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