The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. DTZ Consulting & Research ( DTZ) was commissioned by the Scottish Executive to undertake an evaluation of Local Authority ( LA) Antisocial Neighbour Noise Nuisance Services. Although just one element of overall noise exposure, antisocial neighbour noise nuisance experienced in the home is significant. Its effects on individuals and communities may be considerable, with negative impacts on quality of life, social harmony and even personal health - and yet it may often be directly remedied, prevented or discouraged.

2. In order to address this problem, provisions offering Local Authorities greater powers to handle noise complaints were enshrined in Part 5 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 ( ASBA), which came into force, along with accompanying regulations to approve noise levels and measuring equipment, on 28 February 2005. The Executive is committed to funding the implementation of these Provisions and has provided £4.9m for 2005 and £10.6m for 2006-2008, secured under the 2004 Spending Review. This funding takes the form of a specific grant payment to Local Authorities implementing Part 5 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and is intended for staffing (including police secondees), equipment and training. Twenty-five Councils have applied for 2006/07 funding and they are required to monitor and report to the Executive on the operation of the service.

3. Acknowledging this context, the overall aim of the study is to evaluate the operation of LA Neighbour Noise Nuisance Services. The value for money of these services should be assessed taking into account, where relevant and possible, any comparisons that can be made of the various costs associated with:

(a) LAs taking action under Part 5 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 ( ASBA), and

(b) LAs taking action under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and section 49 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, and the police taking action under section 54 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

Methodology

4. In undertaking this research, we completed the following:

• desk research reviewing key existing nuisance noise research in Scotland; guidance and legislation relating to noise nuisance - covering Scotland and the UK; and an examination of good practice relating to noise nuisance services.
• analysis of monitoring and cost data held by the Scottish Executive and LAs; the period chosen for analysis was the 12 month period for 2005/6 and due to the different times at which LAs began to participate in the initiative, this analysis involved 20 noise nuisance services (covering 23 Local Authorities as one service covered the three Ayrshire LAs).
• eight LA case study areas, involving consultation with between three and seven LA officers in the Noise Nuisance teams in each case study area (depending on the delivery model) and a sample survey of residents in the same eight LA areas involving 799 respondents ¹.
• Survey of all Noise Investigation Officers ( NIOs) currently involved in delivering noise nuisance services across Scotland. A total of 200 staff were contacted, and responses were received from 84 members of staff (a 42% response rate).

Lessons from previous studies

5. Previous studies have provided useful insight to how the noise nuisance services in Scotland may be developed and implemented. These recommend systematic policies and procedures to safeguard minimum standards; internal departmental and external co-operation; public information, education and awareness raising; provision of mediation services at an early stage; and commitment to resourcing local projects to alleviate problems.

6. MORI (2003) public opinion research on behalf of DEFRA provides some very important insights to noise nuisance behaviours and solutions in England and Wales. This reveals that a significant minority of people are annoyed by neighbour noise, more usually in rented accommodation, and in deprived and urban areas. While affecting a small proportion of the population, noise problems are a key influence in residents' quality of life. Half of noise makers are unaware they are causing a problem, while the other half feel they have a right to do so, and some have no sympathy with neighbours over the impact of their behaviour. The methods of complaint appear to have an impact on response - the more informal routes generally illicit a more positive response to change than formal approaches do. However, a significant proportion of complainants are not comfortable with making direct, informal approaches.

7. This work therefore suggests that the policies and procedures for noise nuisance services should be implemented through teams skilled to make balanced judgements over the technical aspects of the noise problem; the effect the noise problems have on households' quality of life; and the type of noise maker, so that the most appropriate response to solve the problem is taken.

General Progress of the Noise Nuisance Services in Scotland

8. Progress in set-up and service development has varied across Scotland. From the eight case study LAs, some have mobilised the service quickly and effectively, while others have experienced obstacles during the set-up period (such as sourcing equipment and recruitment problems).

9. The eight case study areas were therefore all at different stages of service development and maturity, evident in the large variation in numbers of complaints and action taken against these. There have also been different approaches to public awareness raising on noise nuisance generally, and the local noise nuisance services specifically. This is an important consideration when measuring value for money.

Areas of progress/success

10. The research provides a number of positive conclusions on different aspects of the noise nuisance services.

11. The majority of LAs studied stated that the key reasons for developing the service was in response to demand from the public, and the availability of specific funding for the service was seen a good opportunity to respond to the perceived need. In comparison, police response was not considered to provide value for money as the police may have more important priorities. The noise teams are, therefore, saving valuable police time.

12. NIOs surveyed confirmed the positive views from the LA case studies. NIOs believe the benefits of the service to be responsiveness to the public; its enforcement powers; and the strong technical basis of the services.

13. A range of service delivery models have been developed on the basis of perceived need, balanced with the availability of human resource. All the services offer some form of out of hours service.

14. Generally, NIOs are used rather than EHOs for the noise nuisance work. Where EHOs are used, these tend to be in supervisory or managerial roles, or to provide 'expert' capacity. In addition, EHOs are responsible for complaints which pass from being dealt with in terms of the ASBA and then become a Statutory Nuisance for action under the EPA or else perhaps to be dealt with by the licensing board or planning committee of the LA. Given the large difference in salaries between these roles, this would suggest effective use of resources to tackle noise problems. Use of the NIOs also serves to free-up EHOs and police for broader skilled work.

15. The relevance, duration and quality of delivery of the training provided by the Institute of Acoustics/Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland and the Certificate of Proficiency in Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act Noise Measurement, was considered to be appropriate.

16. Co-operation with other LA departments and the relevant police forces tends to be strong, although all the eight LA case studies and a large majority of NIOs surveyed suggested there is always room for improvement in these working relationships.

17. The Scottish Executive guidance issued to LA has been well received and is considered, overall, to be very helpful in establishing appropriate policies and procedures.

Areas for improvement

18. The research has revealed some perceived areas for improvement in the initiative.

19. There are concerns over specific aspects of the noise provisions which could suggest areas for further clarification, despite many of these areas being covered by the guidance and/or other Acts. This was clear from the LA consultation and confirmed by the NIO survey.

• The regulated sound levels are considered by many LAs to be too high, particularly during the evening/night-time hours.
• Sound insulation is not addressed and this is believed to be a major grey area that requires staff to have experience and an understanding that this type of noise is not likely to be the fault of any particular party but is simply a product of poor quality housing type.
• The civil fixed penalty is not believed to be strong enough. It was alleged that, often, fines go unpaid and are not 'chased up' effectively by the Procurator Fiscal.
• There is no allowance made for complainers who wish to remain anonymous: they cannot be dealt with by noise nuisance teams and have to be passed to the police.
• Sound equipment requires a 0.6 second break in the noise nuisance to detect background noise levels. Increasingly, music is 'mixed' on CDs and there is no break.
• It is unclear what is supposed to happen with noise from dogs. Dog barking is difficult to measure, but the Act states that dogs can be considered 'noise making equipment' and therefore seized. Noise nuisance teams are not specifically trained to handle dogs and, therefore, this could introduce health and safety risks. It is unclear as to how this power fits with the Dog Warden service.

These issues are covered in more detail in chapters three and five.

20. In terms of the NIO training, there were a few criticisms over the frequency of the courses, with new recruits often having to wait several months for training, which then has an impact on service delivery.

21. Evidence from the eight LA case studies, the NIOs and the public survey, suggests further work in relation to public information, education and awareness raising of noise nuisance problems generally, and local noise nuisance services.

What is the overall effectiveness of the legislation?

22. The residents' survey has shown that noise nuisance is a problem for less than 50% of the respondents, and only 13% experience it as a major problem. While this is a relatively small proportion of the population, it must be remembered that noise nuisance in its worst form can be a debilitating problem. It is also very often associated with wider antisocial behaviour and the residents' survey shows that perceptions over the cause of antisocial and noise nuisance are the same: teenagers and substance misuse.

23. The residents' survey also shows that the public awareness of noise nuisance services is low, the awareness of the mechanisms that can be used to tackle the problem is very low, and their perception of how effective the measures might be are also low. Of those that do actually suffer from noise nuisance, 48% would not report the problem, often due to fear of intimidation, lack of confidence in the agencies resolving the problem, or the belief in self resolution. A critical finding to this research is that, even where the problem is reported, it is usually to the police or a LA department. Only 39% of cases said they would report specifically to the noise nuisance team. This shows, at the very least, that public awareness of the service could be increased. However, when questioned on the effectiveness of the agency contacted (this included all agencies contacted), intervention was viewed negatively by 69% of those surveyed.

24. The NIOs survey presents some interesting findings to compare against those of the residents' survey. Of the enforcement measures available to the NIOs, the NIOs indicate that the most effective are informal mediation (confirming residents views) or fixed penalty notices, although, as noted under the areas for improvement, LA representatives stated these were not high enough, and not followed up. These findings bear a broad correlation with those of previous studies as set out in the literature review.

25. Financial data limitations and relative infancy of these services mean that it is very difficult to draw any firm conclusions on the overall value for money of the services. It is clear that costs are extremely variable by LA. However, comparison between areas can only be based on average costs by complaints and number of visits, but the relatively early stages of development of these services will also mean that the number of complaints/ visits will vary considerably by LA, irrespective of their household populations. There are a number of variables that will affect cost effectiveness and, the evidence of a large range of number of cases, suggests that public awareness and, by implication, publicity of the service may be key.

Recommendations

26. The authors have drawn the following key conclusions and recommendations from the research, and refer specifically to the areas for improvement:

• The noise nuisance services are relatively unknown to the general public and require a higher level of public awareness before their full value is established. The Scottish Executive should encourage LAs to provide detailed public information leaflets and proactive advice on noise problems, and to publicise their local noise nuisance service. A national publicity campaign might also be effective.
• There appear to be efficiencies in the shared service delivery model and other LAs, particularly those with relatively low numbers of complaints, should be encouraged to consider this model.
• Self resolution and mediation, where appropriate, often appear to be the preferred option for tackling noise complaints, although the type of mechanism should be determined according to the 'type' of noise maker. Mediation would seem to be preferred in the first instance by the NIOs surveyed however this can only be used in a limited way, when all parties sign up to it. The NIOs surveyed also suggested that more fixed penalties should be adopted for persistent offenders, suggesting the 'stick' is not hard enough for persistent offenders, i.e. the penalties need to be higher, and enforcement must be carried through if it is to be effective.
• Certain other key aspects of the noise provisions should be reviewed: sound levels; sound insulation; the level of civil fixed penalties; complainants right to remain anonymous; the sound break requirement; and how to tackle noise from dogs.
• Monitoring of LA expenditure on noise services would benefit from more specific guidance on the detailed breakdown of expenditure to be included in audited accounts to be submitted to the Scottish Executive. This would assist ongoing monitoring, but also provide the detailed information required in any future evaluations. Recommendations on how the financial information should be provided are included in chapter eight.
• The relative infancy of the noise nuisance services, and the substantial work required in set up for some Local Authorities suggests that a future value for money assessment should be undertaken (within 2 years) so that the true value of these services can be established.

« Previous | Contents | Next »