Council staff have allowed for increased noise limits for the local mill in Warwick and some councillors say the decision should have been made in chambers.
The SDRC’s approval of Corson’s material change of use application, with conditions attached, raises several questions in the community. Foremost, why did such an impactful decision not come to councillors; why was the noise limit raised despite many noise complaints and Environmental Enforcement order in effect; and why is council now telling residents that council is no longer responsible for noise complaints from the community?
Mayor Melissa Hamilton agrees that Corson’s Maize Mill applied to increase its approved noise limits in response to an Environmental Enforcement Order issued by the Department of Environment, which had been extended. The application was made in March this year.
“Council approved the application subject to a range of conditions aimed at reducing noise impacts on surrounding residents,” Mayor Hamilton said, adding that “these requirements are intended to balance the needs of the business with the expectations of the community,” Mayor Hamilton said.
According to what residents understand, council has lifted the night noise level to background plus 8 dB.
Residents say the noise continues and provided the Town & Country Journal with detailed noise meter readings that indicate high levels of noise coming from the mill operations every day barring weekends. Some residents are so frustrated that they sometimes book motels to escape the din.
“The noise at our property boundary is much higher than this [background plus 8dB],”one resident said, sharing a file full of data recordings that appear to confirm this. The sound level meter is located inside an open door of the house and is set to levels based on human hearing (a normal setting). The results are discouraging.
Yet , the SDRC claims that many of the noise mitigation efforts “have already been completed” and point out that truck movement and loading activities have been restricted to daytime hours. Corson is keen to point out that they are using high tech methods to mitigate noise.
The environmental consultant hired to manage the application to council was forthright about Corson’s quandary. In a cover letter to SDRC CEO Rachel Brophy on 17 March this year, the consultant acknowledged the following:
That the proposed changes “will increase the severity of known impacts” including “permitted acoustic limits” of the pre-existing approval. In the letter, Corson also described the 2025 Environmental Enforcement Order which alleged that the development “was operating in contravention” with noise limits and that “following ongoing acoustic monitoring at the site, it has been determined that the development is unable to comply with the approved noise limits.”
Therefore, the consultant, on behalf of Corson, “seeks to address the Environmental Enforcement Order through amendment to development permit MCU/01970” and ask for “increased noise limits and to implement new acoustic mitigation measures to decrease impacts to the greatest extend possible.”
One councillor who wished to remain anonymous told the paper that the decision “should definitely have come to councillors.”
After the Town & Country Journal ran a story on the issue (see “The sound of a rubber stamp” 6 August), council officials emailed residents and informed them that they can no longer make noise complaints to the SDRC. The Department of the Environment “remain the administering authority for the noise concerns at this property” and provided a 1300 number.
“Council is unable to investigate the noise compliance concerns as council is not the administering authority.”
But same residents were told by the Department of the Environment that following the SDRC approval of the material change of use the “Southern Downs Regional Council became the administering authority responsible for regulating and enforcing the development approval conditions associated with activities at the premises, including those relating to noise and nuisance. As a result of this change, the department is no longer the appropriate authority to investigate these matters. Accordingly, we will now finalise our involvement and close the investigation.”
“I want to know who is taking responsibility,” one resident said. “If no-one is in charge, who are they going to send the complaints to? It is more skull doggery and weaselling.”
Read More: Warwick
