The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

APPENDIX A LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

1. The literature and policy review is relevant for all aspects of the study objectives, and serves to clarify the key research questions explored through the primary research. The initial desk research reviewed the relevant policy and legislation. This was included as part of the interim report provided earlier for this research study. The review set out below seeks to establish lessons for delivery of noise nuisance services in Scotland; this is found mainly in Temple (2005), but also from other EU countries ( ERM 2002). Insights to the public perception of noise nuisance and the means by which the problems are tackled and alleviated are explored in MORI (2003) research undertaken for DEFRA, covering England and Wales.

Good Practice - Scotland and the rest of the UK

2 Temple (2005) provides a number of examples of good practice in many different areas related to LA noise nuisance services. These examples include existing activities of Scottish Local Authorities as well as a number of examples of good practice from England. Some of the most helpful examples provided in Temple (2005) are outlined below.

Pro-active Initiatives/Preventative Strategies - City of Westminster (Temple, 2005)

3 A good example of a pro-active initiative involves the City of Westminster Council's noise service working actively to seek out nuisances and working in a co-ordinated way with planning and licensing officers on joint enforcement initiatives by:

• Carrying out post planning permission monitoring of compliance with conditions and joint enforcement action with the planning department.
• Pro-actively patrolling high-risk locations for nuisances.
• Inspecting all licensed premises e.g. entertainment establishments, massage parlours, night cafes etc, prior to granting or renewal of licenses.
• Carrying out joint enforcement action with licensing.

Departmental and External Cooperation (Temple, 2005)

Town Planning

4. A number of environmental health services throughout Scotland have established excellent liaison arrangements with their counterparts in the town planning service.

5. In Edinburgh the service receives in the region of 5000 planning referrals per year and has a team of dedicated officers devoted exclusively to vetting planning applications for major developments. One post is funded by planning application fees generated.

6. In Aberdeen the service has a planning liaison officer who acts as a direct interface with the planning service; the officer advises on the circumstances where a noise impact study needs to be undertaken and represents environmental health at all planning service committee meetings.

7. In Dundee regular scoping meetings are held between EHOs, planners, applicants, agents and other relevant parties.

8. In Falkirk the environmental health service has recently started to use Road Noise 2000 software to develop noise contours of the district.

9. In Glasgow EHOs had an input to developing noise policies for the Glasgow City Plan.

Housing - London Borough of Camden (Temple, 2005)

10. The following is extracted and amended from Camden's Nuisance Guidance Notes (June 2003) in Temple (2005):

"Re. Neighbour Noise Complaints from Council Tenants

In most cases a complaint referral to the Environmental Health Team ( EHT) will follow some kind of investigation by the Housing Department.

The EHT will expect to see the following in the referral papers:

• The complainant has been interviewed and informal remedies, such as mediation have been explored and discounted, or tried and failed.
• Interview with alleged perpetrator and at least two attempts/letters inviting the alleged perpetrator to meet and discuss the allegations.
• Full case notes and any relevant history concerning vulnerability of either party.
• Copy of the Noise Incident Form ( NIF) giving details of the complainant, the noise events, the alleged source of the noise, prior history and of any witnesses.
• Noise diaries have been kept or alternatives if complainant has been unable to complete diaries.
• If possible some independent evidence has been gathered, this can be a report for the Weekend Noise Service, caretaker or other council officer, other neighbours etc.
• Copy of the referral form (not all cases papers) should be sent to the Service Level Agreement Monitoring Officer, in the Service Development Team.

The only exceptions to the above will be if a leaseholder is complaining about another leaseholder or a resident is complaining about commercial premises. In these cases a referral directly to EHT will be appropriate.

Housing can expect the following from EHT:

• Notification within 5 working days of the named allocated officer dealing with the case.
• Contact will be made with the complainant and or the alleged perpetrator within 10 working days.
• Case conference meeting at the beginning of a case, to be convened by EHT within 15 days of the referral. All relevant officers to be invited to that meeting - in the case of vulnerable complainants or perpetrators, it may be useful to invite the Support Workers involved.
• Agreement from the above meeting to constitute EHT course of action e.g. installation of sound recording equipment, collection of further evidence leading to Service of Noise Abatement Notice if nuisance does not cease.
• Regular feedback on the case, via email every 21 days.
• Aim to resolve or take action on cases referred within the shortest time limits possible to avoid cases hanging dormant for months and leading to further frustration on the complainant's part.

Monitoring meetings will be held quarterly between the Team Manager of the EHT and the Monitoring Officer in the Service Development Team. The meeting will:

• Review the number of cases referred.
• Review the quality of the referrals.
• Review the time taken on cases.
• Review the numbers of cases closed.
• Review the numbers of cases action taken.
• Review the types of action.
• Review the feedback from either service and or residents.
• Disputes about referrals will be resolved at these meetings."

Liaison with Police (Temple, 2005)

Glasgow City Council

11. Strathclyde Police seconds full time police officers to the council's Environmental Protection service to deal with a range of environmental issues including noise. Many benefits of joint working have been identified including:

• health and safety of officers assured through joint patrols;
• police powers of arrest e.g. when establishing people's identities and in issuing Fixed Penalty Notices; and
• police expertise and experience in evidence gathering and preparing reports for Procurator Fiscal.

Falkirk Council - Car Cruising Events

12. A worthwhile initiative has been established between environmental health service and local police to deal with regular 'car cruising' meets. Once a month approximately 750 cars come into town in an organised rally. A joint liaison group has been set up comprising councillors, transport officers, EHOs, police and members of the cruise organisation. 'Boy racers' are perceived to be a problem since they tag along to these meets and can cause nuisance. Noise control measures include:

• police restricting access to certain residential roads;
• significant police presence (five patrol cars to prevent engine revving and to keep order); and
• EHO performing cursory, indicative vehicle noise tests to assess vehicles' compliance with Construction and Use Regulation limits for noise.

Moray Council - Car Cruising Events

13. Moray Council carried out a number of noise monitoring exercises in order to provide information for the police in respect of car cruising events and the extent to which noise was likely to result in a nuisance within Elgin.

Dundee City Council - Licensed Premises

14. At 02.00 hrs early on a Sunday morning two senior police officers observed music noise to be clearly audible from a city centre pub. The officers visited the premises, warned the licensee and the volume was reduced. The police submitted a detailed report to the environmental health service. Despite the fact that no public complaint had been made about the pub, the EHO visited the premises and gained the agreement of the licensee to address the issue of music noise breakout.

15. Previously musical entertainment noise complaints were investigated in isolation by the receiving agency and it was recognised that a partnership approach would be more effective. The roles of Tayside Police, Environmental Health and the Licensing Board were re-examined and over several months various approaches were trialled before the partners agreed to a workable system and a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) was signed between Tayside Police and Dundee City Council.

16. Matters of musical entertainment noise disturbance are investigated by each agency upon receipt by them and matters dealt with in legally appropriate manner by each. Police officers are encouraged by their line managers to submit reports of each investigation to the Divisional Licensing police officers who in turn forward the information to the EHOs.

17. Consistency and continuity of personnel is important and points of contact limited in both the police and the City Council (2 divisional licensing police and 2 EHOs). EHOs reporting and collating information on behalf of the Licensing Board have made themselves known to all police station sergeants and liaison sergeants and Divisional Licensing police officers in Dundee and vice versa.

18. Encouraging these inter-agency work co-operatives has led to the service expanding beyond what was originally agreed in the MOU. Police officers and EHOs will now arrange joint visits to problem premises, liaise closely and meet regularly to discuss problem premises. Calling cards for EHOs are distributed by police officers when attending such complaints and on occasion police officers will monitor the noise breakout from licensed premises and report this back to the EHOs.

19. Training sessions have been held to raise awareness and promote co-operation among police officers, particularly station and liaison sergeants and some police inspectors and EHOs.

Use of ASBOs to Control Noise - Dundee City Council (Temple, 2005)

20. Dundee City Council has adopted a balanced strategy for dealing with anti-social behaviour ( ASB), focusing on prevention before enforcement. An anti-social behaviour Team was set up in 2001 to provide a coherent and consistent service on neighbour problems initially to council tenants and latterly to victims of anti-social behaviour in other sectors as well. Mediation is used where appropriate and support agencies are contacted to ensure early intervention. Dundee Community Mediation, Dundee Families Project, Housing Support Unit, Environmental Health, Tayside Police, Social services and Community Wardens are all involved and form part of the preventative strategy. Where anti-social behaviour continues, a series of warnings are issued offering the offender the opportunity to rectify his/her behaviour and to access support. However where this fails applications are made through the court for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders ( ASBOs) against the individual. Below is an example of the successful application of an ASBO to resolve a noise problem:

"An ASBO was sought and granted by the court against an individual where problems related to loud music, shouting, singing and banging of doors associated with frequent parties held at the individual's home. Despite several warnings from the Housing Service, the problem persisted. Police had attended on numerous occasions but since it was different officers on each occasion, the individual only ever received verbal warnings. The terms of the ASBO prevented him from playing loud music, shouting or banging of doors in such a manner as to cause a nuisance and after the ASBO was granted, the police had powers to charge the individual in the event of a breach. The individual was aware of the consequences of breaching the ASBO and stopped holding parties at his home altogether. From the perspectives of the neighbours and the council, this outcome constituted a success, as the problem was completely resolved" (Temple, 2005).

Investigating Complaints - London Borough of Southwark (Temple, 2005)

21. The Council issued work instructions to all staff as part of its ISO 9000 Quality Assurance system. Having written procedures and work instructions:

• Provides clear guidance to staff on the minimum standards expected.
• Provides support and advice on how the service standards can be achieved.
• Helps ensure consistency across the staff group charged with providing noise services and the types of cases they have to deal with.
• Encourages good record keeping.
• Leads to greater efficiency.

Computer files can be updated at the end of each shift so that staff working on subsequent shifts can be appraised of new cases, of the progression of existing cases and any personal safety issues that may have arisen.

22. Some Local Authorities have looked at remote working with laptops/palm held computers. Although there are significant benefits, these can be discounted by the disadvantages of carrying them in the field, communication problems and the extra security and personal safety risks using portable IT equipment attracts when used out of the office at night or in crime challenged locations.

Negotiated Solutions - Falkirk Council (Temple, 2005)

23. BP Grangemouth presents special problems to the LA due to its size, relatively close proximity to residential properties (400m to 700m), hiatus in control through the International Plant Protection Convention scheme (not due to come in until 2010) and the ostensible inadequacy of the EPA statutory nuisance provisions i.e. maximum penalty of £20k on summary conviction.

24. Residual noise levels at properties nearest to the refinery are some 15 dB greater than in other parts of the district. Particular problems have been presented by gas flaring incidents at the plant from four tall tower stacks; these occur regularly due to plant breakdown or shutdown. The high level flare, i.e. 120 m high with steam injection to control smoke emissions, produces noise analogous to a jet engine which is loud and disturbing to the residents. Typical noise measurements of such incidents produced levels some 20 to 25 d BA above the endemic residual noise level at property facades. Flaring incidents can, typically, last for days at a time. The environmental health service has successfully negotiated a potential solution with BP through the construction of a low level flare some 20m high and10m in diameter where noise and light will be contained within the base of the structure. The cost to BP will be in the region of £3m but the major benefit will be that this new facility will be capable of being used in 75% of gas flaring incidents, thereby dramatically reducing the noise exposure and disturbance of the local residents.

Mediation (Temple, 2005)

Case 1 - London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

25. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham use a Voluntary service CALM which is jointly funded by numerous housing associations. Benefits are considered to include the ability to resolve a number of intractable neighbour noise cases, as well as being able to get involved in non-noise issues and the possibility of attaining a sustainable solution where noise is merely the vehicle for articulating a whole series of issues. Approximately 100 noise related cases per year are processed with a positive outcome in 60-70% of cases.

Case 2 - London Borough of Southwark

26. London Borough of Southwark's Housing Department has a service contract with Southwark Mediation for up to 2000 referrals with an annual cost of £30,000. The Environmental Health Department were referring up to 110 cases per annum, out of more than 10,000 noise complaints per year. But the attitude to mediation became jaundiced since full mediation was only ever accepted in one case and the majority of complainants insisted on maintaining their anonymity.

27. The lesson to be learnt here may be that mediation can work but only if all parties are prepared to enter openly and wholeheartedly into the exercise. This may not be the situation in many noise cases and there may, of course, be valid reasons why the complainant wishes to remain anonymous.

Public Awareness Raising (Temple, 2005)

Renfrewshire Council

28. The Council took part in Noise Action Day by offering people help to tackle problems caused by noise. With a focus on 'tackling tenants' the Mediation Team in Renfrewshire provided advice at housing offices and related organisations throughout its area. Specifically the council asked residents to: consider the noises that disturb themselves; consider the noise they make and the effect it has on others; and use practical solutions to everyday problems of noise. Amplified music or sound is the most commonly complained of noise so residents were encouraged to keep the volume down and to place speakers away from partition walls, floors and ceilings. People holding parties were advised to warn their neighbours in advance, to consider inviting them, to keep windows and doors shut and to respond cooperatively to complaints by turning the music down.

Falkirk Council

29 The council has produced a dedicated web page for Noise Action Day illustrating a number of local issues in an attempt to raise local awareness. In addition a number of topic specific public information leaflets have been produced by the council, for example, an informative leaflet giving advice to dog owners on the avoidance of nuisance from constant barking.

Perth & Kinross Council

30 A Senior Officer has a regular spot on community radio dealing with the latest "hot issue" in environmental health. This often includes noise issues such as domestic noise, barking dogs or wind farms. This is seen as a valuable way of raising public awareness of the issues involved, opening up lines of communication with the public and most importantly explaining what powers and services are available.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

31 Persistent disturbances are recorded with digital audio equipment and the recordings are subsequently analysed in an environment where they can also be played back to all parties, i.e. the noisemaker and the complainant. In this way, those creating the noise can be confronted with an objective demonstration of the impact their behaviour has on others. Additionally, a room is also set aside at the local Magistrates court to enable Magistrates to assess offending noises when cases go to trial.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

32 The Environmental Health Directorate has contributed to the Metropolitan Police's Junior Citizen Initiative annual educational event since 1996. In 2002 the programme, which was linked to schools, involved promoting a noise display presentation entitled "Be responsible with noise". Consisting of a twofold message under the headings "Hear today, deaf tomorrow" and "Noise annoys", the initiative targeted nearly 1000 children from over 20 schools. This effort earned the council an award in the Noise Abatement Society's annual John Connell Award.

Good Practice - Lessons from Across the EU

33. An extensive search of the available literature on this subject area reveals that there is a very limited amount of robust research that would give rise to a useful study of good practice of noise nuisance services. However, the 2002 study by Environmental Resources Management [ ERM (2002)], "Neighbour and Neighbourhood Noise Nuisance - A Review of European Legislation and Practices", provides a useful overview and, as such, can be regarded as the key text relating to this area.

34 ERM was commissioned to undertake a review of European legislation and practices relating to neighbour and neighbourhood noise. The aim of the study was to examine how EU Member States legislate and act on neighbour and neighbourhood noise, in order to identify good practice for possible consideration in the UK. The key findings of the study were as follows:

Legislation ( ERM, 2002)

35 Legislation and enforcement methods used for the management of neighbour and neighbourhood noise across Europe appear similar. Legislation is generally based on nuisance law. However, there are numerous differences, some of which appear effective, at least in handling complaints, if not necessarily in finding easy solutions.

36 There is a variety of legislation used to address neighbour and neighbourhood noise in different countries. Few countries have a law specifically for neighbour noise whilst neighbourhood noise (produced locally, eg from pubs, commercial premises or local industry) is usually covered in planning legislation. Most countries devolve powers to local government which, to differing extents, draw up local laws on neighbour and neighbourhood noise. Regions within countries often vary in this respect. Germany for example, has national regulations on noise from lawnmowers, sports facilities, construction sites and certain fixed installations, whereas it also has regional (Länder) specific Noise Ordnances for private and commercial activities.

37 In some countries very strict local laws apply to the hours in which noisy activities can take place. Limitations on lawnmower use is probably the best example, but other activities are included in some countries, such as DIY work in Portugal or anything that could potentially cause noise disturbance.

Cultural Factors ( ERM, 2002)

38 Neighbour noise is an almost inevitable consequence of urban living and is highly dependent on standards of behaviour and personal consideration. Consequently it is found to cause problems everywhere, although it is likely that the size of the problem varies significantly across Europe depending on local circumstances. In some Scandinavian countries, for example, high standards of thermal insulation and noise insulation may partly account for an apparent lower level of concern with neighbour noise, particularly in terms of the administrative system which does not appear highly tuned to the issue. In southern countries, such as Spain, the Mediterranean lifestyle may have led to a greater tolerance of neighbour and neighbourhood noise, perhaps due to greater intrusion of noise from other sources, such as transportation, into homes through open windows and poorer insulation.

Enforcement & Efficiency ( ERM, 2002)

39 Enforcement practices appear to vary considerably between Member States. In all cases enforcement is shared between police authorities (often more than one) and local environment authorities. However, different countries appear to apportion enforcement powers and the workload of investigating noise complaints differently between these two types of authorities. The structure of the various authorities, their titles and their overall remits, vary greatly making any comparison specifically on the Neighbour and Neighbourhood noise management systems complex. However, it appears that for certain types of noise complaint the police authorities in other countries may play a larger role than in the UK. The use of the police for investigating complaints in the first instance can be seen as an efficient use of resources, because police authorities generally provide greater coverage of an area than environmental health authorities, and provide a framework for an out-of-hours service. However, in more complex cases, noise measurements and specialist acoustics knowledge may be needed, and these skills generally come from the environmental health authority. Hence there is generally a necessity for overlap and cooperation between the two.

40 Experience (for example in Amsterdam and in France) shows that integration of the efforts of the authorities appears to improve efficiency noticeably. For instance housing associations are usually involved where high proportions of the population live in rented or leased accommodation. In the Netherlands authority collaboration involves the police, environmental inspection services, housing associations, and health departments. In Denmark housing estates are obliged by law to operate a Council for Tenant Complaints.

41 Lack of resources is also a common theme. It is interesting to note that when asked about the overall efficiency of the system some officers suggested theirs was efficient in dealing with complaints, but not in providing resolutions, suggesting that noise problems between neighbours were inevitable. It is therefore perhaps surprising that few countries are attempting to educate their populations into being less antisocial in terms of neighbour noise. There are cases of education programmes emerging (specifically in Italy, the Netherlands and France), and within the last few years annual noise awareness days are commonly being taken as a first step. To date there is little evidence as to how education can prevent noise anti-social behaviour in the community, but as these programmes mature the benefits may become clearer.

Mediation ( ERM, 2002)

42 Most, but not all countries have mediation services on offer, but some are not free and are seldom used for neighbour noise disputes. In most cases mediation is a fairly new idea. However, in Austria, Denmark, France and the Netherlands, in particular, mediation is seen as a common alternative to prosecution. The mediation system in Norway, although outside the EU, was identified as particularly effective.

The Right of Appeal ( ERM, 2002)

43 Appeal processes against enforcing authorities judgements are available in almost every case, for either party. Information on success rates and timescales is sparse, but it appears that appeals can take several months or even years to be determined. This is clearly a common weakness that is no doubt very frustrating for some long-term noise sufferers.

Cost Effectiveness and Best Practice ( ERM, 2002)

44 At the outset of the study, ERM (2002) had hoped to consider cost-effectiveness by identifying the staff costs (i.e. staff numbers) required for each system for a given size of population. Unfortunately, because of the variations between systems and lack of appropriate equivalent data, direct comparisons of staff numbers between countries was considered unreliable. However, ERM (2002) identify several features of the noise management systems which seem to be working well in various countries and could be considered to constitute best practice. These are as follows:

• restricting the times of day/night in which obviously noisy activities are permitted;
• adopting local laws on noise control to address specific local noise issues;
• police dealing with neighbour noise complaints firmly in the first instance;
• providing adequate resources to local environmental health services in terms of their expertise and staffing levels;
• integration of the various authorities involved locally, including the police, environmental health, social service, housing associations, and local councils and legislators;
• creating a network between the different regions to exchange experience;
• providing public information and guidance on methods of addressing noise problems;
• raising public awareness on the downsides of noise;
• including education on the problems of neighbour noise in schools;
• encouraging communication between neighbours; and
• offering free mediation services at an early stage.

Lessons for the UK ( ERM, 2002)

45 ERM's (2002) review showed that the UK has a well-established and sophisticated system for managing neighbour and neighbourhood noise, as do comparable European countries. Consequently, most of the elements of best practice identified across Europe within the report, already feature in the UK to some extent. However, some elements of best practice were identified by ERM (2002) as being worthy of further consideration when formulating future policies to effectively control noise nuisance within the UK. Part of this consideration may require further research into the finer details of how they are executed elsewhere, including formal costs, qualified benefits, and the identification of the potential pitfalls. Three areas in particular seem to warrant further study:

• Integration of LA efforts - the Amsterdam example appears to offer benefits.
• Mediation - mediation in Norway is cited as a model service, achieving high levels of success.
• Education - further research into the effectiveness of education programmes, particularly in schools.

Additional Relevant Research

MORI (2003)

46 MORI (2003) conducted public opinion research on behalf of DEFRA to assess the nature, extent and significance of neighbour noise in the UK. The main research questions included:

• How widespread is neighbour noise?
• How does neighbour noise compare with other types of noise?
• Under which circumstances is neighbour noise more if a problem?
• What are the characteristics and socio-economic profile of noise sufferers and noise makers?
• What makes some noises more annoying than others?
• Are there social norms around making and gearing noise?
• What is the impact of neighbour and wider community relations?

47 The research consisted of interviews, questionnaires and focus groups across the UK reflecting: geographical factors (i.e. across England, Wales and Scotland); exposure to noise (all participants must have heard noise from neighbours while in their home); annoyance at noise (i.e. a mix of people who have been annoyed by noise to different degrees); housing density; socio-demographic influences; and inclusiveness (i.e. no perspectives were excluded on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or age). The research included rural areas as well as urban.

48 The main findings of MORI (2003) were as follows:

Exposure and annoyance ( MORI, 2003)

• Many people - close to two in three (63%) - hear noise from their neighbours to some extent. Fewer are actually annoyed by it, although annoyance occurs among just fewer than half (46%) of those who hear noise, or close to one in three (29%) among the population as a whole.
• Neighbour noise is, therefore, a problem that can arise under certain circumstances and in specific 'risk areas'. These risk factors include high density housing, rented accommodation (in both the social and private sectors), areas of deprivation, and urbanity. In contrast, the profile of those not concerned by neighbour noise is consistent with circumstances which would be expected to limit exposure, for example detached housing, high home ownership, and residence in rural/suburban locations in some of the least deprived areas nationally.

Neighbour noise in context ( MORI, 2003)

• It is evident that people interpret noise differently according to its source. For example, noise from traffic is perceived differently than noise from aircraft noise, and similarly noise from neighbours is a distinct category.
• While it is not as widespread as some noises (such as traffic), neighbour noise is one of the most annoying noises when it is heard. Similarly, noise from entertainment venues is limited to a relatively small number of people, but is considered particularly disturbing among those it does affect. A number of reasons appear to explain the annoyance neighbour noise causes:
  • people appear to be able to develop a certain degree of immunity to noises from traffic and trains, whereas the irregularity and lack of utility from neighbour noise suggest this does not apply.
  • Neighbour noise is considered synonymous with a lack of consideration. This 'consideration' factor is critical in understanding the dynamics of disputes and demonstrates the importance of the social context of noise as opposed to its purely physical attributes.
  • One in seven people sampled (14%) identify it as a problem that affects their quality of life, fewer than the 'big' liveability issues of litter, vandalism and graffiti but comparable to abandoned vehicles, street drinking and drug abuse. Among certain groups, such as residents in high density flats, it becomes one of the most significant quality of life issues.
  • Noise disputes often involve a 'package' of problems with a neighbour (including litter, dog fouling and rubbish), with noise the focal point for these wider grievances.

Types of Nuisance Noise ( MORI, 2003)

• Loud music, shouting and banging are the most frequent causes of annoyance. 'One off' or infrequent events like barbeques or parties are considered less of a widespread problem, as is mowing the lawn.
• Certain noises vary in impact on different groups. For example, older people find fireworks highly detrimental, while residents in rural areas are more likely to highlight noise from cars, motorbikes and pets.
• The noise need not be a 'stereotypical' nuisance noise to cause a dispute. Because of their social context, fairly routine noises (such as vacuuming, washing or closing doors) can be considered inconsiderate if they go on for too long or occur late at night.
• Some noises are more disturbing than others when they have a wider social connotation; for example, the prominence of shouting and banging relates to its association with domestic violence and child abuse. Similarly, noise from young people reflects a general suspicion of young people and the fear that they will cause crime.

Community cohesion and neighbour relations ( MORI, 2003)

• The research suggests that community cohesion is a significant factor in neighbour disputes; where residents feel involved in the community they are more likely to share a willingness to intervene for the common good. Intervention based on shared expectations and support of neighbourhood social control has been defined as 'social efficacy'. Examples include community groups which come together to articulate local concerns and lobby Local Authorities, or neighbours supporting each other informally in response to any ad hoc issues that arise.
• Direct relations between neighbours can also have a significant bearing on noise disputes. The research shows that people are less willing to extend tolerance to those they do not like or do not know, hence annoyance is more likely to result under these conditions. Furthermore, it is more likely that disputes will arise given that the initial complaint and reaction is likely to be more aggressive where relations are poor.

Thresholds of tolerance ( MORI, 2003)

• A proportion of noise disputes seem to be caused by one neighbour being more sensitive to noise or holding unrealistically high expectations, for example that they should never hear noise from their neighbours. However, this accounts for only one in five people across the population as a whole and only a minority of noise disputes, with other factors playing a more significant role.
• The time of day when noise occurs is important, but any attempt to standardise certain 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' times appears problematic. While most people acknowledge there are certain times when noise is less acceptable, there is little or no agreement on what specific times these actually are. The cut-off point for acceptability of noise varies widely, with significant numbers of the population falling anywhere between 8pm and midnight.
• Furthermore, a significant minority consider noise a problem at times other than the night, driven by the increasing heterogeneity of lifestyles and working patterns. Dialogue between neighbours to establish times of acceptability appears very effective in countering this problem, but remains the exception rather than the rule and requires very good neighbour relations as a pre-requisite.
• Prior warning of a noise event (such as a party) can be significant in defusing any conflict between neighbours; three quarters agree that noise is more acceptable if neighbours are informed before hand. This is seen as an act of consideration on the part of the noise maker, nullifying the key issue behind annoyance which is a lack of consideration. It should be promoted as part of the 'ideal' protocol for people to follow if they know they may disturb their neighbours.
• Thresholds of tolerance are strongly driven by lifestyles or 'life stage'. The ability to empathise with a neighbour, most likely through a similar personal experience, increases tolerance to certain types of noise. For example, noise from a baby crying at night is less of an issue for someone who has children, but a source of annoyance for those who do not. This applies equally to the conflicting music tastes of younger and older generations, and influences the acceptability of noise at different times, since families with children are more likely to identify earlier times in the evening whereas single people identify later times.
• Many participants suggest that housing be structured so that 'like' groups (for example families) live together. At the macro-level of the neighbourhood or estate this is clearly counter to government cohesion policies that seek to integrate (rather than segregate) different groups, for example younger and older generations. However, there may be application at the micro-scale, for example through vetting procedures and tenancy agreements for rental properties in both the social and private rented sectors.

Tenure ( MORI, 2003)

• Noise sufferers tend to be in social rented accommodation while noise makers tend to be in either social rented or private rented accommodation.
• Many noise sufferers feel that private-renting tenants do not care about their neighbours or the area given the short term nature of their stay. There is also resentment in areas of mixed tenure where there are different 'rules' depending on people's tenure status.
• There also appears to be a particular problem with private landlords who are perceived to not be interested in problems relating to their tenant.

Noise makers ( MORI, 2003)

• Roughly half of noise makers claim to be unaware they are making a noise that is causing a disturbance to their neighbours.
• Among those who are aware they are causing noise, the key issue is the right to make noise. In many cases this right is seen narrowly in terms of only one or two activities, such as children playing or an occasional house party.
• However, there remains a proportion of noise makers who consider they have the right to make any noise at any time, and are not sympathetic to their neighbours.

Noise complaints ( MORI, 2003)

• Around one in ten people have made a complaint about neighbour noise. Taken as a proportion of those annoyed by noise, as many as two in five end up with a complaint.
• The majority of people who have complained about noise do so in person to the noise maker, with around one in four complaining to the police and one in five to the council. However, the avenue of complaint is dependent on several factors, most notably:
  • neighbour relations: good neighbour relations promotes informal resolution of disputes, whereas poor relations are more likely to lead to formal intervention.
  • age: young people are least likely to complain (in spite of greater exposure to noise), and when they do it is most likely to be handled informally. In contrast, older people are most likely to complain (in spite of less exposure to noise), and when they do over half are formal rather than to the neighbour making the noise.
• Complaints handled between neighbours are the most effective means of resolving a dispute; two in three are satisfied with the effectiveness of their complaint, compared with half of those who contact the council or police. Complaints made to private landlords are considered least effective.
• Informal complaints are also preferred by noise makers. In the majority of cases where complaints are made informally, noise makers say they take significant steps to reduce the noise. However, where formal complaints are made to the council or police, none completely stop making the noise, and while many take 'some' steps, a significant minority either do nothing or actually make more noise.
• The benefits to complaining informally are recognised by the public, but the evidence suggests as many as one in three would not be comfortable approaching their neighbours in practice. Reasons for not complaining informally include a desire to 'keep the peace' and 'avoid repercussions'. The evidence also suggests that where neighbour relations are poor, they can actually worsen further as a result of the complaint.
• Noise complaints are rarely simple. By virtue of the social context, they are often complex, involving multiple grievances and 'packages' of problems. The evidence suggests confounding problems include basic liveability concerns, anti-social behaviour issues, environmental health problems, mental health concerns and domestic violence. This, therefore, requires a sophisticated and co-ordinated approach to the problem that effectively utilises and organises the plethora of council departments responsible for these various problems.

Priorities for noise services ( MORI, 2003)

• The top priority from the public's perspective in a noise incident is time; both to the initial complaint and the time it takes to resolve the dispute. There is a strong sense, among noise sufferers and stakeholders alike, that the process is laborious and difficult, with repeated warnings but no satisfactory outcome.
• Face-to-face contact with the council or police when the complaint is made, alongside feedback on what has been done about it, is desirable and can significantly improve client satisfaction with the service received.
• There is widespread support for new powers of intervention, including fines and evictions, among noise sufferers and the general public. However, stakeholders stress the need for an impact assessment of any new legislation to ensure it is practicable, resourced and enforceable on the ground.
• Housing policy is perceived to be central to the resolution of noise complaints. This includes better building regulations for new homes, regulation of internal fittings (e.g. carpets) within homes, satisfactory vetting procedures for prospective tenants and the enforcement of tenancy agreements that clearly set out the tenant's responsibilities.
• There is very little awareness of local noise services.

49 In light of the finding of the research, MORI (2003) suggest to DEFRA that "there is great scope for a targeted and specific communications campaign to promote the findings to policymakers and enforcers in order to support best practice, highlight potential solutions for noise sufferers and promote behavioural change among noise makers" ( MORI, 2003, p.11). MORI (2003) suggest that such an awareness campaign could involve a number of methods including a media campaign, events, direct mail and provision of a range of standard materials via the DEFRA website which could be used and adapted by policymakers and enforcers, landlords, voluntary sector advice and mediation agencies, tenants' groups, councillors, MPs and educational bodies.

BRE (1999)

50 BRE undertook research on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions ( DETR) in order to increase understanding of domestic noise complaints (Grimwood and Ling, 1999). The study focused on England and Wales.

51 There are two annual sources of information on national noise complaint statistics in England and Wales - the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health ( CIEH) Environmental Health Report and the DETR Digest of Environmental Statistics. Both draw their information from the same annual returns that are completed by LAs in England and Wales and then submitted to the CIEH on a voluntary basis. A recent CIEH Report states that 148,006 complaints (5,050 per million population) about domestic noise were reported to the CIEH in 1997/98 from 225 responding authorities. In the period between 1986 and 1996 the total number of domestic noise complaints trebled, but this trend has begun to level off during the past few years (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 Domestic Noise Complaint Trend (1987-1998)

Note to figure
Source: BRE (1999)

52 The BRE study was completed in July 1997 and involved the collection of a large amount of qualitative and quantitative information using a variety of social research techniques. The scope of the project was restricted to a general analysis of a sample of 3136 complaints made to a group of 10 LAs from England and Wales during the summer (July-September) of 1995. The key findings of BRE (1999) included the following:

• Source of noise complaints - The most common noise complaint was found to be from music (42%) this was followed by domestic noise (18%). No other sources of nuisance noise particularly stand out in the BRE study.
• Perceptions on the source of the noise problem - An innovative aspect of the BRE research was an attempt to explore the perceptions of all the main participants in a neighbour noise dispute - complainant, alleged noisemaker and investigating officer ( IO).
  
  In the majority of cases the noise itself was cited as important. However noise was not always the sole issue, and other (non-noise) factors played an important role. For example, all parties reported that communication difficulties were a contributory factor to the problem. This finding suggests the usefulness of initiatives aimed at improving people's communication skills specifically in the area of conflict resolution.
  
  The findings of BRE (1999) support the views of other authors on the importance of a multi-agency approach to some neighbour noise conflicts. It appears that it may be possible to deal with many music complaints by dealing directly with the noise itself. This is particularly the case for night-time and for one-off situations. Other complaints, where the noise itself is perhaps not the major factor, may be dealt with more effectively by attempting to deal with the underlying issues rather than the noise. A rigid procedural approach to dealing solely with the noise aspect of a complaint may not resolve the dispute.

• Points of contact for complainants - BRE (1999) also investigated who complainants contacted for assistance with nuisance noise. Complainants frequently reported that they had been referred back and forth between the different agencies with no one agency accepting responsibility for all aspects of the complaint.

BRE (1999) found that it was most common for complainants to contact Environmental Health. Some complainants complained straight to the authorities. However it is important to note that many complainants had approached the person responsible, and this was usually done before contacting any other agencies. According to BRE (1999) this suggests that initiatives to improve communication between neighbours and initiatives to facilitate and promote multi-agency working are likely to be beneficial.

• Time of disturbances - BRE examined the times at which noise disturbances are most likely to occur. It was revealed that:
  • The number of complainants reporting disturbance broadly increases throughout the day from 06:00 until 23:00.
  • Most disturbance is reported between 22:00 and 02:00.
  • Lowest levels of disturbance occur between 05:00 and 12:00.
  • Music was principally responsible for complaints in the period 18:00 to 03:00.
  • Other noises tend to cause more disturbance in the mornings (07:00 to 10:00) and afternoon (15:00 to 17:00).
• Reasons for not pursuing complaints - BRE (1999) found that many complaints that had not been pursued by complainants were not actually considered to be resolved. Complainants were asked about this in more detail, and most commonly reported that the noise problem had ceased, but several other reasons were also reported. These included the following (most common first):
  • Noise problem ceased.
  • Would worsen problem.
  • Fear of alleged noise maker.
  • To avoid bad feelings.
  • Felt threatened.
  • Felt intimidated.
  • Diary sheet too much trouble.
  • Referred to mediation.
  • Resolved informally.
  • Problem insufficiently serious.
• Recording systems - BRE (1999) found that the recording of complaints showed a marked lack of standardisation between LAs. For example it could be held that the statistics overstate the extent of the problem where a single noise problem is complained about by several people and a separate record is made for each complainant; or where one person repeatedly complains about a single noise issue and a new record is made for each contact with the LA. There was also a lack of cross- referencing within LA record keeping systems between these types of entries.

53 As BRE (1999) focused on Local Authorities in England and Wales, this allows for some interesting comparisons to be made with this research involving Scottish Local Authorities.

Conclusion

54 The literature review has provided some useful information from previous studies on how noise nuisance services in Scotland may be developed. Key lessons are ensuring there are systematic policies and procedures, formal and informal co-operation with internal LA departments and external agencies, making use of mediation where this is appropriate and embarking upon public awareness and education campaigns.

55 Many of Temple's (2005) recommendations are confirmed in evidence from other research which suggest the characteristics of effective approaches to noise nuisance. These involve: restricting the times of day/night in which noisy activities are permitted; adopting local laws on noise control; police dealing with neighbour noise complaints firmly in the first instance; providing adequate resources to local services for staffing; integration of response between various internal LA departments and external agencies; public information and guidance on noise nuisance, including encouragement of communication between neighbours; and, free mediation services offered at an early stage.

56 Finally, MORI's (2003) research for DEFRA provides some very useful insights on the nature, extent and significance of neighbour noise in the England and Wales. The research sheds light on the context of noise nuisances, different types of noise nuisance, and levels of tolerance to different types of noise. The research gives important information on how those suffering from noise are likely to respond to it: people usually prefer to resolve matters informally between neighbours, but many do not due to fear of repercussions. Where formal intervention is seen as necessary, the top priority from the complainant's point of view is to ensure a speedy resolution. MORI (2003) concluded that there was scope for a communication campaign to support best practice, highlight potential solutions for noise sufferers and promote behavioural change among noise makers.

« Previous | Contents | Next »