noise impact assessment – proposed pet resort 96 coomba … · 2020-03-18 · (project noise...

Sc

Doc. No: 191882-8735

Noise Impact Assessment – Proposed Pet Resort 96 Coomba Road Charlotte Bay, NSW

Prepared for:

L & T Parmenter c/- Ian Sercombe Architect PO Box 137 Pacific Palms NSW 2428

Neil Pennington B.Sc.(Physics), B. Math.(Hons), MAIP, MAAS, MASA Principal / Director

November 2019

Spectrum Acoustics Pty Limited

ABN: 40 106 435 554 30 Veronica Street, Cardiff NSW 2285 Phone: (02) 4954 2276

Fax: (02) 4954 2257

Acoustic Assessment – Charlotte Bay Pet Resort

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 .........................................................................................................................................................................

2.0 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 1 ........................................................................................................................................................

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT & NOISE CRITERIA 3 .......................................................................................................................3.1 Animal Boarding Facility 3 .............................................................................................................3.2 Modifying Factors 4 .......................................................................................................................3.3 Sleep Disturbance 4 ......................................................................................................................

4.0 NOISE ASSESSMENT 4 ................................................................................................................................................................4.1 Operational scenarios 4 ................................................................................................................4.2 Sound power levels 5 ....................................................................................................................4.3 Acoustic barriers 6 ........................................................................................................................4.4 Predicted noise impacts 6 .............................................................................................................4.5 Sleep Disturbance 8 ......................................................................................................................

5.0 CONCLUSION 9.............................................................................................................................................................................

Doc. No: 191882-8735 November 2019 Page i


1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results, findings and recommendations arising from an acoustic assessment of the proposed operation of an animal boarding facility (pet resort) at 69 Coomba Road, Charlotte Bay, NSW.

The proposal is for the construction of a pet resort building with attached external play area.

The site has an existing dwelling and studio. The nearest residence is to the east of the site at approximately 100m away. Figure 1 shows the site in its local context with surrounding land uses labelled. Figure 2 shows the proposed pet resort on the site.

There is proposed to be 20 dog enclosures in the new building constructed with 3m high Hebel panel walls. Dogs would have to access to an external play area only when escorted. The external play would have a 1.5m high perimeter fence which would act as an acoustic barrier.

This assessment is to support a Development Application to Mid Coast Council (MCC).

2.0 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Table 1 contains the definitions of commonly used acoustical terms and is presented as an aid to understanding this report.

TABLE 1 DEFINITION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS

Term Definition

dB(A) The quantitative measure of sound heard by the human ear, measured by the A-

Scale Weighting Network of a sound level meter expressed in decibels (dB).

SPL Sound Pressure Level. The incremental variation of sound pressure above and

below atmospheric pressure and expressed in decibels. The human ear

responds to pressure fluctuations, resulting in sound being heard.

STL Sound Transmission Loss. The ability of a partition to attenuate sound, in dB.

Lw Sound Power Level radiated by a noise source per unit time re 1pW.

Leq Equivalent Continuous Noise Level - taking into account the fluctuations of noise

over time. The time-varying level is computed to give an equivalent dB(A) level

that is equal to the energy content and time period.

L1 Average Peak Noise Level - the level exceeded for 1% of the monitoring period.

Doc. No: 191882-8735 November 2019 Page 1


Figure 1. Site locality and surrounding receivers.

TABLE 1 DEFINITION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS

L10 Average Maximum Noise Level - the level exceeded for 10% of the monitoring

period.

L90 Average Minimum Noise Level - the level exceeded for 90% of the monitoring

period and recognised as the Background Noise Level. In this instance, the L90

percentile level is representative of the noise level generated by the surrounds

of the residential area.


100m

R1

235m

195m

P r o p o s e d development

R3

R2


Figure 2. proposed site layout.

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT & NOISE CRITERIA 3.1 Animal Boarding Facility Section 120 of the EPA’s Environmental Noise Control Manual (ENCM) requires noise from barking dogs to be controlled so that it is not offensive in any public place or neighbouring properties, but does not recommend noise limits or other criteria to be applied to an assessment. Nor does the ENCM have any provision for the assessment of noise from commercial kennels or animal boarding facilities. The noise from the proposed facility has, therefore, been assessed as an industrial noise source against the requirements of the NSW Noise Policy for Industry (NPI).

In setting noise goals for a particular project the NPI considers both Amenity and Intrusiveness criteria. The former is set to limit continuing increase in noise from industry, whilst the latter is set to minimise the intrusive impact of a particular noise source.

The site is within an established rural residential area with minimal industrial or traffic noise. As such, the intrusiveness criteria are those applicable to setting the project specific noise goals. That is, the 15 minute Leq noise level should not exceed the Rating Background Level (RBL) for each time period, plus 5 dB(A).

A conservative approach has been adopted by setting background noise levels to the default minimum values of 35 dB(A),L90 (day) and 30 dB(A),L90 (night).


Continuation of 3m high (see Sec 4.1)


Based on the adopted LA90 levels (RBL’s), the intrusiveness criteria (project noise screening levels) for residential receivers are

Day 40 dB(A),Leq(15min) Evening 35 dB(A),Leq(15min)

Night 35 dB(A),Leq(15min)

3.2 Modifying Factors Chapter 4 of the NPI defines several modifying factors for certain potentially annoying noise characteristics which attract a 5 dB penalty if applicable. The potentially applicable factor is:

• Intermittent Noise: a subjectively applied factor when levels from a source vary by more than 5 dB. Applicable only at night time.

The intermittency factor will be applied to calculated night time noise levels at the assessed residential receivers.

3.3 Sleep Disturbance To help protect against people waking from their sleep the NPI recommends that Lmax noise levels should not exceed the greater of 52 dB(A),Lmax or the background level plus 15dB(A) when measured/computed at a bedroom window of a building facade. The “sleep disturbance” screening level is only applicable to night-time noise emissions (i.e. between 10 pm and 7 am weekdays, 10 pm and 8 am Sundays and Public Holidays).

The sleep disturbance screening level for the current assessment is therefore 52 dB(A) Lmax.

If the screening level is exceeded, the NPI requires a more thorough assessment of the potential impacts on residential amenity. In projects such as this, however, the goal is to engineer and manage noise emission so the sleep disturbance trigger level is not exceeded.

4.0 NOISE ASSESSMENT 4.1 Operational scenarios For determination of potential impacts of noise from the operating animal boarding facility on the nearest residential receiver two likely scenarios were considered. The first was of a noise source representing dogs barking in the external play area during the day and the second representing dogs barking in the kennel at night.

Noise from the external play area was theoretically propagated to the potentially most impacted residences R1 and R3 taking into account



the effects of hemispherical spreading (distance loss), atmospheric absorption and ground effects.

Noise from inside the kennels was propagated to the nearest residence taking into account the effects of transmission loss through building elements , hemispherical spreading and atmospheric 1

absorption. From consideration of the dimensions and orientation of the various building elements, the sound pressure levels immediately outside these were propagated to the nearest receiver using standard equations.

The proposed facility will act primarily as an animal boarding facility and there will be an on-site manager. As such, the dogs will be generally under supervision and there will, therefore, be little opportunity for the dogs to be in a position to bark consistently for extended periods. It is anticipated, however, that there will be occasions where some break out of barking will occur. It is anticipated that such outbreaks would be quickly controlled.

4.2 Sound power levels The sound power level (Lw) of typical dogs barking was taken from the Spectrum Acoustics technical database which contains a number of measurements made at a commercial kennel in the NSW Hunter Valley, as shown below in Table 2. The noise level of the dogs was measured as an Leq over a 5 minute period whilst the dogs were barking.

For assessment of a typical operating scenario during the day it was assumed that there were ten dogs in the outdoor play area of the facility all barking at the same time for a total of five minutes out of a 15 minute assessment period. During the night it was assumed that the dogs may bark for longer periods and that half of the dogs present may join in. It was assumed that ten dogs in the kennels were barking for the full 15 minute assessment period.

* Additional 3 dB due to reverberation.

TABLE 2 Lw OF DOGS BARKING (Leq 15 min)

Octave Band Centre Frequency, Hz dB(A)

dB(A) 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k

10+ dogs in open 105 77 79 88 99 103 95 86 79

10+ dogs inside kennel*

108 80 82 91 102 106 98 89 82

Individual dog, Lmax 112 84 86 95 106 110 102 93 86

Insulated metal panel roof, Hebel panel walls.1



4.3 Acoustic barriers Preliminary calculations showed that, under the assessed conditions, there is a potential for an exceedance of the adopted day time noise criterion unless noise control is applied. The most effective form of noise control in this instance is likely to be the construction of an acoustic barrier (as a fence) around the outdoor play area. The acoustic barrier fence can be constructed of lapped and capped timber or material of equal or greater mass.

Further calculations were carried out assuming a 1.5m acoustic barrier is constructed around the perimeter of the area and extending to the full 3m height of the kennel building on the eastern side due to exposure to receiver R1. The barrier height would decrease from 3m at the building to 1.5m where it meets the southern end of the play area.

The calculation assumes a noise source height for the dog of 0.8m located near the centre of the areas. The RL of the ground at the run and at the receiver were obtained from topographic information on Google Earth.

4.4 Predicted noise impacts Tables 3 and 4 show calculations of noise propagated from the outdoor play yard and impacting on the nearest residential receivers R1 and R2 respectively. Receiver R3 is not assessed as this location benefits from screening of the outdoor play area by the kennel building.

TABLE 3 CALCULATED DAYTIME SPL AT RESIDENTIAL RECEIVER R1

DOGS IN OUTDOOR PLAY AREA - (3.0m Barrier)

Octave Band Centre Frequency, Hz

Item dB(A)

63 125

250

500

1k 2k 4k 8k

10 dogs in play area Leq (15 min)

105 77 79 88 99 103

95 86 79

Distance Loss to receiver (100m)

48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48



The results in Tables 3 and 4 show that, under the assessed conditions, noise levels at the nearest residential receiver from dogs barking in the proposed run areas would be well below the daytime noise criterion.

The dogs will be locked inside the kennels for the night. The building would be Hebel panel construction with small fixed laminated or double glazed windows and a metal clad insulated panel roof which typically provides a transmission loss of 25dB at 500Hz.

Barrier loss (3.0m) 7 8 10 13 16 19 22 24

A t m o s p h e r e / f o l i a g e Absorption

2 2 5 5 7 11 13 18

SPL @ receiver Leq (15 min)

37 20 21 25 33 32 17 3 <0

Daytime criterion Leq (15 min)

40

Impact 0

TABLE 4 CALCULATED DAYTIME SPL AT RESIDENTIAL RECEIVER R2

DOGS IN OUTDOOR PLAY AREA - (1.5m Barrier)


Item dB(A)

63 125

250

500

1k 2k 4k 8k

10 dogs in play area Leq (15 min)

105 77 79 88 99 103

95 86 79


54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54

Barrier loss (1.5m) 6 6 7 8 10 13 16 19


4 6 8 10 12 20 30 30


31 13 13 19 27 27 8 <0 <0

Daytime criterion Leq (15 min)

40

Impact 0



Table 4 shows a calculation of noise propagated through the dog kennels and impacting on the nearest residential receiver to the east as described above.

The results in Table 3 show that, under the assessed there would not be an exceedance of the night time noise criterion.

4.5 Sleep Disturbance

The dogs will be locked inside at night. The potential for sleep disturbance impacts would, therefore, come from the noise from maximum noise events relating to individual dogs barking inside the kennels. The calculation of potential sleep disturbance impacts is shown below in Table 5.

TABLE 4 CALCULATED NIGHTTIME SPL AT NEAREST RESIDENTIAL RECEIVER, R1


Item dB(A)

63 125

250

500

1k 2k 4k 8k

Dogs in kennels. Leq (15 min)

108 80 82 91 102

106

98 89 82

Transmission Loss (kennel roof)

15 17 20 25 27 29 30 30


48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48


2 2 5 5 7 11 13 18


28 15 15 18 24 24 10 0 0

Intermittency penalty 5

Assessable level at receiver 33

Night criterion Leq (15 min) 35

Impact 0

TABLE 5 SLEEP DISTURBANCE IMPACTS AT NEAREST RESIDENTIAL RECEIVER, R1




The results in Table 5 show that, under the assessed conditions, the predicted maximum night time noise level is well below the sleep disturbance trigger level.

5.0 CONCLUSION An acoustic assessment of the proposed operation of an animal boarding facility (pet resort) at 69 Coomba Road, Charlotte Bay, NSW has been conducted.

The noise impacts at the nearest residential receivers have been assessed, due to the noise emissions from dogs barking inside and outside of the facility.

The proposed building materials provide very good sound reduction and noise levels from dogs barking inside the kennels at night will be well below the adopted default minimum criteria. Acoustic barriers around the outdoor play area, described in Section 4.3 will be required to achieve compliance with daytime noise emission criteria.

The assessment has found that the proposal could comply with noise emission criteria as may be imposed by Council in a Development Approval.

Item dB(A)

63 125

250

500

1k 2k 4k 8k

Dog Barking Lmax 112 84 86 95 106

110

102

93 86

Transmission Loss (kennel roof)

15 17 20 25 27 29 30 30


48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48


2 2 5 5 7 11 13 18

SPL @ receiver L1 (1 min) 33 19 19 22 28 28 14 2 0

Criterion Lmax 52

Impact 0


APPENDIX A

NOISE LOGGER DATA

Doc. No: 151008-5912 August 2015 Appendix A

Doc. No: 151008-5912 August 2015 Appendix A

noise impact assessment – proposed pet resort 96 coomba … · 2020-03-18 · (project noise...

Documents