PlanningAlerts

8 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. I have looked at the updated noise reports.

   They have taken the noise reading from the front of the property (which is exposed to bus/road traffic).

   They measured the ambient noise as 41dBA.
   Then applied a +5dBA noise limit.

   But later in the document, (page they claim that the Ambient noise level towards the rear of the property, where all the affected houses will be greatly impacted has an ambient noise level of 36dBA.

   If they followed the council rules, then their maximum permissible noise level would only be 41dBA (36dbA + 5dBA).

   Even with their 2.8m high insulated fences, it would still impact all the neighbours to the North, East and West.

   It does not seem to comply with the council's development consent requirements.

   They have also missed another house (4 Yarrara Road) that is a few meters from the boundary fence and have mislabelled houses in Livingstone Avenue).

2. Page 19 claims the Ambient noise levels (at the rear of the property) will be 36dB(A). This would indicate that all the neighbours backing the proposed development would have an ambient noise of 36dB(A).

   The target noise level for the neighbours would be 41dB(A), not their claimed 46 dB(A).

   The noise from the proposed playground areas would breach the noise criteria for the neighbours to R3, R4 and R5.

   Also, the noise calculations indicate that 60% of the older children would be playing int he western play areas. Given the smaller sizes, it is unlikely that they would be playing in those play areas. The older children would be most likely be in the larger eastern play area. There has been no justification for why the children are in the western play areas. I assume that they are trying to create a favourable noise report.

3. They have released yet another noise report.

   They have measured the ambient noise at the front of the property, not at the rear or the boundary of any sensitive receivers and claimed that the ambient noise level for all receivers is 41dB(A). Many of the receivers do not face Yarrara road.

   As per the DCP for child care centres.

   Where a child care centre is to be located on a site adjoining a residential property, noise generated by the centre must not be more than 5dB(A) above the ambient (L90) background noise level, as measured at any point on the adjoining residential property."

   Once again, table 3-7, page 19 shows the predicted ambient noise at the eastern outdoor play area is 36dB(A). This would be all houses in R5 (all houses on Livingstone avenue), plus 4 Yarrara road that is on the battle axe. Also, R4 and R3 houses will receive significantly more abient noise that the +5dB(A).

   The noise criterion for any houses along the eastern boundary should be 36dB(A) + 5db(A) = 41dB(A).

4. NOISE BREACHES:

   The proposed child care centre breaches noise guidelines on all boundaries and will affect houses on Livingstone avenue, such as 131, 129, 125.

   The ambient background noise should be 36dB(A), or even lower, as per table 3-7, page 19. Not 41dB(A), which was measured at the front of 8 Yarrara Road.

   The predicted noise levels on all adjoining properties breaches the 36dB(A) + 5dB(A) by a significant amount.

   The AAAC October 2013 guidelines state:
   "The noise logger should be located to measure the background noise at the most affected residential receiver location. If this location is not possible, the acoustical consultant shall select another suitable and equivalent location".

   The logger was placed at the front of the property, closest to the main road. It was not placed at the rear of the property, where the existing residents will be most badly affected. The noise levels would have been boosted by the buses and cars, which are not prevalent noises at the rear of the properties.

   A more suitable location would be on the rear boundary of the property. The acoustic consultant is 'paid' to by the applicant and seems to have been very accommodating with the numbers and calculations. His other reports seem to have similar favourable data recording locations...

5. In the DCP for childcare centres,

   1 Outdoor play spaces are to:
   i) provide more than 7m² of unencumbered outdoor play space per
   child; and"

   The modified plans have lost almost 1m all around due to a secondary acoustic fence to act as a noise buffer. The children are not meant to be utilizing that space, so the otudoor play spaces have dropped. The number of children have remained the same.

   The initial calculations for the original design had 'just enough' outdoor space. The new plans do not disclose how much outdoor space is available.

   The number of children should be dropped accordingly.

6. In the latest acoustic report, there are some calculations performed from the transition areas.

   The raised decking is anywhere from 1.8m to 0.3m higher than ground level. The fences are built at ground level, so the noise will not be as effectively blocked by the fences. It is unclear from the calculations at what height the fences were calculated at.

   Given that some of the sensitive receivers are less than 2m from the transition area, it is unlikely that the fence(s) can effectively muffle or reduce the noise when they are 1.8m from the ground. In certain angles, the noise will travel over the top of the fence(s).

7. IN the council DCP, the noise should be measured at any point on the adjoining residential properties. 4 Yarrara is adjoining and does not have direct street frontage. 6 and 10 Yarrara road did not have noise calculations taken from the rear of their properties. The accoustic report does not satisfy the DCP requirements.

   125, 131, 129 Livingstone are also affected and no noise reading where taken and 'adjoining' properties.

   "Where a child care centre is to be located on a site adjoining a residential property, noise generated by the centre is not to be more than 5dB(A) above the L90 (ambient background) noise level, as measured at any point on the *adjoining* residential property.
   Note: Council may order an acoustic assessment be undertaken by a suitably qualifed acoustic consultant that is to include recommended noise attenuation measures."

8. We are concerned that there will be significant excavation close to the boundary in order to create a underground 18 car space carpark and the report does not mention installing any tilt sensors to detect land slip. This would be very damaging and possibly life threatening to any neighbouring properties. And since the report does not include exhaust vent for the car park this will mean that all the fumes will be vented onto neighbouring properties and into the child care centre itself.

   I have also discussed the report with another acoustic engineer, that is a member of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants and he noted that there are some likely errors with the noise report.

   He suggested that the council should investigate more thoroughly. I asked how much it would cost for our own acoustic report which would fairly measure the current L90 ambient noise. He said council should do this, as it would be expensive and without a 'certified assessment, it would stand up in the land and environment court. It is unfair that residents have to pay for a 'true' report that does not have skewed 'alternative facts'.

   The noise calculations in the current report are grossly inaccurate. Their own results say that the rear of the property has 36db(A) ambient noise, which would mean that the neighbours should only receive ambient increase of 5db(A), or a target level of 41dB(A). They breach this level on all boundaries.

   The other downside about 'averages' is that we can have a piercing scream every ten seconds and it averages out to almost nothing meaning that with the developer's acoustic report it is claiming that we can have children screaming really loudly for 1 second in every 5 seconds but according to their report it is silence.

   This does not seem right. This sort of disruption will affect all surrounding neighbourhoods' ability to perform and carry out their normal activities or businesses in their homes. The test again shows that it was conducted from the front lawn when it should be performed in the backyard where the play area is going to be and will be the source of the noise. This means that the test does not accurately take into account the true distance of the noise travelled. Another problem is that the test was conducted in the front yard where it is noisier due to loud traffic and commotion (trucks, buses, cars, passerbys etc) and claims that this is the same noise level at the rear of the property, this is not the case. The test should have been conducted at the rear of the property where it is quieter to reflect the true noise level.

   We live in double storey house and sound carries up. We also read that a childcare centre cannot be built if there is a double storey house next to the premise.
   
   The current case law talks about 'not affecting' normal domestic activities but this does not include current living conditions where people also work from home due to family commitments and flexible work conditions to meet economic reality where everyone has to work.

   I work from home one to two days a week to help look after our son and my spouse also run a business from home. We have conference calls with local and overseas clients/partners/customers. All of our north facing living areas will be dramatically affected by the noise from the child care development. To double-glaze all the north and western windows and have air-conditioning running during day time (and peak hours) - due to not being able to open our windows due to noise) is going to be extremely costly and disruptive.

   The alternative is to install our own $6000 wifi / outdoor noise logger and continually make noise complaints to the local council and/or police on a daily basis is not effective. We would be complaining on a daily basis and would have to submit our own data to the land and environment court, EPA or local council. And while we are talking about cost, will the proposed developer compensate all of the affected neighbours in the decrease in the property value due to a inappropriate development? The council is meant to protect all rate payers and it won't be democratic if one rate payer is favoured over a majority of rate payers.

   We are in a battle-axe block and cannot simply pick up the house and move it. Nor can we effectively shield our house without excessive costs. We also cannot easily sell now, as the house value and decreased and will decrease further if the inappropriate development is approved, which effectively traps us in a life of misery.

   Even if we sold up and moved somewhere else in the neighbourhood, we are looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars of transaction costs and can have a random development pop up in the next place we move to.

   The entire system is heavily slanted to developers, with their paid-for 'alternative facts' . Amateurs needs to spend hours researching audio-technical documents, looking up university physics articles and joining professional acoustic membership to pick apart inappropriate developments.

   We take a dim view of the fact that the developers always choose the school holidays to put in all their application and amendments during the school holidays when most people are away or busy spending time with their kids.

   Lastly, we confirm that no one from the developers have come around to ask for access to our property in order to carry out any sort of tests.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Ku-ring-gai Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment