< Previous | Contents | Next >

Consultation on proposals for transposition and implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise

8. Agglomerations including noise from major roads, major railways, major airports, industry and ports

8.1. The END requires strategic noise maps to be made for large urban areas or 'agglomerations'. This will be done by producing separate maps for noise from roads, rail, airports and industry (including ports).

8.2. An action plan for managing, and reducing if necessary, noise in each agglomeration must then be drawn up on the basis of the results of the maps. The approach required for agglomerations raises a number of complexities and the definition of agglomerations set out in the END needs to be set in a UK context.

Definition of agglomeration

8.3. The END defines an agglomeration as ‘part of a territory, delimited by the Member State, having a population in excess of 100,000 persons and a population density such that the Member State considers it to be an urbanised area’ (Article 3(k)). However, only agglomerations with a population in excess of 250,000 need to be mapped in the first round of mapping in 2007 (Article 7, paragraph 1).

8.4. This definition presents two broad issues to be resolved:

• how to delimit an agglomeration; and
• what population density is considered to be "urban" in Scotland.

8.5. In anticipation of the then draft END being adopted, the UK government and the Devolved Administrations commissioned a study in 2001 from AEA Technology⁴³ to identify the options available for determining population exposure to noise and identifying agglomerations. Three alternative methods were investigated for defining agglomerations. These were based upon:

(i) The population density of Local Authorities;
(ii) The population density of ward or similar level administrative boundaries; and
(iii) The total population of discrete areas of continuous urban land (the Air Quality Daughter Directive approach).

8.6. It was assumed that for the practical purposes of noise mapping for the END, the geographical extent of agglomerations to be mapped should be restricted to urbanised areas (or non-urban areas entirely surrounded by built-up areas) and where residential houses, schools and hospitals are most likely to be located. As a result, the urban areas approach (option (iii) above) was identified as the approach likely to deliver the most appropriate definition of urban agglomerations in order to implement the END. The alternative approaches have the drawback of the inclusion of non-urban land parcels within agglomerations. The selection of the urban areas approach also has the advantage of maintaining consistency with previous Scottish Executive work and policies such as the implementation of the first Air Quality Daughter Directive (1999/30/EC).⁴⁴

8.7. The Scottish Executive therefore proposes that the boundary of an agglomeration should be drawn using the 'urban settlement approach' set out in 'Identifying the Options Available for Determining Population Data and Identifying Agglomerations in Connection with EU Proposals Regarding Environmental Noise'⁴⁵. This does not require a density figure but in order to satisfy the END's requirement for a density figure it is proposed to test the density of the selected urban areas against the density figure used in the 2001 Census of Key Statistics for Urban and Rural Areas (ONS 2004)⁴⁶. This specifies that land may be considered to be urban if the population density exceeds 500 persons per km2. A list and maps of the agglomerations that qualify using this definition can be found at Annex E.

Q8.1: Do you agree with this approach to delimiting the area which comprises an agglomeration?

Transport noise sources to be considered

8.8. In order to satisfy Annex VI (paragraphs 1.5 & 1.6) of the END, noise from any major transport sources (roads, railways and airports, as identified in the previous chapters of this document) must be mapped individually and included in the noise maps for agglomerations. In addition noise from roads, railways and air traffic sources which do not qualify as major but generate noise levels greater than 55 L_den or 50 L_night must also be mapped (Annex VI paragraphs 1.5 & 1.6).

8.9. We propose to require that in agglomerations the following transportation sources should be mapped:

• All roads with an annual average daily traffic flow over the 18 hour period (0600-2400) of 1,000 vehicles or more (See paragraph 5.1 for the reasoning behind the recommendation of this figure);
• All railways and other guided transport systems which travel, at any point, within or through an agglomeration. Railway marshalling yards; railway depots and freight depots are excluded⁴⁷;
• All major airports, (as defined at article 3(p)) in the agglomeration or so close to it that the 55 L_den or 50 L_night contours traverse the agglomeration boundary. Additionally all other airports where noise at or above these levels is found to occur outside the airport curtilage and within the agglomeration boundary.

Q8.2: Do you agree with the above definitions of the noise sources to be considered?

Industrial noise

Definition

8.10. Under the terms of the END, it is also necessary for maps to be made showing industrial noise levels in agglomerations (Annex IV, paragraph 8). The END does not provide detailed criteria for industrial activity sources which should be mapped. Article 3(a) suggests that those listed in Annex I of Directive 96/61/EC – the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive - might form a basis for industry to be included but discussions with the European Commission have indicated that Member States are expected to go beyond this definition. In England and Wales it is proposed to include ‘Part B’ installations which although outside the scope of the IPPC Directive by virtue of their size or activity, are regulated by local authorities only for air pollution emissions.

8.11. The proportion of industrial sites to be mapped and the methodology to be used is also not specified in the END. Initial costings have indicated that it would be possible to spend a disproportionate amount on mapping industry over other environmental noise emitters. It may not be cost effective to map all incidences of the industrial processes that fall under the IPPC Directive to the highest possible standard of accuracy and it is anticipated that the Scottish Executive may consider alternatives to mapping industry.

Extent of Mapping

8.12. In Scotland it is proposed that an alternative methodology is considered due to the different regulatory approach to IPPC. The proposed approach would be strategic, cost effective and proportionate. The alternative approach would be to utilise existing plans drawn up by local authorities in relation to local plans which contain land use as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997. Under this Class 5 includes General Industrial while Class 6 covers storage and distribution, which could contain noisy operations and activities which are inspected by a range of regulators. Such an approach will provide a useful start for prioritisation purposes and focuses on those industrial premises that emit noise. This represents approach and will means that all potentially noisy industry is considered.

8.13. The second option also makes use of existing, nationally available GIS datasets. Briefly, the methodology being considered would involve creating a database of all buildings extracted from the OS MasterMap dataset. Building use would then be inferred using a variety of other datasets in an automated way. As a result it will be possible to identify buildings where there is a high probability of commercial/industrial use (and as a by-product buildings which will be receptors of noise). These building uses will then be further refined, using business directories and other sources, to identifying noise producing uses. The strength of this alternative approach is that it makes use of existing datasets to infer building use at a level of detail which is required for acoustic modelling while not requiring the high level of intervention which would be required for a detailed study. Although all uses are inferred it is believe that the overall result would be more than adequate for the purposes of strategic mapping. Further, the process will be consistent across the whole country and can therefore be relied upon to give a comprehensive overview of all areas to be mapped.

8.14. It is envisaged that Scottish Executive appointed consultants would carry out stage 1 of the process by using existing Government databases and through existing commercial arrangements. This stage involves taking a strategic approach to mapping of agglomerations at a National level to ensure consistency

8.15. . The definitions given in the Use Classes order will serve as a useful starting point and will enable identification of all industrial locations within agglomerations.

8.16. Stage 2 of the process would involve carrying out a risk based prioritisation of industrial sites for each agglomeration. This would facilitate a filtering out of low risk areas and subsequently negate the requirement for unnecessary expensive noise mapping. A risk assessment methodology pro-forma would be used for prioritisation of areas and provide an audit trail.

8.17. Local knowledge will be invaluable in this stage of mapping and it is recommended that this part of the mapping process is carried out in partnership with local authorities and SEPA.

8.18. In order to produce noise maps the following 8 tasks are required:

• Define locations – Stage 1
• Review and select datasets and prioritise sites – Stage 2
• Process selected information – Stage 2
• Generate models – Stage 3
• Construct common ground model – Stage 3
• Integrate source data in noise software – Stage 3
• Run calculations – Stage 3
• Plot and analyse data – Stage 3

Mapping Methodology

8.19. The Scottish Executive believes that the majority of the data needed to produce noise maps to meet the requirements of the END is available to them from existing Scottish Executive databases and through existing commercial arrangements. Should there be instances when such sources prove inadequate or too expensive the Scottish Executive proposes to generate data using the recommendations within the WG-AEN GPG

8.20. There is no existing national method for the prediction of noise from industrial premises. Broadly, such prediction comprises a determination of the source levels from the various items of plant and equipment at an industrial site that generate noise, and using noise propagation algorithms to determine how that noise is transmitted to those nearby.

8.21. Within Section 2.2 of Annex II of the END, it recommends the use of ISO 9613-2: 'Acoustics - Abatement of sound propagation outdoors, Part 2: General methods of calculation’ as an interim computation method where no national method exists. It also suggests that suitable noise-emission data (input data) for this method can be obtained from measurements carried out in accordance with one of the following methods:

• ISO 8297:1994 'Acoustics - Determination of sound power levels of multisource industrial plants for evaluation of sound pressure levels in the environment - Engineering method';
• EN ISO 3744:1995 'Acoustics - Determination of sound power levels of noise using sound pressure - Engineering method in an essentially free field over a reflecting plane'; or
• EN ISO 3746:1995 'Acoustics - Determination of sound power levels of noise sources using an enveloping measurement surface over a reflecting plane’.

8.22. ISO 9613-2 describes a method for determining the propagation of sound from sources of known strength. The other standards mentioned refer to methods of determining the source level. Although not formally adopted as a British Standard, ISO 9613-2, is often used in the UK as a means of determining the propagation of noise from industrial sources. Computer software packages that include this method are widely available so its use should be straightforward. Consequently the Scottish Executive intends that ISO 9613-2 be used as the means of determining the propagation of sound from industrial sources.

8.23. The other standards mentioned in the END (as quoted above in paragraph 8.20) relate to methods for determining the source noise levels of industrial plant and machinery. These procedures primarily describe approaches to be adopted under ideal circumstances and are less easily adapted to real on-site situations. The Scottish Executive and UK Government has commissioned research seeking whether a compromise approach can be defined that is simple, reproducible and robust. That work has been completed⁴⁸ and has produced some encouraging results. However, initial costs of using this method were disproportionately high, compared with mapping the other noise sources, namely road, rail and air.

8.24. Another methodology that could be used is outlined in the WG-AEN GPG⁴⁹. The purpose of the document is to assist Member States and their competent authorities to successfully undertake strategic noise mapping and produce the associated data on noise exposure as required by the END. The GPG specifically addresses those requirements of the END associated with the first round of strategic noise mapping that must be completed by 30 June 2007.

8.25. Version 1 of the WG-AEN GPG addresses 20 general and specific technical challenges that are raised by the contents of the END. In addition, it provides 16 toolkits that contain possible solutions to many of these challenges particularly those that concern the acquisition of the source related, geographic, demographic and meteorological input data required for strategic noise mapping and the production of associated data on noise exposure. Toolkit 5 relates to mapping noise from industry and provides default values for the sound power levels based on the type and size of the industrial site.

8.26. This provides a relatively simple model that is deliverable and cost effective. This method will enable a broad range of industries to be included in the mapping but in a cost-effective manner. Whilst the results will inevitably be no more than an indication of the noise generated by the many industrial sites, this approach will provide a measure of the extent of the industrial noise impact within agglomerations.

8.27. The Scottish Executive proposes that the methodology used should be that offered in WG-AEN’s GPG⁵⁰. Given the absence of guidance on the methodologies to be used in the wording of the END, the Scottish Executive feels that this methodology, drawn up by the European Commission’s own advisory group, is likely to be one whose use would be supported by the Commission.

Q8.3: Do you support the Scottish Executive’s alternative approach to defining industry or would you prefer to map those industries identified under the IPPC regime and the proposal to map industry in agglomerations in accordance with the WG-AEN GPG?

Ports

8.28. Ports are specifically identified, in the END (Annex IV, paragraph 3), as a generator of industrial noise. The term 'port' can be very wide in meaning. The Scottish Executive, therefore, proposes to consider only those ports which are considered by 'Directive 95/64/EC on statistical returns in respect of carriage of goods and passengers by sea' and fall within the boundaries of agglomerations. The ports which would be considered in the first round of mapping can be found at Annex F.

8.29. The Scottish Executive proposes that the methodology used should be that advocated by the European Commission advisory Working Group on the Assessment of Exposure to Noise in the WG-AEN GPG⁵¹. As for industrial noise, the Scottish Executive believes that this approach offers a relatively simple model that is deliverable and cost effective. Given the absence of guidance on the methodologies to be used in the wording of the END, the Scottish Executive feels that this methodology, drawn up by their own advisory group, is likely to be one whose use would be supported by the European Commission.

Q8.4: Do you agree with this approach to defining ports to be mapped under the END?

Designation of the competent authority to make noise maps in agglomerations

8.30. As explained in Chapter 2, the Scottish Executive proposes that the Scottish Ministers should be the competent authority for making noise maps for the agglomerations, except in the case of non-designated major airports that may fall within or impact on an agglomeration where the airport operators will be the competent authority (see Chapter 7). The competent authority’s functions will include collecting and collating the data to make the noise maps, and then using that data to produce the noise maps. The Scottish Ministers will need to enter into agreements with other organisations and possibly commercial companies in order to fulfil some of these functions. The relevant authorities or organisations would be consulted before any requirements, legally binding or otherwise, would be placed on them.

8.31. There are a number of options available to take the mapping forwards:

i) The Scottish Executive undertaking the mapping, that is officials, possibly through the letting of contracts to technical consultants;
ii) Scottish Executive Agencies or non-local authority bodies undertaking the mapping, e.g. Network Rail for railways; airport operators for airports; Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) for industry under agreement with the Scottish Ministers;
iii) Local authorities undertaking the mapping under agreement with the Scottish Ministers.

8.32. The Scottish Executive favours option (i), on the assumption that the Scottish Executive as the proposed competent authority, will commission the noise maps for the different noise sources in the agglomeration, except in the case of relevant non-designated airports. For these airports it is proposed that each airport make its own maps.

8.33. As the unified agglomeration map will comprise a number of separate maps for the different noise sources, it is proposed that the implementing regulations should state that other organisations with an interest in the development of noise maps should be involved during the process of making the maps. Such organisations would, as appropriate, include (but are not necessarily limited to):

• Local planning authorities;
• Local Councils;
• Local roads authorities;
• Scottish Executive as Trunk Toads Authority;
• Network Rail;
• Operators of other guided rail systems;
• Office of the Rail Regulator;
• Train Operating Companies (passenger and freight);
• Airport Operators;
• Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA);
• Local Authority Environmental Health Departments;
• Port operators; and
• Operators of industrial premises.

8.34. The Scottish Executive is proposing this approach to making noise maps of agglomerations because it has a number of advantages:

• Scottish Executive officials already have access to a large amount of the necessary data so potentially reducing administration and costs;
• One organisation co-ordinating the mapping process means that the efforts of other organisations or authorities who need to contribute to the mapping process will avoid duplication and is more likely to ensure consistency in the quality and the form of the data collected and the approach taken to the mapping;
• It provides a relatively simple approach that can be easily modified should the need arise.

8.35. Relevant non-designated airports impacting on the agglomerations are a separate issue but have been treated differently because of the special circumstances that apply (See Chapter 7 for a full reasoning).

8.36. We do not propose, at this stage, that Local Authorities should be named as competent authorities as there might be difficulty in achieving a consistency of approach and access to the range of data required. Also it is possible that not all Local Authorities currently have the resources and experience in the field necessary to carry out the work. However, should the majority of Local Authorities express a wish to be more heavily involved in the preparation of the maps and plans, the Scottish Executive envisages that option (iii) could be introduced at a later stage when practical experience of implementing the END has been established. Any change would be subject to consultation at the appropriate time.

Q8.5: Are you satisfied with this approach to designate competent authorities and produce noise maps for agglomerations?

Q8.6: Would you support the Scottish Ministers entering into agreements with Local Authorities for the production of noise maps for agglomerations at some point in the future?

Data Requirements for Making Noise Maps for Agglomerations

8.37. The proposed generic mapping process is set out and discussed in Chapter 3. Methodologies and data requirements for mapping noise from roads, rail and aircraft are set out and discussed in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 respectively and industrial sites and ports are discussed above in this chapter. As discussed in those chapters, it is expected, based on experience to date, that the necessary data can be supplied through provision by other Scottish Executive organisations, local authorities and in some cases organisations in the private sector such as Network Rail, the airport operators or through existing commercial arrangements. The contract let to make the maps could include provisions for the collection of data. The data would then be modified for use where necessary before it was entered into the noise calculation model.

Designation of the competent authority for developing action plans in agglomerations

8.38. The END requires a single plan for each agglomeration covering all sources – roads, rail, air, industry and ports. As with the other noise action plans, and discussed in previous chapters, the Scottish Executive must designate a competent authority or authorities to make noise action plans for agglomerations. The Scottish Executive proposes that the Scottish Ministers should be the competent authority for developing action plans for agglomerations. The Scottish Ministers will need to enter into agreements with other organisations and possibly commercial companies in order to fulfil some of his/her functions. The relevant authorities or organisations would be consulted before any requirements, legally binding or otherwise, would be placed on them.

8.39. Producing the plans for agglomerations is more complex than for the single transport sources as many different sources have to be considered and there may be many bodies (including more than one local authority) with powers to implement measures in the final plan. In light of this, we propose that the Scottish Executive, through the use of appointed consultants, should act as the key partner for drawing up action plans for noise in agglomerations.

8.40. It is proposed that these key partners should seek input from key stakeholders in particular those likely to have the power to implement the plans relevant to their agglomeration before working up proposals for their draft action plans. They would also be expected to seek a means of receiving input from the public (possibly through local residents groups or open workshops). The Scottish Executive proposes that the regulations should incorporate a requirement for the key partner to seek input from certain other organisations that might include:

• Key partners for the action plans for other noise sources impacting on the agglomeration (i.e. Local highways authorities, and Network Rail);
• Local Authorities;
• Local planning authorities;
• Operators of other guided rail systems;
• Office of the Rail Regulator;
• Train Operating Companies (passenger and freight);
• Airport Operators (proposed competent authorities for making action plans for noise from aircraft);
• SEPA;
• Local Authority Environmental Health Departments;
• Port operators; and
• Operators of industrial premises

8.41. This list is not exhaustive. It would be expected that the key partner would include other relevant stakeholders where appropriate. If as we propose, airport operators are to be named as the competent authority for action plans for all relevant airports, the key partners will use the action plans produced by the airport operators to cover the aircraft noise section of their agglomeration action plan. This will require close liaison between the key partners and the airport operators, to ensure that the action plans complement one another. This is discussed in greater detail in paragraph 8.45.

8.42. The key partner would prepare a draft plan, taking the opinions of each consultee into account. The key partner would then put the draft action plan proposals out to public consultation. Once the public consultation has taken place, the key partner would amend the draft plan in the light of comments made during the consultation and would submit the draft for the Scottish Ministers approval. Once the Scottish Ministers have approved the draft plan as complete and in accordance with the END they would forward the finalised plan to the Commission and the plan would be published. More details on how the generic action plan process would work are set out in Chapter 4.

8.43. This approach would have the advantage of:

• a single partner being responsible for the process and able to co-ordinate all the other organisations which would need to be involved in the development of noise action plans;
• avoids difficulties common to many of the alternatives that partner with no overall responsibility for agglomerations being given duties beyond the scope of those which they already have; and
• it should also be more cost effective than creating one or more new Non-departmental Public Bodies to be responsible for the task.

It would be necessary for the key partner to work very closely with the relevant Local Authorities to ensure that full account was taken of local knowledge.

8.44. The Scottish Executive considers that, should the majority of Local Authorities express a wish to be more heavily involved in the preparation of the plans the Scottish Executive envisages that this could introduced at a later stage when practical experience of implementing the END has been established if a workable proposal could be agreed upon. One notable complication would be the necessity to designate a lead local authority in each agglomeration as the competent authority for making the action plans at a later stage. Each agglomeration is likely to contain a number of local authorities and there is no obvious mechanism for selecting a lead authority from among them.

Q8.7: Do you agree with the Scottish Ministers being designated the competent authority for developing noise action plans for agglomerations?

Q8.8: Would you support the Scottish Ministers entering into agreements with Local Authorities for the production of noise maps for agglomerations at some point in the future? If so, how would you solve the problem of selecting a lead authority from a number represented in an agglomeration?

Q8.9: Do you agree with the list of consultees to be stipulated in the regulations?

Overlapping of Single Source Action Plans with an Agglomeration Action Plan

8.45. In the preparation of the action plan for an agglomeration it will be necessary to ensure that the plan is complementary to any other relevant action plan (i.e. those for roads or airports impacting on the agglomeration). In the case of roads and railways this can be ensured by the Scottish Ministers as competent authority for the making of the plans for each sector. The procedure is more complicated for relevant airports, where the airport operator is proposed as the competent authority for action planning. We propose to require that the airport operators and the key partner for the agglomeration action plan should prepare the plans in parallel and should consult each other in the production of their relevant plans.

8.46. The Scottish Executive also proposes to give more detail regarding how overlap between individual noise sources action plans and agglomeration action plans should be handled by the key partners and airport operators during the process of setting priorities for action plans (see paragraph 4.12) and, if necessary this will be included in an amendment to the implementing regulations. Failure, on the part of a key partner or airport operator to adhere to these principles might mean that the legal requirements of END had not been met as a result of not addressing identified priorities (Article 8, paragraph 1).

Q8.10: Do you agree with the proposals to handle overlapping action plans?

< Previous | Contents | Next >