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
with the 2007 Master Plan”. Further, at 3.1.3.3 of the EIS it states that new runway 13/31 (original option) “was a refinement of the preferred option identified in the SCA Master Plan 2007” and developed as “part of the Masterplan Implementation Project) by AECOM in 2010. It is noted that the spatial extent of this ‘refinement’ is stated as being approximately 4 degrees clockwise (without any reference to the location of the centre point of the swing) at 3.7.2.1 of the EIS. Verbal feedback from the Airport EIS team at one of the public sessions indicated that this deflection of the east west runway centreline was to ensure the south eastern End Safety Zone (ESZ) aligned more closely with Keith Royal Park’. For the proponent to now state that the preferred alignment is the same as the SCA Masterplan alignment is incomprehensible given the chronology outlined above. For this reason, the proponent should be required as a minimum to provide geo-referenced mapping that clarifies this issue with absolute certainty which proves without any doubt what alignment is embedded in the preferred option, and what alignment the flight paths and noise mapping in the EIS and AEIS have been centred upon. 186. Comments citing the original option as the preferred option If it is to be assumed that this is the pre-2007 Masterplan 14/32 alignment, it should be noted that the change was formally adopted by Council in the 2007 The proponent has largely relied upon the Council adoption and public availability of the SCA Masterplan for some 7 years and its subsequent incorporation into the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme, 2014 as its justification for not offering any mitigation or compensation for properties effected by new or increased aircraft noise from the new runway.