The Scottish Government

Notes:
1 A possible approach is to use a standardised interview method. The Standardised Interview to Assess Domestic Noise Complaints and their Effects ( SIANCE) is a tool that can be used as part of an overall assessment. It is important to note, however, that the interview should only be seen as part of the range of assessment methods available to the assessor. Self-reported effects can be used to determine whether interference from noise has prejudiced an individual's health. However the legal test does not allow for undue sensitivities. It is important, therefore, that noise conditions are verified by an independent and competent Enforcement Officer in order to determine whether the noise is indeed prejudicial to health. It is also important that the assessment is consistent with the consensus of scientific opinion on the effects of noise and is consistent with legal precedent.
Detailed analysis of the validity of SIANCE and results from the field study can be found in the Department of Health Report 'The Development of a Standardised Interview to Assess Domestic Noise Complaints and their Effects' available on the Department of Health website http://www.doh.gov.uk/hef/airpol/sciance.htm .
2 Inevitably, nuisance will also need to be assessed in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the noise constitutes a nuisance or is prejudiced to health.

4.6. Guidance on the Investigation Duty

The local authority duty under section 79 EPA 1990 is two-fold e.g.

• Firstly, the authority is under a duty to inspect its area from time to time in order to detect any statutory nuisances that ought to be dealt with.
• Secondly, where a person living within its area makes a complaint of an alleged statutory nuisance, the Local Authority is under a duty to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint.

Generally, in noise nuisance cases, it is the complaint route that triggers action by local authorities. However, the duty to investigate is not absolute whereby all efforts must be made to investigate at all costs and that an investigation must go on indefinitely even without resolution being foreseeable. Instead, section 79 EPA' 90 only requires that "reasonably practicable" steps are taken to investigate complaints. Consequently, the duty to investigate may be mitigated by:

• physical considerations e.g. the noise is too short in duration, irregular or infrequent for any Council staff to be able to witness; and
• what is reasonably affordable in terms of cost effectiveness and the proper use of local authority resources (See Jordan Vs Norfolk CC 1994 4 All ER 218).

In practice each complaint will have to be judged on its own merits. It follows that the way noise complaints are dealt with is important because it determines decisions about what needs to be done in response to complaints, including any enforcement action that may follow. It is important to encourage consistency in the way enforcement officers approach the task of interviewing complainants. One way of achieving this is to use a standard interviewing instrument e.g. a standardised questionnaire for interviewees or aide memoir for interviewing officers to prompt them to ask appropriate questions. The results obtained will not be conclusive in deciding whether a complaint is sufficient or of a kind to amount to a statutory nuisance. However, self-reported effects can form part of the evidential background enabling the local authority to make a proper decision about whether a complaint amounts to a nuisance, or whether the noise is injurious to health.

4.7. Requirement to Serve an Abatement Notice

The Local Authority has a duty to reach a judgement, i.e. to make a decision about whether a matter or complaint amounts to a statutory nuisance before serving a notice under section 80 of the EPA 1990. In determining whether a noise problem amounts to a statutory nuisance, regard should be had to a number of factors which may indicate whether the assessment of nuisance is appropriate, including:

• the level and type of noise;
• its duration;
• the time of day or night when the noise occurs;
• what measures could reduce or modify the noise;
• the characteristics of the neighbourhood where the noise occurs;
• the number of persons affected; and
• whether best practicable means have been used to control noise emanating from industrial, trade or business premises.

Once an authorised officer has formed the view that a statutory nuisance exists, the local authority is under a duty to serve an abatement notice ⁹. The authority for taking decisions on behalf of the Council can be delegated to a properly authorised officer. Delegation may be effected by Council resolution or standing orders.

In cases involving trade or business premises, the defence of best practicable means may be available to the perpetrator of the nuisance. It may be that an officer considers that, although a nuisance exists, the defence will succeed in the particular case. Whether the defence succeeds is a matter for the court, but it may be appropriate for an officer to consider its availability when forming a view as to whether a statutory nuisance exists. For instance, best practicable means may suggest that the activity is reasonable in the first place and this may clearly not be the case. However, the absence of case law on this point does leave the issue open. If an officer wrongly forms a view that the use of best practicable means suggests that a statutory nuisance does not exist, then the authority is potentially exposed to an action for judicial review by a complainant, or a complaint to the Local Authority Ombudsman ¹⁰.. However, if an effective BPM defence exists it would appear a waste of public funds to pursue this knowing it will be quashed on appeal.

Whilst it has become established practice among a number of Scottish local authorities to adopt an informal approach to complaint resolution, there is nevertheless no authority for delaying the service of a notice to allow time for alternative methods of dispute resolution to be explored. Informal complaint resolution methods may indeed be both cheaper and more effective than taking formal enforcement action but although a short delay may be excused, any significant delay after the judgement has been reached that a statutory nuisance exists, effectively gives the local authority a discretion to which it is not entitled and is in conflict with established case law on the matter ^9,10. While, in practice, there may well be some delay occasioned whilst an abatement notice is being drafted, the delay incurred pursuing an informal route may be considered unreasonable and could expose the local authority to a judicial review by an aggrieved person.

Nevertheless, alternative methods of dispute resolution may be explored, either in parallel with the notice procedure or as a precursor to serving the notice whilst, for example, the investigation is underway to establish the person responsible for the nuisance etc. However it must again be emphasised that the conduct of the investigation, including the pursuit of alternative dispute resolution methods, should not unduly delay the serving of a notice.

It has been determined ¹¹ that it is for the Courts to determine the defence of Best Practicable Means ( BPM) and local authorities should not unduly delay serving abatement notices whilst deciding if a BPM defence exists (in the case cited, the local authority seems to have prevaricated for over 20 months between establishing a nuisance and serving a notice, which is patently excessive).

4.8. Seizure of Equipment

Section 47 of the Anti-Social Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004 empowers an officer of the local authority in whose area the relevant property is situated to seize and remove any equipment which appears to either be being or to have been used in the emission of noise provided that a warning notice has been served in respect of that noise from relevant property and an officer of the local authority believes that, at any time in the period which is specified in the notice has exceeded the permitted level. If the facts of the case warrant such action and it can be shown that abatement notice proceedings are likely to be ineffective, proceedings may be instituted in the High Court under s 81(5) of the EPA 1990.

Section 10(7) of the Act also clarifies Local Authority powers under section 81(3) of the EPA 1990 to seize noise-making equipment from premises. 'Premises' is obviously a wider term than 'dwelling', so this provision applies also to the seizure of equipment from an industrial, trade or business premises or open land. Use of this provision does require that an abatement notice has been served and that the noise offender has failed to comply with it in order that the equipment may be seized. Additionally in order to obtain a warrant to enter the premises an authorised office must be able to demonstrate that entry has been refused, or refusal is apprehended, or the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent, or the case is one of emergency, or giving notice would defeat the object of the entry; and there are reasonable grounds for entry into the premises to seize the noise making equipment e.g. statutory nuisance is on-going or likely to recur.

Alternatively, if a case is serious and urgent enough and it can be shown that use of the abatement notice procedure is likely to be ineffective, an injunction may be obtained from the High Court using the procedure under section 81(5) EPA 1990. A noise offence includes a breach of section 80(4) EPA 1990.

Powers of seizure are dictated by the provisions of the particular statute, which is being employed, see below:

Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, an enforcement officer is entitled to take from the relevant premises such samples or articles as he/she considers necessary for the purposes of discharging any of the Local Authority's functions under the Act; and Local Authority may, whether or not they take proceedings for an offence under section 80(4), abate the nuisance and do whatever may be necessary in execution of the notice. Many Local Authorities have interpreted this power as including seizure of noise making equipment or animals.

• This is obviously a wide power, which in cases of noise nuisance could be used, for example, to seize stereo equipment or possibly barking dogs where owners are absent, etc.
• There exist similar provisions under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

Retention of the property by the Local Authority is strictly only permitted for so long as is necessary for the Local Authority's function under the Act to be discharged although Local Authorities may apply for the equipment to be forfeited and this intention needs to be made clear at the appropriate Court hearing.

The Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004 is an adoptive Act. Therefore, the Act must be adopted in its entirety before noise-producing equipment may be seized under the Act. Local authorities in Scotland have powers of default under s81(3) to deal with nuisances, including noise nuisances where the person concerned has failed to comply with an abatement notice which has been served under s80. The local authority are given powers under s 81(3) to abate the nuisance and do whatever is necessary in the execution of the notice. Reference should also be made to Schedule 3, para 2 to the Act which gives power to authorised persons to enter premises at any time in order to ascertain if a nuisance exists and take any action which is either authorised or required under the Act. Under para (4)(c) authorised officers have the power to take away, inter alia, such articles as is considered necessary for that purpose. 'Articles' would cover, of course, hi-fi equipment, radios, etc.

See Appendix 3.11 for practical guidance on seizing equipment.

4.9. High Court Proceedings

Section 81(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides that if a local authority is of the opinion that the abatement proceedings under the Act would afford an inadequate remedy in the case of a statutory nuisance, the authority may take proceedings to abate the nuisance in any court of competent jurisdiction. It is not necessary that the authority has suffered damage from the nuisance-s81(5). The most common form of proceedings which a local authority would, of course, take is an interdict against the author of a nuisance. On the authority of the English case of Vale of White Horse DC v Allen [1997] Env LR 212 (which concerned proceedings for an injunction), the relevant local authority would require to come to the conclusion that the provisions of s 80(4) would afford an inadequate (as opposed to a less convenient) remedy before it could successfully invoke s80(5). However, before the subsection can be invoked it is not necessary that statutory remedies have been exhausted-Hammersmith LBC v Magnum Automated Forecourts [1978] 1 WLR 50. Furthermore, the terms of the appropriate injunction can be more restrictive than those which are contained in the relevant statutory notice-Lloyds Bank v Guardian Assurance and Trollope and Colls Ltd (1986) 35 Buid. LR 38.

In order to preserve the rights of the parties pending the final determination of the respective rights of the parties the local authority may seek an interim interdict which is a discretionary remedy - see Kelso School Board v Hunter (1874) 2 R 228. A prima facie case requires to be made out- Deanne v Lothian Regional Council 1986 SLT 22. In addition, the so-called,' balance of convenience' between the respective parties must be ascertained - see Highland and Universal Properties Ltd v Safeway Properties Ltd 1996 SLT 559.

See Appendix 7 Question 13 for clarification on the use of Interdicts to control noise.

4.10. Dog Warden Services

Many environmental health services provide a dog warden service employing well-qualified staff experienced in understanding dog behaviour. A number of authorities utilise the expertise of dog wardens in the investigation of alleged noise nuisance complaints as these relate to barking dogs and in some instances noise monitoring is undertaken to provide corroborative evidence for individuals making applications to the District Court for an Order to control a dangerous or annoying creature under the provisions of section 49 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Notwithstanding the local authority's express duties under sections 79 and 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it must be conceded that this latter approach provides for a more practical and expedient route for the resolution of such complaints. - see Appendix 3 for specimen pro-forma application for an Order to the District Court. Comprehensive guidance on dog behaviour management is available in Defra's recently published draft guide Constant Barking Can be Avoided - Offering Guidance for Owners available to be down loaded from www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/dogs/bark.htm

4.11. Alternative Dispute Resolution including Mediation

The term Alternative Dispute Resolution ( ADR) includes a range practices from informal approaches or letters by Council staff to alleged noisemakers, to more structured arbitration and mediation methods. Alternative dispute resolution methods can be successful and may be quicker, cheaper and more effective in cases where a noise dispute exists, than formal use of the statutory nuisance powers. However, Local Authorities are reminded of their duties under sections 79 and 80 respectively of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to take reasonable steps to investigate nuisance complaints and to serve abatement notices when satisfied of statutory nuisance. Consequently, where alternative dispute resolution methods are appropriate they should run in parallel with steps to comply with duties to investigate and take action against statutory nuisances. For example, this could be by holding enforcement of an abatement notice in abeyance whilst mediation was on-going or using any enforceable elements of the agreed outcome or action plan from mediation to form the basis of the requirements of an abatement notice.

Where alternative dispute resolution methods prevent the recurrence or secure abatement of a statutory nuisance during the course of the investigation of a complaint e.g. when officers contact a noise source to establish who is the person responsible for a nuisance and they promptly stop or reduce the noisy activity, then abatement notices need not be served or enforced as the nuisance has been abated.

Many benefits are claimed for mediation, including:

• it allows people to be heard. In some cases, a simple apology from either or both sides is all that is required to put the situation right
• it is an empowering process that encourages people to put forward their own suggestions and ideas
• it is less intimidating than legal procedures, and people represent themselves rather than having someone speak for them
• it provides solutions that the parties themselves have decided on, giving them all a sense of ownership of any agreement. As a result, agreements reached in this way last much better than solutions handed down by Courts or an arbitrator
• it can be organised quickly. When disagreements are not addressed, they can escalate. Mediation is relatively easy to arrange and can be completed within weeks
• it is usually affordable by all. Most neighbour mediation is free to those who want to use it, and many other forms of community mediation are available at a reasonable rate.

Mediation can be very helpful when a situation is stuck or not easily resolved. It works by giving everyone the opportunity to explain their side of the story, and to talk without being interrupted. It is not an 'easy option' - when people are honest and are encouraged to say what they feel, the situation can provoke strong emotions - but once people have had a chance to express their feelings, they are more likely to let go of their hostility.

There are a number of reasons where mediation can be considered to be of benefit to a Local Authority, in particular:

• the mediation process helps to preserve good future relations (between neighbours this is especially important)
• mediation may be less resource intensive than formal action
• the use of statutory enforcement powers can exacerbate a situation, as it can polarise the parties, driving them further apart
• mediation can be more appropriate. For example the environmental health department of a council can only address the dispute in a legal context. However, they cannot sreally deal with the effects of noise on the parties involved, the feelings and emotions. The effects of a low level constant noise that may be within 'acceptable' limits may have a more detrimental effect on a neighbour than a very loud and late party that only happens once a year. Mediation may be useful in tackling noise that falls outside the remit of the environmental health department as well as those within their remit
• mediation is useful for tackling a wider range of problems, of which noise complaint is just symptomatic.

Anti Social Behaviour Orders ( ASBOs) and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts ABCs
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has given rise to the anti-social behaviour order ( ASBO) which is an important addition to the range of measures available to the police and local authorities to tackle anti-social behaviour. Whilst ASBOs would not necessarily be the first recourse in cases where noise nuisance is the main problem, they are an effective way of tackling more serious anti-social behaviour, which may include noise nuisance as one of the key elements of the problem. Circumstances where their use may be appropriate would include dealing with, for example, families whose anti-social behaviour, when challenged, leads to verbal abuse, threats or graffiti, or where noise nuisance is part of a pattern of unruly or harassing behaviour, which intimidates others.

ASBOs Key facts:

• Sheriffs' courts have had powers to make anti-social behaviour orders since 1 April 1999.
• Local authorities and Chief Officers of Police in consultation with one another are able to apply to a Sheriffs' court for an Order to protect the community from the actions of an individual or individuals who cause harassment, alarm or distress to others not in the same household as themselves.
• Proceedings to apply for an Order are civil, not criminal, and the case needs to be proved according to the rules of civil evidence. If an Order is made the defendant will be prohibited from doing anything specified in it. The Order itself will not give the defendant a criminal record.
• A breach of an Order is a criminal offence. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Order has been breached. Where a person is convicted for a breach, the courts can impose stiff penalties of up to five years' imprisonment.
• A strategy for the use of the Orders will be developed as part of the local crime and disorder strategies for each area. The duty, which the local authority and the police share, is to draw up such a strategy.
• ASBOs should be used wherever it is thought that they will be a successful remedy to anti-social behaviour, and where other methods may be less effective. This does not necessarily mean that other methods have to be tried first. In other words, ASBOs are not, as some have suggested, a measure of last resort.

Acceptable Behaviour Contracts have been developed as a pre-cursor to ASBOs and these can be used to control anti-social children and prevent their behaviour deteriorating into serious nuisance and offending. ABCs involve an agreement between the parents, the children themselves, the police and social services, aimed at tackling their anti-social behaviour. These contracts represent a voluntary commitment by the young person to curb his/her behaviour and aim to:

• stop the behaviour rather than punish the offender; and
• encourage the young person to take responsibility for his/her actions.

See Appendix 3.13 for more information on ABCs.

The Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004 has introduced further powers to control anti-social behaviour that can be summarised as follows:

• widen the use of Fixed Penalty Notices - e.g. noise nuisance, truancy, graffiti - and applying them to 12-15 year olds
• powers to require the registration of private sector landlords

Further guidance on the use of Anti-social behaviour powers in Scotland can be found at ( http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/social/acbg-00.asp ).

4.12. Complaint Resolution

Good Practice guidance as to when a complaint can be regarded as resolved has been given in section 4.3.2 above.

The Ombudsman has determined that it is not acceptable for the local authority to assume that a case has been resolved, merely because a complainant has not contacted the Local Authority service after their initial complaint or following contact by Local Authority staff. Instead, local authorities should continue to manage the case, maintain contact with complainants and keep them appraised of progress of their case ¹².. If complainants are simply left "in the dark" about their case they may assume there is nothing the Council can or will do about the problem and consequently "give up" on the local authority and then have to live with an on-going noise problem - a situation that is clearly inequitable.

A good practice example of managing follow up to a notice with time limits for specific action is to send a letter to both the complainant and the recipient of the statutory notice, advising on the imminent expiry of the deadline and requesting a response from both, that the nuisance has either been abated or is still continuing. In this way, a case may be deemed resolved or identified for further action.

4.13. Competence

In order for staff to be able to effectively provide noise services it is critical that they possess the core competencies to provide the service and do the job. Core competencies are the attributes that a member of staff engaged in providing noise services will be expected to demonstrate in undertaking the duties and responsibilities of the post to the required level. Examples of service and personnel expectations as regards core competencies are given below.

4.13.1. Service Expectations

Good practice suggests that local authorities should have systems in place to ensure that a competent service is delivered. In particular, where services are be provided by non-noise specialist staff, the system must be robust enough to ensure that a suitable service is provided. The areas such systems should cover include ensuring staff either already have or are capable of developing the abilities to fulfil the following tasks effectively:

Performance and Commissioning

• Identify, gather, monitor and evaluate information
• Identify and establish breaches of legislation
• Investigate breaches of legislation
• Prepare coherent and cogent reports
• Prepare and present evidence in court
• Sample and test items
• Provide advice and assistance to individuals and organisations
• Contribute to providing educational services.
• Maintain working relations

Customer Services

• Maintain reliable customer service
• Communicate with customers.
• Develop positive working relationships with customers
• Solve problems on behalf of customers

Administrative Standards

• Contribute to the Improvement of Performance
• Contribute to the maintenance of a healthy, safe and effective working environment
• Contribute to the planning, organising and monitoring of work
• Create, develop and maintain effective working relationships
• Research, prepare and supply information

4.13.2. Personnel Expectations

To ensure that personnel are able to demonstrate core competencies, it is good practice that personal specifications and job descriptions for posts recognise the specific education, skills, knowledge and experience that staff engaged in noise work need. Consequently, when appraising applicants and appointing staff to posts involving noise work, managers will have confidence the individual possess the minimum baseline of competence relevant to the work. Personal specifications and job descriptions can also help identify any gaps in existing staff competence and motivation that could be addressed by further training, mentoring or direction etc.

The range of education, skills, knowledge and experience that staff engaged in noise work need in order to be able to carry out all the tasks they are likely to encounter includes:

Possession of the REHIS Diploma in Environmental Health or equivalent qualifications. Posts involving technical assessment of acoustic data and reports may benefit from further qualifications e.g. the Institute of Acoustics ( IOA) Diploma in Acoustics and noise control; the Joint award of REHIS and the IOA Certificate of Competence in Environmental Noise Measurement; or undergraduate or post graduate qualifications in acoustics.

• The ability to demonstrate good interpersonal skills.
• The ability to demonstrate good written and verbal communication skills.
• The ability to liaise effectively with other Local Authority departments and outside agencies e.g. police.
• Knowledge of customer care in service delivery.
• The ability to manage and conclude conflict.
• The ability to negotiate solutions through the powers of persuasion
• The ability to work out of normal office hours.
• Knowledge of legislation and published technical standards and codes of practice covering noise, nuisance, planning, licensing, anti-social behaviour, criminal investigation and their implementation.
• Knowledge of Scottish legal and court procedures.
• The ability to use noise recording and measurement apparatus and to gather, analyse and interpret acoustic data and technical reports
• Knowledge and experience of complaint investigation processes and of enforcement actions.
• Experience or knowledge in the use of information technology.
• The ability to set up, maintain and review records of complaints, investigations and actions.
• The ability to undertake simple research, surveys or other exercises in relation to noise, nuisance and other anti-social behaviour, for enforcement, comparison or monitoring purposes.
• The ability to manage the changing priorities and circumstances of casework and any assigned project work.

4.14. Safety

There are significant safety issues to be addressed by the service, particularly in the investigation of complaints and the associated statutory enforcement in connection with these. Appendix 4 contains detailed advice on lone working in a document produced by Dundee City Council, together with a number of documented risk assessments relating to noise work that have been produced by Edinburgh City Council.

The following is a selection of good practice measures that have variously been applied by different authorities:

A documented risk assessment procedure for visiting sites should always be in place and Safe Working Procedures developed may include one or more of the following:

• joint visits with colleagues or police;
• compliance with the Working Time Regulations 1998, including allowing additional time beyond the statutory minimum for the recuperation of staff after late night out of hours duties, where a documented risk assessment shows this to be appropriate;
• use of radios with panic buttons linked to the control room;
• officers accompanied by buildings' concierges when entering buildings;
• strict adherence to lone working procedures;
• use of anti-stab jackets, particularly during equipment seizures;
• "real person" or computerised 'tracking log' system in operation whereby customer services officer sets priority of complaint and knows of whereabouts of out of hours service officers. Clients are updated on likely response times for dealing with complaint and the whereabouts of field staff are known in case of emergency etc;
• a list of known 'difficult' customers, with guidance on how to deal with them e.g. do not approach or only approach with Police support. This information may not always be held electronically, however, the Data Protection legislation requires that such information, however stored, should be kept confidential to the staff, should be continuously updated, reviewed regularly and destroyed when no longer necessary.

4.15. Inventories (Equipment and other issues)

Where noise level measuring or recording equipment is in use, it is essential to have a record of the technical capabilities and limitations (accuracy) of the equipment together with current calibration certificates. Calibration certificates will in general need to be renewed at two yearly intervals.

4.16. Stakeholder Issues

The authority should regularly review the efficacy and take up of the service.

The aim of the review should be to establish whether all parties are fairly served by the current service, including:

• residents
• local businesses
• ethnic groups
• the elderly
• people with disabilities.

The review should not only concentrate on customer satisfaction and the take up of the service by different groups but also seek to establish whether one section of the community may be disadvantaged by the use of the service. In addressing noise complaints that involve members of the public from ethnic communities, the local authority should adopt a sensitive strategy based upon information and advice from, for example, racial equality councils and community groups, in order to give greater legitimacy to any enforcement action that is decided upon. Use of interpreters and translators for communication with complainants and noisemakers whose own English skills are poor is regarded as good practice. Local Authorities must remain aware that complaints about neighbour noise, in particular, have the potential to be a vehicle for racial harassment and should only take enforcement action when they have independently established statutory nuisance. It remains good practice for the authority to undertake, as a matter of course, ethnic monitoring of all noise complaints to ensure they are enforcing the law in a non-discriminatory way.

4.17. Determination of an Appropriate Planning/Licensing Conditions

Planning Advice Note PAN 56 Planning and Noise gives guidance to local authorities on the use of their statutory planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise in relation to new development. Local authorities must take full cognisance of this document in preparing their local plans.

When determining the degree to which noise control measures are included in the planning or licensing process, it is good practice to take cognisance of the commercial as well as residential requirements of the local area.

Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are:

• necessary
• relevant to planning
• relevant to the development to be permitted
• enforceable
• precise; and
• reasonable in all other respects

Noise emission limits should be stated at specific locations. Examples of model conditions are given in Planning Advice Note PAN 56 Planning and Noise.

The ease and practicability of monitoring compliance with any particular condition should always be considered.

If licensing conditions require that "music is inaudible within nearby habitable rooms", then the interpretation of this should be reasonable and practical in the absence of an agreed objective measure. A typical example would be to listen in the middle of the room or at the bed head and not directly at an open window; however, this is unlikely to be an option that is available to the licensee wishing to monitor his/her own compliance. In such a case the local authority should advise the licensee of the precise music noise level thresholds which may operate within his own premises and which remain inaudible in the target noise sensitive premises.

References

• Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 1833: The Working Time Regulations 1998, ISBN 0 11 079410 9
• Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Building Regulations 2000: Approved Document E - Resistance to the Passage of Sound (2003 Edition) ISBN 0 11 753 642 3
• CIEH, Noise Liaison Guide - Good Practice Guidance for Police and Local Authority Co-operation 1997, ISBN: 0 9001 0370 1
• Environment Agency H3 Horizontal Guidance for Noise Part I Regulation and Permitting
  ISO 9000:2000, Quality Management Systems - Fundamentals and Vocabulary
• ISO 9001:2000, Quality Management Systems - Requirements
• ISO 9004:2000, Quality Management Systems - Guidelines for Performance Improvements
• Mediation UK Case Study: Neighbour Noise - www.mediationuk.org.uk
• Guide to Anti-social Behaviour Order and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts - Home Office guidance: www.crimereduction.gov.uk/asbos9.htm
• Greater London Noise Benchmarking Study Report CIEH 2002
• Environmental Health and Racial Equality - a Guide for Local Authorities published by the Commission for Racial Equality 1994
• Race Equality - Commission for Racial Equality: Statutory Code of Practice for Public Authorities - www.cre.gov.uk
• Gender Equality - Equal Opportunities Commission Good Practice Guide: www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/advice/service_delivery.asp
• Disability Equality - Disability Rights Commission Codes of Practice - www.drc-gb.org/law/codes.asp
• "A Review of the Influence of Meteorological Conditions on Sound Propagation", Ingard, H., Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Vol 75, May 1953.
• Environmental Noise Measurement, Bruel and Kjaer.
• Measuring Sound, September 1984, Bruel and Kjaer.
• Measuring Vibration, September 1982, Bruel and Kjaer.
• Mechanical Vibration and Shock Measurements, Bruel and Kjaer.
• 'Investigation and Assessment of Domestic Noise' - Bernadette Brown, Stephen A. Stansfeld, Colin Cobbing (2002)
• A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects, Dr G Leventall, Dr P Pelmear and Dr S Benton (2003)
• A comparison of Noise Service Surveys, Temple Environmental Consultants Ltd ( DETR Research Study, 1998)
• Audible Intruder Alarm, Survey, Temple Environmental Consultants Ltd ( DETR Research Study, 1998)
• ANC Guidelines - Measurement and Assessment of Groundborne Noise and Vibration (2003).

« Previous | Contents | Next »