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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1201 ..

Ms Tucker asked the Minister for Urban Services, upon notice:

In relation to the environmental authorisations issued to the Fairbairn Park Control Council (FPCC) and the National Capital Motorsports Club (NCMC) or motor racing at Fairbairn Park:

1 . Did the original environmental authorisations issued in June 1998 require FPCC and NCMC to each submit a noise management plan acceptable to the Environment Management Authority (EMA) by 30 September 1998.

2. To date has either FPCC or the NCMC presented an acceptable noise management plan to the EMA.

3. Was the requirement for the production of the noise management plan carried over into the replacement environmental authorisation issued in December 1998, and if not, why not.

4. What has prevented the noise management plans being finalised.

5. What action has the EMA taken to require FPCC and. NCMC to fulfil the requirements of their environmental authorisations by preparing the noise management plans.

6. In the absence of noise management plans, what arrangements has the EMA adopted to ensure that noise from racing meets has not exceeded the limit applicable during each particular day's racing.

7. Did any of the environmental authorisations require, in the absence of an acceptable noise management plans, noise monitoring at the compliance location by an independent noise expert for all racing meets on or after 1 November 1998.

8. How many racing meets, and what proportion of all racing meets, were monitored by an independent noise expert since 1 November 1998.

9. How many of these racing meets exceeded the 45dB(A) zone noise standard.

10. If not all racing meets were monitored, how can you be satisfied that the noise limit applicable during each particular day's racing was not exceeded.

11. How will the Minister, as part of the present annual review of the environmental authorisations for FPCC and the NCMC, overcome these organisations' unwillingness or inability to produce acceptable noise management plans.

Mr Smyth: The answer to the member's question is:

1. Yes

2. No

3. No. FPCC had submitted a draft plan that did not meet the EMA's requirements and NCMC did not submit a plan. The EMA formed the view that it would be more appropriate not to include the option of preparing a plan in the new authorisation, and instead to offer to vary the authorisation if and when an acceptable noise monitoring plan was prepared. This offer was communicated to FPCC and NCMC when the new authorisation was granted.

4. This is a matter within the knowledge of the individual authorisation holders.

5. No specific action was required. The original 1998 authorisations provided that, in default of preparing monitoring plans, the authorisation holder must arrange for each event to be monitored at the compliance location.

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