statement of evidence for the subject land of: 1-5

Enfield Acoustics Pty Ltd

ABN 15 628 634 391

Ph: +61 3 9111 0090

PO Box 920

North Melbourne, VIC 3051

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE FOR THE SUBJECT LAND OF: 1-5 GLADSTONE ROAD, DANDENONG

Kaufland Stores in Victoria Advisory Committee Hearing

INSTRUCTED BY PLANNING & PROPERTY PARTNERS

DOC. REF: V012-03-L STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE (R0) 19 NOVEMBER 2018

Statement of Evidence for the Subject Land of: 1-

5 Gladstone Road, Dandenong

V012-03-L Statement of Evidence (r0).docx

Kaufland Stores in Victoria Advisory Committee

Hearing

of 22

Document Statement of Evidence for the Subject Land of: 1-5 Gladstone

Road, Dandenong

Subject Kaufland Stores in Victoria Advisory Committee

Instructions Instructed by Planning & Property Partners

Document Reference V012-03-L Statement of Evidence (r0).docx

Date of Issue 19 November 2018





Hearing

of 22

1 STATEMENT INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Darren Tardio and I am a Director of En?ield Acoustics Pty Ltd,

consultants in acoustics, noise and vibration. The business operates from 60

Criterion Court, Clunes.

2. I have read the Planning Panels Victoria document Guide to Expert Evidence dated

April 2015 and con?irm that my statement is prepared in accordance with that

document.

3. I hold a Bachelor of Music (Engineering & Technology) and I have practiced as a

consulting engineer in acoustics for 13 years.

4. I am a member of the Australian Acoustical Society (AAS).

5. My areas of expertise include acoustics, noise and vibration analysis and control in

planning & environment, building and infrastructure. I have previously carried out

acoustic assessments for other commercial premises and Responsible Authorities

relating to supermarkets, shop deliveries and traf?ic, including expert testimony at

VCAT and planning & advisory panels.

6. My evidence in this submission is within my area of expertise, except where I state

that I am relying upon the evidence of another person.

7. My CV is attached as Appendix A to this Statement.

8. I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no

matters of signi?icance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been

withheld from the Advisory Committee.

2 INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION RELIED ON

9. I have been instructed by Planning & Property Partners to prepare this Statement of

Evidence in relation to Kau?land Stores in Victoria Advisory Committee Hearing

(Kau?land Stores Proposal) for the Subject Land of 1-5 Gladstone Road, Dandenong.

10. The Subject Land is one of three sites making up Group 1 of the Kau?land Stores

Proposal.

11. I have been instructed to:

a. Assess the potential noise impacts at residential land proximate the Subject

Land; and





Hearing

of 22

b. Review submissions related to noise impacts and respond accordingly.

12. In preparation of my evidence, I have reviewed:

a. The Terms of Reference for the Kau?land Stores Proposal prepared by the

Minister for Planning;

b. Local policies relating to the Subject Land;

c. State polices and guidelines relating to noise control;

d. The exhibited ‘Rev A1’ plans and amended plans based on consultant inputs

(Plans); and

e. Submissions relating to the matter.

13. I have been instructed of the intention to operate each store as follows:

a. Opening hours between 7am – midnight;

b. Up to 10 deliveries during the opening hours; and

c. One delivery after hours (between midnight – 7am).

14. I have visited the Subject Land and surrounding area to:

a. Carry out measurements of existing background and ambient noise;

b. Make observations with respect to traf?ic and heavy vehicle activity in the area;

and

c. Make observations with regard to particular site features and noise

transmission paths between the Subject Land and proximate residential

dwellings.

15. I have imported 3D site topography data into noise modelling I prepared. This is

based on 1-5m elevation contours available at land.vic.gov.au.

3 QUALITATIVE REVIEW

16. In my experience, supermarkets are relatively low risk with respect to noise impacts,

where plant and truck deliveries are adequately controlled. This is intrinsic given

shopping centres and supermarkets often interface directly with residential

boundaries.

17. The noise sources that require consideration and assessment are:

a. Plant associated with refrigeration, air-conditioning and exhaust;





Hearing

of 22

b. Deliveries;

c. Waste collection; and

d. Customer car parking.

18. There are no other sources of noise that I would consider as material to the Subject

Land proposal.

19. Qualitatively, it is also reasonable to expect that the risk of noise complaints is

further mitigated given:

a. The Subject Land is zoned Commercial 2;

b. There are already other commercial premises operating proximate the Subject

Land, which would include similar types of noise emissions from vehicles;

c. The Subject Land was previously operated as a Bunnings Warehouse, which

would have emitted similar types of noise emissions from vehicles;

d. The Subject Land abuts an arterial highway; and

e. The Subject Land only interfaces with one area of residential dwellings, on the

opposite side of David Street, which is a Council collector road and was observed

to carry appreciable volumes of traf?ic and heavy vehicles.

4 APPLICABLE NOISE POLICY AND GUIDELINES

4.1 SEPP N-1

20. State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Industry, Commerce and

Trade) No. N-1 (SEPP N-1) is the applicable noise policy for the proposed use. While

SEPP N-1 provides a foundation for assessing the noise impacts from commercial

uses, noise from non-commercial vehicles (i.e. car park) is exempt from the Policy.

21. SEPP N-1 applies to plant on commercial premises as well as commercial vehicles

(e.g. truck deliveries and commercial waste collection). However, in practice, the

SEPP N-1 assessment procedure is typically only relevant to commercial truck

deliveries and waste collection where such activities occur outside of the nominated

hours of EPA Publication 1254 and where there is are signi?icant number of events.

Adherence to Publication 1254 typically results in inherent compliance with SEPP N-

1 due to the relatively short duration of truck delivery / collection against the 30-

minute assessment period of SEPP N-1.





Hearing

of 22

22. While it is common for planning permits to re-iterate conditions which are consistent

with the scheduled hours nominated in Publication 1254, delivery and waste

collection operations can comply with SEPP N-1 outside of the scheduled hours

under the right site conditions.

23. I note that because delivery truck noise is relatively transient , it is common practice to

also assess such events against established sleep disturbance thresholds for

operations between 10pm-7am.

4.2 EPA PUBLICATION 1254

24. For waste collection, the recommendations contained within Publication 1254 are as

follows:

a. One collection per week:

6:30am – 8pm Monday to Saturday

9am – 8pm Sunday and public holidays

b. Two or more collections per week:

7am – 8pm Monday to Saturday


25. For deliveries and loading, the recommendations contained within Publication 1254

are as follows:

a. 7am – 10pm Monday to Saturday

b. 9am – 10pm Sunday and Public Holidays

4.3 SLEEP DISTURBANCE GUIDELINES

26. In practice, noise from car parks does not require assessment for supermarkets and

shopping centres given they are typically situated on main roads that inherently

carry more traf?ic and generate higher noise levels, particularly during normal

business hours. Because of this, quantitative assessments during day/evening hours

are of little value to the Advisory Committee however a quantitative assessment

during the SEPP N-1 de?ined ‘night’ period may assist with respect to commonly

accepted sleep disturbance thresholds.

27. The sleep disturbance thresholds have been accepted at VCAT and Planning Panel

hearings as an appropriate assessment trigger when noise sources fall outside the





Hearing

of 22

normal assessment methodologies of SEPP N-1. Most commonly, the sleep

disturbance assessment applies to both commercial and non-commercial vehicles that

may be used on a site between the hours 10pm-7am.

28. For urban and suburban areas, the sleep disturbance threshold typically accepted is

65dB(A) outside dwellings, however for very infrequent events of 1-2 between the

hours 10pm-7am, it is also commonly accepted that outdoor noise levels of up to

80dB(A) do not impact on health and wellbeing (assuming opened windows).

5 SUBJECT LAND INSPECTIONS

29. I visited the Subject Land on 19 October, between approximately 1am and 2am, and 7

November, between approximately 1pm and 2pm.

30. My observations resulted in the following qualitative assessment:

a. The Subject Land is part of a larger existing commercial and industrial precinct

which continues east along David Street; and

b. The only residential dwellings that would have potential exposure to noise

emissions from the Subject Land are those immediately opposite David Street.

31. Attended noise testing proximate to residential dwellings on David Street resulted in

the following noise levels:

a. 41dB(A), L90, night

b. 53dB(A), Leq, night

c. 50dB(A), L90, day

d. 60dB(A), Leq, day

32. The noise environment was dominated by local traf?ic on David Street during the day

period inspection, and traf?ic on Princes Highway during the night period inspection.

33. In practice, the only noise limit that requires extensive consideration is the ‘night’

period noise limit, given the proposal includes store hours 10pm-midnight and

deliveries 10pm-7am. Where proposed operations are expected to comply with the

more stringent ‘night’ period, it is intrinsic that compliance is achieved during all

other periods. Equally, less mitigation would be required for other periods of the day.

This is also the case even where more deliveries occur during regular business hours,

given the SEPP N-1 assessment period is 30-minutes and any practical increase in the





Hearing

of 22

number of trucks during the day does not counteract signi?icantly higher noise limits

for that period.

34. While on-site, I noted that there is a two storey multi-unit dwelling at 146 Princes

Highway which has frontage to David Street. I consider that this important where

noise barriers are employed around the proposed loading dock given some line-of-

sight needs to be broken for a noise wall to be effective.

6 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Noise Limits

35. I have calculated the ‘Zoning Limits’ and Noise Limits in accordance with SEPP N-1

for the residential dwellings on Grand Parade, being:

Zoning Limit Background Noise, LA90 Noise Limit

49 dB(A) 41 dB(A) 49 dB(A)

36. I note that the Zoning Limit is relatively high in this area given the residents reside

relatively close to both C2Z and RDZ1 zoning.

6.2 Control of Plant Noise

37. Mechanical plant cannot be fully assessed until plant selections are known during

design and construction, however this is standard practice for planning assessments

and would not normally prohibit approval, nor change the recommended conditions

on an approved permit in practice. Experience suggests that plant equipment found

on the roofs of supermarkets can be easily attenuated using off-the-shelf attenuation

packages including:

a. Duct attenuators to exhaust and chiller.

b. Screening and/or acoustic louvres around bulk plant.

38. Supermarket and retail lessee’s are accustomed to providing packaged noise

attenuation to comply with SEPP N-1 since site contexts are generally similar at most

locations and often interfacing with residential land use.

39. I have carried out noise modelling and a sensitivity analysis of rooftop plant noise

for the Proposal. Using a combined plant Sound Power Level of 110dB(A), this





Hearing

of 22

results in compliance with SEPP N-1 during the night period. I note that such a

Sound Power Level would likely not occur from any refrigeration or HVAC plant

platform in my experience, even with basic screening, however the construction of

that plant screening (using approved noise barriers around plant platforms) would

need to be veri?ied during later design phases to ensure adequate mitigation is

employed.

40. The Plans indicate that rooftop mechanical platform will be located further towards

the north of the site, away from the southern parapet nearest to residents. In practice,

this means that the built form will provide signi?icant noise shielding to residential

dwellings.

41. Even though the risk of noise impacts from plant associated with the Proposal is

relatively low, I am ultimately satis?ied that it is adequate for an approved planning

permit to simply include a condition that the Subject Land comply with SEPP N-1,

and that design be reviewed by a quali?ied acoustic consultant at the appropriate

time.

6.3 Deliveries and Waste Collection

42. While a single delivery of goods overnight is likely to generate relatively low noise

impacts, use of reverse beepers can be audible at appreciable distances.

43. I have carried out noise modelling of truck deliveries and waste collection based on

Sound Power Levels of truck deliveries and loading activities I have recorded at

other supermarkets, primarily ALDI stores.

44. The Sound Power Levels I have determined from trucks on other sites are as follows:

Source Sound Power Level, LAeq, 30-min Sound Power Level, LAmax

Truck acceleration, idling

and reversing with

refrigeration

95 dB(A) 103 dB(A)

Truck brake release N/A 111 dB(A)

Waste truck collection N/A 116 dB(A)

Loading 81 dB(A) 102 dB(A)





Hearing

of 22

45. While some variation in vehicle noise can be expected site-to-site and time-to-time,

those variations are found to be immaterial with respect to assessing typical

operations in my experience.

46. Noise modelling based on the above data results in the following predictions:

a. Up to 56dB(A) Leq at residential properties on David Street over a 30-minute

period in accordance with SEPP N-1, including a +5dB tonal adjustment for

reverse beepers. This result does not comply with the SEPP N-1 night period

noise limit of 49dB(A).

b. <68 dB(A) Lmax at residential properties on David Street. This would not comply

with the normal sleep disturbance threshold (65dBA) but would comply with

the trigger for 1-2 events per night not causing effects to health and wellbeing.

47. I have carried out further modelling to establish the controls that would result in

compliance with both SEPP N-1 and the establish sleep disturbance triggers. These

are:

a. Waste collection prohibited to the hours nominated in EPA Publciation 1254;

b. Deliveries are restricted to one between the hours 10pm and 7am; and

c. A 4m high noise wall constructed around the proposed loading dock, with a

minimum 3m high solid clad gate to the loading dock entrance.

48. With the above controls implemented, the noise modelling results are:

a. Up to 40dB(A) Leq at residential properties on David Street over a 30-minute

period in accordance with SEPP N-1, including a +5dB tonal adjustment for

reverse beepers.

b. 65dB(A) Lmax at residential properties on David Street.

49. The noise wall would need to be constructed of a cladding weighing at least 15kg/m2

and with an acoustically absorptive ?inish (e.g. perforated galvanised metal) to the

internal surface of the noise wall facing into the loading dock, to avoid re?lected

noise between the loading dock, adjacent commercial buildings and residential

dwellings.

50. The solid gate would also need to be constructed in a way such that it does not

generate any material noise impacts. In my experience, this can be done by ensuring

that sliding or gear mechanisms employ soft rollers, typically made out of nylon as

opposed to steel and other metal components.





Hearing

of 22

51. While there would still be some direct noise exposure while the delivery truck

manoeuvres into the loading dock from the intersection of David Street and the service

road (Gateway Blvd), the duration of exposure would still be limited by the proposed

noise wall and therefore reduce the overall noise level.

52. It would prudent for a noise management plan employed on this site with speci?ic

guidelines for truck delivery drivers to avoid long periods of idling or aggressive

acceleration / braking at the David Street interface.

6.4 Car Park

53. Given the Subject Land car park abuts an arterial highway and Council collector road,

it is intrinsic that car park noise emissions will not cause adverse impacts. It is also

unlikely that customers would park vehicles along the David Street boundary between

10pm and midnight, when the store is not as busy and parking is available closer to

the entry.

54. To con?irm that such events will not exceed the sleep disturbance thresholds, I have

modelled typical vehicle noise events such as ignition and car doors slamming, based

on the following Sound Power Levels:

c. Car door slamming, 92dB(A)

d. Vehicle ignition, 87dB(A)

55. The results of the modelling suggest that that Lmax noise levels from the car park will

be <47dB(A). In practice, I expect such events to be inaudible or indistinguishable

from other traf?ic noise in the area.

6.5 Noise Mapping

56. I have provided noise mapping with respect to each assessment scenario (i.e. SEPP N-1

and sleep disturbance) in Appendix B.

7 RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

57. Submission D01 notes concerns regarding:

a. Increased people and traf?ic noise

b. After hours deliveries

c. Refrigerated trucks





Hearing

of 22

d. Box-crushers

e. Re?lected noise off buildings

58. With respect to a), modelling suggests that the level of customer noise is expected to

be inaudible or indistinguishable from other noise that already occurs in the area.

59. With respect to b), I agree that after-hours deliveries presents as the highest risk of

adverse noise impact for the Proposal, however I have recommended that this is

mitigated by:

Limiting waste collection to the nominated hours in EPA Publication 1254;

Only one delivery occurring between 10pm and 7am; and

Erection of a 4m high noise wall around the loading dock with 3m high solid

clad entry gate.

60. With respect to c), the empirical data which my assessment and modelling is based

on includes refrigerated trucks. The trucks are based on single trailer trucks and I

have been instructed that the Proposal does not cater for B-doubles and/or road

trains.

61. With respect to d), cardboard and box crushers I have measured at supermarket

loading docks generate immaterial noise levels. Typically, they are encased in thick

steel cladding. Ultimately though, this source of noise would be subject to

assessment in accordance with SEPP N-1.

62. With regard to e), re?lected noise has been included in the noise modelling. In

particular, there is the risk that the erection of the proposed noise wall would

exaserbate re?lected noise from the loading dock area. For this reason, I have

recommended that the noise wall cladding include an acoustically absorptive ?inish

to mitigate this. I set out the requirements for this in para49.

63. Submission D04 raises concerns that the lack of trees and landscaping will reduce

the level of noise ‘dampening’ between the buildings. I note that trees and

landscaping are completely ineffective in controlling noise in the way suggested and

the planting of trees would be immaterial to the noise results.

64. Submission D05 recommends noise conditions relating to SEPP N-1 and a

Construction Management Plan. I agree with this and such conditions are relatively

standardised for these types of proposal.

65. Submission G01 raises queries regarding:

a. Delivery times;





Hearing

of 22

b. Waste disposal / collection;

c. Hours of operation; and

d. Noise generated from plant.

66. The submission generally re-iterates text from Publication 1254 and as discussed

earlier, while the guidelines provide good in-principle advice to minimise impacts,

they are not necessarily required for sites with little to no surrounding sensitive use,

or where other means of noise control are employed.

67. All of the above matters have been addressed in this Statement.

68. Submission G01 also raises that SEPP N-1 may be phased out in the future and

instead recommends more generalised condition wording. While I am not opposed to

general noise amenity conditions, in my experience, they can have the opposite effect

for Council enforcement of?icers, in that compliance is more easily misinterpreted.

8 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

69. With the correct noise mitigation and permit conditions in place, I am satis?ied that

the Proposal presents as a relatively low risk to adverse noise impacts.

70. An approved planning permit for the Proposal should include the following

conditions:

a. The premises shall comply with State Environment Protection Policy No. N-1,

including all plant equipment, loading dock use, truck deliveries and waste

collection.

b. Plant equipment shall be assessed by a suitably quali?ied acoustic consultant

during design and construction to ensure compliance with SEPP N-1.

c. A limit of one truck delivery shall occur between the hours 10pm-7am.

d. Waste trucks shall only permitted to access the land between the hours:

7am – 8pm Monday to Saturday


e. A noise wall, 4m high, and 3m high solid gate, shall be erected around the loading

dock in accordance with the plans marked up in Appendix C. The noise wall and

gate shall be constructed of cladding weighing at least 15kg/m2 and with an

acoustically absorptive ?inish to the internal face. The gate shall be used between

the hours 10pm and 7am and shall remain closed during the period that the





Hearing

of 22

delivery truck is within the loading dock. The gate itself shall be constructed to

emit low levels of noise by employing soft rollers and no metal-on-metal contact

points

f. A noise management plan shall be prepared which includes provisions for

minimising truck noise along David Street

71. In accordance with the above recommendations and the mitigation advice referred to

in this Statement, I am satis?ied that a permit can be approved for the proposed use

on the Subject Land. With respect to noise assessment, no amendment to the Council

scheme is deemed required.

Signed and dated this date

Darren Tardio

19 November 2018





Hearing

of 22

CV

CURRICULUM VITAE

Darren Tardio

Director of Enfield Acoustics

Pty Ltd

Quali�ications & Associations

• B Mus (Eng. & Tech.)

• MAAS, Australian Acoustical Society Member

Summary

Darren is a founding Director and Noise & Vibration Engineer

at Enfield Acoustics Pty Ltd. He completed his Bachelor

Degree in 2004. His undergraduate thesis researched the

inaudible (infrasound and ultrasound) frequency spectrum

and its effects on reproduction equipment and the subjective

quality of the listener.

With 12 years of professional acoustic consulting experience,

Darren has been involved in many key local and overseas

projects related to noise and vibration. Darren’s professional

career has demonstrated the ability to project manage large

commercial projects in utilities, buildings and infrastructure as

well as carry out complex environmental noise impact

assessments. His hands-on approach has required travel to all

major cities in Australia as well as the Middle East, including

work on the world’s tallest building, the Burj Khalifa.

Darren has worked extensively on projects relating to:

Environmental noise studies for industrial and

infrastructure projects

Expert Witness for VCAT, Legal and Panel Hearings

Industrial and Environmental Noise Control for Power

Stations, Petrochemical, Water Treatment, Mining, Quarries,

etc.

Aero-acoustic (wind noise) testing and mitigation of

noisy building facades

Expert in BCA acoustics issues

Site inspections of acoustic works and workmanship

defects during construction

Laboratory sample testing for manufacturers

Community noise disputes

Building and ground vibration analysis

Human comfort vibration and structure-borne noise

Recent Experience

Environment, Infrastructure, Planning and Legal

West Gate Tunnel Project, EES Review and Panel Hearing

for MCC; East West Link Project, EES Review for MVCC;

Tulla Widening Project, EES Review for MVCC; Webb Dock

Tender EES for John Holland; Kilmore Bypass Route

Selection and EES for VicRoads; Murray River Crossing for

VicRoads; Thompsons Road Duplication Project for

VicRoads; Western Highway duplication, Burrumbeet to

Beaufort; Dingley Bypass; Geelong Ring Road for Fulton

Hogan; Calder Freeway for Fulton Hogan; Regional Rail Link

Package G for UGL/Manidis Roberts; Melbourne Metro

Early Works Package for John Holland; Hobart Airport

STARs >light path EES review; VicRoads Land, Pakenham

Bypass; Tylden Quarry Expansion for Fulton Hogan;

Amendment C109 Panel Hearing, Hobsons Bay; Ballarto

Road Concrete Batching Plant, Clyde; Mt Ridley Clean>ill,

Yuroke; Boral Clayton Concrete Plant; Boral Quarries, Deer

Park; Melbourne Regional Land>ill EES Review; Tea Tree

Quarry, Tasmania; Fonterra Dennington; Fonterra Cobden;

Western Speedway, Hamilton; Fonterra Altona.

Building Acoustics, Facades & Mechanical

Services

Melbourne Quarter, Batmans Hill; Burj Khalifa, Dubai;

Nazareth College, Noble Park; West>ield Cinemas, North

Lakes; Broadmeadows Childrens Court; Camberwell

Kindergarten; GTV9, Richmond; HM@S Apartments, Port

Melbourne; Department of Environment and Primary

Industries of>ices, Warrnambool; Hampton on Hampton

Apartments, Hampton; La Trobe University, Bundoora;

Constance Apartments, Hawthorn; Kew Circle Apartments,

Kew; 26-28 Wilson Street, South Yarra; McKinnon

Kindergarten, McKinnon; Martha’s Point Retirement Village;

AFL Victoria of>ices, Visy Park; 105 Ormond Esplanade; 5-7

Wilson Street, South Yarra; 108 Glen Iris Road apartments;

101 Collins Street of>ices, Melbourne; 25-29 Wilson Street,

South Yarra; 54-56 Chapel Street, St Kilda; V6 Concavo,

Docklands; 108 Maribyrnong Road apartments, Moonee

Ponds; Docklands Square Library, Docklands; EXO,

Docklands; Forte Living, Docklands; Serrata, Docklands

Vibration & Structural Damage

Goodlife, Camberwell; Richmond Terminal Power Station,

transmission tower structural damage; Webb Dock, Port

Melbourne; Regional Rail Link; Bosch Automotive Shaker

Laboratory; 313 Victoria Street Woolworths, Abbotsford

Music Noise

Queenscliff Music Festival; The Pier Hotel, Port Melbourne;

Iddy Biddy, St Kilda; Alphington Rehearsal Studios; Mothers

Milk, Brighton; The Penny Black, Brunswick; The George

Basement, St Kilda; Branch Bar, St Kilda; Purepop, St Kilda;

The Mint Bar, Melbourne; City of Port Phillip Noise

Management and Application Plans

Research & Development Studies

Melbourne Zoo, noise & vibration induced animal

behaviour; Hollowcore Concrete, impact sound insulation;

Rehau wastewater pipe sound insulation; Duratray /

AngloAmerican mining, Hunter Valley; Knauf Auralisation

study

Professional History

• 2018 – Founder & Director, En>ield Acoustics

• 2016 – Founder & Director, Octave Acoustics

• 2013 – Senior Acoustic Consultant, Renzo Tonin &

Associates

• 2011 – Project Engineer, Renzo Tonin & Associates

• 2006 – Project Engineer, VIPAC Engineers & Scientists

Publications & AIA CPD Presentations

Darren has published papers for national and international

conferences and journals on the topics of noise.

These include:

“Plenum Effect of Ceiling Space on the Assessment of

Noise Levels”, 37th International Congress and

Exposition of Noise Control Engineering, Shanghai,

China, Oct, 2008, D Tardio and X Li.

“Investigation into the Airborne Flanking Sound

Transmission Paths of Wastewater Pipes and Acoustic

Lagging”, Acoustics 2012, Australian Acoustical Society

Annual Conference, Fremantle, WA, November 2012, D

Tardio and P Tommasini

“Effect of Singing on Respiratory Function, Voice and

Mood after Quadriplegia: A Randomized Controlled

Trial”, The National Center for Biotechnology

Information, 2012, J Tamplin et al. (contributor)

“Sound of Architecture”, Architectural CPD

Presentation 2014, Talking Brand, D Tardio and M

Micallef





Hearing

of 22

Noise Mapping Contours

PO

Box 9

20

N

ort

h M

elb

ourn

e,

VIC

3051

P:

03 9

111 0

090

KA

UFLA

ND

STO

RE -

DA

ND

EN

ON

G

Nois

e e

mis

sio

n levels

fro

m A

FTER H

OU

RS L

OAD

ING

/ D

ELIV

ERY.

LAm

ax n

ois

e levels

Sle

ep D

istr

ubance A

ssessm

ent

Pro

ject

No.

V012-0

3 1

1.1

1.2

018

A3

NO

TES:

*Pro

pagation in a

ccord

ance w

ith I

SO

9613

*M

odel in

clu

des land t

opogra

phy

*Refe

r to

report

for

SW

L

Scale

: 1:

1629

Legend:

Poin

t Sourc

e

Lin

e S

ourc

e

Buildin

g

Barr

ier

Receiv

er

Nois

e L

evel -

dB(A

)

65.0

<=

...

< 7

0.0

70.0

<=

...

< 7

5.0

75.0

<=

...

< 8

0.0

80.0

<=

...

< 8

5.0

85.0

<=

...

PO

Box 9

20

N

ort

h M

elb

ourn

e,

VIC

3051

P:

03 9

111 0

090

KA

UFLA

ND

STO

RE -

DA

ND

EN

ON

G

Nois

e e

mis

sio

n levels

fro

m A

FTER H

OU

RS L

OAD

ING

/ D

ELIV

ERY /

WASTE C

OLLECTIO

N.

LAeq,

30-m

in n

ois

e levels

SEPP N

-1 A

ssessm

ent

Pro

ject

No.

V012-0

3 1

1.1

1.2

018

A3

NO

TES:

*Pro

pagation in a

ccord

ance w

ith I

SO

9613

*M

odel in

clu

des land t

opogra

phy

*Refe

r to

report

for

SW

L

Scale

: 1:

1629

Legend:

Poin

t Sourc

e

Lin

e S

ourc

e

Buildin

g

Barr

ier

Receiv

er

Nois

e L

evel -

dB(A

)

50.0

<=

...

< 5

5.0

55.0

<=

...

< 6

0.0

60.0

<=

...

< 6

5.0

65.0

<=

...

< 7

0.0

70.0

<=

...

< 7

5.0

75.0

<=

...

< 8

0.0

80.0

<=

...

< 8

5.0

85.0

<=

...





Hearing

of 22

Noise Wall Location

LOA

DIN

G

AR

EA

CA

NO

PY

OV

ER

SH

OW

N D

ASH

ED

TIM

BE

R P

LAN

TER

TIM

BE

R P

LAN

TER

TIM

BE

R P

LAN

TER

TIM

BE

R P

LAN

TER

A2

A1

12

34

58

10

ABCD

69

6A

6B

7A

7B

1

TP

-08

1

TP

-08

2

TP

-08

2

TP

-08

3

TP

-08

3

TP

-08

5B

710260 32005 28955

68

40

68

40

68

40

68

40

68

40

68

40

65

30

11

38

01

13

40

12

98

01

29

80

12

15

01

09

00

10

90

05

16

0

15000

94

81

4

71680

CONCRETE FOOTPATH

CO

NC

RETE

FO

OTP

ATH

FO

OTP

ATH

CONCRETE FOOTPATH

15

00

94

81

4

24

7

213

24

7

247

12

70

82

00

TP-0

6

1

TP-0

62

TP-0

6

3

TP-0

64

136m

²

OU

TD

OO

R E

AT

ER

Y

CO

NC

RE

TE P

LAN

TER

CO

NC

RE

TE P

LAN

TER

CO

NC

RE

TE P

LAN

TER

CO

NC

RE

TE P

LAN

TER

CO

NC

RE

TE P

LAN

TER

CO

NC

RE

TE P

LAN

TER

CONCRETE PLANTER

68m

²

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIO

N 2

239m

²

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIO

N 1

83m

²

PU

BLIC

TO

ILE

TS

224

m²

TE

NA

NC

Y 1

278

m²

FO

OD

HA

LL A

RE

A

361

0m

²

SU

PE

RM

AR

KE

T

117

8m

²

BA

CK

OF

HO

US

E

169

m²

SE

RV

ICE

S

RETA

ININ

G W

ALL

5A

4A

53m

²

EN

TR

Y

354

m²

LIQ

UO

R

343m

²

MA

LL A

RE

A

6000

TIM

BE

R P

LAN

TER

TIM

BE

R P

LAN

TER

TIM

BE

R P

LAN

TER

TIM

BE

R P

LAN

TER

CO

VER

ED

STA

FF B

IKES 2

2

SPA

CES

4

TP

-08

4

TP

-08

CUSTOMER BIKES

14 SPACES

BLA

CK

STE

EL

SHR

OU

D

AR

OU

ND

WIN

DO

WS.

BLA

CK

STE

EL

SH

RO

UD

AR

OU

ND

WIN

DO

WS.

WA

TER

TA

NKAR

MC

O B

AR

RIE

R

24

7

FH

LA

ND

SC

AP

ELA

ND

SC

AP

E

EX

ISTI

NG

SP

OO

N D

RA

IN

EASEMENT

1733

FF

L. 4

8.5

00

EX

AC

T LEV

EL

TO B

E C

ON

FIR

MED

BY

CIV

IL E

NG

INEER

.

7050

CO

NC

RETE

FO

OTP

ATH

TRO

LLEY

STO

RE

SHA

RED

ZO

NE

CO

LOU

RE

DC

ON

CR

ETE

SHA

RED

ZO

NE

CO

LOU

RE

DC

ON

CR

ETE

SPR

INK

LER

STO

RA

GE

TA

NK

72

00

54

00

54

00

72

00

54

00

54

00

72

00

54

00

54

00

72

00

54

00

54

00

72

00

49

00

34

41

49

00

70

00

54

00

54

00

70

00

54

00

54

00

70

00

54

00

EX.R

L+47

.500

PR.RL+

47.3

00

PR.RL+

47.250

PR.RL+

47.6

50

PR.RL+

47.650

RL+48

.350

PR.RL+

48.350

RL+48.

350

EX.R

L+48

.350

PR.RL+

48.35

0

PR.RL+

48.730

EX.R

L+48.

690

RL+48.

700

EX.R

L+47

.900

PR.RL+

47.6

10

EX.R

L+47.

820

EX.R

L+47.

770

EX.R

L+47.

650

G L

A D

S T

O N

E

R

O A

D

P R I

N C E

S

H I

G H

W A

YD A V I D S T R E E T

CU

STO

MER

EN

TRY

/EX

IT

- TR

UC

K E

NTR

Y

SER

VIC

E R

OA

DCOMMON USE SERVICE ROAD

SPR

INK

LER

PU

MP

RO

OM

FH

FH

FHFH

FH

FH

TROLLEY

ENCLOSURE

TROLLEY

ENCLOSURE

TROLLEY

ENCLOSURE

70

00

54

00

54

00

70

00

10

80

01

24

00

54

00

66

00

54

00

8000 1650 30350 7149

54007000339007000

5400

54

00

65

00

54

00

54

00

65

00

54

00

TYP

.

54

00

ACCESSABLE

CARPARK

10 SPACES

FAMILY

CARPARK

14 SPACES

8M

PY

LON

SIG

N T

YP

E 1

8M

PY

LON

SIG

N T

YP

E 1

22M

PY

LON

SIG

N T

YP

E 2

718

2849

8849

1857

FO

OTP

ATH

BOUNDARY

61191

PROPOSED KAUFLAND STORE

71680

BOUNDARY

11929

BO

UN

DA

RY

50

38

8

PR

OP

OSE

D K

AU

FLA

ND

STO

RE

94

81

4

BO

UN

DA

RY

75

79

9

7615 40550 2150 1300

34

m²

TE

NA

NC

Y 2

8M

PY

LON

SIG

N T

YP

E 1

EX

IT

ON

LY

2xW

AST

E B

INS

2x11

00

L R

UB

BIS

H B

INS

TEN

AN

CY

LO

AD

ING

ZO

NE

TRO

LLE

Y

EN

CLO

SU

RE

FOOTPATH

PE

DESTR

IAN

CR

OSSIN

GP

ED

ESTR

IAN

CR

OSSIN

GP

ED

ESTR

IAN

CR

OSSIN

GP

ED

ESTR

IAN

CR

OSSIN

G

PE

DESTR

IAN

CR

OSSIN

GP

ED

ESTR

IAN

CR

OSSIN

G

CA

NO

PY

OV

ER

SH

OW

N D

ASH

ED

OU

TDO

OR

BEN

CH

OU

TDO

OR

BEN

CH

OU

TDO

OR

PLA

ZA

OU

TDO

OR

BEN

CH

OU

TDO

OR

BEN

CH

PLA

NTE

RSH

AR

ED

ZO

NE

CO

LOU

RE

D

CO

NC

RETE

SHA

RED

ZO

NE

CO

LOU

RE

D

CO

NC

RETE

TYP.

2700

AC

OU

STI

C F

EN

CE &

SLI

DIN

G G

ATE

S

TO E

NG

INEER

S D

ETA

ILS.

AC

OU

STI

C F

EN

CE T

O

EN

GIN

EER

S D

ETA

ILS.

7000

5400

FO

OTP

ATH

FOO

TPATH

CL3554

SIT

E L

EG

EN

D

PR

OP

ER

TY B

OU

ND

AR

IES

EA

SEM

EN

TS

EX

ISTI

NG

CA

R S

PA

CES

PR

OP

OSED

CA

R S

PA

CES

EX

ISTI

NG

LA

ND

SC

AP

E

PR

OP

OSED

LA

ND

SC

AP

E

EX

ISTI

NG

LEV

ELS

EX

.RL+

PR

OP

OSED

LEV

ELS

PR

.RL+

FIR

E H

YD

RA

NT

FH

PR

OP

OSED

PR

OV

ISIO

N F

OR

ELE

C. V

EH

ICLE

CH

AR

GIN

G

PR

OP

OSED

PLA

ZA

0

ISSU

EA

MEN

DM

EN

TC

HK

'DD

ATE

SC

ALE

THIS

DR

AW

ING

AN

D D

ESIG

N IS S

UB

JEC

T TO

CO

PY

RIG

HT

AN

D M

AY

NO

T B

E R

EP

RO

DU

CED

WIT

HO

UT

PR

IOR

WR

ITTE

NC

ON

SEN

T O

F L

EFFLER

SIM

ES P

TY L

TD

7 Y

OU

NG

ST

NEU

TRA

L B

AY

NSW

2089

2 -

290

BO

UN

DA

RY

ST

SP

RIN

G H

ILL

QLD

4004

LEV

EL

2 -

370

LT

BO

UR

KE S

T V

IC 3

000

SY

DN

EY

BR

ISB

AN

E

MELB

OU

RN

E

LEFFLER

SIM

ES P

TY L

TD

AB

N 3

9 0

01 0

43 9

92

WEB

: w

ww

.le

ffle

rsim

es.

co

m.a

u

JO

B N

O:

DA

TE:

DR

AW

N:

DW

G N

O.

REV

. T

:+61 2

990

93344

T:+

61 7

312

35544

T:+

61 3

965

46344

10

20

30

40

50

1:5

00

AC

PTP

-04

44

15

LSA

PR

OP

OSED

SIT

E &

GR

OU

ND

FLO

OR

PLA

N

Scale

:-

1 : 5

00

GR

OU

ND

FL

OO

R1

NO

N L

EA

SEA

BLE

AR

EA

NA

ME

AR

EA

EN

TRY

53

m²

MA

LL A

REA

34

3 m

²

PU

BLI

C T

OIL

ETS

83

m²

SER

VIC

ES

16

9 m

²

TOTA

L A

REA

64

8 m

²

LEA

SEA

BLE

FLO

OR

AR

EA

NA

ME

AR

EA

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATI

ON

12

39

m²

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATI

ON

26

8 m

²

BA

CK

OF

HO

USE

1,1

78 m

²

FOO

D H

ALL

AR

EA

27

8 m

²

OU

TDO

OR

EA

TER

Y1

36

m²

TEN

AN

CY

12

24

m²

TEN

AN

CY

234

m²

TOTA

L A

REA

2,1

57

m²

SIT

E D

ESC

RIP

TIO

NN

AM

EA

REA

EX

ISTI

NG

SIT

E3

0,6

07

m²

AR

EA

AN

ALY

SIS

- S

ITE (

GFA

)N

AM

EA

REA

PR

OP

OSED

KA

UFLA

ND

STO

RE (

GFA

)6,6

80

m²

PA

RK

ING

SC

HED

ULE

SP

AC

E T

YP

EN

O.

OF

PA

RK

S

AC

CESSIB

LE1

0

EX

ISTI

NG

18

FAM

ILY

14

GEN

ER

AL

377

SEN

IOR

6

TOTA

L:4

25

KA

UFLA

ND

RETA

IL A

REA

NA

ME

AR

EA

LIQ

UO

R3

54

m²

SU

PER

MA

RK

ET

3,6

10

m²

TOTA

L A

REA

3,9

64

m²

NO

TE:

FO

R A

LL L

AN

DSC

AP

ING

REFER

TO

LAN

DSC

AP

E A

RC

HIT

EC

TS D

RA

WIN

GS.

BIK

E P

AR

KIN

G S

CH

ED

ULE

NA

ME

NO

. O

F B

IKE

S

CU

STO

MER

14

STA

FF2

2

TOTA

L:3

6

AC

PA

C P

AN

EL

08

/11

/20

18

SJE

6,7

69

statement of evidence for the subject land of: 1-5

Documents