key: cord-1007236-utpxt0pp authors: nan title: Acoustics Australia date: 2021-10-13 journal: Acoust Aust DOI: 10.1007/s40857-021-00254-1 sha: ec8fb4f32deaa989d16ae41d08539df88b74b600 doc_id: 1007236 cord_uid: utpxt0pp nan 1. Navy Submarine Academy, Qingdao, 266199, China 2. Pilot National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (Qingdao) , Qingdao, 266237, China The underwater glider is a new type of unpowered, unmanned, moving observational platform with advantages of low-noise level, long operation time, far sustainable range, and high costeffectiveness. In the paper, based on the underwater glider platform integrated with single vector acoustic sensor, an underwater acoustic glider platform is developed with the ability to detect target direction and observe the ambient noise. The acoustic measurement system and the self-noise of the glider platform under each working condition are tested to analyze the self-noise levels of the acoustic system and the primary noise sources of the platform, and conduct the vibration and noise reduction processing of the platform and optimize the working mode of the acoustic system. The test result shows that the underwater acoustic glider with the optimization has the ability to observe the ambient noise only on the pressure hydrophone channel. With the data sampled from one of the underwater gliders of the sea trial organized in a certain area of the South China Sea in August 2019, authors analyze the variation of spectrum levels of the ambient noise with the depth and the time at the center of seven frequency points (63 Hz, 100 Hz, 200 Hz, 400 Hz, 800 Hz, 1.6 kHz and 3.15 kHz) and discuss the influence of the sailing vessel close to the glider on it. The experimental result shows that the underwater acoustic glider, as an unscrewed moving platform, can be well used to monitor the ambient noise properties over a long term. The detection and recognition of quiet, small objects in shallow water is one of the challenges in underwater acoustic signal processing, especially for buried objects. The seafloor strongly absorbs sound waves, while the object echo signals are weak, which makes the detection of the buried objects more difficult. Realizing object echo signal enhancement in a seafloor reverberation background and improving the signal-toreverberation ratio (SRR) are critical problems. Based on the difference in energy aggregation between object echo signals and reverberation in the optimal fractional Fourier domain, a blind separation algorithm in the spatial fractional Fourier domain is presented. Expressions of the object rigid scattering components and the reverberation in the fractional Fourier domain are derived, and the energy distribution characteristics of both are analyzed. The objective function is constructed by the generalized correlation matrix of the multiple array signals in the optimal fractional Fourier domain, and the object rigid scattering components are obtained by approximate joint diagonalization. The simulation and data processing results show that the spatial fractional domain blind separation algorithm (FRFTBSS) can improve the signal-toreverberation ratio. Compared with time-frequency domain blind separation (TFBSS), the proposed algorithm avoids the crossitem interference and performs better at lower SRR. B. T. Balamurali 1 , Tan Enyi 1 , Christopher Johann Clarke 1 , Sim Yuh Harn 1 & Jer-Ming Chen 1 1. Singapore University of Technology and Design, 8 Somapah Rd, Singapore, Singapore The widespread adoption of face masks is now a standard public health response to the 2020 pandemic. Although studies have shown that wearing a face mask interferes with speech and intelligibility, relating the acoustic response of the mask to design parameters such as fabric choice, number of layers and mask geometry is not well understood. Using a dummy head mounted with a loudspeaker at its mouth generating a broadband signal, we report the acoustic response associated with 10 different masks (different material/design) and the effect of material layers; a small number of masks were found to be almost acoustically transparent (minimal losses). While different mask material and design result in different frequency responses, we find that material selection has somewhat greater influence on transmission characteristics than mask design or geometry choices. environmental factors, and their mental responses to these risk factors are still poorly understood. This study aimed to investigate the cognitive performance of bus drivers with respect to noise and vibration exposure. The study was conducted in 103 healthy city bus drivers. Based on their work schedule, the drivers' exposure to noise and vibration was measured using the Svantek SV 104 noise dosimeter and the SV 106 vibration meter, respectively. The simple Stroop test was used to measure drivers' selective attention capacity and skills as cognitive performance indicators. Drivers' job stress was determined using a standard questionnaire. The drivers' exposure levels to noise, whole-body vibration, and hand-arm vibration was 79.50 ± 3.51 dB, 0.620 ± 0.159 m/s 2 , and 0.438 ± 0.064 m/s 2 , respectively. Significant differences were observed in the interference score (IS) and interference time (IT) after driving (p < 0.05), which indicates a decrease in the number of true responses and an increase in response time. The multiple linear regression model showed that noise and vibration, as main environmental stressors in the presence of other individual's covariates such as age, work experience, and job stress, have significant effects on cognitive performance based on changes in IS and IT during driving (model accuracy; r = 0.61 and r = 0.57). The traffic load was also significantly associated with changes in IS and IT (p < 0.05). The possibility of mental function loss while driving indicates that appropriate occupational health surveillance must be implemented for bus driving occupations. Welcome to the September 2021 edition of Acoustics Australia. Despite ongoing uncertainty and disruption to the normal way of life, I am quite excited to report that we have had well over 90 Abstracts submitted for our National Conference being held in Wollongong, NSW. In particular, there is a strong Rail Noise and Vibration Session which is no surprise given the large amount of rail infrastructure being constructed in Sydney, Melbourne and recently in Perth. We also have a large number of high quality papers submitted by our members from Defence. Overall, there is a great diversity of papers and there is definitely something for everyone at this year's Conference! Unfortunately, due to current restrictions we have had to postpone this event until 21-23 February 2022. Please continue to visit the Conference Website for more details: www.acoustics.org.au/Acoustics2021 As I reminded you in the last edition of Acoustics Australia, we are currently in the International Year of Sound, and as a contribution I encourage you all to participate in a global recording of sounds during this very different year. The University of Aberdeen have set up a Covid 19 Sound Map of the World and I ask you all to please take a few minutes to make a short recording of just 10 to 60 seconds and upload it to the site along with short commentary of what the sound means to you now that you have experienced a range of very different soundscapes over the past 18 months. It's open to anyone, so feel free to get your family or office colleagues to also enter some sounds. Please visit the website for more information. https://sound2020.org/resources/the-covid-19-sound-map/ Please all stay safe, and I look forward to seeing many of you next February at Acoustics 2021 by the sea in beautiful Wollongong. This September 2021 issue of Acoustics Australia features 10 technical papers on a diverse range of topics within the acoustics discipline. Of practical relevance to us all at present is a paper from the Singapore University of Technology and Design that examines how face mask design and material selection impacts the transmission of speech. Mask material was found to have a greater impact on sound transmission than mask geometry with the open cell foam mask being almost acoustically transparent. This issue also contains two Forum articles in this front matter section of the journal. In one article, Christopher Marsh from the NSW EPA has analysed the impact of COVID 19 on enquiries made to the NSW EPA's Environment Line (Enviroline). Interestingly, Enviroline received a significant increase in the number of noise-related enquiries during times when pandemic restrictions were in place. Springer has recently announced the 2020 journal metrics for Acoustics Australia. We are happy to report that Acoustics Australia has increased its 2020 Impact Factor to 1.500 compared to the 2019 Impact Factor of 1.100. The journal Impact Factor reflects the yearly average number of citations of articles published in the last two years. In 2020, Acoustics Australia also maintained its Q2 ranking in the subject area of acoustics and ultrasonics according to the Scimago Journal Rankings (https://www.scimagojr.com/). The Quartile ranking indicates how the journal performs in relation to other journals in the same subject area with Q1 denoting a ranking among the top 25% of journals in the field. The journal quartile ranking is particularly important in the academic context, as our international colleagues, and especially Australian academics, are under increasing pressure to publish in highly ranked journals. I hope you enjoy this issue of Acoustics Australia. The AAS office has been busy despite the recurring lockdowns. Enquiries from existing members, potential new members, industry and the general public remain steady. A number of members chose to take advantage of the amnesty period allowing membership upgrades prior to the modified entry criteria contained in the new Constitution. It was great to see so many members upgrade and take on their new post-nominal of MAAS. At the time of writing this report membership numbers remain strong at 726. This year some AAS members have transitioned to MAAS Ret. status, some have retired from acoustics altogether and some have chosen to move to other industries. The AAS wishes these members well in their retirement or new endeavours and thanks them for their contribution to the Society and the science of acoustics. Membership fees were due on the 30th July 2021 and I thank all members that paid their fees on time. Notifications of payments via EFT were higher than previous years allowing the accurate and easy allocation of monies towards fees. Members efforts with regard to this were greatly appreciated. Recently all AAS membership application forms, membership information and application guidelines were updated in line with the new Constitution and uploaded to the AAS website. A great deal of documentation has been updated and created since I began in this role in 2018 and assists in ensuring the AAS remains current and complies with regulations. The AAS website has seen a few small updates. The platform the AAS is utilising can be challenging and there have been some hiccups which have prevented the AAS from offering more in the way of content for members. Rest assured though, we are always working on improving the resources and facilities available to members. The committee of the WA Division held an on-line meeting via Zoom in late June to discuss various items, including initial discussions regarding the WA State Seminar and Annual General Meeting which will be held in early October. WA Members will be issued correspondence regarding this event in due course. If any member would like to present at the State Seminar, please contact the WA Secretary via e-mail (wa-secretary@acoustics.asn.au). The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) has prepared a draft Guideline titled 'Assessment of Environmental Noise Emissions', which is currently in the public comment phase. This guideline advises what information should be included in an acoustic report, provides clarification regarding the criteria and considerations for the assessment of environmental noise emissions. It also advises how a screening tool can be used to determine whether a detailed assessment is required, and advises how a detailed noise emissions assessment should be undertaken. WA Members are encouraged to review the guideline and provide feedback to DWER. Submissions must be issued to DWER by 5 pm (WST) Friday September 10, 2021. Please refer to the weblink below to obtain the guideline document and provide feedback. https://consult.dwer.wa.gov.au/regulatory-capability/draftguideline-assessment-of-environmental-noise/ The Queensland division has held two technical meetings in recent months. Other AAS activities in Queensland have been relatively subdued with the ongoing impacts of the Covid pandemic. Visit the AAS website to stay up to date with all the latest information. Follow the AAS on LinkedIn and Facebook for industry updates. Technical meetings are still being held online. The Division held one meeting in June 2021, 'Drone noise: issues in the urban domain and noise reduction', presented by Simon Watkins and Abdulghani Mohamed from RMIT University's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Group. The Division held its General Assembly Meeting 2021 on 10 August. The AGM was followed by a presentation by Michael Kingan from the University of Auckland (New Zealand), on rainfall noise prediction and measurement. We would like to make a call for technical talk presentations to all Victorian members. If you have a project or matter you think could make an interesting presentation (about 30-45 minutes in length), or give rise to fruitful discussions with other members, please contact us. We would be pleased to consider it for a technical meeting. The Victorian Environment Protection Act 2017 is now in force since 1 July 2021. The new legislative framework includes the Environment Protection Regulations 2021, a Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues, and an Environment Reference Standard with a part on ambient sound. The new laws include a general environmental duty that requires taking reasonably practicable steps to eliminate or minimise the risk of harm to human health and the environment from pollution and waste (including noise and vibration). Further information on these new laws and how they apply to noise can be found on the website of the Environment Protection Authority Victoria (www.epa.vic.gov.au). The Professional Engineers Registration Act 2019 commenced on 1 July 2021. This Act will require professional engineers to be registered with the Business Licensing Authority to provide professional engineering services in a prescribed area of engineering in Victoria, or from a location outside Victoria, if the services are intended for Victoria. Professional engineers will not be required to be registered if they work under the direct supervision of a registered practising professional engineer or only in accordance with a prescriptive standard. A summary of the information obtained by the Division during a meeting with representatives of the Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety was provided in the Divisional News of Acoustics Australia issue 49(1) (March 2021). Acoustic engineering is a sub-stream of mechanical engineering, for which registration will become mandatory on 1 December 2023. More information is available online at https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/peoverview. Unfortunately, the NSW Division has not been able to organise any Tech Talks recently. In the next few months, we are planning a couple of virtual talks, so please look out for any announcements. The NSW Division would like to remind members that the AAS 2021 Conference being held at Novotel North Beach in Wollongong has been postponed until 21-23 February, 2022. Currently we have over 90 abstracts submitted, and everything is pointing towards a very good technical program. Please look out for updates on the AAS website. All members are reminded that membership fees/grades have changed for the 2021-22 period. They are as follows: The NSW Division of the Australian Acoustical Society warmly invites all members of the acoustics community to attend Acoustics 2021 -Making Waves, Wollongong in the spectacular Illawarra Region. To be held from 8 -10 November, the technical program promises to be of great interest to all-comers, covering a full range of topics from active noise control through to musical and bio-acoustics as well as the regular areas such as transportation and environmental noise. Acoustics 2021 -Making Waves will mark a welcome return to the hosting of physical conferences and will not feature an online option. Several internationally recognised keynote speakers, along with local leaders in their field will be in attendance, combined with a trade exhibition of all the latest and greatest equipment, products and services making this a high quality event. The venue is the recently renovated Novotel North Beach, located right on North Wollongong beach and featuring high quality conference facilities as well as bars, pools, coffee shops, restaurants, and rooms with views of either the amazing escarpment, or all the way along the coast to Sydney. So, take the opportunity to come along to the beautiful NSW South Coast and enjoy 'Acoustics by the Beach'. Jeff Parnell The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has released a Draft Noise Guide for Local Government for public consultation. The Guide provides practical guidance on the dayto-day management of common noise issues which are generally managed by councils. The Guide updates the Noise Guide for Local Government published in 2013 and: • explains the regulatory framework in NSW to manage noise, including who is responsible for managing noise from different sources • outlines regulatory and non-regulatory options to manage common noise issues • provides supporting information such as technical advice, including an overview of acoustics and noise measurements; the role of noise policies and guidelines to assess and manage noise; and advice on managing community expectations and complaints. We are now seeking the views of stakeholders on the Guide. To view the Draft Noise Guide for Local Government and the Frequently Asked Questions, and to have your say on the proposed changes, visit the EPA's website at:http://yoursay.epa.nsw.gov.au. You can also email your comments to:epa.nglg@epa.nsw.gov.au Consultation will close at 5:00pm on Monday 27 September 2021. For further information please contact Environment Line on 131 555 or info@environment.nsw.gov.au. • Jian Kang is new President-Elect. • John Davy is the new Vice-President for Professional Relations. • The 28th International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV28) will be held from 24 to 28 July 2022 in Singapore. • The 29th International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV29) will be held in Prague, Czech Republic in 2023. • There is a proposal to hold the 30th International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV30) in 2024. • There are competing proposals to hold the 31st International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV31) in Brussels, Belgium or in Amsterdam, The Netherlands in 2025. The location of the Netherlands proposal has changed from The Hague to Amsterdam. • The Inter-noise 2022 conference will be held in Glasgow, Scotland from 21 to 24 August 2022. • The Inter-noise 2023 conference will be held in Chiba, Greater Tokyo, Japan from 20 to 23 August 2023. • The Inter-noise 2024 conference will be held in Europe in 2024 and three formal proposals are being considered. • The Inter-noise 2025 conference will be held in the Americas and two informal proposals are being considered. • The NOVEM 2021 conference in New Zealand has been postponed to 10 to 12 January 2023 and renamed NOVEM 2023. The International Year of Sound (IYS 2020) is a global initiative to highlight the importance of sound in all aspects of life on earth and will lead towards an understanding of sound-related issues at the national and international level. The winners from the International Student competition will be announced in late September. The competition attracted an amazing range of innovative and creative entries all motivated by the importance of sound in our world and presenting "My world of sound". This international competition, launched in 2020 during the International Year of Sound, by the partner organisation La Semaine du Son aimed at encouraging students at Higher Education Institutions specialized in space design to collaborate with students specialized in sound, and develop a reflection on the sound design of our living spaces that goes beyond the question of the noise abatement to imagine the landscapes and the soundscapes of tomorrow's public squares. It is pleasing that the first prize was awarded to an international collaboration between students from Paris and Barcelona. The overview of the winning entries can be found here and the explanations and videos can be viewed here. "Inhabiting public space: Design the atmospheres of public space where we can hear and talk to each other!" This competition is launched in 2021 during the continuing International Year of Sound and has similar intent to "2068, make place for sound !" in that it aims to encourage students across disciplines and across countries to collaborate and reflect on what is needed in public spaces to achieve good acoustics. The conference of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand was recently held at the Tamaki Yacht club, overlooking the beautiful Hauraki Gulf, on Monday the 28th and Tuesday the 29th of June. This was following a last-minute postponement in February due to the Covid-19 lockdown in Auckland, and followed on from the postponement of the joint ASNZ-AAS conference, which was to be held in Wellington in 2020. Despite the conference being run under the shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic, the conference was attended by a record number of delegates and received record support via sponsorship. The theme of the conference was 'The Sound of a Changing World'. This theme was intended to focus contributions towards discussing changes in the field of Acoustical Engineering and also to encourage contributions which emphasised how the importance of sound in society is changing. The Covid-19 pandemic served to emphasise the importance of the latter objective with several presentations and discussions noting the effect of the lockdowns on the acoustic environment. These included a fascinating talk on the reduction in anthropogenic underwater noise in the Hauraki Gulf during the Covid-19 lockdowns, and another presentation introducing the concept of soundscapes and discussing the effect of the lockdowns on the perception of the local soundscape. The conference technical programme included 30 presentations, 3 keynote talks and a panel discussion. The first keynote talk was given by the Chief Environment Court Judge, David Kirkpatrick, who gave a description of the court process and the role of the expert witness in that. He provided suggestions as to how Acoustical Engineers presenting expert witness testimony might best present their evidence. In particular, he suggested that the Acoustical Engineering profession might want to explore whether using qualitative approaches to assess noise impact might be appropriate in some instances. Marion Burgess gave the second keynote presentation via video recording in which she introduced the International Year of Sound (IYS). This was followed by a panel discussion featuring Marion (via Zoom from Sydney), local Acoustical Engineers James Whitlock and Victoria Rastelli, Professor Peter Thorne from the University of Auckland, and Tom Hamill from the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra. This discussion covered a range of topics related to the IYS and has resulted in a motion to establish a new role on the Society's council for an 'engagement officer' who will identify and implement outreach activities for the purpose of raising the profile of the Society and to advertise the importance of sound in the wider community. Thorne who talked about how hearing loss was a public health issue of global significance and discussed the public health approaches advocated by the WHO and the opportunities for these to be implemented in New Zealand. Without exception, all of the technical presentations given at the conference were of a very high standard and we were particularly grateful to the two presenters who could not attend because of the Covid-19 scare in Wellington, but provided high quality video recordings of their presentations instead. The GIB conference banquet was held later on Monday evening and was attended by the vast majority of delegates and sponsors' representatives. The last formal event of the evening was the presentation of a fellowship of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand to Keith Ballagh. The presentation included a citation made by Chris Day which emphasised the hard work which Keith had done for the Society over many years and the impact that his technical work has made on the Acoustical Engineering community both in New Zealand and abroad. The second day of the conference contained 18 high quality technical presentations including the majority of the student talks. The prize for the best student paper was awarded to Yan Wu, who presented a paper describing the physics of the noise generated by a UAV propeller mounted close to a strut. The conference ended at 5:30 pm with a closing address in which it was noted that, everything going to plan, the next Acoustical Engineering conference to be held in New Zealand will be the joint ASNZ-AAS conference in Wellington on the 31st of October to the 2nd of November 2022. We are looking forward to seeing you all there! Michael Kingan and Tracy Hilliker The Acoustical Society of New Zealand (ASNZ) and Australian Acoustical Society (AAS) Joint Conference will be held at Te Papa Tongarewa Museum in Wellington New Zealand, from 31 Oct -2 Nov 2022. Acoustics 2022 will provide engineers and scientists in all fields of acoustics the chance to share their work with colleagues. Six plenary/keynote lectures, a full and interesting programme covering a wide range of topics, and some excellent social functions, will give attendees the opportunity to exchange views and share experiences. There will also be a unique opportunity for manufacturers and suppliers to showcase the latest developments in acoustic instrumentation, software and noise and vibration control products. Surrounded by nature and fuelled by creative energy, Wellington is a compact city with a powerful mix of culture, history, nature and cuisine. Fuel your visit with strong coffee and world-class craft beer -Wellingtonians are masters of casual dining, with plenty of great restaurants, night markets and food trucks. On the waterfront itself you'll find Te Papa Tongarewa Museum, New Zealand's national museum. Te Papa, as it's colloquially known, means 'our place' and is one of the best interactive museums in the world. It is an iconic New Zealand building, right in the heart of the capital city. It is easily accessible by international and domestic flights into Wellington airport, which is only a short 15 min drive from the venue. The Acoustics 2022 Organising Committee looks forward to welcoming you to Wellington in November. We hope that the conference gives you an opportunity to strengthen your existing networks and that you leave with great memories, fresh ideas, and new friendships. Keep up to date with the latest conference information by visiting: www.acoustics2022.com We encourage any readers who find an item that may be of interest to other readers to send the item to acousticsaustralia@acoustics.asn.au In addition, we greatly appreciate that Bob Fitzell has agreed to take on the role of ''News Hound'' and brought some of the items in this section to our attention. From humble beginnings in a suburban garage in Enfield NSW, The P.A. People have grown to be major player in the Acoustic and AV industry. This year they celebrate their 50th anniversary. Read more about their history at: -The P.A. People -celebrating 50 years The Guardian (United Kingdom) reports on Lego White Noisean album made by Lego (yes, that Lego), spanning 3 hours and 29 minutes, which provides recordings of someone building with Lego. It is a streaming only link, which is described as a collection of soundscapes designed to promote relaxation and mindfulness. You should check it out. Aco A A A A Ac Aco Aco Aco Aco A Aco A Aco Aco Aco A A Aco co co c c Aco Ac Aco Aco Aco Aco Aco Aco Aco o Aco A A A Ac A Aco Aco Aco A A A Aco co co Ac Aco Aco co co A Aco A A A Ac Aco Ac Aco Aco c co co co co co co A A Aco Aco Aco A A Aco A A Aco co c Aco Aco Aco o A A Aco Aco Aco Ac Ac co co Aco co co A A A A Ac c co i ia a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 49 49 4 49 9 9 9 9 9 49 4 4 4 49 49 49 9 9 9 9 9 4 4 49 49 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 49 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 49 9 9 9 49 9 9 4 49 4 49 9 9 9 49 9 9 9 49 No No No No No No N N N N No N N N No N No No No No N N N N N No N N No N No N N No No No N N No N N No N N N N N No o o N N N N N N No No No N N N N No No N N N No N N N No o o o No o N No o N N N No N N N N N No 3 3 3 3 3 3 . 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 02 02 02 02 02 2 02 02 2 02 2 2 02 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 02 2 2 02 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Environment Line (Enviroline) [1] handles general enquiries about environmental issues and takes action on reports of pollution for which the EPA has regulatory responsibilities, including noise enquiries. Where the EPA is not the appropriate regulatory authority, Enviroline will provide advice on who can respond to the enquiry and take action, for example, a local council. Noise enquiries are categorised based on the source or type of noise and include: • animals, • commercial, • construction, • neighbourhood, • transport, • technical and • vehicle defect. During 2020, a number of restrictions were put in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic through NSW Public Health Orders [2]. These Orders affected the daily lives and activities of almost everyone in NSW. At times, these Orders included restrictions on movement and business operations, and encouraged people to work from home where possible [2, 3]. The movement of people around NSW was significantly reduced, particularly during the first half of 2020. This saw the traffic volumes on significant roads in Sydney and across the state fall noticeably, compared to previous years [4]. Data from January 2014 to December 2020 was analysed to consider: • A month-by-month analysis of the volume of enquiries throughout 2020. • Comparisons with historical averages since 2014. • A timeline of pertinent COVID-19 Public Health Orders tracked against trends in Enviroline enquiries. Enviroline received an average of around 3,300 enquiries related to noise per year (standard deviation of around 360) between 2014 and 2019. There is some natural variation from year to year depending on a number of different factors, such as major infrastructure projects and so on. In 2020, Enviroline received just over 4,600 enquiries related to noise. Figure 1 presents the average monthly total number of enquiries for 2014-2019 and the number of enquiries per month in 2020. To understand what might be driving the increase in noise related enquiries, the number of enquiries per sub-category was reviewed for historical averages and in 2020. with rank one having the highest number of enquiries. Within one standard deviation of the average number of calls per month, the deviation from the average rank is typically 1 rank for technical, animals, neighbourhood, and vehicle defect and 1 to 3 ranks for construction, commercial and transport. This indicates that the number of calls per month per sub-category is similar from year to year for most sub-categories. Figure 3 shows the ranking for 2020. Figure 2 indicates that generally issues don't have much monthto-month variation moving one or two spots in the ranking, with neighbourhood and vehicle defect subcategories in the top two spots all year. The ranking in 2020 is noticeably different from the historical data. During 2020, construction was the top ranked noise issue in March and April, when in 2014-2019 it was ranked third or lower behind neighbourhood and vehicle defect noise. From June 2020 onwards, construction noise returned to a rank similar to historical averages and in some cases ranked lower. Enviroline enquiries relating to the 'commercial' sub-category Table 1 shows that there was a significant increase in the total volumes of enquiries in April 2020 compared to the 2014-2019 average. Enquiries regarding construction and transport noise increased by more than 100% compared to the historical average. However, significant increases were also seen in commercial, neighbourhood and technical sub-categories. Animal-related enquiries generally decreased significantly compared with previous years. The The data shows a very large increase in the volume of enquiries in April compared to historical averages, a trend which continued for much of the rest of the year. Although this analysis cannot empirically determine the direct cause of these increases, a number of factors may contribute and could include: • A large shift to working and studying from home would have exposed more people for a greater duration to noise they would not necessarily have been exposed to if attending a place of work or study prior to the pandemic. • A noticeable decrease in ambient and background noise levels could contribute to other noise sources becoming more noticeable. The decrease could be contributed to by: Vehicle defect enquiries were generally ranked lower in 2020 than historical averages, overtaken by increased enquiries for construction and commercial noise earlier in the year, followed briefly by transportation noise, before returning to historical average trends at the end of the year. In addition to the ranking of enquiries, the change in the number of enquiries was reviewed. • An increase in the duration of exposure to noise due to temporary planning orders extending construction work site hours and other business operating hours e.g. supermarkets. • An increase in home delivery services. • Psychological factors such as: o increased social disruption and isolation potentially leading to increased sensitivity to noise; o attitudes towards the perceived fairness of some businesses and work sites operating when others have been ordered to close; and o personal beliefs and attitudes towards sources of noise. • Re-habituation to noise sources after restrictions were eased with ambient and background noise levels increasing and sources re-entering the ambient noise environment. The EPA's Environment Line experienced a significant increase in noise-related enquiries during 2020, coinciding with restrictions introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant increase in enquiries from April 2020 was largely driven by construction noise and continued throughout 2020 alongside transport, neighbourhood, vehicle defect and commercial noise. A number of possible factors which contributed to the increase in enquiries have been discussed, however it is not possible to definitively determine the cause, and the increase in enquiries is likely to be a combination of factors which may be driven by the changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. [ Land-use planning and assessment is envisaged by many to involve orderly and uncontentious procedures contributing constructively to how we protect community assets and the environment more generally. However many decisions are made in a local or parochial context with an underlying assumption that impacts and outcomes are close proximity effects in both distance and in time. These local decisions can lead to cumulative outcomes that, sometimes instantly but more commonly progressively, entirely change the nature of nearby lands. This insular perspective is allowed perpetuate by the absence of legislative definitions for fundamentally important terms -impact, amenity and reasonableness -leading to assessment reports that do not consider the potential impact from a proposed land use in an appropriate way. This has aggravated public misunderstanding of the assessment process such that expectations and outcomes are commonly disarticulated. Acoustical assessment reports frequently refer to amenity loosely and encourage an emphasis on sound level criteria referencing sometimes inappropriate regulatory authorities. This paper examines the issues involved in these circumstances and attempts to establish more rigorous procedural foundations that may help ameliorate the risk of unsatisfactory unforeseen outcomes. Land-use planning laws pre-condition approval to implement a proposed land-use on, generally, a predicted outcome that the subject land-use will not impact adversely on the amenity of surrounding areas. Functionally, conforming with this precondition requires that the way in which a proposed land-use will function can be understood, that the effects from those functions can be quantified, that the method of prediction of the impact will be confidently understood and that the operating conditions and the outcomes can be retrospectively validated. Regardless of these uncertainties, the two key words relevant to such a review and decision are impact and amenity. Neither are legislatively defined. This has allowed acoustics to be incorrectly perceived as a synonym for amenity and for professional reporting referencing many regulatory procedures to be interpreted, incorrectly, as the assessment of amenity impact. The following definition for environmental impact was adopted by the Commonwealth Government Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise [Commonwealth of Australia,1995] : "The environmental impact of an action is the difference between the state or condition of the environment which occurs as a result of that action being taken or withheld, and the state or condition which would otherwise occur." [Hede,1993] This definition can be easily adapted from environmental impact to amenity impact predicted for a proposed land use, thus: The impact of a land use on the amenity at a location is the difference between the ambient state or condition of the amenity at that location and the state or condition of the amenity at that location including the effects due to the land use. That is, the impacts on amenity arising from a proposed land use can only be considered by examining, carefully, the factors affecting the amenity of the surrounding land and then examining how these factors may change should the proposed land use be allowed occur. Amenity, however, is complex. The following is an aggregate definition for amenity, consequential to decisions of the High Court of Australia [High Court of Australia,1970] and the NSW Land and Environment Court [Lloyd,2003] , and to guidelines of the Victoria Government Solicitor's Office [Victorian Government Solicitor's Office,2008] : "The pleasantness of a place, being influenced by the environmental parameters -sound, air quality, odour, climate -describing the place. All the features, benefits and advantages inherent in the environment of the place, its social framework and its conveniences. Amenity describes the intrinsic values able to be experienced by an occupant of the place." [Fitzell,2021] Amenity could constitute any or all of the following, one of whichenvironmental conditions -relates to acoustics: • Social and physical accessibility • Availability of public transport • Proximity to "amenities" such as shops, entertainment, parkland or relaxation areas, sporting areas. • The range and pleasantness of available environmental conditions • Unspoiled environmental conditions in the case of pristine lands and wilderness areas • Proximity and access to pristine lands and wilderness areas The NSW Land and Environment Court clearly deems amenity and noise to be different considerations, in s 12 (b3) of the Trees Act [NSW Land and Environment Court,2006 ] and the broad scope of amenity is noted in s 79C(1)(b) of the EP&A Act of NSW. There is a further overlay in the application of these laws for a land-use planning assessment, being assumptions regarding the concept of "reasonableness". Acting reasonably is a statement that can bring a warm and comfortably fuzzy feeling when used in a context describing land uses in an inquisitive report, however the use of the term conveys more responsibility to all parties, particularly advisors, than many may be aware. Among other outcomes, the broad definition of amenity outlined above explains why residents choose to live in diverse locations -CBD, urban and suburban areas -with widespread satisfaction. It also explains why residents may choose to live in multipleoccupancy apartment buildings and in free-standing dwellings, accepting the fundamental acoustical differences that exist between those dwelling types, again with widespread satisfaction. Ambient sound level conditions alone cannot and do not describe amenity although their magnitude may contribute to an overall acoustic amenity. A range or limit defined by sound pressure levels may be consistent with aspects fundamental to amenitye.g. very low threshold sound levels are experienced in pristine and wilderness areas -however experience suggests that amenity is more likely associated with the appropriateness of the sounds that contribute to the acoustical environment and their audible information content. Amenity therefore involves value judgements, particularly regarding what is appropriate in any given area soundscape. It would not be surprising if a resident who makes regular use of rail transport is less likely to object to the sound of the railway than one who has chosen to live in a quiet or remote area and who views sound from a new railway as incompatible. Community misunderstanding of acoustic assessment procedures can be aggravated by poorly considered terminology and argument implied by land-use application reporting. A low level constant drone may be equally or more offensive than audible events. Sound level alone is (almost) unrelated to amenity. This misunderstanding is aggravated by the use of levels described as amenity criteria by the NSW EPA in the Industrial Noise Policy, without explanation that the context of criteria stated in that document was derivation for industrially zoned lands. These apply, therefore, to controls on impact on lands characterised in their ambient condition by sound from industry. Offence due to noise is a subjective anthropogenic response. Amenity is a composite property relating to anthropogenic comfort and is not a measure of biodiversity or environmental health. Legal decisions are made through a combination of applied legal principles within a framework of case-dependent facts. However what is and is not reasonable is tied to the notion of risk, being the product of the probability of occurrence and severity of outcome. [Kneer,2021] . It is important to recognise the importance of the term "reasonable" applying to either or both sound pressure level measurement and land-use impact assessment. The term "reasonable" is a legal construct in a similar way to "the common man". When considering a legal land-use planning decision, the common man -a legal invention -personifies the actions of the assumed participants and seeks to avoid decision being based on behaviours and reactions that are unique, remarkable, special or atypical. A legal decision is based on legal standards embodying social values. These values are somewhat localised to the particular standard, whereas reasonable people take account of foreseeable risks having regard to serious possibilities and probabilities [MacCormick,1999] . The term "reasonable" clearly attaches to the giving of advice and describes the context and diligence adopted by an assessor. The legal intent of this term is described by MacCormick by example of reasonable care in a manufacturing process [MacCormick,1999] MacCormick proposes that the use of the term reasonable lies in the style of deliberation a person would normally engage in, that these deliberations are context dependent, and that reasonable behaviour as an advisor is more strongly identified by the consideration of risk undertaken in advance, than of the actual outcome. A constructive way to consider the risk attached to each element in an advisory study is to pose the question: How likely is it that the value/s attached to this element will differ from the value/s used in the assessment, and how serious is the difference in the outcome that would arise if that value were to be different? This is a more searching consideration and is as much, or more, dependent on being able to explain the inevitable variance that will apply to most elements of a technical assessment than it is to being able to state what sound level has been adopted for the source levels in an assessment review. Preston [Preston,2018] notes the scope of allegations of negligence to include failure to "use due care…to…prevent reasonably foreseeable harm… from…ordinary use or reasonably foreseeable misuse". Reasonable care in the giving of information or advice refers to the consideration of risk recognisable to the assessor and is not a value judgement referring to the intended behaviour of the proposed land-user or of the actual attitudes of the affected neighbourhood. The onus of responsibility to consider impact reasonably lies with the actions of the assessor, not the assumptions made about how the stakeholders will behave. A qualification attaching to the use of the term "reasonable" in an advisory report when referring to input risks -e.g. land user behaviour and affected neighbourhood reaction -is that the advisor must be able to describe the risks and how they have been accounted in relying on that term. Evaluating an ambient acoustical environment reasonably, again in the context above, also involves consideration of the ambient environment, for which an impact assessment based on an LA90 ambient sound level is entirely and almost irrelevantly inadequate. [Fitzell, 2019a] In describing acoustical amenity for any given location, an assessor should recognise that there will normally exist a continuum from non-associated and interpretively bland ambient sound elements through to associated sound, the latter being characteristics that often represent the desirable features representing value in the acoustical environment. Technically, the non-associated sound content probably describes the content of the LA90. Both non-associated and associated sounds are, by their existence, appropriate and both warrant description. Existing or predicted sound that is recognised as contra-associated is the component that should be described as noise. Noise is a composite function definable in both sound pressure level and subjective content. This is the means to identify, and therefore potentially quantify, the impact of loud noise events in an area that is already characterised by sound from road traffic and to distinguish those loud events from, for example, the loud events generated by wildlife. The most common basis used to assess risk in assumptions regarding the levels of sound defining a source is to examine the expected mean value of a source output and of its expected variance. Describing a level as being the "worst case" is both undesirable and concealing, as there can is no way that an independent reviewer can judge the validity of the claim, nor can the claim ever be proven. It can be misunderstood that a confidence interval calculated from the mean and the standard deviation of a relatively small set of sampled values defines the range within which the mean value of a subsequent similar sample would be expected to lie, were that same survey to be repeated. In this case the value of the upper bound of the confidence interval represents a "safe" estimate for a value, determined by survey, that could still be exceeded 50 percent of the time. If the survey data sample size is very large then the upper bound of the 90th percentile confidence interval based on data mean and standard deviation trends to the 90th percentile value of the expected range of instantaneous sound levels emitted by that source, however even the use of the mean value from that very large sample remains a value that is confidently exceeded with a probability of 50 percent. Given the difficulty entailed in obtaining large numbers of reliable source level assessments for most stochastically varying sources, any assessment determined using simply a mean value survey finding could not be considered reasonable. More commonly, a linear regression model may be used to determine, for example, vehicle sound power emission level as a function of vehicle speed. However, in this instance the collection of sampled values from which the linear model was derived almost certainly involved a scatter of data both higher and lower than the predictive model. These scattered data values are known as residuals and convey important information regarding the expected error-risk contained in a level prediction compared with simply an R-squared model regression coefficient. An expected value derived from a linear model should be recognised as a mean value for the modelled condition, to which an appropriate and reasonable provision for variance should be added. Consideration of risk must include consideration of how the expected level allocated to sources used in an assessment will vary -including those levels defined as ambient values -and how those levels may be influenced by aspects of the proposed land use activity. The importance of cumulative impact is inadequately considered and is rarely mentioned in land-use applications. Recent decisions in the NSW Land and Environment Court [Preston, 2019] signal that ignoring the importance of cumulative impact may become a more significant risk to applicants than in the past. An attempt is made in EPA regulations to recognise cumulative acoustical impact, however not only are the EPA procedures unable to examine impact effectively, the planning laws do not generally respond adequately to cumulative consequences nor expect a procedural review to include focus on cumulative impacts. This is an almost inevitable consequence of the absence of a statutory definition for impact and to the absence of zoned land use objectives. Planning laws frequently identify preferred or approved uses as a project type [NSW Government,2006] but not in any manner that can be related to either impact or amenity. Contrary to procedures that recognise the relevance of cumulative impacts on amenity and environmental degradation, approval of a small commercial precinct, for example, in a quiet rural town under current planning principles, justified by expectation that the availability of facilities will balance or outweigh any negative environmental impacts, establishes consequent acoustical conditions that then ensure a subsequent, potentially larger, precinct is made more readily approved. Current acoustical impact management tends to be limited to considering the equivalent energy level generated by a land use and comparing it with the 10th percentile level of the ambient, the LA90, and to represent those limit conditions as being both acceptable and evidencing little or no environmental compromise. Considering larger data sets of environmental acoustic sound levels, the LAeq level tends to be innately higher than the LA90 level by about 6.5dB(A) daytime and evening, and about 9dB(A) at night [Fitzell,2019b] . The average difference between what is currently termed the background noise level (the ambient LA90 sound level) for one land classification and that of the adjacent land classification is about 6.5dB(A). That is, the LA90 level for what was, say, a quiet residential living environment will be about 6.5dB quieter than that of an urban living environment. The mathematics of these relationships is such that as few as three acoustically comparable land use changes will result in unambiguous change to the fundamental acoustical environment that had originally existed. In NSW, development is controlled by Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) and associated Development Control Plans (DCPs). Whilst LEPs have legislative authority within a specific local government area they have been prepared in compliance with a standard planning instrument [NSW Government,2006] . Consequently many LEPs invoke substantially similar regulatory controls and define approved and prohibited land uses on a land-zoning basis. Two clauses have received widespread attention in the application for consent to carry out activities that are, under the subject land zoning, a prohibited usea temporary use clause 2.8 and a Heritage considerations Clause 5.10. The clauses having relevance to acoustic assessment are 2.8 (1), 2.8(3), and 5.10 (10). These relate to impact on amenity and environmental attributes. The pre-condition requirements of 2.8 (3) subclauses (a) through (d) and in 5.10.10 subclauses (a) through (e) are clearly conjunctive and require, in each circumstance, that the relevant subclause conditions are wholly satisfied. These clauses are exampled below in Table 2and a review shows that the obligation of an applicant is to satisfy conditions under one clause that are described as having no adverse impact, and under the second of resulting in no significant adverse impact. Impact and amenity have been discussed above. An adverse impact and a significant adverse impact are clearly legal judgements required to be made on the legal facts of each circumstance. These clauses therefore involve fundamental considerations on how one defines impact, amenity, reasonableness and, for the consideration of Schedule 5 concession pre-conditions, the meaning of the term significant. an appeal against a development consent decision made under an equivalent clause to the Model LEP 2.8, stated that the error in granting approval was that "this was done in terms that do not reflect what is required by this element of the clause" and that "the commencement path leading to error commences …. assuming that the appropriate technical lens through which …. application should be viewed is whether or not an approved development …. could be rendered compliant with technical standards derived from those applied by an external regulator" (in that particular case the OLGR). "Those standards envisage merely an acceptable impact rather than absence of adverse impact". The commissioner also noted that "Nowhere in the analysis … is there set out any cautionary warning …. nor that draws attention … that the test differs from that which would be conventionally applicable to an ordinary development application". Marshall describes important fundamental obligations of the approval authority and of professionals preparing reports on matters relevant to Clause 2.8 of the LEP, providing a clear basis for the interpretation of the impact magnitude implied by the condition "not adversely impact". (1) The objective of this clause is to provide for the temporary use of land if the use does not compromise future development of the land, or have detrimental economic, social, amenity or environmental effects on the land. (2) Despite any other provision of this Plan, development consent may be granted for development on land in any zone for a temporary use for a maximum period of 52 days (whether or not consecutive days) in any period of 12 months. (3) Development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the temporary use will not prejudice the subsequent carrying out of development on the land in accordance with this Plan and any other applicable environmental planning instrument, and (b) the temporary use will not adversely impact on any adjoining land or the amenity of the neighbourhood, and (c) the temporary use and location of any structures related to the use will not adversely impact on environmental attributes or features of the land, or increase the risk of natural hazards that may affect the land, and (d) at the end of the temporary use period the land will, as far as is practicable, be restored to the condition in which it was before the commencement of the use. (4) Despite subclause (2), the temporary use of a dwelling as a sales office for a new release area or a new housing estate may exceed the maximum number of days specified in that subclause. (5) Subclause (3) (d) does not apply to the temporary use of a dwelling as a sales office mentioned in subclause (4). Marshall also gives guidance relevant to Clause 5.10 (10) in so far as the Marshall decision notes the distinction between "an acceptable impact rather than absence of adverse impact". The terms used in the Marshall judgement would suggest that a significant adverse impact would describe an impact that is beyond that which represents an acceptable impact. In this context satisfaction of 5.10(10) could require standards that could be related, for each specific proposed use, to those that would be required by an external regulator. The policy standards adopted by the EPA do not enable assessment of impact as the considerations of these policies are unable to consider the above impact definition, instead being focussed on measures of pollution. In an example of a function centre or dining facility, where alcohol would be made available, limits for noise emission could contemplate criteria such as those historically required by the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, because those standards relate to a relatively rigorous evaluation of existing or ambient conditions and impose a limit to the magnitude of change permitted to those ambient conditions. It is relevant, however, that the OLGR is an Authority able to rescind a license in the event of continued transgression, an authority encouraging compliance that an approval condition by a local council would lack. Magnitude of acoustical impact can be quantified using statistical simulation and summation, however the magnitudes that correspond to these subjective considerations have yet to be determined. An acceptable magnitude of impact is, however, one that considers and deals appropriately with foreseeable cumulative impacts. The magnitude of an acoustical impact determined by these techniques, in parallel with an appropriate land-use development policy, can be defined. [Fitzell,2019a] The acoustic advisor In land-use planning the role of the acoustic advisor is not to state what is acceptable, but to describe how the acoustical aspects of a proposed land use may relate to or may affect the amenity of the existing acoustical environment. This cannot be achieved by the current assessment paradigm, primarily because the current paradigm has evolved from a pollution-management perspective focussing on the concept of absolute sound pressure levels and is unable to describe impactmanagement. It also places little emphasis on the soundscape describing a potentially affected area from which the acoustical amenity is likely to be perceived. If a relevant risk for a particular project in NSW is that the development may not comply with the conditions required by the Industrial Noise Policy, then an assessment against the criteria of that document is clearly an appropriate procedure. For most land use assessments, however, not only does the Industrial Noise Policy not apply, but the Policy does not consider or examine amenity. An assessment of risk that a development proposal will have impact on existing ambient sound levels, or of audible and undesirable noise being resultant, cannot be made without reference to an appropriate description of ambient sound levels and conditions. It is certainly not possible to make a prediction based on comparison of a predicted outcome level with an ambient sound level LA90 limited to a threshold of 30dB, as is often presented in assessments made in NSW. As regards assessment sound pressure levels generally, relying on the use of a mean value predicted source level for an impact prediction gives an unsatisfactory answer to the question of risk posed earlier. The probability that both level and impact will be higher than the stated outcome of the assessment has to be acknowledged as 50%. The responsibilities of the acoustic advisor to consider risk require that advisor to be able to inform a reader far more than simply an adopted design or assessment level. The role of the regulator is to require and ensure that an applicant describes the impact associated with a land-use proposal application on an existing amenity, in the broad sense described above. This requires a description and commitment to the operational demeanour of a proposal, involving specification of both times of operations and the nature of those operations. An acoustical impact assessment that is unable to provide an examination in the same context is unlikely to be of any use. The role of the Planner is to amalgamate these, often contrasting, impacts on amenity into an overall outcome. Where a development proposal can claim a justified improvement to community conveniences, contributing positively to amenity so far as it relates to functional locality facilities, there may be opportunity to balance with other consequential effects on the existing amenity. This is a critical role as the reasonableness of an outcome impact on amenity is a multi-disciplinary equation that requires the illumination of amenity gains if there are perceived amenity losses. Indeed, the NSW Land and Environment Court [Pepper,2016] has held that cumulative impact is a relevant consideration under the Planning Act. Adopting a commonly observable strategy of denial that any adverse impact will occur for each and any aspect likely to be associated with an appliciation, instead of constructively identifying the aggregate of both positive and negative amenity outcomes including cumulative impacts, is simply poor planning. The role of researchers is to seek better understanding of the mechanisms interfacing between each of the parameters contributing to amenity. In relation to acoustical amenity, an obvious focus is on how the extensive body of knowledge on soundscapes can be amalgamated with more rigorous sound level modelling. The current environmental sound modelling paradigm is too simplistic to provide a searching basis supporting objective soundscape interpretation. When compared with acoustic design work for the built environment, environmental acoustic design and assessment involves far more complex considerations to give meaning to the term "fitness for purpose". In contrast to design and assessment concerning environmental acoustics, the built environment implementation period is short, the utilisation period relatively short, with functional design objectives usually being able to reference requirements of either an owner or an end user. Cumulative effects are almost inconsequential. Uncertainty in defining environmental acoustic design objectives is aggravated by the fact that neither impact nor amenity are legally defined terms, yet both are primary pre-requisites that land-use legislation requires an applicant to consider. This places inappropriate pressure on professional advisors engaged to assist an applicant in the preparation of application design and documentation. One outcome is a community perspective that advisors are advocates for the applicant instead of advisors to the applicant and to the authority approval process. The importance of cumulative impact is insufficiently considered in land-use planning assessment. In NSW the relevance of cumulatively acoustical impacting effects is aggravated by inappropriate use of the term "amenity" in NSW EPA policy documents and by the promulgation of policy permitting the use of a background sound level threshold limit. The same concern may well apply to other, more environmentally critical, policy areas. Cumulative effects relate to long-term values, long-term outcomes and inter-generational equity. The mathematics of typical acoustical assessment conditions show that cumulative impact effects are more significant than are those of immediate or short-term impacts, yet they are almost ignored at local and state government policy level. Today there are more and more gyms conveniently located in hotels, multi-residential apartments, mixed-use developments and commercial buildings. This growing trend of having a gym close by, especially those offering 24-hour accessibility, continues to pose a threat to the acoustic amenity of the adjacent buildings or living spaces. That's why at REGUPOL we tailor sound insulation floor designs to each application, based on its type, scope, intensity, and building structure. The REGUPOL sonusfit product ranges combine functional sports properties with highly effective sound insulation. This combination of elastic acoustic underlay with high performing rubber flooring is why REGUPOL is highly recognised in the fitness industry for its problem solving flooring solutions. Due to the current pandemic situation, and to avoid any potential inconveniences and risks to the participants, the organizing committee of EuroNoise 2021 Congress has decided to turn EuroNoise 2021 into a "e-Congress", taking place as an onlineonly event. The final dates for the congress are now completely stabilized, and the event will take place from 25th to 27th of October, 2021. EuroNoise 2021 will be organized by the Portuguese Acoustical Society (SPA), on behalf of the European Acoustical Association (EAA) and will also integrate the Iberian Encounter of Acoustics and the Spanish Congress of Acoustics -Tecniacústica2021, in cooperation with the Spanish Acoustical Society (SEA). The technical program of this Congress will cover the main topics of acoustics, including the classical themes and the most recently developed areas. A technical exhibition will be held during the Congress days, also in an online format, ensuring maximum visibility for the attendees and other interested people. http://www.spacustica.pt/euronoise2021/ p p p Acoustics 2021 -Wollongong NSW The NSW Division of the Australian Acoustical Society warmly invites all members of the acoustics community to attend Acoustics 2021 -Making Waves, Wollongong in the spectacular Illawarra Region. To be held from 21-23 February, the technical program promises to be of great interest to all-comers, covering a full range of topics from active noise control through to musical and bio-acoustics as well as the regular areas such as transportation and environmental noise. Acoustics 2021 -Making Waves will mark a welcome return to the hosting of physical conferences and will not feature an online option. Several internationally recognised keynote speakers, along with local leaders in their field will be in attendance, combined with a trade exhibition of all the latest and greatest equipment, products and services making this a high quality event. The venue is the recently renovated Novotel North Beach, located right on North Wollongong beach and featuring high quality conference facilities as well as bars, pools, coffee shops, restaurants, and rooms with views of either the amazing escarpment, or all the way along the coast to Sydney. So, take the opportunity to come along to the beautiful NSW South Coast and enjoy For latest information check the link from www.acoustics.org.au g Under the extraordinary world we are living in at the time this goes to press there is great uncertainty regarding future meetings nationally and internationally. Some meeting organisers have bravely advised postponed dates, others have converted to e-conferences and others are yet to confirm if the meeting will go ahead. Acoustics Australia take no responsibility for the accuracy of the listings below and recommends that you seek the latest details from the news flashes on the respective web pages for the conference website. Additional meetings may be listed on the ICA calendar at: -http://www.icacommission.org/calendar.html p g ICA2022, to be held on behalf of the International Commission for Acoustics will be held in Gyeongju, Korea, October 24 to 28, 2022 and will offer the unique opportunity to learn about the study and latest research as well as to exchange ideas and information on acoustics through plenary lectures, technical sessions, and poster presentations. In addition, various social programs have been planned for participants to enjoy the fascinating Korean culture and share our warm spirit of friendship. Koreans have a well-known love of music, from K-pop to Western classical music to reinterpretations of traditional Korean music. It follows then that Koreans are highly sensitive to the quality of sound, not only in musical instruments but also in everyday products and spaces. Thus, our technical advancement in acoustics is tied to centuries of musical appreciation. As the cradle of the country's religion, philosophy, arts and of course, music, Gyeongju can offer visitors an insight into the development of acoustics in Korea. Furthermore, the entire city is an open-air museum full of ancient sites and treasures which include three UNESCO World Heritage Sites. In short, the unique and authentic glimpse of Korean culture through Gyeongju City into Korean culture makes it the ideal backdrop for ICA2022. We look forward to seeing you in Gyeongju, Korea. Whether it is for compliance or quality assurance, when it comes to product noise testing, it is essential to have a sound level meter that gets your job done first time, every time and without hassle. The new B&K 2245 Product Noise gives you absolute confidence and control through user-friendly mobile apps and functionality tailored for your task, including test process guidance, wireless data transfer, instant analysis and results, smart data handling on your PC, and more. B&K 2245 is type approved by PTB. To simplify your job-to-do, visit www.bksv.com/2245 Perry Properties Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council Report of the Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in Sydney Noise impact and its magnitude Expected ambient noise levels in different land-use areas Statistical simulation modelling for stochastically varying acoustical systems and its application to the assessment of impact and amenity, informing improved environmental and land-use planning Impact descriptors versus exposure indices in environmental assessment Allen Commercial Construction Pty Ltd v North Sydney Municipal Council (1970) 123 CLR 490 Reasonableness on the Clapham Omnibus: Exploring the outcome-sensitive folk concept of reasonable Judicial Decision Making: Integrating Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives New Century Developments Pty Limited v Baulkham Hills Shire Council Reasonableness and Objectivity NSWLEC 197 NSW Government "Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act Friends of Tumblebee Incorporated v ATB Morton Pty Limited Gloucester Resources Limited v Mindistor for Planning Mapping Climate Change Litigation What is amenity?" VGSO Client Newsletter The Author wishes to acknowledge the assistance and work of the EPA's Environment Line team in preparing this article. The Acoustical Society of New Zealand (ASNZ) and Australian Acoustical Society (AAS) Joint Conference will be held at Te Papa Tongarewa Museum in Wellington New Zealand, from 31 October -2 November 2022.Acoustics 2022 will provide a unique opportunity for manufacturers and suppliers to showcase the latest developments in acoustic instrumentation, software and noise and vibration control products.Surrounded by nature and fuelled by creative energy, Wellington is a compact city with a powerful mix of culture, history, nature and cuisine. Fuel your visit with strong coffee and world-class craft beer -Wellingtonians are masters of casual dining, with plenty of great restaurants, night markets and food trucks.On the waterfront itself you'll find Te Papa Tongarewa Museum, New Zealand's national museum. Te Papa, as it's colloquially known, means 'our place' and is one of the best interactive museums in the world. We encourage you to save the dates in your calendar and register your expression of interest today to be kept up to date with the latest information and program news.https://www.acoustics2022.com/ p Date Change -10 -12 January 2023.The conference will be a major gathering of researchers, from research establishments and from industry, working in the areas of noise and vibration.The emphasis of the conference is on new and emerging methods, techniques and technologies in acoustics and vibration.As with previous NOVEMs, each day will contain a Keynote Forum, which will bring together key specialists within a common theme, followed by extensive discussion. These themes represent major scientific challenges related to noise and vibration.We look forward to welcoming you to Auckland in January,2023 of structural connections that reduce airborne and impact noise passing through masonry and stud walls. They are suitable when discontinuous construction is required in separating walls and for any specialised room that requires high acoustic isolation. Available in galvanised steel (R1) or stainless steel (R4). ga (