Page 224 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
measure and does have arrangements in relation to a whole range of requests which are made of government, most particularly Territory and Municipal Services, particularly in relation to roads, on a regular basis. There are requests that are made regularly to government in relation to issues around noise and noise attenuation, just as there are representations made to the government regularly and repeatedly in relation to issues around speed and speed amelioration in streets across the ACT. It is important, and other representations are regularly made in relation to perceptions around safety.
The government receives regular, numerous representations from individuals across the breadth of the city in relation to issues such as this around noise and noise amelioration, around speed and speed amelioration, around perceptions of traffic safety and traffic hazards across the breadth of the city. It is important that we have systems in place that are fair, that are equitable and that respond essentially scientifically and on the basis of evidence to what are accepted or acceptable standards in relation to these particular issues. The essential Australian standards in relation to noise and levels of noise that are accepted across the breadth of the nation are those that also apply in the ACT and were those that were applied to this particular representation.
We are, of course, concerned about the fact that the majority of complaints to the public, as far as transport is concerned, are related to traffic noise. The department has been working with ACTPLA over the last two years on how we best insert new traffic noise guidelines or a code under the territory plan. We are reviewing the current situation.
As I said, it is essentially the Australian standard, but we are prepared to review it. Issues which we will address in the review include whether the current criteria are still appropriate, noting that, while most Australian jurisdictions use the LA10(18hr) noise index, New South Wales uses the equivalent continuous sound level and South Australia has been exploring that as well. As the ACT’s Environment Protection Act defines noise in terms of LA10 values, I expect that we will probably stay with the LA10 index. However, this will be considered as part of the current review which ACTPLA and TAMS are undertaking.
Another matter which we need to consider is whether or not to introduce different planning criteria for traffic noise during daytime and night-time hours. I understand that New South Wales has moved down this path and that other Australian jurisdictions are thinking of doing the same. It seems reasonable and logical that we should be giving consideration to that.
By way of some additional background, the suburb of Macarthur was planned by the NCDC in the 1970s. I understand that at the time the NCDC noise planning criterion was for 65 decibel LA10(18hr), which is the same as Roads ACT uses today as the trigger for noise attenuation measures in established areas developed before 1996.
As I explained earlier, the noise levels detected in the traffic noise impact assessment carried out by University of New South Wales acoustics specialists showed that the existing noise level at this site is well below the current residential criterion—not just
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video