Pa)
Position Start time (Hours)
End time (Hours)
Duration (minutes)
LAmax LAeq LA90 Notes
P5 23:02 23:23 10 73 59 43 Occasional car passby on Blackshaws Road. Distant traffic noise from Melbourne Road. No industrial or mechanical noise audible.
Included freight train noise of 2.5 minute duration.
P2 23:09 23:10 1 95 83 72 Measurement of freight train which started about 50 m away. Measurement position was 10 m away from tracks.
P2 23:12 23:18 6 60 47 46 No fan/suction noise audible unlike daytime measurements. Only a distant faint tapping noise was barely audible from the SMC main workshop. Cricket noise was constant throughout the measurement. It was the dominant noise source. Some distant road traffic noise from Melbourne Road & occasional metro train (Williamstown line) passby.
P1 23:21 23:31 10 63 49 44 Constant cricket noise- this was the dominant noise source. Some traffic in the background. No industrial/mechanical noise audible. Car passby noted as 55 dB (A) but excluded from overall measurement.
P3 23:24 23:30 6 62 55 53 Incessant and very loud cricket noise. No industrial noise audible, cricket noise very loud. Distant traffic noise from Melbourne Road. Distant occasional metro train noise heard in the distance.
P5 23:40 23:50 10 56 46 44 Some distant noise from SMC just audible at the start of the measurement. Cricket noise was audible –and the dominant noise source.
P7 23:47 00:20 30 58 43 40 Intermittent clanging noise (throughout) - 1 to 3 sec intervals. 2 x knocks - 51 dB(A). Occasional forklift engine – up to 50 dB(A). Very short duration.
Music noise from radio just audible throughout.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 21
Position Start time (Hours)
End time (Hours)
Duration (minutes)
LAmax LAeq LA90 Notes
Background Noise Measurements at Residential Location
P6 00:02 00:12 10 - 43 40 Measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment. Distant traffic noise from Melbourne Road and occasional metro train (Williamstown line) audible. Cricket noise constant throughout - dominant source.
P6 00:14 00:24 10 - 48 40 Measurement for SEPP N-1 assessment. Distant traffic noise from Melbourne Road and occasional metro train (Williamstown line) audible. Cricket noise constant throughout - dominant source.
6.30 Background noise measurements were undertaken at locations where the noise
level at the residences was expected to be equivalent to the proposed locations on
the Site but not effected by noise from Commerce, Industry or Trade.
6.31 An arithmetic average of two measurements of minimum 10 minute duration
during these time periods has been used to obtain the representative level of the
background noise level.
Table 8 Measured Background Noise Level at Position P6
Time Measurement 1 Background Noise Level, LA90 (dB)
Measurement 2 Background Noise Level, LA90 (dB)
Average Background Noise Level, LA90 (dB)
Daytime 42 (15:54 hours) 43 (16:08 hours) 43
Evening 41 (20:48 hours) 42 (20:41 hours) 42
Night time 40 (00:02 hours) 40 (00:14 hours) 40
6.32 Vibration measurements on the site indicated that the typical vibration levels were
between 0.3–1.0 mm/s Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). There were, however,
vibration levels up to 4.5–5.0 mm/s PPV. The highest levels were associated with
full speed freight train passbys which occurred during the day, evening and night
time periods.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 22
6.33 Throughout the measurement period, freight passby events were calculated to
have occurred between 20–30 times within each 24-hour period (including freight
train siding movements into SMC).
6.34 These vibration levels are comparable to those measured by SLR Consulting, and
documented in Section 5.2 of their Noise and Vibration Assessment.
6.35 SEPP N-1 Assessment
6.36 The noise level measurements used to determine the SEPP N-1 Effective Noise
Levels during the daytime, evening and night-time periods are summarised in the
table below:
Table 9 Measured and Effective Noise Levels
Period Measured Noise Level, LAeq(dB) on the Site
Adjustments
Tonality (T) Duration (D) Intermittency (I) Reflection (R) Indoor (I)
Effective Noise Level, LAeq(dB)
Comments
Daytime 56 - 56 Mechanical services noise measured from small workshop of the SMC.
Evening - - - No industrial noise audible during evening measurement.
Night time 43 - 43 Mechanical services measured from the SMC.
6.37 During the daytime attended measurements, it was observed that the noise levels
generated from SMF Engineering was subjectively high (68 dB LAeq,6 mins). This
noise is likely to be due to sandblasting activities occurring within the facility.
Observations on site indicate that events of such high noise level emissions occur
at random intervals. However, when these do occur, the duration of each event
can sometimes be sustained over an extended period of time (i.e. in excess of 15
minutes).
6.38 The influencing factors and zoning levels used in the calculation of the SEPP N-1
limits vary across the Site. Zoned land uses around the proposed site include
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 23
Mixed Use Zone (MUZ), Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z), Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z), a
railway corridor (PUZ4), Road Zone 1 (RDZ1) and Residential 1 Zone (R1Z).
6.39 A map summarizing the locations that have been assessed is shown below.
Figure 4 SEPP N-1 Assessment locations.
LEGEND
SEPP N-1 Assessment
locations
Z1
Z2
Z3 Z5
Z4
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 24
6.40 In the calculation of the Zoning Level, the Site proposed for redevelopment has
been assumed to be a Residential 1 Zone (R1Z). The assessed locations have been
correlated with noise logger locations, with an additional location (Z5) included
(which represents the minimum residentially zoned land within the calculation of
the SEPP N-1 influencing factor). These locations have been selected as they
provide a good representation of the variations of noise limits typically expected
across the Site.
6.41 A summary of the Zoning Levels and noise limits is provided below to represent
the wide range of assessed criteria across the Site.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 25
Table 10 Summary of calculated SEPP N-1 Zoning Levels and Noise Limits at various locations around the Site
Location Period Zoning Level, dB(A)
Noise Limit, LAeq (dB)
Z1 Day 59 56
Evening 52 50
Night 47 47
Z2 Day 52 52
Evening 46 46
Night 41 43
Z3 Day 58 55
Evening 52 50
Night 47 47
Z4 Day 52 52
Evening 46 46
Night 41 43
Z5 Day 60 56
Evening 53 51
Night 48 48
6.42 These SEPP N-1 limits broadly correspond with those determined by SLR
Consulting, and documented in Table 2 of their Noise and Vibration Assessment.
6.43 Impact Assessment
6.44 Rail Noise: A freight train passing recorded a level of up to of 95 dB LAmax at
Location P2. Noise logger data recorded at Position N1 and N3 recorded several
noise events in excess of 90 dB LAmax up to a maximum of 100 dB LAmax. These
noise levels are associated with freight train passby. External noise levels of this
order will significantly exceed the internal criteria for railway noise if there are
habitable rooms overlooking the railway.
6.45 Road Traffic / Site Noise: The weekday average LAeq noise levels measured on
the Site varied between the values provided the table below. These values
included all noise on the Site including road traffic noise.
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 26
Table 11 Variation of Noise Levels
Position Day LAeq (dB)
Evening LAeq (dB)
Night LAeq (dB)
N1 56 to 58 58 to 60 53 to 56
N2 59 to 65 61 to 63 53 to 57
N3 54 to 57 53 to 57 50 to 53
N4 52 to 53 51 to 55 49 to 54
6.46 The noise levels measured varied across the Site. Assuming a reduction across an
open window of 15 dB4 then the AS/NZS 2107 maximum recommended design
sound levels for houses/apartments near major roads will potentially be exceeded
for sleeping areas at all locations except Location N4. At Location N1 and
Location N3 the excesses are up to 5 dB while at Location N2 they are significant
(up to 10 dB).
6.47 Industrial Noise: Attended noise levels were measured on the Site in compliance
with SEPP N-1. During the day period the noise level due to industrial noise
measured at Location P2 would potentially exceed the daytime noise limit of
55 dB LAeq (at the nearest location where a SEPP N-1 limit has been calculated,
Location Z3). Industrial noise associated with SMF Engineering would potentially
exceed the noise limits determined at Location Z2 due to sandblasting activities.
6.48 During the evening period, industrial noise (from Sutton Street industries, SMC
and SMF Engineering) was not audible and as such would comply with the
evening time noise limit.
6.49 During the night period noise from the SMC was just audible. However, the
measured noise levels would comply with the night time noise limit at
Location N3/Z3.
6.50 It should be noted that if the noise levels at the industrial facilities increase over
time there may be increased excesses to the noise limits.
4 World Health Organization (1999), Guidelines for Community Noise, Section 4.3.1 Dwellings
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 27
6.51 Vibration: The only significant source of vibration on the Site is from the freight
rail movements which are an intermittent source. As there are no continuous
vibration sources impacting upon the Site the continuous vibration limit will be
met.
6.52 Typically the intermittent vibration levels measured at Location V1 were between
0.3 and 1.0 mm/s PPV. These levels comply with both the day and night
intermittent criteria.
6.53 However, the vibration levels associated with freight passbys were typically up to
4.5 to 5.0 mm/s PPV. Vibration levels of this order will meet the vibration limits
for intermittent activity during the day period (8.4 mm/s PPV) but will exceed the
vibration limits for intermittent activity during the night period (2.8 mm/s PPV)
by 2.2 mm/s PPV for the highest recorded vibration levels.
6.54 This corresponds with the analysis undertaken by SLR Consulting. Similarly, an
analysis of the Vibration Dose Value, determined in accordance with BS 6472,
and shown in Section 6.3.2 of their report, also indicates that the vibration dose
would be likely to result in adverse comment at night-time in close proximity to
the railway (at least within 11 m).
6.55 In Principle Options for Noise and Vibration Mitigation
6.56 Only generic options for noise mitigation are provided because detailed treatments
will be dependent upon the layout and orientation of the buildings.
6.57 Noise: The development will need to provide mitigation with respect to noise
from freight rail; road traffic on Blackshaws Road and the industrial facilities
SMC and SMF engineering.
6.58 Noise barriers alone are unlikely to achieve the criteria as residences on the higher
levels will not benefit from the acoustic shielding. I note that SLR Consulting’s
report suggests that noise barriers up to 10 m high might be required on the
northern boundary of the property. While not unheard of, noise barriers of this
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 28
size would require significant engineering to withstand structural and wind loads,
and could be visually intrusive.
6.59 To achieve the railway noise criterion, it is recommended that no noise sensitive
space has a line of sight to the railway line (and consequently SMC as well). This
can be achieved through the layout and orientation of the buildings i.e. orientating
the sensitive spaces away from the railway. It is also recommended that non noise
sensitive buildings i.e. garages, car parks, utilities buildings be used to shield the
residential areas from the railway i.e. be located between residential and the noise
source.
6.60 Higher floors of buildings, above the height of any noise barrier, are less likely to
benefit significantly from low-level shielding or barriers on the Site, and it will be
more difficult to provide mitigation for multi-storey buildings. Therefore the
height of buildings near the railway should be minimised as far as practicable –
except where they are designed to shield noise sensitive buildings on the Site. It is
sometimes possible to incorporate noise shielding into various building elements
of multi‐storey buildings for example by using solid balcony fronts and
wintergardens.
6.61 Recreational spaces and carparks can also be used to provide some distance and
acoustic shielding between the rail and residential areas.
6.62 Ideally noise sensitive spaces should not overlook Blackshaws Road or the
industrial facilities of SMF Engineering although noise from these sources may be
able to be addressed using specific noise treatments.
6.63 In general, the sound insulation of the building envelope should be designed to
achieve the recommended internal noise levels. The most onerous levels are
associated with the railway and significant constructions (for example thick
double glazing) may be required depending on orientation and layout. Noise from
traffic on Blackshaws Road is also predicted to exceed the internal noise limits.
Depending upon the development proposals, building facades facing Blackshaws
In the matter of Amendment C82 Amendment C82Expert Witness Statement of Dr Kym Burgemeister
219915 | Issue | 30 May 2012 | Arup
J:\200000\219915\WORK\REPORT\EXPERT EVIDENCE _KAB_ISSUE.DOCX
Page 29
Road are likely to require an upgraded facade. Additionally options for natural
ventilation may need to be reduced and incorporate air-conditioning.
6.64 Vibration: Vibration isolation is not commonly provided for residential
buildings, since it results in significantly higher construction costs. It is therefore
recommended that the buildings be set back from the railway. This set back would
ideally be of the order of at least 20 m from the closest section of railway track.
The developer should be required to show that the vibration criteria will be
achieved at the residential sites within the development.
6.65 This broadly corresponds with the recommendations from SLR Consulting’s
Noise and Vibration Assessment, where a similar setback is recommended.
6.66 It is recommended that the Developer provide the council with evidence showing
how the acoustic criteria are going to be met, prior to approval of any masterplan
for the site. It is also recommended that a noise commissioning report be issued
to the council to demonstrate that any noise control treatments have been
implemented adequately and the acoustic criteria have been achieved, prior to
occupancy. If they have not been achieved then the Developer should be required
to undertake remedial actions.
6.67 In my opinion, the draft Schedule to the DDO included in SLR Consulting’s
Noise and Vibration Assessment contains the appropriate conditions on
development to ensure that noise and vibration goals, commensurate with those I
have recommended, will be achieved in practice.