DĞůďŽƵƌŶĞŝƌƉŽƌƚŶǀŝƌŽŶƐ^ĂĨĞŐƵĂƌĚŝŶŐ ϭϱ ^ƚĂŶĚŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞͲ/ƐƐƵĞƐĂŶĚ KƉƚŝŽŶƐWĂƉĞƌ

&ƵůůEĂŵĞ͗ ĞŶZƵƐƐĞůů KƌŐĂŶŝƐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ ƌŽŽŬĨŝĞůĚ'ƌĞĞŶǀĂůĞWƚLJ>ƚĚ ĨĨĞĐƚĞĚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͗ ͕'ƌĞĞŶǀĂůĞs/ϯϬϱϵ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚϭ͗ ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬĞŶŐĂŐĞ͘ǀŝĐ͘ŐŽǀ͘ĂƵͬĚŽǁŶůŽĂĚͺĨŝůĞͬϰϴϮϬϴ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚϮ͗ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚϯ͗ ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͗ ƐĞĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ

^ƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽǀĞƌ^ŚĞĞƚ Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au

22 June 2021

Melbourne Airport Environs Standing Advisory Committee C/- Planning Panels Victoria 1 Spring Street Melbourne VIC 3000

Dear Standing Advisory Committee

Re: Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Issues and Options Paper

Background This letter is a submission on behalf of Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd (Brookfield) in response to the Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Issues and Options Paper dated 23 April 2021 (the Paper). Brookfield is the owner of a parcel of land at , Greenvale. The property is approximately 136 hectares in area, is predominately in the Green Wedge Zone and is currently not impacted by the Airport Environs Overlay (AEO). The Committee outlines possible changes to the Clause 18.04-1S of the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) in Appendix C1 of the Paper. This submission explores, discusses and makes recommendations to the proposed changes. Summary The extent of proposed restrictions on sensitive land uses within the AEO as per Appendix C1 of the Paper compromises and undermines the objectives of Plan Melbourne through: x The restriction on rezoning of land to intensify sensitive uses such as increased residential densities in established areas; and x The restriction on the rezoning of land from Farming Zone to Urban Growth Zone within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This submission is supported by: x Independent advice on acoustic impact by Marshall Day Acoustics regarding the measuring of noise impact and the use of N contours as a planning tool (Attachment A); and x Independent advice from Aviation Projects (Attachment B) regarding the modelled runway approaches as it affects the site.

This submission does not draft planning scheme provisions. However, it suggests that there is a need for a more balanced response to protect the Melbourne Airport operations (and other airports). A graded response to noise management would be more appropriate, for example: x Prohibition in some areas; x Managing impact of noise through building construction in lesser impacted areas; and x Notification of the potential for some impact in marginally impacted areas.

1

Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au

The planning response to airport noise should be consistent with the approach to planning for noise impacts from other noise generating uses, such as railways, industrial uses, ports and freight interchanges.

Melbourne Airport as a non-government body with competitive interests in development of land should not be a determining authority for planning scheme applications and amendments.

Noise Impact – Discussion Determining the appropriate noise impact level for restriction of sensitive uses and amelioration of noise impact in built form design is ultimately based on subjective criteria.

The material presented to the committee is informed by the available research which presents a reasonable interpretation on what constitutes a significant level of impact. Application of restrictions through the VPP’s will ultimately be subject to the extent of noise at any specific location and under what circumstances as to what constitutes a reasonable level to prohibit, restrict or enable development of sensitive uses in a modified form.

Through previous policy processes, there have discussions with Melbourne Airport in regard to addressing the amelioration of noise impact in building design. However, this has not been addressed in the Paper as a potential planning solution.

Paper Proposal The proposed changes, if implemented, could ban rezoning of land for sensitive uses. This would include residential zoning on all land that falls within the nominated noise contours, through modified VPP provisions that inform decision making. While this will apply to all airports, the report focusses primarily on Melbourne Airport with references and mapping.

The mapping applies to a large area that extends from the Macedon Ranges to Newport near Williamstown across metropolitan Melbourne.

When all airports are considered, including Essendon, Moorabbin, Avalon, and smaller airports such as Point Cook and Tyabb. The cumulative impact on sterilised land would be significant.

Impact on Plan Melbourne The proposed restrictions impact on land within the UGB including, land in growth areas yet to be planned through the PSP process, established urban areas including areas identified for higher density residential development. The proposed changes would restrict necessary rezoning to facilitate these higher density developments. This would consequently reduce the potential for developments of this nature which are essential to achieve the objectives of Plan Melbourne.

Response to N contours as a basis for planning provisions Marshall Day Acoustics has provided specific advice on the appropriateness of using National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) guidelines as a basis for land use planning for airports (Attachment A). Marshall Day Acoustics concluded that N contours are not an appropriate mechanism for specifically determining land use but that they function as

2

Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au

a guideline for consideration of future airport operations. Key elements from the report include: x There is no evidence to support the use of potential maximum noise levels based on N contours for airport planning; x The NASF are not a mechanism for precluding sensitive uses. However, they are an example of possible noise impacts based on one set of modelling assumptions. They are not definitive; x N contours are prone to uncertainties. This is further supported by Aviation Projects who identified that there are alternative flight paths to the options modelled in the Melbourne Airport Masterplan; x No airport in Australia uses maximum N contour projections to govern land use planning around airports; x No evidence exists to suggest that the N contours mapped for Melbourne Airport are an accepted standard; x ANEF’s under AS-2021 are the accepted standard for noise planning around airports; and x Marshall Day Acoustics recommend that the N contours be used for information purposes only in the consideration of other implications when determining planning provisions around airports, rather than the basis for an overlay (such as an AEO).

Comparative Planning Mechanisms Planning schemes have mechanisms in place which address impacts on amenity in response to industrial noise and odour and noise from railway lines. The principal that residential development should be protected from poor amenity outcomes is established. In instances such as noise, there is a range of graded responses from prohibition of sensitive uses to amelioration of the noise impact, to notification of likelihood of impact.

In regards to addressing planning within proximity to airports, the following is noted: x Not all airports have current and consistent noise modelling; x To consistently address each airport, noise impact mapping on a consistent methodology should occur; and x Any approach to addressing noise impact around airports should be treated in the same way detrimental impact of noise is addressed in other noise impact areas e.g., industrial noise buffers and built form responses and railway line interfaces.

The VPP’s have a gradational response through various mechanisms, to dealing with noise. Some examples include:

x Airport Environs Overlay (AEO1) o Regarding residential development this is an example of a level of restriction that prohibits more than one dwelling per lot and restricts subdivision of land that creates an intensification of residential lots while allowing existing lots to construct a single dwelling on a lot.

3

Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au

x Design and Development Overlay (DDO 10 – Wyndham Planning Scheme) o This overlay introduced a mechanism to ensure that new housing was not impacted by the Regional Rail Line (RRL) by placing a requirement in Section 2.0 “Buildings and Works” (Attachment C):

If a building includes a bedroom, the building (and associated works) must be constructed in such a way as to ensure internal bedroom noise levels will not exceed 65dBL and 40dBL for the night period from 10pm to 6am.

A permit may not be granted to construct a building or carry out works which are not in accordance with this requirement.

x Section 173 Agreements/ Notifications on title o While cumbersome these options have been used to inform purchasers of land that they are in an area that may be impacted upon by aircraft noise. Not to be dismissed, the objectives could be converted to a planning scheme requirement under an AEO or similar for areas with low impact.

The above presents examples of alternate planning mechanisms that could be adapted to provide a staged response to noise impact responding to the level of severity. This could be considered as part of a gradational response to noise from prohibition of sensitive uses to built form response that will change depending on the level of impact.

This could be applied in several ways within the Planning scheme including: x Changes to 18.04-1S; x Introduction of a new Airport Environs Overlay or rewording of the AEO 2 to place a similar requirement on all residential dwellings to ameliorate noise impact in building design where rezoning or planning scheme amendments occur; and/or x The application of a more refined staged response within an Airports Environs Overlay.

A previous submission to Melbourne Airport proposing four AEO’s (Attachment 4) presents as an example of how the mechanism could be considered.

The specific detail and provisions of each overlay need to be drafted and interrogated in more detail, particularly in regards to the N contour modelling discussed further in this report. However, the general direction is one that is broadly consistent with how noise is addressed elsewhere in the VPP’s and represents a more appropriate the approach.

4

Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au

Response to Modelling The significant change in the N contours is unexplained in the Masterplan document or the background reports. It is understood that the noise contours represent potential noise impact from optimum development of the airport based on current aviation technology and existing aircraft noise outputs. It is an optimum impact that may never be achieved. To further explore this issue, Aviation Projects provided an independent review of the modelled N contours (refer Attachment A).

A summary of the report is outlined below: x The additional contour that impacts the site applies to take off from both north/south runways; x There is a requirement for take-off to deviate 30 degrees away from each aircraft; x Options include 15 degrees left and right for each aircraft; and x The modelling assumes the western runway will continue a path directly north while the eastern runway accommodates the full 30 degrees.

This modelling is questioned in that by diverting the flights from the eastern runway “hard right” 30 degrees, the flight path is over existing and planned residential development. This would likely result in risk of increased complaints against noise.

This outcome appears to be emphasised as an alternative to the 15 degree left and right of due north that is an alternative. It is notable that no alternative path at 30 degrees exists to the west.

Melbourne Airport as a determining authority The Paper outlines that the Committee seeks submissions on: 15. In respect of the referral status of Melbourne Airport a) What applications should the airport operator be a determining referral authority for? b) What applications should the airport operator be a recommending referral authority for? Melbourne Airport should not be a determining authority for any use, application or amendment to the Planning Scheme outside of the airport controlled land. As a private entity it has competitive commercial operations to potential adjoining uses and is not a Government agency. Any referrals outside of the authority should be to the relevant State authority only. There is a suite of uses and potential planning scheme amendments that the airport should be a recommending authority. This should apply to an AEO that applies to the 20 ANEF or greater area.

7

Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au

Submission Recommendations The need to protect the 24-hour operation of the Melbourne Airport and minimise land use conflict around other airports is an important planning consideration. However, it should not override all other planning objectives for Melbourne, as presented in Plan Melbourne. A balance needs to be struck that ensures that the most significantly impacted areas are precluded from sensitive uses and that lesser impacted areas are required to ameliorate the impacts of potential noise based on long term modelling. As modelling is reviewed the boundaries of the planning mechanisms may need to equally be modified. It is imperative that any noise contour used to determine a planning scheme provision is robust. In defining the content of this submission including the inputs from Marshall Day Acoustics and Aviation Projects as attached to this submission, the following response is proposed:

A. The noise contours as they apply to the area that is a diagonal to the north south runway to the northeast of the airport should be reviewed prior to the establishment of any planning provisions responding to airport noise on the basis that they model only one option for departures of several alternatives.

B. NASF guidelines do not prohibit sensitive uses but are a tool by which site and location specific controls can be prepared. N contours are variable and not fixed. On that basis it is submitted that the draft changes to Clause 18.04-1S as proposed by the Committee in the Paper should not be adopted. The current provisions of clause 18.04-1S, allow for a planning response to be “tailored” to each airport and specific circumstances.

C. The VPP’s should address the issue of noise consistently within the planning scheme regardless of the source of noise. Rail, industrial and freight interchange planning responses should generally address: x Prohibition of sensitive uses where noise impact is significant; x Amelioration of the impact of noise where this is manageable; and x Notification of potential noise impact where impact is minimal.

While this submission does not propose the specific detail or drafting of specific controls, there is a scaled approach that should be undertaken to plan for noise impacts from airport:

1. Restricted area for sensitive uses - addressed by clause 18.04-1S and (a revised AEO 1 as drafted or similar) that applies a restriction on the rezoning of land for sensitive uses. While an ultimate determinant of the boundary for this restriction needs to be confirmed it should be based on the current standards for airport noise planning, the ANEF’s and AS2021. This should apply to the 20 ANEF or greater.

2. An area where noise attenuation is required in residential and sensitive use buildings - this could apply to all N contours 65 dB at 50 movements or greater or 70 dB at 20 movements or greater. In a similar way to the noise impact amelioration requirements in the DDO 10 in Wyndham. This would most likely need to be refined to specifically respond to the unique impact of aircraft noise. This could be applied through a revised AEO 2.

3. An area requiring notification of noise impact – this could apply to the N60 at 6 movements at night, (outside the AEO’s 1 and 2 as described above). This could potentially be implemented through Mapping and communication outside of the planning scheme or be identified in strategic land use plans such as Municipal

8

Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au

Strategic Statements highlighting the potential for noise impact. If applied as an AEO 3, it would serve the purpose of informing the public but is unlikely to require or mandate a specific planning response.

D. In response to Point 15 of the Paper – “Should Melbourne Airport be a determining authority for any use, application or amendment?” Melbourne Airport, as a non- government body with competitive interests in the development of industrial land should not be a determining authority. It should share the same rights as any other competing land use operator and have the right to respond to proposals for which any consideration will respond to the relevant VPP’s.

The above suggested response is not definitive and does require refinement and consideration of other planning mechanisms that seek to achieve the same response. The key outcome of the suggested approach is that there needs to be a scaled response proportional to the noise impact.

Any response to noise generators generally should have a consistent approach throughout the planning scheme.

The ANEF’s should form the basis for a restriction on intensification of sensitive uses with other noise impacts forming the basis for a built form response or greater awareness of potential noise impact.

It is emphasised that the modelled noise contours need to be robust and reflect likely aircraft movements and frequencies.

Conclusion In summary, Brookfield request that the Committee take the above submission into consideration as part of the Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding process. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me on or alternatively via e-mail on

Yours faithfully

Ben Russell Senior Development Manager Brookfield Residential Properties

9

Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au

Attachment A – Marshall Day Acoustics

10

Ma shall Day Acoustics Pty Ltd ABN: 53 470 077 191 6 Gipps St eet Collingwood VIC 3066 22 June 2021 Aust alia T: +613 9416 1855 Brookfield Residential Properties www marsha day com Flare Building, Level 1 39 Hercules Street Hamilton QLD 4007

Attention: Ben Russell

Dear Ben MAESSAC ISSUES AND OPINIONS PAPER SUBMISSION The Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Advisory Committee (MAESSAC) released an Issues and Opinion Paper (the Paper) that outlines proposed changes in the land use planning framework and controls in the vicinity of Victorian airports. The stated purpose of the Paper was to seek comments on the existing controls and proposed changes that would give the National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) more effect in the planning system. Marshall Day Acoustics Pty Ltd (MDA) has been engaged by Brookfield Residential Properties to review the Paper and provide input to their submission with respect to matters concerning land use controls associated with aircraft noise. This letter presents our review and comments. Paper overview The MAESSAC Issues and Opinion Paper (Paper) is generally presented as follows: x Information concerning the purpose of the Paper and the feedback being sought on a variety of potential changes to the planning system, presented as a series of questions x Introduction on the current policies relevant to the safeguarding of Melbourne Airport and other Victorian airports x How to integrate reference to the NASF into the Victorian Planning Provisions x Further review of each of the NASF Guidelines, including Guideline A: Noise x Sections on helicopter landing sites near Melbourne Airport and the referral status of Melbourne Airport x Appendices of possible changes to the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) and the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay (MAEO). The Paper broadly considers the implementation of the NASF number above thresholds (N contours) into the planning scheme as an additional control for land use planning for sensitive use in areas around airports where aircraft noise may be of concern. NASF Guideline A The following thresholds are nominated in NASF Guideline A and referenced in the Paper: x 20 or more daily events greater than 70 dB LAmax (shorthand notation N70 20 events) x 50 or more daily events of greater than 65 dB LAmax (N65 50 events) x 100 events or more daily events of greater than 60 dB LAmax (N60 100 events) x 6 or more events of greater than 60 dB LAmax between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am. Further information on N contours are provided in Appendix B.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 1

We note the following points in regard to using the above thresholds as a finite, binary boundary between defining land that is or is not acceptable for noise sensitive development: x Whilst the NASF provide reasonable justification for the use of 60 dB, 65 dB and 70 dB noise levels as thresholds, there is very little basis for the 20, 50, 100 daily event thresholds that have been proposed beyond a brief statement that these values ‘align broadly to known areas of sensitivity around existing airports’. In particular, the N60 6 events (11pm to 6am) threshold is only given as an example of one way of considering impacts on residents’ sleeping patterns when rezoning greenfield areas. For Melbourne Airport, this N contour has the largest expanse over greenfield sites and would impose the greatest constraint on land use planning, yet it is only nominated as an example of consideration of aircraft noise impacts at night by the NASF. Further discussion on this point is provided in Appendix B2. As a comparison, we note that the ANEF system was based on a targeted Australian study as summarised in Appendix A of AS 2021. See Appendix A1 for further details. x There is a considerable degree of uncertainty in the prediction of N contours due to inherent variability in flight paths and daily aircraft movement numbers in areas around airports. The uncertainty is greater than that of the ANEF. See Appendix B3 for further discussion. x A review of previous published N contours for select Victorian airports demonstrate that the extents of contours can expand or contract considerably as noise models are updated. See Appendix B3 for further discussion. When combined with the uncertainties of predicting the extents of N contours, there are considerable areas of land that fluctuate between being within or outside of these contours every 5 years as models are revised or masterplans are updated. If these contours are implemented directly into the planning scheme, this could result in considerable areas of land that would fluctuate between being classed as being affected or unaffected by aircraft noise, and suitable or unsuitable for noise sensitive development. x The use of multiple criteria in the form of noise contours or overlays (four N contours, ANEF contours and the MAEO, which has historically been based on ANEF contours) are still likely to result in confusion without clear guidance. NASF Guideline A Attachment 1 notes that all number above thresholds are to be considered together in conjunction with other aspects of the proposed development, including those not related to aircraft noise. The changes proposed by the Paper imply that sites within any one of the four N contours would result in restrictions in land use. x There is no clear understanding of whether the proposed N contours offer improved protection for both smaller aerodromes and larger airports from encroachment by new noise sensitive land uses. Whilst N contours are prepared by airports as an effective means of providing information on aircraft noise events to the public, we are not aware of an Australian planning policy or overseas jurisdiction that adopt maximum noise levels or number above metrics as a basis for land use planning. Considering the above points, the ANEF is currently the most appropriate tool to inform land use planning around Australian airfields. Further justification would be required, most likely in the form of a carefully designed and robust nation-wide study on community responses to aircraft noise near airports, for the introduction of N contours or other noise metrics to be used in parallel or replace the ANEF.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 2

Review and response to items raised in Section 4 of the Paper Table 1 presents our comments on the feedback being sought on land use planning outside of ANEF contours. Table 1: Policy, information and development outside of ANEF contours

Feedback sought on options for improving Comments safeguarding of airports

3) In respect of the Planning Policy Framework: As discussed above, number above contours should not be a) Whether the Planning Policy Framework should be used to inform land use planning decisions in Greenfield updated to include more specific noise safeguarding sites around Victorian airports for the following key guidance, including: reasons: • Greenfield sites – avoid zoning for noise sensitive • There is no evidence to support the use of maximum uses within the N70 (20 or more daily events), N65 noise level metrics as an accepted practice for land use (50 or more), N60 (100 or more) and consider N60 planning around airfields. Further, there is no evidence night (6 or more) if zoning for noise sensitive base or justification for the selection of the number of development? daily events referenced in the clause. • Brownfield sites and existing sites – consider other • N contour calculations are prone to greater strategic issues, measures to mitigate noise, and uncertainties, sensitivities to modelling assumptions and provide information regarding potential aircraft therefore variations in extents than ANEF contours noise impacts to future residents in these areas? • The use of ‘either’ in the clause provides a situation of b) Whether the draft changes in Appendix C.1 would ambiguity, e.g. there will be instances where a greenfield be an appropriate policy change in respect of noise site is outside the ANEF 20 contour but within one (1) of safeguarding guidance? the four (4) nominated N contours and would not be permitted to be rezoned for noise-sensitive c) Whether the applicable N contour areas need to be development. identified by an overlay or as a layer in VicPlan the state’s online plan platform. It is recommended that re-zoning changes for noise- sensitive developments be considered when located within the 20 ANEF contour (based on ultimate capacity/long range noise modelling for the airport, determined in accordance with Appendix B of AS 2021). The proposed changes outlined in Appendix C.1 of the Paper (18.04-1S Planning for Airports and Airfields) are reviewed in further detail later in this document. It is not recommended that the N contours are included as an overlay in VicPlan, rather are maintained as aircraft noise information provided by an airport.

4) In respect of areas outside current MAEO but within If a planning decision ultimately requires a performance N contours, should specific performance measures measure for buildings on a site that is outside current be specified to determine appropriate levels of noise MAEO but within N contours, then it should be consistent mitigation? with the method provided in Section 3 of AS 2021.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 3

Feedback sought on options for improving Comments safeguarding of airports

5) In respect of mechanisms to inform people of aircraft The MAEO and by extension, the ANEF, is the noise, what are the pros and cons of using the recommended tool for land use planning around airfields. following mechanisms to inform people of potential It is however acknowledged that the ANEF is a difficult aircraft noise outside of the MAEOs or AEOs: metric to describe aircraft noise and how it is experienced • Information on the Airport web site – the existing by people in the community. noise tool Information on where noise is experienced by the • Section 32 statements under the Sale of Land Act community should continue to be provided by the relevant airport operator, and maintained on the relevant web site, • A layer in VicPlan with advice on the planning e.g. Melbourne Airport Noise Tool, to show areas outside property reports the MAEO that may experience aircraft noise. The • A new MAEO schedule? information provided should be consistent with Standards Australia Handbook SA HB 149.

6) In respect of more easily accessed information, SA HB 149 details recommended information to be whether there is merit in establishing an information provided to describe aircraft noise to the community. This hub containing consolidated, clear, informative and information is best contained with the relevant airport relevant information suitable for use by both land masterplan/maintained on the noise information website use planners and the general public should be or as part of any assessment on proposed changes to developed? aircraft operations.

Table 2 presents our comments on the feedback being sought on land use planning within ANEF contours. Table 2: Development within ANEF contours

Feedback sought on options for improving safeguarding Comments of airports

7) In respect of MAEO1 and MAEO2: There are several notes within Section 2 of AS 2021 that a) should they more accurately reflect Australian state that development of sites within ‘unacceptable’ Standard AS 2021, specifically: zones is generally not appropriate, including note 5 of Table 2.1 Building Site Acceptability Based on ANEF Zones • preventing development of greenfield sites for in particular, which states In no case should new sensitive uses that are described “Unacceptable” by development take place in greenfield sites deemed AS 2021 unacceptable because such development may impact • requiring development of brownfield sites and airport operations. existing sites, as currently allowed in the MAEO, to The overlays would more accurately reflect AS 2021 if the include appropriate disclosure processes to future extents of the overlay were promptly updated to reflect residents of such areas? the latest ANEF contours endorsed by Airservices b) are the draft changes in Appendix D.1 and Appendix Australia. D.2 an effective mechanism to more accurately reflect The draft additions to MAEO Schedule 2 in Appendix D.2 AS 2021 in the MAEO? seem appropriate and align with the intentions of AS 2021. No additional comments on the draft MAEO changes in Appendix D of the Paper.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 4

Review of proposed changes to the VPP concerning aircraft noise The key drafting changes to VPP 18.04-1S Planning for airports and airfields proposed by the Paper are presented in Figure 1. Figure 1: Proposed changes to clause 18.04-1S

Table 3 presents our comments on the proposed changes. Table 3: Comments on proposed changes

Statement Comments

Avoid zoning changes that would provide for AS 2021 allows for noise sensitive development within the ANEF noise-sensitive developments within a 20 ANEF. 20 contour identified as ‘conditionally acceptable.’ This requires that buildings are designed to attenuate against aircraft noise. Some developments (temporary lodgings and commercial buildings) are classed as being ‘acceptable’ up to 25 ANEF.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 5

Statement Comments

Plan for areas affected by all airfields so that the As discussed above, number above contours should not be used to detrimental effects of aircraft operations (such inform land use planning decisions in Greenfield sites around as noise) are taken into account in regulating Victorian airports for the following key reasons: and restricting the use and development of • There is no evidence to support the use of maximum noise level affected land where ultimate capacity or long metrics as an accepted practice for land use planning around range noise modelling for the airport indicates airfields. Further, there is no evidence base or justification for either: the selection of the number of daily events referenced in the • 20 or more daily events greater than 70 dB(A). clause, especially the night period threshold. • 50 or more daily events of greater than 65 • N contour calculations are prone to greater uncertainties, dB(A). sensitivities to modelling assumptions and therefore variations • 100 events or more daily events of greater in extents than ANEF contours. than 60 dB(A). • The use of ‘either’ in the clause provides a situation of ambiguity. • 6 events or more between the hours of 11pm Given that the N contours can cover significantly greater area to 6am of greater than 60 dB(A). around airports and are prone to greater variation at distant locations from the airfield, it is recommended that re-zoning changes for noise-sensitive developments be considered when located within the endorsed 20 ANEF contour until there is clearer justification for adopting alternative thresholds.

This includes: Given that AS 2021 and the NASF both acknowledge that generally • In undeveloped areas avoid rezoning land to aircraft noise does not abruptly stop at a particular location, a permit noise–sensitive development. clearer definition of “areas exposed to aircraft noise” is warranted. • In existing areas exposed to aircraft noise avoid rezoning land currently zoned for non- noise sensitive uses for residential development or increased residential densities unless:

• The need to provide housing, economic Unlike the subsequent three points, it appears this point is likely to growth and strategic planning outcomes be very difficult to demonstrate for any given proposed outweighs the operational needs of the development in proximity to Melbourne Airport, Avalon Airport, airport. Essendon Airport, Moorabbin Airport and Point Cook Airfield given their important status in Victoria.

• The development can be undertaken in a Section 3 of AS 2021 provides a method to establish building manner that physically reduces noise envelope requirements to address aircraft noise intrusion. impacts.

• Future residents are made aware of these - impacts prior to purchase.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 6

Statement Comments

• The development is undertaken in a This point requires further revision or clarification as there are manner that physically reduces noise limited aspects of AS 2021 that can be ‘complied with’: impacts to comply with AS 2021. Section 2 of AS 2021 nominates ANEF zones that are ‘acceptable’, ‘conditionally acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’ depending on the proposed use of the land. Is the intention of the point for developers to demonstrate that the site is ‘acceptable’ for the proposed development, or if ‘conditionally acceptable’, that sound insulation measures have been incorporated where necessary? Section 3 of AS 2021 presents a method of establishing the aircraft noise reduction (ANR) requirements of the building envelope. It is important to note that while internal design sound levels are nominated to inform the design, the key parameter to be achieved is the ANR. AS 2021 Appendix D provides a method of assessing the ANR of a building by measuring a sample of internal and external aircraft noise events. Is the intention of the point for developers to demonstrate that sound insulation measures have been incorporated where necessary by undertaking post- completion aircraft noise measurements?

We also note that in Appendix C.2, the Paper proposes to remove the following statement from clause 45.08-2 regarding the provision of noise attenuation measures for buildings within the MAEO: Any building for which a permit is required under this overlay must be constructed so as to comply with any noise attenuation measures required by Section 3 of Australian Standard AS 2021-2015, Acoustics – Aircraft Noise Intrusion – Building Siting and Construction, issued by Standards Australia Limited Note: In Section 3 of Australian Standard AS 2021-2015, Table 3.3 refers to both building types and activities within those buildings Each building type listed has its ordinary meaning and should not be interpreted as defined in this scheme. In Appendix D, the Paper proposes that the statement is reintroduced into Schedule 2 to the MAEO (MAEO2, intended to align with the 20 – 25 ANEF zone), however, the statement is not reintroduced into Schedule 1 to the MAEO (MAEO1, intended to cover within the 25 ANEF zone). It is appropriate to also consider building noise attenuation measures for non-residential land uses within the 25 ANEF zone, and that the statement above is therefore included in both MAEO schedules, or is retained within clause 45.08 to apply to both schedules.

We trust the above information meets your needs at this time. If you have any queries or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss. Yours faithfully MARSHALL DAY ACOUSTICS PTY LTD

Lachlan Deen Associate

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 7

APPENDIX A AUSTRALIAN STANDARD AS 2021 AND THE ANEF A1 The ANEF metric The ANEF metric is a noise exposure metric that considers the noise level and duration of aircraft noise events, how often they occur, whether they occur at night (and the additional sensitivities of communities for rest and relaxation in this time). The metric is based on the effective perceived noise level metric which also considers any annoying tonal characteristics typical of the aircraft. We are not aware of an airport that uses maximum noise levels or number above metrics as a basis to inform land use planning decisions concerning aircraft noise. For reference, International Civil Aviation Organization Document 9184 Airport Planning Manual, Part 2 — Land Use and Environmental Control (2009) includes an appendix of land use planning around airports in 23 countries. Only noise exposure metrics were used as a basis for land-use planning decisions in the case studies. Section 2.3 and Section 4.2(i) of the Paper note the following: The ANEF does not readily translate to an understandable noise level in decibels – the standard measure for how ‘loud’ something is. This is acknowledged, however the ANEF metric is solely intended to be used to inform land use planning decisions, and is not intended to provide information to the public regarding aircraft noise levels. The AS 2021 Foreword states that: This Standard has been developed to assist in building construction and land use planning in the vicinity of airports. It is not intended as a guide to the presentation of information about aircraft noise to the general public. A Handbook that is in preparation at the time of releasing this Standard will be developed by Standards Australia describing ways in which such information should be provided. Additionally, Equation A1 in Appendix A for the calculation of the ANEF metric specifically includes an arbitrary -88 dB correction described as follows: The figure ‘88’ is an arbitrary constant chosen so that ANEF numbers typically lie in a range where they are not likely to be confused with other noise ratings. There are many alternative noise metrics and other tools for conveying information on aircraft noise to the public in layperson’s terms. A2 The 20 ANEF contour Section 3.1(iii) page 19 of the Paper indicates that the 20 ANEF contour is the balance threshold above which an unacceptable portion of the public are seriously affected: People’s response to aircraft noise varies and a level of noise that the majority might tolerate will be intolerable to a small percentage. It seems to the Committee that this is where the first issue around balance needs to be resolved: that a level of noise exposure that limits the number of people who find the noise significantly disturbing must be determined. AS2021 has determined that this is the 20 ANEF. There is no scope for ‘balancing’ within the 20 ANEF. Planning policy should reflect this. However, AS 2021 does not explicitly state that 20 ANEF is the threshold below which noise exposure limits the number of people significantly disturbed by aircraft noise.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 8

Section 1.2 Objective states: This Standard is not intended to be applied for the purposes of assessing the effects of noise from aircraft. However, it should be noted that the effects of noise from aircraft are not confined to areas where the noise exposure exceeds 20 ANEF and may occur at or below 20 ANEF Clause 2.3.2 in conjunction with Table 2.1 implies that there may be scenarios where residential development within 20 – 25 ANEF where the site is acceptable provided the dwelling provides sufficient noise attenuation, as identified in Section 4.4(ii) of the Paper. AS 2021 Appendix A notes the following: Within the area from 20 ANEF to 25 ANEF, aircraft noise exposure starts to emerge as an environmental problem, while above 25 ANEF the noise exposure becomes progressively more severe. The 20 ANEF is not a finite and distinct threshold, rather, there is a 5 dB range where aircraft noise emerges as a notable environmental consideration. Conversely, Appendix A also notes that significant community reaction may occur for exposures below 20 ANEF, and that newly exposed communities may exhibit a higher reaction than that suggested by the curves in Figure A1 [the dose/response relationship between aircraft noise and community reaction]. There is clear discussion within AS 2021 to indicate that there is no single ANEF value that limits the number of people significantly disturbed by aircraft noise. Appendix A and Table 2.1 indicates there is a 5 dB range between 20 – 25 ANEF above which residential land use is not acceptable. A3 Accuracy of ANEF 20 contours It is also important to be aware that AS 2021 highlights the prediction of the 20 ANEF contour is subject to a degree of uncertainty. The AS 2021 foreword states the following: Exposure prediction below 25 ANEF may be significantly inaccurate, and therefore caution should be exercised in the evaluation of locations outside the 25 ANEF contour. In addition, the extent of noise reduction required for a building may depend in part on the amount of noise from sources other than aircraft. Because of these factors and of the special acoustic requirements of certain types of building, it will sometimes be necessary to undertake supplementary noise measurements so that a sufficiently representative prediction of the noise exposure at the site under evaluation can be obtained. This is also true for aerodromes at which a significant number of training circuits occur. Appendix A expands on the discussion, noting that variation in aircraft operations and weather conditions contribute to the uncertainty in calculating the 20 ANEF contour: It is to be stressed, however, that the actual location of the 20 ANEF contour is difficult to define accurately, because of variations in aircraft flight paths, pilot operating techniques, and the effect of meteorological conditions on noise propagation. For that reason, the 20 ANEF contour is shown as a broken line on ANEF charts. Note 1 to Table 2.1 Building site acceptability based on ANEF zones also highlights the uncertainty in the location of the 20 ANEF contour: The actual location of the 20 ANEF contour is difficult to define accurately, mainly because of variation in aircraft flight paths. Because of this, the procedure of Clause 2.3.2 [determination of noise attenuation requirements of buildings in ‘conditionally acceptable’ zones] may be followed for building sites outside but near to the 20 ANEF contour.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 9

This statement and the following statement from Section 2.1.1 confirms that the assessment procedure for building sound insulation can be followed at sites beyond 20 ANEF contours: If the building site is outside the 20 ANEF contour, noise from sources other than aircraft may dominate; therefore, there is usually no need to proceed further in this Standard as the construction of the building need not specifically be designed to provide protection against aircraft noise intrusion. Nevertheless, if it is desired that premises be insulated against aircraft noise, the procedures of this Standard may be followed. Note 2 in Section 3.1.4 also highlights that the tables of estimated maximum noise levels for various aircraft are prone to higher uncertainties further from an airport: The noise levels in Tables 3.4 to 3.58 are based on modelling and measurements. The tabulated values are estimates of the aircraft noise levels emitted by typical aircraft operating in Australia. Uncertainties in the data increase as the distances DT, DL, and DS [distances along a flight track from the runway and sideline distance from a flight track] increase. The aircraft noise level tables only provide information for a sideline distance of up to 2,600 m from a flight track, and for a distance along a flight track of 20 km from the runway ends. Note 3 in Section 3.1.4 states the following: For some building sites, an aircraft noise level table may not include a value for a particular pair of distance coordinates determined in accordance with Clause 3.1.3. If this is the case, it indicates that the take-off or landing noise for the aircraft type being considered will not generally be of significance in terms of noise reduction requirements at that site. This is a key point, as the maximum noise level predictions are the key input to determining the extents of N contours. A4 External areas AS 2021 notes that the acceptability of outdoor spaces is not covered by the Standard, and that further consideration should be given to the effects of aircraft noise on outdoor areas associated with residences and schools. This is widely noted to be a limitation of the current ANEF system.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 10

APPENDIX B NASF GUIDELINE A: MEASURES FOR MANAGING IMPACTS OF AIRCRAFT NOISE B1 Number above guidelines NASF Guideline A provides the following daily number above thresholds in addition to the 20 ANEF contour when considering rezoning of greenfield and brownfield areas:

x 20 or more daily events greater than 70 dB LAmax (shorthand notation N70 20 events)

x 50 or more daily events of greater than 65 dB LAmax (N65 50 events)

x 100 events or more daily events of greater than 60 dB LAmax (N60 100 events)

x 6 or more events of greater than 60 dB LAmax between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am. For development in existing residential areas, the above thresholds are given in regards to disclosing the occurrence of aircraft noise events at the site to prospective residents, rather than considering constraints on development. The Guideline notes that the above thresholds could be used as additional guidance to be weighed along with other relevant considerations. Discussion on page 12 of Attachment 1 to Guideline A expands on this, noting that there is no clear binary threshold for acceptability of aircraft noise impacts: Just as aircraft noise does not suddenly stop at the 20 ANEF level, there is no hard and fast line where aircraft noise suddenly changes from being acceptable to being unacceptable at the 20 x N70, 50 x N60 or 100 x N60 levels. Aircraft noise impacts follow a continuum and clearly, noise impacts close to, but outside an identified threshold will be almost indistinguishable to the impacts on the ‘the other side of the line’. Therefore, there is a need for land use planners to take a balanced view of land use planning decisions that recognises aircraft noise does not suddenly stop at a line on a map, no matter how that line has been derived. That said, frequency based measures of aircraft noise offer an additional information tool for illustrating potential aircraft noise impacts. Different airports exhibit different patterns of activity, so three related parameters are suggested for consideration. Used together, these measures should allow a more comprehensive assessment of noise impacts at most airports. There are several publications that acknowledge the number above metric is a useful tool for presenting information regarding aircraft noise to the general public, including: x Standards Australia Handbook SA HB 149:2016 Acoustics—Guidance on producing information on aircraft noise x National Aviation Policy White Paper (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development 2009) x The Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development publications:  Expanding Ways to Describe and Assess Aircraft Noise (2000);  Guidance Material for Selecting and Providing Aircraft Noise Information (2003); and  Going Beyond Noise Contours – Local Approaches to Land Use Planning Around Smaller Australian Airports – Discussion Paper (2003).

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 11

However, MDA are not aware of an airport that uses maximum noise levels or number above metrics as a basis for land use planning decisions. International Civil Aviation Organization Document 9184 Airport Planning Manual, Part 2 — Land Use and Environmental Control (2009) includes an appendix of land use planning around airports in 23 countries. Only noise exposure metrics are used as a basis for land-use planning decisions in the case studies. B2 Basis of the number above guidelines Attachment 1 to Guideline A describes how the noise level thresholds have been selected:

x 60 dB LAmax – Noise above this level begins to disturb conversation, and historically correlates to complaints from high frequency of overflights. Also, an external noise level above 60 dB would generally result in an internal noise level above approximately 50 dB within a bedroom with an open window, which can result in awakening reactions for multiple events

x 65 dB LAmax – Nominated as amid-point between the 60 dB and 70 dB thresholds to consider the broad variation in individual responses to aircraft noise

x 70 dB LAmax – Noise above this level could give rise to speech interference or activities such as watching television within a dwelling with partially open windows. The basis for selecting the above noise levels is reasonable. However, the attachment does not provide a robust justification for the selection of the number of daily events and hence the extent of the contours, only stating that: The quantum of events nominated for the N70, N65 and N60 event contours respectively, aligns broadly to known areas of sensitivity around existing airports and gives some basis for guidance for areas close to, but outside, existing 20 ANEF contours. Human reaction to aircraft noise and the likelihood of complaint is known to depend not only on the amount of noise, but also psychosocial factors such as personal sensitivity to noise, hearing thresholds, fear of aircraft crashing, personal attitudes toward aviation and the noise producer, and expectations of amenity. Further review and justification should therefore be provided for nominating the frequency of events associated with each noise level threshold.

This is particularly relevant for the 60 dB LAmax metric for the night period, given that the noise contour around Melbourne Airport is the most extensive. Clause 17.iii. of the Guideline for rezoning of greenfield areas introduces the N60 6 events at night threshold as an example, and distinctly separated from the other three number above metrics: Zoning for noise–sensitive development should take into account likely night time movements and their impact on residents’ sleeping patterns. For example, where there are more than 6 events predicted between the hours of 11pm to 6am which create a 60 dB(A) or greater noise impact, measures for aircraft noise amelioration and restriction on noise sensitive development may be appropriate. This can cover a significant portion of land (refer Figure 2 below for Melbourne Airport N contours). The guideline notes the 6 event level as an example only, and therefore there may be other thresholds that could be considered appropriate for protecting sleep during the night period.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 12

B3 Accuracy of modelling number above contours As discussed in Appendix A3, AS 2021 flags that there is a degree of uncertainty in defining the extent of the 20 ANEF contour, hence why it is shown as a dashed line on maps and that it is acceptable to undertake sound insulation assessments at sites close to but beyond the 20 ANEF contour. AS 2021 also flags that there is increasing uncertainty in maximum aircraft noise level predictions with increasing distance from an airport. This is due to increasing variability in combinations of aircraft flight paths, air traffic control instructions, pilot technique and atmospheric conditions influencing noise propagation. Number above contours can extend well beyond the 20 ANEF contour. Figure 2 compares the extent of the 20 ANEF contour and the NASF number above contours. It can be seen from the figure that the 20 ANEF contour extends up to 10 – 15 km from the airport, while the number above contours extend substantially further, up to approximately 40 km from the airport.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 13

Figure 2: Extents of the Melbourne Airport 20 ANEF contour and the NASF number above contours

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 14

The substantially greater extents of the NASF contours implies there is a greater degree of uncertainty in defining their extents. The uncertainty in number above contour extents is also greater due to the linear nature of the number of events aspect of the metric. As a logarithmic metric, the ANEF is less sensitive to variations in event numbers. For example, a 25% increase in movements results in a 1 dB increase in ANEF rating, and a doubling in daily movement numbers only results in a 3 dB increase. However, a 25% or 100% increase in movements would result in a greater expansion in number above contours. This is evident by comparing the extents of the 20 ANEF contours and the NASF number above contours from the 2013 and 2018 Melbourne Airport Master Plan. Figure 3 shows the 20 ANEF contour in the 2018 Master Plan moved by up to 4 km compared to the previous ANEF from the 2013 Master Plan. However, Figure 4 shows a comparison of the NASF contours from the 2018 Master Plan to the outermost extents of the contours from the 2013 Master Plan, which differ by up to approximately 20 km. A similar comparison of the change in 20 ANEF extents expected from the 2021 Moorabbin Airport Master Plan compared to the 2015 Master Plan is shown in Figure 5. Note that the 2021 Moorabbin Airport Master Plan is in draft format and the ANEF is yet to be reviewed and officially endorsed by Airservices Australia. This figure shows a likely general reduction in the extent of the 20 ANEF contour compared to the ANEF in the 2015 Masterplan. The Draft 2021 Master Plan also shows N60, N65 and N70 contours. Figure 6 compares the extent of the largest NASF number above contour for the Airport (the N60 100 event contour) from the 2015 Masterplan and the Draft 2021 Master Plan. The figure shows a significant reduction in extent of the contour to the west of the airport in an area of significant existing residential development. The substantially higher variability in the extents in NASF contours could result in large areas of land that would vary between being suitable or unsuitable for noise sensitive uses when the NASF contours are prepared every 5 years when modelling for a Master Plan is revised. Given this variability and sensitivity to modelling assumptions and inputs, an even greater degree of scrutiny of the modelling requirements than that described in Appendix B of AS 2021 is warranted. Specific guidance for the preparation and endorsement of NASF contours may need to be prepared by Airservices Australia or a similar authority if these are given greater weight in land use planning decisions.

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 15

Figure 3: Melbourne Airport ANEF in the 2013 Masterplan and the 2018 Master Plan (basemap)

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 16

Figure 4: Furthest extent of NASF number above contours from 2013 Melbourne Airport Master Plan compared to current 2018 Master Plan (basemap)

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 17

Figure 5: Moorabbin Airport ANEF in the 2015 Masterplan and the Draft 2021 Master Plan

Figure 6: Extent of N60 100 events contours from 2015 Moorabbin Airport Master Plan compared to Draft 2021 Master Plan (basemap)

Lt 001 20210484 MAESSAC Issues and Opinions Paper submission - Acoustics 18 Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au

Attachment B – Aviation Projects

11

1.2. Parallel Runway Operations

The L&B report describes legacy parallel runway operations and some reasoning behind divergent flight paths which would then imply increasing noise footprint calculations. The L&B report also describes technological advances not included in current noise modelling scenarios which would then also suggest overall smaller noise footprint modelling.

These technological advancements are discussed more in detail in Section 2 of this report.

1.3. Third Runway 16R/34L

A new runway parallel and to the west of what will become 16L/34R will now be the next runway to be built in order to meet the forecast demand at Melbourne Airport. This will change the dynamics of the traffic flow off the existing 16L/34R runway. The L&B report describes the proposed increased noise footprint over areas such as Greenvale and Craigieburn due to departing aircraft having to turn 30 degrees to the North-East after departing 34R.

1.4. Runway 09R/27L

The 2018 Master Plan proposed the development of a third runway south of the existing runway 09/27. In 2019 a decision was made to develop runway 16R/34L before the new east-west runway.

The L&B report describes an area south of the proposed Brookfield site and states the possible reasoning for the modelled noise footprint. This area is not over the proposed site, however, illustrates the proposed changes in flight paths with the introduction of parallel east-west runways and consequent flight path implications both for arrival and departures (including missed approach).

Data extracted from Airservices Australia’s online Webtrak resource, for all arrivals and departures for the period between January and December 2019, shows a total of 0% departures from runway 09 (Figure 4 refers).

The current procedures for Melbourne Airport allocate the lowest priority to departures from Runway 09 (Figure 5 refers). There are no pre-assigned (RNAV) procedures for an easterly departure and consequently current procedures (both take-off and approach) do not have any flight paths overflying this proposed area which would depict the noise footprint as published in the L&B report.

064501-01 900 Somerton Rd Greenvale Draft V0.2 210616 5

2. NOISE METRIC CONSIDERATIONS

2.1. ANEF and Number Above Noise Metric (N70 contours)

The 2018 Master Plan is compared to the previous 2013 Master Plan and states there has been in increase in the accuracy of the noise modelling along with forecast movements. The areas affected by the ANEF contours have grown by a relatively significant 26%. Refer Figure 10. The proposed site is still well outside the recalculated ANEF contour chart of 2018.

The NASF Guideline A states:

The actual location of the 20 ANEF contour is difficult to define accurately, because of variations in aircraft flight paths, pilot operating techniques and the effect of meteorological and terrain conditions on noise propagation. For that reason, the 20 ANEF contour is shown as a broken line on ANEF plans. Like the 20 ANEF, there is no ‘magical line’ at the 20xN70, 50xN65 or 100xN60 contours at which we suddenly see aircraft noise change from being unacceptable to acceptable. These contours represent areas within which land use planners should consider aircraft noise impacts, particularly for new noise-sensitive developments.

Note again, the proposed site is outside these ANEF lines in Figure 10.

Given the locality of the proposed development and how the ‘Number Above Noise Metric’ N70 shown in Figure 3 contour infringes only some of the proposed site, a reasonable argument straight from the National Guidelines is the noise contours are not ‘magical lines’ and therefore should not ultimately determine a definite boundary for development.

064501-01 900 Somerton Rd Greenvale Draft V0.2 210616 12

as between 1 or 2 nm limits. This noise modelling must allow a large buffer area along prescribed tracks to account for lapses in navigation accuracy at least out to the specified navigation limit – possibly further.

Technology already exists to ensure navigation tolerances are as accurate down to 3 cm. Trials are under way in Australia for implementation of this capability which has been utilised in the USA already for several years. This Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) capability will ensure tighter departure and arrival corridors negating the need for large buffer areas on noise footprints due to legacy navigation systems.

The extent of lateral deviation from planned tracks (dispersion) in noise modelling should reduce over time as track-keeping becomes more accurate with the adoption of these new technologies.

The effect of an increased accuracy in anticipated spread of aircraft tracks is that contour boundary width will reduce, and may be more precisely located.

064501-01 900 Somerton Rd Greenvale Draft V0.2 210616 15

Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au

Attachment C – Wyndham Planning Scheme – Schedule 10

12

WYNDHAM PLANNING SCHEME

14/11/2013 SCHEDULE 10 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY C191 Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO10.

REGIONAL RAIL LINK SECTION 2 RAIL NOISE ATTENUATION

1.0 Design objectives 14/11/2013 C191 To reasonably protect bedrooms from the impacts of noise generated by the operation of trains on land designated as the project area for Regional Rail Link Section 2 under Part 4 of the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009.

2.0 Buildings and works 14/11/2013 C191 Permits A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works other than for: Accommodation, a child care centre, a display home, a hospital, a hotel or a tavern. An acoustic wall or other acoustic structure that is not part of a building. A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for accommodation, a child care centre, a display home, a hospital, a hotel or a tavern if there is a restriction on the title to the land requiring compliance with the requirement described below.

Requirement If a building includes a bedroom, the building (and associated works) must be constructed in such

a way as to ensure internal bedroom noise levels will not exceed 65 dB LAmax and 40 dB LAeq,8h for the night period from 10pm to 6am. A permit may not be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works which are not in accordance with this requirement.

Exemption from notice and review An application to construct a building or construct or carry out works is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act if the noise attenuation measures are proposed as part of the affected building.

3.0 Subdivision 14/11/2013 C191 Requirement A permit to subdivide land must require a restriction on titles requiring buildings (and associated works) for accommodation, a child care centre, a display home, a hospital, a hotel or a tavern to be constructed in such a way as to ensure internal bedroom noise levels will not exceed 65 dB

LAmax and 40 dB LAeq,8h for the night period from 10pm to 6am. The restriction may include specific construction requirements to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. A permit may not be granted to subdivide land which is not in accordance with this requirement.

Exemption from notice and review An application to subdivide land is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act.

Page 1 of 2 WYNDHAM PLANNING SCHEME

4.0 Application requirements 14/11/2013 C191 An application to subdivide land or to construct a building or construct or carry out works must be accompanied by an acoustic assessment prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer or other suitably skilled person to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The acoustic assessment must: Provide an assessment of noise levels on the land taking into account the likely noise levels associated with the ongoing operation of the Regional Rail Link. Include recommendations for noise attenuation measures designed to achieve the internal bedroom noise limits specified in the requirements in this schedule. An application to subdivide land must also be accompanied by a design response that addresses the recommendations of the acoustic assessment and minimises the number of buildings requiring architectural noise attenuation treatments. An application to construct, or carry out works for, an acoustic wall or other acoustic structure that is not part of a building must also be accompanied by a plan, elevations and other suitable material prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority showing: A visually engaging design avoiding the use of a sheer wall on either side of the structure. Landscaping along the interface area of the structure to soften its visual impact.

5.0 Decision guidelines 14/11/2013 C191 Before deciding on an application to subdivide land or to construct a building or construct or carry out works, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: Any protection from noise offered by existing and planned built form. The degree of noise sensitivity of the proposed use in the building. Whether the proposed noise attenuation measures are likely to be effectively maintained over the lifetime of the building or structure. The impact of any non-building acoustic structure on the amenity of the area. The impact of the subdivision on the amenity and functionality of the area.

Notes: The extent of the Design and Development Overlay represents land likely to be affected by rail noise of at least 80 dB LAmax.

Reference in this schedule to:

A bedroom means a room likely to accommodate a sleeping person on a regular basis including a children’s rest area in a child care centre, a hotel room and a hospital ward. dB means decibels.

LAmax means the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level and is the 95 percentile of the highest value of the A-weighted sound pressure level reached within the day or night.

LAeq means the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level and is the value of the A-weighted sound pressure level of a continuous steady sound that has the same acoustic energy as a given time-varying A-weighted sound pressure level when determined over the same measurement time interval.

Reference: Passenger Rail Infrastructure Noise Policy (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, April 2013)

Page 2 of 2 Brookfield Greenvale Pty Ltd ABN 66 128 996 261 Tel 1800 330 702 Level 1, Flare Building, 39 Hercules Street PO Box 372 Hamilton QLD 4007 Hamilton QLD 4007 brookfieldresidential.com.au

Attachment D – Potential Melbourne Airport Controls

13