Presentation on Behalf of The Domain Owners Corporation ...€¦ · Presentation on Behalf of The...
Transcript of Presentation on Behalf of The Domain Owners Corporation ...€¦ · Presentation on Behalf of The...
1
Presentation on Behalf of The Domain Owners Corporation
MMR Panel Hearing
21st September 2016
Simon McHugh
2
Aerial View of Whitechapel – June 2010 (pre-construction)
3
EPA 1254
• I do not have any issue with the document other than those stated below• Not designed for this kind of project• No daytime criteria• Potential night-time noise impact is allowable for “Unavoidable Works”• This is a significant loop hole• A statement in the EPRs should be made to restrict “Unavoidable Work” to
engineering reasons (conclave NV1, pg 3, Final bullet) – Section 2.3 of ICNG provides a good definition
Refer to the conclave – item 06, page 3. DA comment
4
City of Moreland Submission to the 2015 EPA inquiryConstruction noise
Like many inner city councils Moreland is experiencing the construction of anunprecedented number of buildings covered by the Guidelines for larger scaleresidential developments (As defined in the Residential Noise regulations).Council is finding that the flexibility created by the guidelines is being, attimes, abused. The construction of such buildings has required extensive rockbreaking which has taken months of work. Issues of noise and dust from otheractivities have included, sifting of rock and soils, late night deliveries of largemachinery and large concrete pours in the early morning have impacted onamenity of these densely populated areas.
Ideally there would be a system which acknowledges that some flexibility isrequired for such projects, but creates boundaries so that Industry doesexpect controls and enforcement.
The creation of template construction management plans (CMP) by the EPAwould allow for flexibility but also agreed time and noise controls.
5
Residential Impact Mitigation guidelines (RIMG)
• As the EES is written, the RIMG would never be triggered• This leads to a reactive approach which depends upon the receipt of
complaints• In my opinion this transfers responsibility on to the affected parties• Conclave document Page 3, NV1, bullet points 3 and 5 require elaboration
6
Building megaprojects in megacities - Melbourne Metro Rail Project
MARSHAL~£~~ -ai
7
Building megaprojects in megacities - Melbourne Metro Rail Project
David Anderson - Development DirectorI spent seven years working on the Crossrail project developing the conceptdesign, developing the environmental assessments, making sure that the impactswere going to be manageable as that very large project was built in the centre ofLondon.
8
• First proposed in the 1940’s, initial design work undertaken in the 1970’s
• The two projects are very similar in scope and construction technique
• A lot of the Melbourne Metro publicity features direct references, images or footage taken from Crossrail
• Evan Tattersall (MMR CEO) said in an interview with the ABC that he has visited Crossrail construction sites
• The comparison is aspirational, it holds Crossrail, specifically, as a bench mark project
• The implication is that the approach taken on Melbourne Metro will be similar to that taken on Crossrail
Why the comparison with Crossrail?
9
Approach comparison – Melbourne Metro vs Crossrail
Melbourne Metro Environmental Effects Statement
EPR: Manage noise with respect to EPA 1254
Outcome: Compliance
Crossrail, Whitechapel Environmental Statement (2011)
The assessment has shown it likely that ninety fiveproperties will quality for noise insulation. Fifteenproperties are likely to be eligible for temporaryrehousing and noise insulation during the noisiestworks. Forty properties are likely to have a significantresidual impact.
Table 13-6 (page 237 of the NVIA) Whitechapel ES, Page 17 of N&V Technical Appendix
Note: both documents were written at the concept design stage i.e. pre-tender
10
Whitechapel ES, Page 17 of N&V technical Appendix
2.4 m Site Hoarding
Sm Site Hoarding
MARSHAL~c~~Ys 'O]
11
• Step 1: construct guide walls around full perimeter of the excavation• Step 2: excavate panel recess• Step 2.1: final grab pass • Step 3: insert rebar • Step 4: concrete
Diaphragm Wall Process
12
Crossrail Whitechapel – Diaphragm Wall Program
Refer to the conclave – Line 25, page 19. SM comment
13
• Based on a 105t crawler crane
• Excavation carried out with clamshell type grab
• 18.4m high boom• Noise emission is dominated
by the engine inlets and exhaust
• Measured Sound Pressure Level (by others) 77 dB LAeq @10 m
Bauer MC-64 – Diaphragm Wall Rig
14
Bentonite Silos
De-sanding plant
T-panel
Corner-panel
105 t support cranes
D-wall rig20 t excavator
Whitechapel Site Layout
15
Whitechapel Site Layout
16
Trucks
• There were several issues with trucks at Whitechapel• Refer to the relevant section of the Conclave (New NVB
line 32 on Page 21, points 8-11)• Refer statement regarding The Domain façade. Section
4.5, page 8 of evidence document
17
Proposed Criteria
Day Period Averaging time, T
Noise insulation
trigger level
Temporary re-housing trigger level
Monday – Friday Day 0700-1800 11 hrs 75 85
Evening 1800-2200 4 hrs 65 75
Night 2200-0700 1 hr 55 65
Saturday Day 0700-1300 5 hrs 75 85
Evening 1300-2200 4 hrs 65 75
Night 2200-0700 1 hr 55 65
Sunday and Public Holidays Day N/a N/a 75 85
Evening 0700-2200 1 hr 65 75
Night 2200-0700 1 hr 55 65
Trigger is the higher of the absolute level or existing LAeq, t + 5 dB for NI or existing LAeq, t + 10 dB for TRH
Temporal criteria is 10 working days out of any 15 consecutive days or 40 in in six consecutive months
18
Over-run Notices – as an alternative to “Unavoidable Works”
In reference to Mr Goddard’s statement (NV1, pg 3, Bullet 13),I envisage that a suitable process could be as follows:
• The contractor defines the anticipated working hours in the CNVMP
• If works look like they are going to extend past these hours then then a nominated person issues an “Over-run” notice to the independent acoustic consultant
• The independent consultant keeps a record of these occurrences
• The proposed CNVMP provides for noise monitoring (new NVB item 25 on Page 18)
• Therefore if noise due to the “Over-run” is in excess of the trigger levels detailed in the previous slide then the works contribute to the “temporal” criteria detailed above
• If the temporal criteria is exceeded then the affected dwellings may be eligible for NI or TRH
19
Consolidated RIMG document
In reference to MDA’s statement (NV1, pg 3, Bullet 12) and note 2 of Technical Note 043.
I envisage that a suitable consolidated document could include:
• Minimum expectations for on-site mitigation• Trigger levels as per the proposed levels• Details of the over-run procedure• Definition of works that are acceptable in terms of a justification
for an over-run• Minimum details with respect to content for the CNVMP (i.e.
take extracts from the NVB)• Minimum expectations with respect to monitoring (i.e. take
extracts from the NVB)• Reporting chain of command