Planning application at 35 Dowling Street Launceston TAS 7250

Rebecca Page sent a message to Janie Finlay.

Janie Finlay
Rebecca Page
Planning application at 35 Dowling Street Launceston TAS 7250
May 1, 2017, 1:17 p.m.
Dear Councillor,
As neighbours in close proximity to the proposed development, we have major concerns. Especially as our property has unimpeded direct views of the whole development and surrounding area. We already feel that our previous approaches to the Launceston City Council have fallen on deaf ears in regard to the existing problems that this company is causing.

We have found ourselves regularly being woken at all times of the night by reversing beepers from forklifts and extremely loud engine breaking from Tolls heavy vehicles. After contacting the council to inform them of these issues and enquire about noise regulations for the area we were told that they had “no idea” and would get back to us. Since then, we have been found out there is no possibility to complain about these problems as when we were contacted by Katherine Fitzgerald from the council she told us that there were “no such limits in place” for either operating hours, noise levels or nuisance lighting and that “perhaps that is the nature of their business”.

Why this individual business in particular is allowed to impact people at all hours of the day and night with whatever noise level they feel like producing is questionalble but what is most disturbing is that I’m certain that council is unaware of the extent of the current issues as the is no record of surrounding residences concerns or complaints. The proposed development will only further compound these problems.

Currenlty, all other business activity within the same Light Industrial Zone is what I would consider reasonable, operating between 8am and 5pm. This is not the current case for the Toll operations at Dowling Street.

In the limited review period given our own hectic schedules we have documented a few of our concerns with the development application submitted and it’s so called supporting documents obtained and downloaded from “,%20Launceston.pdf”

1) There has obviously been years of detailed planning by Toll with no consultation of the local residents, and we have only 2 weeks to review and analyse the impact of a 380 page submission. Neighbouring residences need to be properly informed and have a longer time period than only two weeks to review and comprehend such a major development.
2) The VIPAC site sound data was collected over the Christmas period which contained 3 public holidays. This is not a representative study in our opinion.
3) The day-time and night-time representative impact sound recording by VIPAC on Cypress street was recorded 15 minutes apart, around 6pm one afternoon and each representative sample only lasted 5 minutes in duration. Surely this should have been a continuous noise study to reveal the extent of the impact and it should have been located at one of the effected properties and not at a distance further from the site than the impacted neighbouring residences are. Our property has a floor level 10m RL above the Toll facility, so there is an unobstructed noise path directly to a large portion of the house, including three bedrooms, the noise impact is not adequately represented by the VIPAC study.
4) The study by VIPAC has not included the noise generated by trains in the sound model. This is a major omission of the impact of the neighbourhood.
5) What is the train operation schedule proposed by Toll and TasRail, what operational limits would be imposed given that site operations are listed as 24hrs.
6) The VIPAC study states that the reverse beepers are a specific and nuisance noise, so surely the optimisation of the site would have included relocating these operations so that noise is not towards the front boundary of the lot and included the use of sound barriers and other noise mitigation techniques.
7) The development application only considers the properties with in 100m of the proposed site. The distance from all areas of the Toll facility to the bedrooms of our property are between 150m to 500m. An Australian Acoustical Society study shows that both broadband and tonal reversing beepers are typically “Clearly Audible” to “Dominant” at 200m from operating machinery and seldom “Disappear” at ranges of 400m. When all members of family are woken during the night this clearly show that the sound is distinct, noticeable and loud (at all times). This makes the 100m distance used by the application appear quite inadequate.
8) Warehouse storage in the application is increasing three-fold, but we are to rest assured that there will be no additional impact. This is somewhat hard to believe.
9) The application highlights the need to plant at least 82 trees at 10m tall to comply with the planning scheme yet only half the trees required have been proposed. These trees are sorely needed to soften the impact of the sound and lighting problems produce by Toll and its current operations, let alone when it expands.
10) There is not a definitive description by the developer in terms of their planned Day-time and Night-time activities, hours of truck and train arrivals, or any guarantee that this Major Transport Hub will not need to increase its operational activities to recover its investment.
11) Closure of the Bell Bay storage will only reduce the Invermay heavy vehicle traffic. All other Southbound heavy vehicle traffic is the same or increased. Peak traffic for the staff from this facility will affect local traffic.
12) GHD traffic count does not show the traffic at the Cimitere to Racecourse intersection where toll trucks often cut in front of traffic and hold up shoppers trying to access Kmart complex and local residents. This a major safety issue for vehicles and pedestrians using this intersection an area that is already very congested at most times of the day.
13) It is suggested that the removal of haulage from Bell Bay will result in less traffic, but provide no supporting evidence. The percentage of operations of this haulage is not given in terms of the businesses total operations and is ambiguous at best.
14) The building plans clearly shows that the structures being proposed are higher than the 13.5m level specified in the application. This may need to be reviewed.
15) The VIPAC study show the assumption that all staff leave site by 6pm but then models forklifts operating overnight.
16) The proposal includes a new truck wash station and refilling station, currently these activities are conducted offsite. Will fuel fumes and wash spray also effect nearby business and residents?
17) TNT, TOLL, and several local freight companies are all located at the airport industrial complex including the Woolworths food distribution centre. One has to ask why TOLL alone feels that the Boland St site is suitable for such a major transport hub, when others do not.
18) While two copies of the folding light poles are included, there is no installation map of where these are to go and in particular no mention of the height proposed for these lights. The existing lighting configuration is already causing major light pollution to neighbouring residences. With all curtains and blinds fully closed within our home there is still a bright ‘glow’ such that we don't need a night light and several of our security cameras do not switch to infrared night mode. Looking directly out any of the back windows of our house towards the Toll facility at night is blinding. It’s concerning that they are proposing to install more lights. Soon it will out shine the Aurora stadium!
19) The application proposes subdividing the existing lot into three separate lots, under the pretence that each subdivision could later be individually sold. However, this is somewhat deceptive as the division is clearly a distortion of the planning scheme as each lot individually requires 1-2 entrances, giving additional entry/exit points for the planned facility.
20) Promises of reduced traffic are suggested however the installation of a four5 lane wide, 40m long waiting bay, does not provide confidence that this will be the case. Currently, trucks are not spilling onto public roads preventing passage, so why would an efficiency improvement of existing operations with no planned operational increase need such a design?
21) The GHD truck paths shown require trucks entering the facility to deviate into oncoming traffic to enter the site. How is this an improvement in design!
22) The VIPAC noise analysis has specifically only shown noise modelling of the site based activities but ignores the impact of the 170 heavy vehicles per day driving along the residential streets. In the noise model their location is a stationary location within the boundary of the lot. This is not representative of what happens. Typically, vehicles of this size have noise levels of at least 55dB. The trucks are driving directly only meters from, or directly past residential properties, the Toll proposal does not limit this activity to day time only, so this would be a clear violation of the VIPAC suggested 40dB noise limit as they drive through our public streets during the night.
23) 40’ highlift container loaders normally operate at our nations wharves and heavy industrial complexes, not in a Light Industrial Area at the discretion of the local council. Transport and Storage facilities are only allowed within the light Industrial zone at the discretion of the council, thus this type of business is what I would consider a distorted use of a light industrial zoning.
24) Since when does Light Industrial zoning become suitable for Heavy Industrial applications, such as the major transport hub that Toll is proposing?

Yours truly,
Rebecca Page.

From Rebecca Page to local councillor Janie Finlay


Rebecca Page posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Rebecca Page and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

Planning Application for 35 Dowling Street Launceston TAS 7250

Description: Transport Depot and Distribution - road and rail freight terminal; extension and refurbishment to existing buildings and construction of new buildings and rail link, new signage and 3-lot subdivision in 11 stages

Read more and see what others have to say here:

Best wishes,


Future replies will be published here.