EHJ October 2003 page 292

It can be argued that an integrated approach to policy by the Government is starting to push the issue of noise and noise nuisance up the political agenda. However, the abundance of statutory powers that local authorities are set to receive from recently introduced and proposed legislation look likely to complicate, rather than simplify, matters of enforcement when it comes to dealing with neighbour and neighbourhood noise. In fact, recent debate suggests that many environmental health practitioners are beginning to prepare for these new powers with some trepidation.

In March of this year, the Home Office published the white paper Respect and responsibility – taking a stand against anti-social behaviour, which included a response to noisy neighbours. (EHJ, July, page 196). The subsequent Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, which began its committee stage on 11 September and is expected to become law by the end of the year, has two proposals relating to noise. Local authorities are to be provided with the powers to close licensed premises for up to 24 hours to prevent public nuisance, while changes to the Noise Act 1996 will allow local authorities to issue night noise fixed penalty notices (EHJ, July 2003, page 198).

The Licensing Act, which received royal ascent on 10 July, aims to clamp down on crime, disorder and rowdy anti-social behaviour by modernising alcohol and entertainment licensing to give responsible citizens greater freedom and choice about how they manage their leisure time. (EHJ, January 2003, page 36) To its critics, the deregulation of the alcohol and entertainment laws paves the way for “24-hour opening” in pubs and clubs and is at odds with the provisions of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

In addition, the Fireworks Act, which received royal assent on 18 September, enables the Government to make regulations on a number of firework-related concerns, including firework noise (this issue, page 296).

It is against this background of changing legislation – and developments in noise policy and within local government structure – that the CIEH embarked upon a complete revision of its 1997 noise management guide. A revised draft guide was circulated in July for consultation, which closed in September, and following careful consideration of the comment received, a final guide is expected to be published by the CIEH at the end of the year.

The revised noise management guide replaces the original document in its entirety and aims to provide local authorities with a definitive guidance tool to assist decisions on future policies across a whole range of local authority noise functions. However, it is worth noting that the noise management guide relates primarily to neighbour noise, commercial and industrial noise, public entertainment noise and recreation and leisure noise, and does not address transportation noise.

The problem of neighbourhood noise presents local authorities with one of their most demanding challenges, particularly as there appears to be a strong public perception that noise levels are increasing and that local authorities should be doing more to deal with unreasonably high noise levels in the environment. Neighbour noise, in the guise of music, parties, televisions, raised voices and dogs barking, is the largest single category of complaint made to local authorities. It is also recognised that there may be a “gap” opening up between the public’s expectation of peace and quiet and local authorities’ abilities to resolve problems through the statutory process of nuisance abatement. In addition, the wide variety of complaints regularly received by local authorities highlights the need to take a more flexible approach to the design and delivery of local services.

The CIEH’s annual survey results on noise nuisance show that there was a 9.7 per cent rise in neighbour noise complaints (per million population) between the reporting periods 2000/2001 and 2001/2002. The NSCA published the results of its annual noise survey in June to coincide with noise action day and the campaign group also suggests that noise complaints to local authorities are generally increasing. A press release was issued at the time stating that that noise enforcement officers would like police backing to assist in out of hours noise enforcement, however, it must be noted that the survey results were based on responses from just 112 local authorities.

While on the surface these statistics point to an increase in neighbour noise nuisance, underlying factors could include increased public awareness of local authority services, unrealistic demands as to what the service should deliver and increased intolerance, rather than a rise in actual incidents. There are many factors that lead individuals to complain about noise including:

• the volume (perceived loudness) of the noise;
• duration of the noise;
• the time of day that the noise occurs;
• the inability of the complainant to control the noise;
• the sporadic or unpredictable nature of the noise; and
• the tone of the noise, including low frequency components.1

If local authorities are to deliver effective noise services that address local needs in a sustainable way, then the wide variation in complaints received need to be dealt with flexibly. Speaking at the NSCA noise seminar in Birmingham in September, Howard Price, CIEH principal policy officer pointed out that there is still too much variation in local authority service standards. “Some authorities are clearly not organised to manage noise in a strategic way and there remain some surprising gaps in knowledge.” In addition, he referred to a “lack of corporate approach” when it came to noise management within local authorities. Thus, he said, the revised noise management guide, which has been published jointly between the CIEH and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), is both useful and timely.

The new guide was developed following an extensive literature search and a pilot questionnaire sent to 20 local authorities to gather information on noise and enforcement policy, management strategies and procedures, challenges and key issues, and experiences relating to the existing guide. Following the pilot study, a full questionnaire was circulated to all local authorities, the results of which were used to inform the development of the revised guide. Some of the main findings, which are included in the consultation draft of the guide, include:

• not all local authorities appear to have policy/guidance documents dealing with noise which their authorised officers comply with. It is essential that a minimum policy should be in place;
• where policy/guidance documents were in place, many were found to address relatively few of the major service elements the questionnaire addressed;
• only 8 per cent of respondents had adopted the Noise Act 1996, with an additional 25 per cent prepared to adopt the legislation if the mandatory requirement for a 24/7 noise service was removed;
• 85 per cent of local authorities that responded said that they shared expertise – predominantly on an informal basis; and
• the three primary reasons given as the main obstacles to delivering an effective noise service were personnel resources, funding and the unrealistic expectations of the complainant.

The guide itself comes in two volumes and picks up technical and legal issues, provides good practice examples and detailed references. Promoting a holistic approach to noise and a partnership approach with other agencies, for example the police, the guide discusses the role and responsibilities of EHPs, the recommendations for developing noise strategies, policies and procedures, the role of a noise impact assessment in land use planning and the relationship between noise issues and public entertainment licensing.

This is seen as vital, with the new devolved responsibilities for liquor licensing to local government inevitably creating new challenges while providing new opportunities to achieve better standards of noise management within premises, given the requirement of localised noise impact studies as part of any new licence application.

The document goes on to consider what aspects an effective noise management policy should include, what minimum service standards should be achieved and the issues around “out of hours” service provision. Investigation and enforcement issues are also included and the guide looks at the efforts that should be made to witness noise incidents.
Finally, the guide contains a comprehensive section on the review of noise service including: how to carry out a review; when to review the local noise service; reform of public services; and best value considerations.

As part of the development of the new noise management guide, the CIEH is also working on updating the annual statistics framework. “The data that the CIEH collects each year is all the CIEH and the Government has to go on,” says Mr Price, “and is used to guide government policy.” The statistics framework incorporated into the current guide is out of date and focuses on number of complaints. This has been useful in the past to argue for increased resources, but the survey to date provides little in the way of qualitative data.
In order to inform policy better the annual survey will in future ask about particular noise sources, dropping the “number of complaints” in favour of “numbers of noise incidents” and thus avoiding double counting. The new framework will offer many benefits, and aims to allow:

• the CIEH and Defra to identify areas where policy and guidance needs review;
• local authorities to save time;
• more accurate statistics;
• for an increased rate of returns;
• for more frequent returns; and
• compliance with the e-government targets.

Consultation on the draft guidance – entitled Guidance on the creation and maintenance of effective noise management policies and practice for local authorities and their officers – closed at the end of last month and the CIEH and Defra aim to publish the final document around the end of the year.

References

1. Building Research Establishment (BRE) Investigation of domestic noise complaints. [Ref BRE Report CR 153/92].

For further information and a copy of the draft guidance visit the CIEH web site: www.cieh.org/research/environmental.noisemanagementguide.htm