The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER TWO: SUMMARY OF DESK RESEARCH

Introduction

2.1 The desk research elements of this study are relevant to all of the study objectives outlined above and serve to clarify the key research questions. A fuller version of this desk research summarised in this section is presented in Appendix A.

Existing nuisance noise research in Scotland

2.2 The key piece of existing research relevant to nuisance noise services in Scotland was produced by Temple in October 2005 on behalf of the Scottish Executive, supported by the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland. This "Draft Noise Management Guide" was produced to assist LAs throughout Scotland to make decisions on the development of robust policies and the implementation of such policies across the range of noise functions for which they are responsible. The specific aim of the Scottish Executive was to produce a guide that would help LAs develop a common approach and consistency towards the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions that relate to community noise.

2.3 The Draft Guide explores a number of issues that are highly relevant to this research and, in many ways, provide a good starting point for the examination of the key issues related to LA nuisance noise services in Scotland. The Draft Guide contains a large amount of information, particularly on: LA feedback; developing noise strategies, policies and procedures; and service delivery.

2.4 The LA feedback suggested that at the time of the survey, only two fifths of LAs had a formal council policy relating to noise nuisance, although most had departmental policies and/or protocols on their noise functions. The research showed there was an increasing tendency to provide out of hours noise services. The LAs cited a number of obstacles to delivering effective noise nuisance services, namely: inadequate personnel resources, funding and unrealistic expectations of the complainants.

2.5 Temple (2005) recommended that time and effort should be invested in development of written policies and procedures for noise nuisance services. These recommendations provide some important lessons for Scottish Local Authorities. The policies and procedures should cover a number of strategy and planning procedures: preventative strategies; land-use planning; licensing; public awareness raising; LA departmental co-operation, and cop-operation with external agencies.

2.6 Finally, Temple (2005) set out areas that should be considered in developing minimum service standards. These involve: clear published policies and procedures; systems for receiving and responding to complaints, including those that occur out of hours; and, encouraging opportunities for informal resolution and mediation (so long as this does not unnecessarily delay resolution). Temple sets out a number of detailed investigation flow charts as models which LAs may wish to consider for implementation of its noise nuisance services.

Guidance and legislation relating to noise nuisance - Scotland and the UK

2.7 This section highlights the relevant legislation that covers neighbour noise in Scotland, and outlines the relevant guidance provided by the Scottish Executive to Local Authorities for dealing with complaints and instances of noise nuisance. Firstly, s.54 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 allows the police to take action against the "playing of sound devices". This includes powers to confiscate such equipment as evidence in court. The police also have wide-ranging powers that can be used to deal with noise under the common law offence of breach of the peace.

2.8 As far as LAs are concerned, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 placed a statutory duty on them to ³ inspect its area from time to time to detect any statutory nuisances that ought to be dealt with under s.80 (the s.79 (1) Preventative Investigation Duty). Where a complaint is received regarding a statutory nuisance, the LA is obliged to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate a complaint of a statutory nuisance made by a person living in its area (s. 79 (1) Responsive Duty). Where the LA is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to occur or recur in the area of the authority, they have a further duty (s.80 (1) Statutory Nuisance Duty) to serve an abatement notice.

2.9 The Environmental Protection Act 1990 covers statutory nuisance. The Scottish Executive advises that this would encompass noise emitted from premises "so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance"⁴ . However, in recognition that antisocial behaviour ( ASB) in general, including neighbour noise nuisance, is a serious problem in many of Scotland's communities, and that local agencies required greater powers to effectively deal with noise issues, the Executive passed the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act in 2004. This Act gave local agencies, including LAs, new powers and tools to tackle ASB with the intent that LAs would deal with a greater range and number of complaints, therefore releasing police time for other matters.

2.10 Specifically, Part 5 of the Act outlines the provisions for dealing with noise nuisance. In particular, Part 5 accords LAs additional powers for dealing with noise nuisance, powers that can lead to the prosecution of offenders through the Procurator Fiscal office. These provisions, which are designed to complement the existing legislative tools embodied in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, are backed by over £15 million worth of Scottish Executive funding over 2005- 08, designated for staffing, equipment and training.

2.11 The new noise powers came into force in February 2005 and contained a range of different powers to enable Local Authorities to deal swiftly with reports of noise nuisance. The main provisions of Part 5 include the following.

• The option for LAs to apply noise control provisions to specific areas and/or times up to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
• The authority for LAs to investigate any noise complaints.
• The authority for the officer of the LA, if they consider that the noise from a domestic dwelling exceeds the permitted noise level, to issue a warning notice. If noise continues after this, a Fixed Penalty Notice of £100 can be issued.
• If this is not paid within 28 days, LAs can pursue prosecution through the Procurator Fiscal office.
• LAs now have the power to obtain a warrant to seize any noise making equipment.

2.12 In conjunction with the powers awarded to LAs implementing noise nuisance services under the Act, comes a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate any complaints of excessive noise and to take any appropriate enforcement action in line with the design and provisions of the LA scheme (Scottish Executive 2004).

2.13 Ministers gave LAs discretion over whether they felt it was necessary or appropriate to implement a noise nuisance service, and where they did decide to, the Act adopted a fairly open and flexible approach as regards the actual implementation of noise control measures by individual LAs, recognising that different types of noise nuisance will be an issue for different LAs, and to varying extents. By the time of the first ASB anniversary report in 2005, 16 (this has now risen to 19) of the 22 Local Authorities that had applied for funding had services in place, with 25 having applied for 2006/07 funding. This report also showed that there had been 688 warning notices and 33 fixed penalty notices served by LAs between 1st April 2005 and 1st November 2005.

2.14 The intended outcomes of the Part 5, Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 Neighbour Noise Nuisance Services in Local Authorities are:

• swifter resolution of complaints of domestic noise nuisance;
• provision of an additional tool to deal specifically with neighbour noise nuisance;
• to increase the proportion of incidents resolved at first contact with the perpetrators;
• avoidance of lengthy legal proceedings;
• reduction in police time spent dealing with domestic noise nuisance; and
• Best Value in deciding the level of local service provision.

2.15 It is important to also recognise the wider legislative framework in which any LA actions under the 2004 Act take place. The Draft Noise Management Guide highlights the relevance of the enactment in 2000 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which makes it unlawful for LAs to act in a manner that is incompatible with the rights embodied in the European Convention on Human Rights, which are applicable to the noisemaker as well as the complainer. However, where there is a requirement to balance the rights of a noisemaker against those of another individual or the community at large, in the interests of, for example, public safety, public health or the rights of others, the rights of the noisemaker may be limited.

An examination of good practice relating to noise nuisance services

2.16 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 LAs as well as a number of examples of good practice from England. A full review of these is set out in Appendix A, with key lessons of relevance to this research summarised below.

Developing Noise Strategies, Policies and Procedures

2.17 It is recommended that time and effort is given to the development of written policies and procedures. This provides clarity to staff on individual roles and responsibilities, promotes consistency and effectiveness of service delivery, and reduces the incidence of operational failures. Temple (2005) explains the potential benefits of a number of strategies and planning procedures relating to preventative strategies, land-use planning, licensing and public education and awareness raising over noise nuisance.

Departmental and external co-operation

2.18 Temple cites a number of examples of systematic liaison arrangements between departments and other agencies including Town Planning, Environmental Health, Housing and the Police. It is recommended that noise service managers should aim to establish formal mechanisms, reinforced by informal communication networks that define the roles and responsibilities for noise services, to ensure that the corporate duties and the policies of the LA are satisfied.

Mediation

2.19 Temple (2005) provides a number of examples where LAs support external agencies to provide mediation services to assist in informal resolution, before moving to formal action. The key lesson from this approach is that mediation can work, but only if all the parties involved are willing, open and honest about their participation in the process. This may not be the case in many situations, particularly where the complainants wishes to remain anonymous.

Public awareness raising

2.20 Again Temple (2005) provides a number of examples from across the UK where various methods are used to raise public awareness over noise nuisance and the services available to help resolve neighbour noise problems. These include creation of dedicated LA websites for noise nuisance, having public awareness campaigns on Noise Action Day, and an LA senior officer taking a regular slot on a community radio to discuss the latest hot issue in environmental health.

Other key research relating to noise nuisance services

2.21 An informative review undertaken by Environmental Resources Management [ ERM, (2002)] provides evidence of various noise nuisance services and practices across the EU. This cites the UK, as well as some other EU countries, as having well-established and relatively sophisticated systems for managing neighbourhood noise. The key features of best practice relevant to this research are:

• 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.
• Free mediation services offered at an early stage.

2.22 MORI (2003) conducted public opinion research on behalf of DEFRA to assess the nature, extent and significance of neighbour noise in the UK. The research was undertaken across England and Wales and included rural and urban areas. Further information on this important text is included in Appendix A, with key findings of relevance summarised below:

• Exposure and annoyance - many people (63%) hear noise from neighbours, but only one in three of the population as a whole are annoyed by it. Certain risk factors were identified for increased exposure such as high density housing, rented accommodation (private and public sector), areas of deprivation and urbanity.
• Neighbour noise in context - people interpret types of noise differently, for example neighbour noise is interpreted differently to traffic noise or aircraft noise. Neighbour noise is one of the most annoying noises when heard, and is associated with lack of consideration. This is important in understanding the dynamics of disputes relating to social relationships, rather than just the physical attributes of the noise. By comparison, people appear to develop immunity to noises such as traffic and trains.
• Quality of life - A significant minority of people (14%) say noise problems affect their quality of life. Among certain groups including flat dwellers, it becomes the most significant quality of life issue. Noise disputes are often associated with a package of neighbour problems, but with noise the focal point of wider grievances.
• Types of noise nuisance - loud music, shouting and banging are the most frequent causes of annoyance. Some noises are more disturbing than others when they have wider social connotations, for example shouting and banging is associated with domestic violence or child abuse.
• Community and individual relationships - a sense of community helps: where residents feel involved there is more likely to be a willingness to intervene. Direct relations between neighbours also matter, with no or poor relations likely to result in less tolerance.
• Thresholds of tolerance - Tolerance to the level or type of noise are strongly driven by lifestyles, and the ability to empathise with a similar experience increasing tolerance, for example a baby crying at night is less likely to be a problem for other families, but will be a problem for those who are not parents.
• Housing tenure - noise sufferers tend to be in the social rented sector while noise makers tend to be in either the social or private rented sector. There is a perception that private renters (or their landlords) do not care about neighbour problems due to the short term nature of their stay.
• Noise makers - Half of noise makers are unaware they are a causing a problem. Those that do know they are making a noise, believe they have a right to do so and this is often associated with very specific activities, such as an occasional house party. However, there is a proportion of noise makers who believe they can make noise at any time, and are not sympathetic to neighbours.
• Complaints - 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 complain to the noise makers, and a quarter to the police. Complaints handled between neighbours are seen to be the most effective. Noise makers prefer informal complaints and are more likely to make significant steps to reduce noise when approached through this route, than they are when approached formally by the LA or police. However, a third of complainants are not comfortable with making a direct informal approach. Reasons cited are to 'keep the peace' or 'avoid repercussions'.
• Priorities for noise services - There is a strong sense that noise resolution is laborious and difficult, and one of the top priorities from the public is speedy resolution. Face to face contact with the LA or police at the time of the complaint with feedback increases satisfaction, and there is widespread support for new powers of intervention. Housing policy is perceived to be central including better building regulations, regulations on floor fittings, and enforcement of tenancy agreements.
• Public awareness - there is very little awareness of local noise services.

2.23 In light of the research findings, 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). It was further suggested 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.

Conclusion

2.24 The desk 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.

2.25 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.

2.26 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. It 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 »