to 2 decibels in the guess’ by the proponent’s consultant. noise levels experienced at the residential properties in the Thirdly, given that the Mudjimba residents are part of Mudjimba area. The the minority ‘community expecting to experience new change is so slight as to noise’, (and very loud new noise at that), every decibel be imperceptible to matters, so it is requested that this be modelled and most people”. substantiated. Section 6 of the AEIS recommends the insertion of the same words into s3.1.3.4 of the EIS. The Mudjimba residents should be rightly offended by this recommendation due to the ‘dismissiveness’ and ‘approximate’ nature of this response to an issue so critical to the outcome for the most affected residents. 13. The EIS Chapter 5 of the EIS Whilst not specifically relevant to the submission item, does not inform determined that in it is worth highlighting that, Table 2 of Appendix L of people about 2020, with the proposed the AEIS shows the following number of N70 events for new noise change to the main a Summer weekday: impacts runway alignment, 3,500 fewer dwellings on the Sunshine Coast would experience 5 or more 70 dB(A) noise events. In 2040 there would be a 73% reduction (5,285 fewer dwellings) in the number of dwellings affected by frequent noise events (five or It is not possible to come close to the 3,500 or 5,285 more 70 dB(A) noise dwelling numbers stated to the left, if the same events on a summer assessment is undertaken from the data above. This weekday day. This is data results in a difference of 2860 dwellings between further addressed in now and 2020 (combining the day and evening figures) Appendix L of the AEIS. compared to 3,500 and 2,513 less dwellings compared to 5,285 dwellings (utilising on the ‘day’ figures) stated in the response to this submission topic. This does not “assist in the understanding of the EIS” as stated on the cover page to this Appendix. So, how can
to 2 decibels in the noise levels experienced at the residential properties in the Mudjimba area. The change is so slight as to be imperceptible to most people”. guess’ by the proponent’s consultant. Thirdly, given that the Mudjimba residents are part of the minority ‘community expecting to experience new noise’, (and very loud new noise at that), every decibel matters, so it is requested that this be modelled and substantiated. Section 6 of the AEIS recommends the insertion of the same words into s3.1.3.4 of the EIS. The Mudjimba residents should be rightly offended by this recommendation due to the ‘dismissiveness’ and ‘approximate’ nature of this response to an issue so critical to the outcome for the most affected residents. 13. The EIS does not inform people about new noise impacts Chapter 5 of the EIS determined that in 2020, with the proposed change to the main runway alignment, 3,500 fewer dwellings on the Sunshine Coast would experience 5 or more 70 dB(A) noise events. In 2040 there would be a 73% reduction (5,285 fewer dwellings) in the number of dwellings affected by frequent noise events (five or more 70 dB(A) noise events on a summer weekday day. This is further addressed in Appendix L of the AEIS. Whilst not specifically relevant to the submission item, it is worth highlighting that, Table 2 of Appendix L of the AEIS shows the following number of N70 events for a Summer weekday: It is not possible to come close to the 3,500 or 5,285 dwelling numbers stated to the left, if the same assessment is undertaken from the data above. This data results in a difference of 2860 dwellings between now and 2020 (combining the day and evening figures) compared to 3,500 and 2,513 less dwellings compared to 5,285 dwellings (utilising on the ‘day’ figures) stated in the response to this submission topic. This does not “assist in the understanding of the EIS” as stated on the cover page to this Appendix. So, how can
sunshine_coast_airport_expansion_aeis_submission.docx