35 Dowling Street Launceston TAS 7250

Given the close proximity of the "Light Industrial" Zoning to residential properties, major shopping centre, schools and college the upgrade of an already too busy and noise polluting business that disrupts traffic through the CBD and inner business precinct and residential streets. The business has no regards for normal business operating hours like all of the other businesses in the same "Light Industrial" area. Forklift reversing beepers and B-Double prime movers operating at 1am, 3am on weekends or week days waking sleeping children is causing this business to effect the nearby neighborhood. The flood lighting of the premises already impacts on nearby buildings as well. This is making the residential properties less desirable and devaluing properties with 5 minutes walk to the City Park and CBD. There is already an issue of this Transport business effecting the flow of traffic in the suburb, the unrestricted noise and light pollution is already unacceptable, so why make this worse? It is already unacceptable and disappointing that the Council will not impose restrictions on this already very busy business, that the Council will not act upon when questioned to reasonable operation hours. Imagine if we mowed the lawn at 1am the number of complaints would be huge and the action taken by the Council would be swift and decisive, but because it is a business why should this be acceptable? And now they want to make more noise with more truck AND Trains too!
This is not the Launceston that we would choose to live or invest in.

Hi
I agree with all the comments by R Page. I have considering contacting council to find out what if any. noise restrictions are in place for this area. I live on the edge of this district and am regularly awoken by reversing beeps and trucks in the small hours of the night. Not to mention security alarms that constantly go off.
I would not support and further development of this area if there is any chance of more noise pollution.

My wife and I bought our home in Cypress St to enjoy a peaceful retirement with pleasant amenity, close to the city and its many services.

We are deeply concerned about our peace and amenity should the planning application be approved. Our main concerns include (but are not limited to) the increased noise from the TOLL site including fork lifts, trucks, wash bays and refrigeration on site but equally, the increased noise from the Tas Rail Depot and trains at the end of our street.

Currently we are disturbed at night by both the noise from TOLL and Tas Rail operations in the near vicinity of our property. If this development was to be approved and allowed to operate both day and night we cannot begin to imagine the sleep disturbance and potential harmful effects to our physical and mental health and wellbeing as a result of long term annoyance and sleep disturbance.

We believe the planning application lacks suitable noise/sound control measures and no restriction on hours of operation. We are concerned about the absence of any consideration of the impact of increased rail to service the development or the mention of any form of noise monitoring during or after construction.

We, as all residents in and around the proposed development, have the right to amenity and a good night’s sleep. We are vulnerable to the impacts of noise and prey that our and our community’s amenity is preserved.

Yours sincerely
Murray and Margaret Earnshaw

We purchased our property in 2012 for its close proximity to the city and to utilise the many parks, facilities, shops and services within the city. We have painstakingly restored and renovated our 100 year old property over this time and now have grave concerns for what effect such large and significate proposed development could mean for our property value and the attraction for other young families to return to the city.

Our greatest concern however, is noise pollution. Over the past few years we have had two children and we (as most parents of babies and young children) are extremely aware of the negative effects of sleep disturbance on one’s mental at even physical health and wellbeing.

Currently we hear and are both annoyed and disturbed during the night by both noise from the TOLL site and Rail Depot and our 3 year old even wakes up to the sound of the forklifts and train whistle during the night and comes running to our room. My 9 year old niece experienced years of nightmares as a result of trains rumbling down the tracks some distance from her home when she and her family lived in Perth (Tas). I dread that we too, will be forced to move from our family home if the level of noise from these sites were to increase as the result of unregulated/restricted night operations.

We am concerned about the accuracy of predicted/modeled noise levels included in the development application as the measurements used to base their modeling on were taken over the period which included Christmas and Boxing Day public holidays when the site was clearly not operating at it usual level. It is also of great concern that the modelling did not take into account any impact and resulting noise increase due to the relating increase in rail activity to service the site.

We were also unable to see in the DA a description of the activity which is currently undertaken at night, which is already causing us disturbance, and a description of how this would compare to what is being proposed.

After speaking with the EPA (Noise) Specialist, we learned that there was no exact acceptable levels of noise in residential areas and that each case needed to be examined on its own merits. We hope that this is the case in this instance.

There also appears to be a lack of mitigation measures described in the application to control and prevent steady background noise or to contain or minimse variable noise such as forklifts to avoid sleep disturbance. At a minimum we would have expected to see dome description of mitigation technology described in the various Noise Control Guideline documents produced by other states including VIC, QLD and NSW such as (but not limited to): sound barrier systems, insulation and the use of efficient enclosures for noise sources, the adjustment of reversing alarms on heavy equipment by limiting acoustic range to immediate danger/using broad band or other low level impact reversing alarms, efficient muffler design, using quieter engines such as electric instead of internal combustion or more simply limiting the times of operation or considering an alternative site.

Our amenity and wellbeing is not just at risk of being more adversely affected by increased noise pollution but also traffic, dust and light pollution. Our family’s and our community’s amenity (including residents, hospitals, schools and aged homes) is already moderately affected by noise, train and truck movement from this industry and at great risk of being severely impacted by this proposal development.

/Users/andrew/Desktop/Submission re DA 175 2016.pdf

Dear Alderman,
As neighbours in close proximity to the proposed development, we have major concerns. Especially as our property has unimpeded direct views of the whole development and surrounding area. We already feel that our previous approaches to the Launceston City Council have fallen on deaf ears in regard to the existing problems that this company is causing.

We have found ourselves regularly being woken at all times of the night by reversing beepers from forklifts and extremely loud engine breaking from Tolls heavy vehicles. After contacting the council to inform them of these issues and enquire about noise regulations for the area we were told that they had “no idea” and would get back to us. Since then, we have been found out there is no possibility to complain about these problems as when we were contacted by Katherine Fitzgerald from the council she told us that there were “no such limits in place” for either operating hours, noise levels or nuisance lighting and that “perhaps that is the nature of their business”.

Why this individual business in particular is allowed to impact people at all hours of the day and night with whatever noise level they feel like producing is questionalble but what is most disturbing is that I’m certain that council is unaware of the extent of the current issues as the is no record of surrounding residences concerns or complaints. The proposed development will only further compound these problems.

Currenlty, all other business activity within the same Light Industrial Zone is what I would consider reasonable, operating between 8am and 5pm. This is not the current case for the Toll operations at Dowling Street.

In the limited review period given our own hectic schedules we have documented a few of our concerns with the development application submitted and it’s so called supporting documents obtained and downloaded from “https://onlineservice.launceston.tas.gov.au/eProperty/Publicnotices/305047/Advertised%20Plans%20-%2035%20Dowling%20Street,%20Launceston.pdf”

1) There has obviously been years of detailed planning by Toll with no consultation of the local residents, and we have only 2 weeks to review and analyse the impact of a 380 page submission. Neighbouring residences need to be properly informed and have a longer time period than only two weeks to review and comprehend such a major development.
2) The VIPAC site sound data was collected over the Christmas period which contained 3 public holidays. This is not a representative study in our opinion.
3) The day-time and night-time representative impact sound recording by VIPAC on Cypress street was recorded 15 minutes apart, around 6pm one afternoon and each representative sample only lasted 5 minutes in duration. Surely this should have been a continuous noise study to reveal the extent of the impact and it should have been located at one of the effected properties and not at a distance further from the site than the impacted neighbouring residences are. Our property has a floor level 10m RL above the Toll facility, so there is an unobstructed noise path directly to a large portion of the house, including three bedrooms, the noise impact is not adequately represented by the VIPAC study.
4) The study by VIPAC has not included the noise generated by trains in the sound model. This is a major omission of the impact of the neighbourhood.
5) What is the train operation schedule proposed by Toll and TasRail, what operational limits would be imposed given that site operations are listed as 24hrs.
6) The VIPAC study states that the reverse beepers are a specific and nuisance noise, so surely the optimisation of the site would have included relocating these operations so that noise is not towards the front boundary of the lot and included the use of sound barriers and other noise mitigation techniques.
7) The development application only considers the properties with in 100m of the proposed site. The distance from all areas of the Toll facility to the bedrooms of our property are between 150m to 500m. An Australian Acoustical Society study shows that both broadband and tonal reversing beepers are typically “Clearly Audible” to “Dominant” at 200m from operating machinery and seldom “Disappear” at ranges of 400m. When all members of family are woken during the night this clearly show that the sound is distinct, noticeable and loud (at all times). This makes the 100m distance used by the application appear quite inadequate.
8) Warehouse storage in the application is increasing three-fold, but we are to rest assured that there will be no additional impact. This is somewhat hard to believe.
9) The application highlights the need to plant at least 82 trees at 10m tall to comply with the planning scheme yet only half the trees required have been proposed. These trees are sorely needed to soften the impact of the sound and lighting problems produce by Toll and its current operations, let alone when it expands.
10) There is not a definitive description by the developer in terms of their planned Day-time and Night-time activities, hours of truck and train arrivals, or any guarantee that this Major Transport Hub will not need to increase its operational activities to recover its investment.
11) Closure of the Bell Bay storage will only reduce the Invermay heavy vehicle traffic. All other Southbound heavy vehicle traffic is the same or increased. Peak traffic for the staff from this facility will affect local traffic.
12) GHD traffic count does not show the traffic at the Cimitere to Racecourse intersection where toll trucks often cut in front of traffic and hold up shoppers trying to access Kmart complex and local residents. This a major safety issue for vehicles and pedestrians using this intersection an area that is already very congested at most times of the day.
13) It is suggested that the removal of haulage from Bell Bay will result in less traffic, but provide no supporting evidence. The percentage of operations of this haulage is not given in terms of the businesses total operations and is ambiguous at best.
14) The building plans clearly shows that the structures being proposed are higher than the 13.5m level specified in the application. This may need to be reviewed.
15) The VIPAC study show the assumption that all staff leave site by 6pm but then models forklifts operating overnight.
16) The proposal includes a new truck wash station and refilling station, currently these activities are conducted offsite. Will fuel fumes and wash spray also effect nearby business and residents?
17) TNT, TOLL, and several local freight companies are all located at the airport industrial complex including the Woolworths food distribution centre. One has to ask why TOLL alone feels that the Boland St site is suitable for such a major transport hub, when others do not.
18) While two copies of the folding light poles are included, there is no installation map of where these are to go and in particular no mention of the height proposed for these lights. The existing lighting configuration is already causing major light pollution to neighbouring residences. With all curtains and blinds fully closed within our home there is still a bright ‘glow’ such that we don't need a night light and several of our security cameras do not switch to infrared night mode. Looking directly out any of the back windows of our house towards the Toll facility at night is blinding. It’s concerning that they are proposing to install more lights. Soon it will out shine the Aurora stadium!
19) The application proposes subdividing the existing lot into three separate lots, under the pretence that each subdivision could later be individually sold. However, this is somewhat deceptive as the division is clearly a distortion of the planning scheme as each lot individually requires 1-2 entrances, giving additional entry/exit points for the planned facility.
20) Promises of reduced traffic are suggested however the installation of a four5 lane wide, 40m long waiting bay, does not provide confidence that this will be the case. Currently, trucks are not spilling onto public roads preventing passage, so why would an efficiency improvement of existing operations with no planned operational increase need such a design?
21) The GHD truck paths shown require trucks entering the facility to deviate into oncoming traffic to enter the site. How is this an improvement in design!
22) The VIPAC noise analysis has specifically only shown noise modelling of the site based activities but ignores the impact of the 170 heavy vehicles per day driving along the residential streets. In the noise model their location is a stationary location within the boundary of the lot. This is not representative of what happens. Typically, vehicles of this size have noise levels of at least 55dB. The trucks are driving directly only meters from, or directly past residential properties, the Toll proposal does not limit this activity to day time only, so this would be a clear violation of the VIPAC suggested 40dB noise limit as they drive through our public streets during the night.
23) 40’ highlift container loaders normally operate at our nations wharves and heavy industrial complexes, not in a Light Industrial Area at the discretion of the local council. Transport and Storage facilities are only allowed within the light Industrial zone at the discretion of the council, thus this type of business is what I would consider a distorted use of a light industrial zoning.
24) Since when does Light Industrial zoning become suitable for Heavy Industrial applications, such as the major transport hub that Toll is proposing?

Yours truly,
Rebecca Page.

It is incomprehensible that this application, with the potential to adversely affect so many people and families, should even be considered.

The suburbs of Newstead and East Launceston are desirable suburbs to buy a home or seek aged care, close to the city, schools, hospitals, parks and all that city living has to offer. However, even with the current level of activity from the Toll and Tas Rail sites residents from Dowling Street to High Street are disturbed at night by the noise. If the application is to progress, many residents may well feel forced from their homes in search of somewhere where they can have an undisturbed night’s sleep. Their property values may decline and the dream that many in the area have worked so hard to achieve, lost.

Why has it not been possible for Toll to find an alternative site? One would think that a location such as Western Junction where rail, road and air transport/freight come together in one place would be a far more suitable location such for such an operation. It is centrally located in the State and is already successfully used by SRT Logistics (a transport company operating fright services throughout Tasmania and Victoria including shipping across Bass Strait). Unlike Toll, you see few SRT trucks travelling through the busy city streets let alone passing large numbers of homes and schools.

We are not anti-development and support the creation of jobs in Launceston, however, we do not support the extension and redevelopment of this site.

We trust that you will consider the implications of this application and protect the rights of Launceston City Rate Payers.

Yours sincerely
Dorothy and Martin Runciman

With the proposed DA for the Toll site, there is huge concern for the future noise levels, heavy vehicle traffic and night time disturbance for the Newstead, east launceston area.
I hope the concerns of residents are taken into account when considering this development.