Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (12 November) . . Page.. 4016 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

This appears not to be the case. The EPA understands that the proposal is based on a blanket 10dB(A) above background permissible noise emission level. The background is apparently to be determined by taking the average of background levels over a week period. This differs significantly from the NSW approach in two key aspects.

Ms Horodny, there is a difference. I hope that Mr Stefaniak, in particular, will listen to this, so that he does not mislead the people of Canberra. The letter continues:

Firstly, determination of a background level based on a weekly average does not take into account the change in amenity most residences experience during a 24 hour period or on weekends and public holidays ... Motor sports at Fairbairn Park occur almost exclusively on weekends and predominantly on Sundays. The averaging approach is understood to give a background level of 40dB(A) which, under the proposed Regulation, may give an acceptable noise emission level from the facilities of 50dB(A) at the receiving residence. Actual background noise levels have been measured on a weekly basis as 38-40dB(A) and on Sundays as 36-40dB(A) (based on Environment Act and EPA data). This indicates that the intrusive noise level from Fairbairn Park could be as much as 14dB(A) above the background level.

That is the first aspect. The letter continues:

Secondly, the NSW approach to motor sport facilities provides for a noise exposure approach with a sliding scale of number of events and allowable noise emission levels (see Attachment 1 from the Environmental Noise Control Manual). Under this approach the Fairbairn Park facility would be treated as a single venue and the overall impact on noise amenity would be significantly lower than that under the ACT proposal.

I think I had better repeat those words:

the overall impact on noise amenity would be significantly lower than that under the ACT proposal.

Mr Speaker, I think the evidence is very clear. I hope that Mr Stefaniak will not continue to perpetuate things that simply are not the case. I should add that the committee also had a submission from the Queanbeyan City Council. That submission is also public. Mr Stefaniak says it is only about three people. I think it is important that the Queanbeyan City Council did put in a submission that is a public document and the Minister is able to read it. What we ought to be on about in terms of this legislation - - -

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Moore, you are answering a question.

MR MOORE: That is right. What we should be doing, in terms of this legislation and this issue of noise, is making sure that we get the same approach to the environment as we have had for the rest of the Environment Protection Bill, that is, taking appropriate steps to enhance our environment, not taking a backward step. Yes, sometimes that will

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .