State Environment Protection Policies

Review of Victoria’s State Environment Protection Policies for Noise

DR ELIZABETH GIBSON, General Manager of CMPA provides a report on the discussion paper released by SEPP for Noise.

EPA Victoria (EPA) and the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) have now commenced a review of the two State Environment Protection Policies (SEPP) for Noise by releasing a discussion paper. Of interest to members is the review of the SEPP (Control of Noise from Industry, Commerce and Trade) No. N-1 (SEPP N-1). An industry workshop was held by the EPA in Melbourne in September 2014, attended by Dr Elizabeth Gibson, to allow potentially affected parties an opportunity to learn more about the review, and provide face to face input. The discussion paper took on the form of a series of questions.

CMPA agrees with the statement in the Discussion Paper that “It is important to balance community protection from noise with other considerations such as the need to support economic growth, business and industry viability.” Some of CMPA’s responses to the questions posed by DEPI in the discussion paper are listed:

How do noise SEPPs protect beneficial uses? 

• Any increase in noise standards will have a direct, and potentially significant, impact on our member’s compliance requirements.

What are the costs and benefits of regulating noise?

• The economic value of the extractive industry is approximately $833 million per annum (2011/12) which underpins the building and construction industry. Any increase in costs due to more stringent noise legislation will be passed on, for example, to first home buyers.
• Major costs are incurred in seeking approval for a Work Plan through being required to conduct modelling of noise, for a modest sized quarry this can be over $30K. No prior recognition is made of extractive industry sites operating with similar technology.

Should a SEPP for commercial and industrial noise cover the whole State?

• It is immaterial to CMPA as to whether the SEPP covers the whole state as long as there is no decrease in flexibility; increase in stringency of levels or red tape.

Is the current compliance framework for commercial and industrial noise effective?

• There is the issue of having only one complainant and expending excessive money to mitigate the noise when residents at a similar distance have not complained.

What changes could be made to the noise SEPPs to complement an “agent of change” principle?

• CMPA agrees that where new homes are built near an existing site that was previously compliant with its noise obligations, then developers should bear the costs to mitigate the noise. However, of higher importance is to ensure that residential homes are not built next to industrial sites in the first place. This is also of importance in gaining a Work Authority, that DSDBI be consulted on planning issues where a more sensitive use is proposed.

Is the view that people living near industrial premises expect more noise than a person living in a wholly residential area?

• It would be reasonable, that is, to expect more noise when people move near an area with an industrial site.
• Are simpler assessment methods than currently used in the SEPPs needed?
• Simpler methods for noise measurement are needed that can allow non-experts perform basic compliance assessments that would also be acceptable to regulatory authorities in dealing with noise complaints.

In summary, CMPA Members understand the need for noise legislation however modelling and mitigation of noise is currently a costly exercise for the extractive industry. In
light of the current Government’s focus on reducing red tape the CMPA does not see the need to increase legislative burden which, if occurs, will act as a barrier to entry into the market.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login