One of the several resident and environmental groups that oppose the park consulted him, and he did a quick appraisal, soon becoming even more “curious”. He contacted the Environmental Protection Authority, criticising the science the company used, but the EPA approved the project without sending it to public review. Residents have until June 25 to appeal. The company’s wave park proposal for Sydney’s Olympic Park is more than 300 metres from the closest house. Its proposal for Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport is about 80 metres from the nearest home. Its proposal for Melville has dozens of homes starting at 60 metres away in a much higher density residential area than the Sydney and Melbourne proposed locations. The Tompkins Park site showing surrounding residential density. Credit:Google

“Urbnsurf know that the wave park will be loud and they have skirted around the issue with respect to this location,” Mr Chambers said. The environmental report Urbnsurf submitted to the EPA said the sound of breaking waves would not be much above current background noise levels when heard from the shoreline of the surf lagoon and it was “highly unlikely” the noise would impact residents. Mr Chambers said their own modelling for Sydney showed that this was untrue and was up to 20 decibels – one hundred times – more. The report said this was “modelled on other similar projects” but did not specify methods or provide the data. They said this data would be provided after environmental approval was gained and the process moved to planning applications. Mr Chambers said it appeared Urbnsurf was using noise measurements collected from a demo park in Spain to model noise for its proposed parks in Melbourne, then Sydney, now Perth.

But Urbnsurf did not provide the original data or eastern states models to WA’s EPA when addressing environmental noise. Another concerned scientist supplied Mr Chambers with the modelling. “When you overlay the noise fields modelled for Sydney on to the Melville proposal it clearly shows there will be a significant impact,” he said. “This is without considering that this Sydney study likely underestimates the noise field.” He said the modelling contained fundamental errors and may have underestimated the noise by as much as 10 decibels, meaning the level of noise could be 10 times what Urbnsurf had predicted at residents' homes. This meant some neighbours could experience up to 60 decibels, well over the 42 specified in WA law. Melbourne's Tullamarine Airport site is largely industrial with a small number of homes nearby. The design has been extensively modified since initial proposals to minimise impact on these homes. Credit:Google

He also estimated likely noise levels on the most ecologically sensitive side of Alfred Cove Nature Reserve to be above 50 decibels, which he said would be damaging to wildlife. Urbnsurf executive chairman Andrew Ross said Mr Chambers had rung Urbnsurf’s environmental consultants on January and 15 “demanding that they hand over to him confidential information and reports on our project”. “We of course did not respond to his demands, and have no obligation to do so given he is simply a member of the community,” Mr Ross said. “The simple fact is traffic on Canning Highway currently produces more noise than is forecast by our experts to be produced by the surf park. The existing Melville Bowling Club is licensed for 260 patrons, and we are told that it is constantly filled with events and the like, all of which emit social noise; and our facility will be no different to this.” Sydney's Olympic Park site is surrounded by wetlands, industrial areas and showgrounds areas. Credit:Google

The process Urbnsurf was required to address noise in its EPA referral in regard to its effects on fauna and “social surroundings”, as noise limits are set by state environmental law. But in both categories Urbnsurf indicated it would provide acoustic assessment and “worst-case scenario 3D modelling” with planning applications. Mr Chambers said the planning bodies involved did not possess the skills and expertise to assess noise for a unique proposal such as this, which required specialised expert analysis.

He said proponents could “cherry pick” environmental consultants to prepare noise management plans. Planning bodies could then just rubber-stamp these, assuming that a proposal getting through the gatekeeper at the EPA meant due diligence had been done at a higher level. “A public environmental review on the social surroundings factor would force Urbnsurf to do their homework. It’s public, transparent and allows for peer review. As soon as the EPA say you don’t need it, it’s buried forever and those studies won’t see the light of day," Mr Chambers said. He said part of the problem might be that public environmental reviews were time-consuming and costly, but without one, the only avenue for the public to critique the science would be the Supreme Court. “This would put the onus on the concerned objectors to provide the complex studies to prove the point, on the guiding legal principle ‘he who asserts must prove’, which is incredibly expensive, overkill and often unfair,” he said.

“What piqued my curiosity ... is that the people against it are being typecast as NIMBYs. “Residents have a right to be concerned. That area is a bunch of retirees with a personal connection to the place. They asked me ... I said, you have a problem. Scientifically this hasn’t been assessed. And you should put this in your submissions to the Environmental Protection Authority. My advice to them was that it is going to be loud. It’s going to be very, very loud and there is almost no way to stop the noise apart from a dome over the complex.” Urbnsurf defended the environmental report provided in its EPA referral. Urbnsurf's Andrew Ross said the EPA had spent more than five months considering all of these matters in great detail and found no evidence that the project would pose any form of significant environmental impact, which included the possible impact of noise on birds, local residents, or the environment more generally. He stood by the characterisation of noise as a planning matter.

“If there are issues with noise, there is a very robust framework that deals with these issues. We are not going to invest $25 million in building a surf park if it is going to be prevented from operating for breaching the noise regulations,” he said. Noise is governed by environmental law and must be addressed in an EPA referral. Credit:EPA EPA Chairman Tom Hatton said while the EPA could have decided to put just one key environmental factor, such as potential impact on social surroundings, to a public environmental review, in this case the proponent's proposed level of impact was not considered significant. The EPA's decision had taken into account the promise to submit the acoustic assessment, and worst case scenario modelling, with future planning applications. Dr Hatton said the WA Planning Commission or a joint Development Assessment Panel JDAP would make the final decision, and the EPA would expect this authority to require those documents and to consult with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation.

"In addition, the construction and operational noise will need to demonstrate compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997," Dr Hatton said. He said while the EPA was not aware of the cost of a public environmental review as this was borne by the proponent, it would likely take six to eighteen months depending on availability of information, proponent’s response to public submissions, and the complexity of the proposal. This did not include the time necessary for the subsequent appeals process and the Minister’s final determination. The science Mr Chambers said the modelling was problematic for several reasons. Firstly, it represented breaking waves in the same way as standard traffic noise modelling. “Mechanisms of wave noise generation cannot be approximated as simple line sources, they are complex, contain harmonics and contain modulating bands, and contain impulsive low-frequency noise components,” he said.

Noise contours from proposal at Sydney laid over proposed location in Melville showing incorrect/correct decibel levels. The regulated limit for amenity within this location is 42 decibels. Source - Mr Chambers Credit:Shane Chambers “This is a very simple approximation ... normal laissez-faire for a less experienced acoustic engineer or a more experienced one who is under time and cost constraints.” It also assumed one breaking wave on either side of the pier, whereas there would be more than one wave rolling simultaneously on either side of the pier at a rate of 17 waves per minute, equalling one per 3.5 seconds. “The sound intensity from this area is not confined to just two lines but is being emitted from a large area much larger than two lines, and therefore the noise contribution has been critically underestimated,” he said. This noise source was “white” noise, from imploding bubbles being created by the splashing of water. This type went in all directions. But there was another noise source, the barrelling mechanism of the wave.

“You can imagine this as a big woodwind instrument that constantly moves over the area and shoots out sound like a cannon from the open end, away from the centre,” he said. “Low-frequency sound is caused by the resonance of the air in the barrel of the wave. When this collapses it makes that thunder ‘woof’ sound when you hear a wave break. At any one time this will be happening at least in two to three sections on both sides.” The demonstration park in Spain. Credit:Urbnsurf He said the measurements taken in Spain were also potentially invalid in an Australian context, mainly due to how waves peeled at the Spain facility and where they had taken the measurements. He said Urbnsurf should have employed an acoustics expert to fly to an appropriate other example of a wave park for a few weeks, measure noise levels, map those results on to the proposed Australian locations, then got another scientist to peer-review it. This would all likely take six months and $150,000.