Council lowers pool noise standards

Gosford Council has agreed to reduce sound insulation in the Peninsula Leisure Centre at its meeting on November 4.

Council voted to accepted "revised noise criteria" to lower sound insulation requirements and reduce project costs by up to $600,000, allowing the project to proceed.

In a staff report, the council was told the result was unlikely to be acceptable to neighbours.

The final design will incorporate the recommendations of consultants Atkins Acoustics and Renzo Tonin and Associates.

Under the new plans, certification is to be provided to show that complex meets the EPA's Industrial Noise Policy and requirements of the consultants' reports, before Council will issue the construction certificate.

As well, Renzo Tonin and Associates will have to provide certification verifying that the development complies with their May report.

A final report will also have to be submitted by the consultant certifying that the construction and design elements, including the plant comply with the acoustic criteria as recommended in both acoustic reports.

The amended conditions will provide an acoustic treatment level defined as a "Basic Plus" building design.

Gosford Council received advice on acoustic levels from the Environment Protection Authority and was told the EPA was unable to comment on whether construction was likely to generate complaints from nearby residents.

Council was advised to investigate all options to reduce noise from the premises and undergo comprehensive community consultation.

"It is the EPA's experience that if noise complaints arise it is very much more expensive to retrofit noise attenuation than to incorporate solutions in the initial design and may compromise the benefits of the facility if restrictions on intended uses and operational times are required," the EPA advised.

The EPA advised that it would judge the acoustics based on the Industrial Noise Policy.

"The EPA will investigate any complaints it receives, although consideration may be given to the economic and social benefits of the proposal.

"The EPA encourages Council to consider all feasible means to avoid impinging on residents' amenity," the EPA advised..

Gosford Council received seven public submissions on the proposal

These submissions addressed compliance with the EPA's industrial noise policy, staging the development to save money, opening hours and more patrons leading to more noise and publishing acoustic reports.

Council staff responded to these objections in a report to the council stating that: "Council is subject to the same criteria regarding noise attenuation as other developers, although the EPA may make some allowance for the fact that the proposal is a community facility."

It noted the suggestion to stage the development.

"The more intense use of the site proposed with greater numbers of patrons and longer opening hours dictate that noise should be attenuated to acceptable levels at neighbouring dwellings."

It also responded that an information and feedback session was conducted by Elton Consulting on September 25 to both inform and advise residents of the proposed changes and likely impacts on the amenity.

"The objective of the meeting was to rationalise the concerns of Council's assessing staff and those identified by adjoining neighbours," it stated.

"Both consultants undertook a review of seven specified areas, which were of concern."

"Each area was examined in such a way as to produce an acceptable outcome."

The acoustic report by Renzo Tonin and Associates had four conclusions:

1. The original noise assessment criteria was based on the EPA's industrial noise policy, without sufficient consideration of the existing use and activities on the site and the overall benefits the facility would offer.

2. Acoustic design to the established noise criteria has caused significant increases to the cost of the building, in the order of some $1.2 to $1.3 million over budgeted cost.

3. Revised noise criteria have been reviewed for the pool hall and dry sports hall activities on site, being based on what is considered economically feasible in terms of acoustic design, and what is considered reasonable based on EPA guidelines.

4. Up to 26 residences adjacent to the proposed development may potentially be impacted by noise levels in excess of the established noise levels for the site, although this is dependent on the intensity of use of the site.

However the report recommended a reduction in sound insulation to reduce costs as the facility would "provide a substantial benefit to the local and regional community".

The report concluded that non-compliance with relevant EPA noise criteria would occur during peak events, such as school swimming carnivals and "Super Saturdays", which were expected to occur 25 to 30 days a year, or during larger events at the dry sports hall.

The council was told that a peer review of Renzo Tonin Report had been conducted by Louis A Challis and Associates.

It also had four conclusions:

1. The acoustical analyses that were prepared were technically flawed.

2. The subsequent reports prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associates perpetuated the errors and omissions of the Atkins Acoustics Report and further compounded them by failing to assess the noise impact and associated formal noise control measures applicable to the mechanical plant and equipment.

3. Gosford Council should seek an updated report from Renzo Tonin and Associates.

The Challis review recommended that this report should correctly and objectively identify all of the potential sources of noise impact within the development, ensuring that the report includes the items of ventilation equipment, as well as the pool heating and space cooling equipment that the designers intended to install.

"The report should accurately review the efficacy and deficiencies associated with the current proposals relating to mechanical as well as architectural noise control features.

"The evaluation should then confirm that the project is compliant with the EPA's recommended nocturnal as well as its daytime acoustical goals and guidelines for the control of community noise impact."

4. The nearest and other neighbours to the site are unlikely to be provided with a level of acoustical amenity that accords to that which they would classify as being acceptable.

Council Agenda DH 115, November 13