Media release – Residents Opposed to the Cable Car (ROCC), 17 June 2021
RESIDENTS SEEK EPA ANSWERS ON CABLE CAR NOISE
Residents Opposed to the Cable Car (ROCC) has written to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) seeking urgent clarification of claims in the cable car Development Application (DA) that it has ‘accepted’ noise impacts pertaining to the base station as being ‘within acceptable limits’.
ROCC questions this, given the noise assessment provided as part of the DA highlighted that critical information was not forthcoming from the proponent and that ‘other noise emitter details will be required.’
“The cable car DA has numerous omissions, errors and obsolescence including a five-year-old economic impact report and a traffic assessment that ignores the Southern Outlet intersection with Macquarie and Davey Streets,” said Vica Bayley, spokesperson for ROCC.
“When it comes to assessing noise, the noise consultant made comment that the cable car proponent withheld important information, including traffic movements at the base station.
“Given this, we wonder about the value of the EPA advice, what evidence it relied upon and what comfort it affords residents neighbouring the base station and its access road.
The EPA is responsible for protecting residents from environmental nuisance relating to noise, particularly when other legal protections fail them. ROCC believes the current development proposal creates a situation where local residents are afforded no protection from noise impacts whatsoever, as it falls through a crack in both the planning scheme and the Wellington Park Management Plan.
“Given there is less than a week for the public to make comment, we have sought urgent clarification from the EPA regarding its advice and the science that underpins it.
“Is the EPA aware residents have no legal protection from noise nuisance and how did it determine that a mass tourism development with traffic movements day and night will not affect the amenity of local residents?
The noise report discloses that “the proposed operating hours were not forthcoming from the client, ie. times from earliest vehicle entry to last vehicle to leave. Other noise emitter details will be required, such as plant and equipment… the list is not exhaustive.”
“The DA noise report is crystal clear that it’s findings are heavily constrained by the lack of transparency of the proponent. On what basis has the EPA formed its advice?”
Tasmanian Times exists to amplify your voice
Please support our crowdfunding campaign to
rejuvenate independent media in Tasmania!
