< 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

9. Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment

IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2002/49/EC RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE: PARTIAL REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Title

9.1. Regulatory Impact Assessment on proposals for implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise.

Purpose and intended effect of measure

(i) The objective

9.2. The objective of the legislation is to transpose EU Directive 2002/49/EC (the Environmental Noise Directive (END)) accurately, transparently and in the least onerous manner consistent with the END’s requirements. The objective of the END is to provide for the comprehensive collection and analysis of data to prevent further deterioration in the environmental noise climate and to improve it where possible. The data collection and analysis would allow Member States and the European Commission to determine at each level:

• how much noise is affecting how many people; and
• the most cost effective measures or combinations of instruments to reduce the level of environmental noise affecting people.

9.3. The Directive requires the following actions:

• the use of harmonised noise indicators and computational measures so that data can be collected and compared in a standardised way;
• common protocols and systems for noise mapping;
• the drawing up of noise maps;
• making information available for the public;
• the drawing up of local action plans; and
• collection of data by the Commission to inform future Community policy.

9.4. It is intended that in Scotland transposition will be by way of regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

9.5. After the END is transposed into Member State law, the noise mapping and action planning process is to be taken forward in two stages. The first round of mapping and action planning (Phase 1) applies to the largest agglomerations, and the busiest roads and railways and airports and is to be completed by 2007-08. During the second round (Phase 2), to be completed by 2012-13, smaller agglomerations, and the busiest roads and railways which meet the minimum criteria set by the END will be mapped and then action plans will be developed for them.

9.6. Devolution: This RIA is concerned with the transposition of the Environmental Noise Directive (END) in Scotland. The END will also be implemented separately in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For the purposes of the RIA costs and benefits are shown for the whole of the United Kingdom and where possible disaggregated to a regional level.

(ii) The Background

9.7. The EU Green Paper on Future Noise and Policy⁵² stated that environmental noise caused by traffic, industry and recreation was one of the main local environmental problems in Europe.

9.8. The European Community has a long history of working to reduce emission from sources of noise. For example it has adopted Directives controlling noise emissions from aircraft, motor vehicles and industrial plant. Legislation and technological progress have achieved significant reductions of noise from individual sources such as an 85% reduction of noise from individual cars and a 90% reduction from lorries since 1970. However data covering the past 15 years do not show significant improvements in exposure to environmental noise except from aircraft. While these initiatives have been successful in reducing source levels, it is believed that in many areas there has been no significant reduction in exposure levels because of an increase in the number of sources.

9.9. In the UK, policy and legislation to control transport and industrial noise has been developed over a number of decades. There is no provision in the legislation for the comprehensive assessment of environmental noise that would allow a fully integrated approach to its management.

9.10. 'Environmental noise' is defined in the END⁵³ as: 'unwanted or harmful outdoor sound created by human activities, including noise emitted by means of transport, road traffic, rail traffic, air traffic, and noise from sites of industrial activity.

9.11. The END applies to environmental noise to which humans are exposed, but it specifically excludes noise created by the exposed person, noise from domestic activities, neighbour noise, noise at workplaces, noise inside means of transport and noise from military activity in military areas.

9.12. The END was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on 25 June 2002 and had to be transposed into UK law by 18 July 2004. Regrettably it will not now be possible to comply with this deadline but it is the Scottish Executive’s intention to ensure that transposition takes place in 2005.

9.13. The initial Regulatory Impact Assessment published at the time estimated the cost of mapping to the UK, as required by the END, would be between £8 million and £15 million over the first five years of the END coming into force. This partial RIA provides an update to the initial estimates which has resulted in a lessening of the total projected cost. The original costs were initial estimates generated in 2000. Since then research has been carried out including mapping work and the revised costs have been based on the information gained from that research.

9.14. The Directive sets out the elements that must be included in the Action Plans but would not make any action mandatory. Article 11 would require the Commission to report, by the end of 2009, to the European Parliament and Council on the implementation of the END. The report would include a review of the case for setting quality objectives for environmental noise and propose a strategy to achieve them. Such a strategy would consider the setting of goals for the reduction of the number of people affected by noise from specific sources and any measures that are necessary to reach the goals. There is a risk that these measures might require disproportionate expenditure by Member States and/or disproportionate costs to their economies. However, further legislation would be required for setting noise quality objectives and the UK would seek to ensure that the benefits of any future proposals are fully justified by the costs. Currently, the UK Government and the devolved administrations would oppose the imposition of limit values for noise.

(iii) Risk Assessment

9.15. Noise in the environment affects all people and, moreover, affects many of them sufficiently that most express an opinion about it. At one extreme the noise can be loud enough to feel physically uncomfortable and, if persistent enough can lead to a direct deterioration in health through noise induced hearing loss and tinnitus. Fortunately such high and persistent noise levels tend not to occur externally from transport or industrial sources. However, noise from these sources can cause conversation to be disrupted, sleep disturbance or simply generate feelings of annoyance. Consequently, the enjoyment of homes, gardens and open spaces can be adversely affected by this environmental noise. There is mixed evidence on the extent to which environmental causes other health related effects. Concern has been raised about the effects of noise on mental health, cardiovascular and physiological functions and effects on performance such as learning acquisition by children.

9.16. The UK National Noise Incidence Study (NIS) 2000/1⁵⁴,, undertaken by BRE, carried out a national study of environmental noise levels in the UK by generating objective estimates of the pattern of noise exposure of the population based on 24 hour measurements outside over 1,160 dwellings. Based on extrapolating this sample data, the study estimates that 54% (range 51% to 57%) of the population of the UK live in dwellings exposed to external day-time noise levels above about 55 dB L_Aeq,day. The same study also found that 67% (range 64% to 70%) of the population of the UK live in dwellings exposed to external night-time noise levels above 45 dB L_Aeq,night.

9.17. Furthermore, the 1999/2000 National Survey of Attitudes to Environmental Noise⁵⁵,, which surveyed nearly 5,000 people throughout the UK and looked at different noise sources, also indicated a large proportion of respondents were adversely affected by noise. 84% of the respondents heard road traffic noise and 40% were bothered, annoyed or disturbed to some extent. 28% of respondents reported that road traffic had got worse in the past five years and 10% said it had got better. 71% of respondents heard noise from aircraft, and 20% were bothered, annoyed or disturbed to some extent. The survey contains detailed comparative data for England and Wales for 1990 and 1999, but includes the rest of the UK in 2000. The Scottish sample was not significant and therefore the figures quoted are UK responses. ‘Adversely affected’ means that the respondent reported one or more of the following reactions to noise: (i) personally object, (ii) irritate, (iii) disturb, (iv) personally concerned, (v) annoys or upsets at times and (vi) nuisance to you personally. Hence, both the National Noise Incidence Study and the National Survey of Attitudes to Environmental Noise indicate that the current level of noise in some areas does adversely affect the quality of life and hence impose a burden (and costs) on society.

9.18. Prior to the implementation of this Directive, noise tended to be assessed only when a change is expected to occur or has occurred. Environmental Impact legislation requires potential new noise making developments to be assessed, the impact understood and where necessary appropriate mitigation measures to be applied. When new noise sensitive developments are proposed, for example, housing or schools, legislation and guidance require that an assessment is made regarding the extent the prevailing noise would impact on the new development. This then requires the development to be designed to reflect the prevailing noise environment. In same instances, permission for such development is refused because the existing noise is such that the location is unsuitable for the development proposed.

9.19. Noise is also investigated when complaints are made. Again, there has been a change. People who apparently were content with the noise environment are no longer content, and express their views by complaining. Such complaints may be directly related to a change in the noise environment that has been noticed, or, for some reason, people may have suddenly become aware of, and disturbed by a noise that has actually existed for some time.

9.20. Where there is a gap in the current management of noise is where there is simple intensification of use. For example, with road traffic, whilst the noise of individual vehicles has reduced over the years, the number of vehicles using our roads has increased and the potential noise benefit from the quieter individual vehicles has not been secured.

9.21. Implementation of the END will provide information on the noise environment without any specific proposal or change in mind. It will provide data on the nature and extent of the noise impact and help identify:

• whether there are any people unnecessarily exposed to higher than desirable noise levels, suffering accordingly and causing a cost to society; and
• what areas of relative quiet we might or could have, thus enabling us to develop measures to protect them and not have the noise environment inadvertently eroded.

9.22. With this information we will be able to understand better how the noise environment in our agglomerations and near our major roads, railways and airports is changing. Policies can be developed that will enable strategic noise management to be carried out alongside the processes and procedures that already exist to address individual situations.

Options

9.23. The following are options for implementation of the END in Scotland:

Option 1: Do nothing.

Option 2: To undertake mapping to meet the requirements of the END in 2007-08 and 2012-13, deriving the maps from individual measurement. In principle, the proposed Directive would allow for mapping by noise measurements, a method requiring less technical expertise than deriving maps from computer-based predictions.

Option 3: To undertake mapping to meet the requirements of the END in 2007-08 and 2012-13, deriving the maps from computer-based noise modelling. The Scottish Executive proposes that the Scottish Ministers should be the competent authority for developing the noise maps and subsequent action plans, except in the case of airports. It is likely that the Scottish Executive would engage consultants or other parties to prepare the maps on the Scottish Ministers behalf but the Scottish Ministers would retain the legal responsibility. This is the recommended option.

The Benefits

9.24. Noise mapping will not in itself reduce or control human exposure to noise and therefore offers no direct benefits. Its value lies in providing a tool to assess the noise climate, identify areas where action is most needed and which solutions would be most cost effective. The mapping will facilitate the formulation of action plans that can be used to improve or stabilise environmental noise. Mapping can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of current measures and monitor the outcome of future measures.

9.25. The benefits of the options for implementation are presented below:

Option 1: Do nothing option. The costs of transposition, and in the short term, of implementation, would be avoided.

Option 2: To undertake mapping to meet the requirements of the END in 2007-08 and 2012-13, deriving the maps from individual measurement. In principle, the proposed Directive would allow for mapping by noise measurements, a method requiring less technical expertise than deriving maps from computer-based predictions. However, there are a number of practical and theoretical difficulties with this approach. Capturing sufficient information at the necessary resolution through measurement would involve an extremely large survey that would be very resource intensive. Furthermore, unattended measurements, except in so far as peaks can be accurately attributed to known events, are indiscriminate and a noise level meter will measure the total noise at a location and not just the noise from one source in that area. It would not be possible to provide the level of detail required by the END through measurement alone.

Option 3: To undertake mapping to meet the requirements of the END in 2007 and 2012, deriving the maps from computer-based noise modelling. The benefit of using computer-based modelling to produce noise maps is that is that it is significantly less resource intensive than using only measurements. Furthermore, it allows information to be gathered separately for the four sources of noise: road, rail, air traffic and industry, as required by the END. Furthermore, computer-based noise modelling has been used for several years, in particular, as part of noise impact assessments for proposed noise-generating developments. Thus, the process itself is well established.

9.26. An additional issue is that of the relevant competent authority. There are a number of options for designating competent authorities, but the preferred option of designating the Scottish Ministers as competent authority for strategic noise maps (with the exception of major non-designated airports) and action plans in all cases (with the exception of major airports) has a number of benefits. These are in terms of

• having one organisation co-ordinating the mapping process which avoids duplication and ensures consistency in the quality and form of the data collected;
• providing consistency with the approach proposed to map the different transport sources and agglomerations;
• one organisation co-ordinating the effort of different organisations involved in the production of action plans for the major transport sources and agglomerations;
• in the case of agglomerations it avoids those bodies with no overall responsibility for agglomerations being given duties beyond the scope of those which they already have; and
• enabling the Scottish Ministers to ensure that the END's requirements are met with respect to noise mapping and the production of actions plans.

9.27. This approach to the regulations would also allow flexibility to address wider issues relating to noise mapping and the development of noise action plans. Further guidance on the process and other refinements would also be subject to consultation.

9.28. It is recognised that there are disadvantages in designating the Scottish Ministers as the competent authority including the fact that by not designating local authorities as the competent authorities, the potential for achieving effective co-ordination with local development plans may not be fully appropriated (except in the case of airports); and the responsibility for mapping and action planning is not given to those authorities with the most direct control over action at local level and the greater degree of local knowledge. However, these disadvantages would be overcome by the full involvement of those authorities responsible for the different transport sources and agglomerations.

9.29. Whilst noise mapping in itself does not reduce or control human exposure to noise, the information it provides can facilitate the delivery of action plan proposals, enabling the improvement of environmental noise. Research into the economic valuation of noise indicates that people have a positive willingness to pay to reduce noise levels. There have been a number of valuation studies of noise using both stated preference and revealed preferences techniques (for example: hedonic price). Hedonic studies rely on actual behaviour in the housing market where individuals’ willingness to pay for noise and other environmental characteristics of the house can be observed.

9.30. The UK Government’s Department of Transport has recently completed a research project called ‘The Valuation of Transport Related Noise in Birmingham’⁵⁶ with the aim of obtaining a monetary value to represent the welfare impact of changes in the noise environment in their transport appraisals. This study uses hedonic pricing techniques to estimate what households are willing to pay to reduce their noise exposure. The Department is now assessing how best to relate the findings of this study to the information collected on traffic related changes in noise levels collected as part of the appraisal process. The aim is to provide an additional money based indicator in the appraisal framework by the summer.

The Costs

9.31. The costs of the options for implementation are presented below.

Option 1: Do nothing option. There would be no costs in the initial stages. However, this option would not comply with the requirements of the END, and could ultimately result in infraction proceedings against the UK in the European Court of Justice and would incur substantial costs at that point.

Option 2: To undertake mapping to meet the requirements of the END in 2007-08 and 2012-13, deriving the maps from individual measurement. The cost of completing the mapping by measurement would depend on the level of accuracy to be achieved. This is largely determined by the number of measurements taken in the area to be mapped, but even a minimal level of accuracy would be far more expensive to produce by this method than by computational methods. Actual costings data is scarce but an important example is provided by a project undertaken by the City of Birmingham. , The computer-based mapping undertaken by the City of Birmingham in 2000, cost £211,000. To produce a map of this accuracy covering a similar area by measurements alone would require 3.3 million measurements costing between £300 and £400 each, i.e. a total of over £900 million. Hence the costs of mapping the requirements for the END for the UK would be considerable under this option.

Option 3: To undertake mapping to meet the requirements of the END in 2007-08 and 2012-13, deriving the maps from computer-based noise modelling. The following presents a detailed analysis of the estimated costs for Option 3 for:

(i) Costs of mapping using computer-based methods

(ii) Costs of producing noise action plans.

9.32. A summary of the costs of producing noise maps and action plans for the two phases of the END (2007-08 and 2012-13) are presented at the end of the costs section.

Cost of noise maps by computer-based predictions

9.33. Defra and the Devolved Administrations commissioned environmental consultants Casella-Stanger to provide estimated costs for undertaking noise mapping to enable the UK to meet the requirements of the Environmental Noise Directive in 2007 and 2012. The following section describes the approach used and their results

9.34. It should be noted that the costs presented in this section represent total costs, assuming a baseline for comparison of no existing mapping. Whilst in reality, there are a number of mapping programmes in existence (e.g. by major airports), it is not clear that such existing programmes would fully meet the requirements of the END. Therefore total costs are presented throughout, even though incremental costs may be lower.

9.35. Detailed analysis was undertaken to cost the following aspects of noise mapping:

• The cost of mapping roads in 2007 and 2012;
• The cost of mapping railways in 2007 and 2012;
• The cost of mapping authorized industrial processes in 2007 and 2012;
• The cost of mapping airports (air noise) in 2007 and 2012;
• The cost of mapping noise from ports in 2007 and 2012; and
• The cost for collating mapping results and undertaking exposure analysis.

Approach

9.36. The costs for noise mapping have been produced in a variety of manners. Where possible costs have been based upon available mapping costs from projects which have been undertaken within the UK and applied to information on the extent and location of noise sources.

9.37. Where detailed costs have proven to be unobtainable, judgements about the likely costs have been derived from costs for mapping similar types of feature. This relates to the costs for mapping rail noise and ports, which have been based upon roads and Part A1(IPPC regime) industry respectively.

9.38. Where detailed information has been unobtainable for particular areas of the UK, costs have been extrapolated from data available for other areas of the UK where information is available. This relates to Part A2 and B processes of the IPPC regime inside agglomerations in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

9.39. The overall costs for mapping have been broken down to enable the following details to be seen:

• The costs for mapping Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland;
• The total costs for mapping in 2007 (Phase 1) and 2012 (Phase 2);
• The costs of mapping individual noise sources (roads, rail, industry, ports and aviation);
• The costs for mapping inside and outside agglomerations;
• The proportionate costs associated with the 3-stage conceptual process of producing maps for roads and rail (1. data acquisition, 2. systems configuration and 3. result, analysis and report production). It has not been possible to provide this detailed breakdown for the other noise sources.

How costs have been broken down/apportioned to the 3 key stages within the mapping process.

9.40. It is possible to break down a road and rail mapping project into a number of conceptual stages, each identifying particular processes or activities which need to be undertaken in order to identify costs associated with particular tasks. This ‘broken-down’ information can then be used to inform decisions to minimize particular costs.

9.41. At a simple level the modelling process can be considered in 3 key stages:

• data acquisition;
• systems configuration; and
• results, analysis and report production.

9.42. Data acquisition relates to activity associated with the gathering and collation of relevant information or data to be used in the production of the map. It may include a diverse range of activity including the commissioning of contracts to capture data specifically for the purposes of a mapping project, the licensing of datasets from 3rd party suppliers or costs associated with the modification of data directly available to the mapping project. In the context of noise mapping this may include map data identifying the locations of sources and receptors of noise, asset information such as traffic flows and noise barriers.

9.43. System configuration costs are associated with the purchase, leasing or development of specific software and hardware tools which will be used to store, process and manipulate digital information. In the case of noise mapping this will include server technology, noise calculation software, geographic information systems and associated information technology equipment.

9.44. The final stage of the mapping process will involve the integration of digital information within the noise mapping system and the production of noise results. The noise mapping results can then be used within analysis, typically to estimate the exposure of receptors. For the purposes of reporting the results of the noise map and subsequent analysis a report will be produced.

9.45. Both for road and rail noise mapping, data acquisition makes up over 50% of the costs of mapping. However, as the way in which organisations collect and process the data changes over time, it will become progressively cheaper to acquire data as organisations standardise their databases and the quality of information they gather. The costs of producing noise maps are therefore likely to fall over the duration of the END. The costs in this section however, are estimated based on current mapping and data acquisition techniques, as it is not possible at present to estimate how much the mapping costs are likely to fall, due to the uncertainties in the way mapping technology is going to develop.

Presentation of mapping cost information

(A) Mapping Roads

9.46. The cost of mapping roads has been derived from current road noise mapping projects being undertaken by Defra. Currently this work shows an estimated unit cost of £71.41 per km based upon 2004 prices and technical approach.

9.47. Road lengths were calculated for the roads specified within the END for 2007 and 2012. The lengths of individual road links were calculated by summing the total lengths of road within the 2002 DfT Road Traffic Census dataset⁵⁷ where the END threshold criteria were met. A correction factor, calculated from Ordnance Survey mapping, was applied to the results obtained from the DfT dataset, to account for the lack of resolution inherent in the DfT dataset⁵⁸.

9.48. The END threshold for roads to be included within agglomerations was Daily Flow ≥1,100 vehicles per day (to account for 10% night totals) and major roads (defined as Motorways and Primary roads) with a flow of ≥6million and ≥3million vehicle passages per annum for 2007 and 2012, respectively.

9.49. The cost of mapping road noise sources is shown in Table 1 below. The data is split by country.

Table 1. Table setting out the cost of mapping road noise sources for the Environmental Noise Directive within the UK.

9.50. The total road costs for 2007 and 2012 have also been analysed according to the 3-stage process (data acquisition, system configuration and results, analysis and reporting) and further subdivided into costs associated with mapping inside and outside agglomerations. These figures are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 below.

Table 2. Table setting out detailed costs for implementing the END, by country and by conceptual mapping stage within and outside agglomerations (2007).

Table 3. Table setting out detailed costs for implementing the END, by country and by conceptual mapping stage within and outside agglomerations (2012).

(B) Mapping Rail

9.51. The cost of mapping railways has been derived from current road noise mapping projects being undertaken by Defra and from studies which indicate the costs associated with data acquisition to be substantially greater than road mapping. Currently this work shows an estimated unit cost of £115.26 per km based upon 2004 prices and technical baseline approach.

9.52. The rail lengths were calculated by applying the END threshold of ≥60,000 and ≥30,000 passages per annum, for 2007 and 2012 respectively, to a flow dataset provided by Network Rail to identify the total lengths of rail to be mapped outside agglomerations. The total lengths of rail to be mapped within agglomerations were calculated from Ordnance Survey mapping⁵⁹,⁶⁰.

9.53. The cost of mapping rail noise sources is shown in Table 4 below. The data is split by country.

Table 4. Table setting out the cost of mapping rail noise sources for the Environmental Noise Directive within the UK.

9.54. The total rail costs for 2007 and 2012 have also been analysed according to the 3-stage process (data acquisition, system configuration and results, analysis and reporting) and further subdivided into costs associated with mapping inside and outside agglomerations. These figures are presented in Table 5 and Table 6 below.

Table 5. Table setting out detailed costs for implementing the END, by country and by conceptual mapping stage within and outside agglomerations (2007).

Table 6. Table setting out detailed costs for implementing the END, by country and by conceptual mapping stage within and outside agglomerations (2012).

(C) Mapping Aviation

9.55. The cost of mapping airports has been based on past noise mapping projects undertaken by the CAA and other noise mapping projects. An average cost per airport, based on current mapping conditions has been calculated to be £50,000 per airport.

9.56. Major airports have been defined within the END as ‘any facility with ≥50,000 movements per annum’ (25 in the UK, 4 in Scotland). In addition to this criterion, the overall cost of mapping airports includes airports where the airport centre is within 5km of an agglomeration, even if the number of movements is less than 50,000. This has been applied to agglomerations of 250,000 and 100, 000 inhabitants, for 2007 and 2012 respectively⁶¹.

9.57. The cost of mapping aviation noise is shown in Table 7 below. The data is split by country.

Table 7. Table setting out the cost of mapping aviation noise sources for the Environmental Noise Directive within the UK.

(D) Mapping Ports

9.58. The cost of mapping ports has been based on the average cost of mapping Part A1 industrial sites. Based on current mapping approaches this has been calculated to be on average £50,000 per port.

9.59. For the purposes of the RIA a major port has been defined using the DfT definition, under the European Maritime Statistics Directive, as a port handling over one million tonnes of cargo per annum (52 in UK)⁶².

9.60. Due to the nature of ports often being comprised of more than one discrete area, ports which sprawl into agglomerations have been included in the overall costs⁶³.

9.61. The cost of mapping noise from ports is shown in Table 8 below. The data is split by country.

Table 8. Table setting out the cost of mapping noise from ports for the Environmental Noise Directive within the UK.

(E) Mapping Industry

9.62. The cost of mapping industry has been categorised on costs for Part A1/A2 and Part B⁶⁴of the IPPC regime.

9.63. Cost estimates for dataset creation and industrial noise mapping have been set out below. The costs are for implementation of the simplest Toolkit method from the WG AEN GPG only and are based upon the experiences of the feasibility study which engaged with and obtained the cooperation of a single local authority.

9.64. The following assumptions have been made:

• That 5992 IPC/PPC and LAPC industrial sites will be located inside agglomerations in 2007 increasing to 7130 in 2012;
• That the cost of labour is £562.50 (or equivalent to £75 per hour).

Additional assumptions are set out below where relevant.

9.65. The cost of creating an industrial sites dataset to meet the requirements of the simple toolkit method described was calculated by factoring up the costs encountered during the feasibility study. It has been assumed that relevant source data is available for the required areas.

9.66. For the purposes of this study a sample of the 64 authorised processes were identified within a single London Borough. Of these sites 1 significant part A and 11 Part B processes were selected for the feasibility assessment therefore 12 sites were considered in total.

9.67. Following initial discussions with the London Borough and design time spent within the project team, the dataset took 6 hours to create, therefore each site taking an average of ½ hour.

9.68. It is likely that this timescale could be increased significantly, however the time of ½ hour per site will be used for the costing.

9.69. ½ hour per site equates to £224,700 and £267,375 for dataset creation in 2007 and 2012 respectively. It is suggested that with a 10% management element the following costs for dataset creation, on a national basis, could be considered:

• In 2007 - £250,000;
• In 2012 – £300,000.

9.70. Work associated with the noise calculations for the 12 sites took approximately 4 hours to complete. This included development and setup of a previously created ground model, loading of the industrial dataset, configuration of the noise software tool for this study ‘Lima’ was the noise software chosen) and calculation at 10m grid receptor resolution.

9.71. The costs equate to:

• In 2007 - £150,000;
• In 2012 – £180,000.

9.72. The mapping costs assume the supply of a ground model. If this is not supplied the estimated national cost is predicted to rise by up to £2m. This cost would be borne by Scottish Executive.

9.73. The costs for mapping industrial noise source is summarised in Table 9.

Table 9. Table setting out the estimated cost of mapping industrial noise sources for the Environmental Noise Directive within the UK.

* The ranges presented take account of a cost of £2m if it is not possible to re-use an existing ground model

Costs for Scotland

9.73.(a) The proposed approach to mapping in Scotland is significantly different to the rest of the UK therefore cost apportionment is difficult to estimate. Initial cost estimates prepared by the WG-AEN GPG were based on using the number of activities as defined in the IPPC Directive as the basis for noise mapping however, the methodology proposed for Scotland requires an initial prioritisation step which will mean that significantly fewer locations will require to be mapped and therefore potentially less expensive. Without having actual numbers of locations any cost estimation would be approximations.

9.73.(b) Cost estimates for dataset creation and industrial noise mapping have been set out below. The costs are for implementation of the simplest Toolkit method from the WG AEN GPG only and are based upon the experiences of a feasibility study which engaged with and obtained the cooperation of a single local authority in England.

9.73.(c) The cost of creating an industrial sites dataset to meet the requirements of the simple toolkit method described was calculated by factoring up the costs encountered during the feasibility study. It has been assumed that the majority of source data is available for the required areas. The exception to this is a land use classification system which has to be sourced and assigned to the existing data. Initial cost estimates for land use classification data is illustrated below. (table 9(b).

9.73.(d) For the purposes of the above study 12 sites were considered in total. Following initial discussions with the Local Authority and design time spent within the project team, the dataset took 6 hours to create, therefore each site taking an average of ½ hour. It is likely that this timescale could be increased significantly; however the time of ½ hour per site will be used for the costing. Irrespective of a site being identified as a PPC site or identified via the proposed risk based prioritisation method proposed in Scotland, the time approximations would be similar.

9.73.(e) Work associated with the noise calculations for the 12 sites took approximately 4 hours to complete. This included development and setup of a previously created ground model, loading of the industrial dataset, configuration of the noise software tool (Lima was used for this study) and calculation at 10m grid receptor resolution.

9.73.(f) Assuming the acquisition of a land classification system does not increase the ½ hour per site estimate, it could be assumed that the cost estimates prepared in relation to the study will not increase and could potentially be reduced.

9.73.(f) The mapping costs assume the supply of a ground model. If this is not supplied the estimated national cost is predicted to rise. This cost would be borne by the Scottish Executive.

Table 9(b). Table setting out the estimated cost of acquisition of land use datasets for Scotland. Figures based on current cost estimates from suppliers

* Plus £2k if additional licences required..

Cost of Action Plans

9.74. :The END requires the competent authorities, designated by the Member States to develop and adopt action plans 'designed to manage, within their territories, noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary' (Article 8, paragraph 1). The END also lists the minimum which each plan should contain (Annex V). This includes:

• a description of the agglomeration or major noise source to be considered;
• the authority responsible;
• the legal context; any limit values in place;
• a summary of the results of the noise mapping;
• an evaluation of the estimated number of people exposed to noise, identification of problems and situations which need to be improved;
• a record of the public consultation;
• current noise -reduction measures in force or in preparation;
• actions which the competent authorities intend to take in the next five years (including preservation of quiet areas);
• long-term strategy;
• financial information (this includes cost effectiveness); and
• provisions for evaluation of the action plans

9.75. The approach to developing action plans, for all the sources considered, is likely to consist of 5 steps

• To carry out a more detailed noise assessment of areas which appear as high noise areas on the strategic noise maps.
• Once priorities for noise reduction are identified, the Scottish Ministers should appoint a key body to investigate potential actions considering the effectiveness of any actions and appropriate cost-benefit analysis in consultation with certain stakeholders.
• After drawing up initial options, there would be a public consultation as required by the END (Article 8, paragraph 7).
• To publicise the revised action plans in light of the consultation.
• To review the action plan every five years, as required by the END.

9.76. The costs of the action plans will vary depending on the source of noise and whether it is an action plan for an agglomeration. Hence, the costs for the different sources will be investigated separately.

(A) Roads

9.77. The production of action plans for major roads outside agglomerations would be the responsibility of the Scottish Ministers. However, the Scottish Ministers may enter into agreements with the roads authorities, to carry out the action plans or consult on them, as these authorities have the power to implement any actions arising from the plans.

9.78. There are no parallels to road noise action plans to be able to draw any quantitative information from and therefore it would be difficult to estimate the costs of producing an action plan for the major road network.

9.79. However, the cost of producing action plans for roads outside agglomerations is likely to be significantly lower than the costs of producing action plans for agglomerations as the production of the actions plans is likely to be carried out by a single organisation (the Scottish Ministers) reducing the costs of coordinating a number of bodies and administration costs.

(B) Rail

9.80. Similar to the action plans for roads, the production of action plans for major railways outside agglomerations would be the responsibility of the Scottish Ministers. However, the Scottish Ministers may enter into agreements with or consult relevant organisations including:

• Network Rail;
• operators of other guided rail systems;
• Office of the Rail Regulator; and
• train operating companies (passenger and freight).

9.81. It is difficult to estimate the cost of producing action plans due to the lack of data and precedent.

(C) Air Traffic

9.82. The Scottish Executive favours the airport operators being designated as the competent authority for the production of action plans relating to major airports. In practice, airports already act as the day-to-day regulators of operational noise from aircraft, by monitoring and enforcing adherence to their noise control procedures and the Scottish Executive believes that those with the powers to implement measures to control noise are best placed to draw up the action plans. In the case of air noise, this would mean that the airport operators would draw up the plan or plans to manage noise for the airports for which they are responsible

9.83. It is difficult to estimate the cost of producing action plans for airports due to the lack of data and precedent. The cost, however is likely to be smaller than the cost of producing agglomeration action plans as each airport operator will have to produce and implement an action plan for just one airport. Hence, there will not be a need to coordinate a number of different bodies, nor to draw up action plans for a number of different sources. In any case, the White Paper 'The Future of Air Transport'⁶⁵ paragraphs 12.7 – 12.9 requests airport operators to produce master plans. These plans should include detailed proposals for environmental controls, including noise controls. Assuming, therefore, that airports do produce and maintain such plans, as we are confident they will, the incremental cost of ensuring that the noise-related element conforms with the END requirements for action plans, should be relatively modest.

(D) Agglomerations

9.84. Detailed and in-depth analysis has not been undertaken at this stage to estimate the cost of action plans. However, in order to obtain an estimate of the magnitude of the costs of producing a noise action plan for an agglomeration, previous experience Local Authorities and private consultants⁶⁶ have had with action plans in other policy areas has been used as a basis.

9.85. It should be noted that although similar, the costs of generating action plans in other policy areas are not directly comparable to the costs of producing noise action plans for agglomerations for mainly two reasons:

• the area defined as an agglomeration for the purposes of the END is not consistent with Local Authority boundaries, since an agglomeration may be comprised of several parts of local authorities; and
• the costs of other actions plans are not directly comparable because action plans covering different policy areas involve different processes and occur over different timescales.

9.86. The cost estimates in this section should only therefore be used as a guide to what the cost of producing action plans for agglomerations is likely to be.

9.87. In order to apply the information gathered to agglomerations the costs obtained were broken down to a per capita basis. These costs include:

• the costs of developing a draft local action plan (consultant fees or Local Authority staff costs);
• the staff costs to a local authority of undertaking administration, consultation and stakeholder meetings; and
• the costs to the Scottish Executive of approving the action plans.

9.88. The per capita estimates were then multiplied by the population in agglomerations⁶⁷.

9.89. The estimated costs of action plans are split into Phase 1 (2007-08) and Phase 2 (2012-13). For Phase 1 of the END only those agglomerations with a population greater than 250,000 will have to produce action plans. For Phase 2, all agglomerations with populations over 100,000 will have to produce action plans. Table 10 below illustrates these cost estimates.

Table 10: Costs of Noise Action Plans for Agglomerations – 2007-08 & 2012-13.

Summary of total estimated costs of Option 3

9.90. The following table summarises the costs for mapping and action planning for Scotland an the rest of the UK.

Table 11: Summary of total costs of Option 3 – 2007-08 & 2012-13.

N.B. This table currently does not take into account costs of mapping industry for the UK – calculated to be £400,000 in 2007-08, rising to £480,000 in 2012-13. A further £2m will be needed if a new ground model has to be developed.

Consultation with small business: The Small Firms’ Impact Test

9.91. The costs of the proposals fall mainly on the Scottish Ministers as the designated competent authority. Other organisations that may bear some of the costs, are large organisations such as the Highways Agency, Network Rail, Local Authorities and major airport operators. It is anticipated that the role of other industrial organisations will be limited to those that operate major plants and would only involve participation in any consultation on the formulation of action plans.

9.92. Hence, the implementation of the proposed Directives is not expected to have a direct impact on small businesses or airports which have fewer than 50,000 aircraft movements per annum. However, views on this issue would be welcomed as part of the consultation process.

Competition Assessment

9.93. The costs of the proposals fall mainly on the Scottish Ministers as the designated competent authority. Other organisations that may be involved with the consultation and formulation of action plans primarily include, Network Rail, local authorities and major airport operators. There may be a possible smaller role for those companies operating major industrial plants within the consultation process regarding the formulation of any action plans.

9.94. In relation to the proposals within this RIA (mapping and formulation of action plans), it is not expected that there will be any major implications on competition from carrying out the necessary tasks to meet the END’s requirements. In terms of the implementation of the action plans, any proposed measure would be subject to consultation, including costs benefit analysis, and full consideration of potential competitive issues would be taken into consideration at this stage.

Enforcement and Sanctions

9.95. It is intended that in Scotland transposition will be by way of regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Hence, the Scottish Ministers, through legislation, will be responsible for ensuring the requirements of the END are being met, or the Scottish Executive, as part of the United Kingdom will ultimately face infraction proceedings in the European Court of Justice.

Monitoring and Review

9.96. Monitoring whether the requirements of the END have been met will be undertaken by the European Commission as the outputs of the noise mapping and the action planning are submitted to the Commission.

9.97. The END will be formally reviewed in 2009 after the first round of noise maps and action plans have been completed. This could result in changes to the approach required to implement the second round of mapping and action planning.

Consultation

9.98. In August 2000, the Scottish Executive wrote to local authorities, local authority representatives, voluntary organisations and industry, seeking views on the proposed Directive.

9.99. This RIA forms Chapter 9 of the consultation on proposals for implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC.

Summary and recommendation

9.100. The table below summarises the costs and benefits of the options for implementing the END, listed in this RIA.

Table 12: Summary of options proposed and their costs and benefits

N.B. This table currently does not take into account costs of mapping industry for the UK – calculated to be under the IPPC approach as £400,000 in 2007-08, rising to £480,000 in 2012-13. A further £2m will be needed if a new ground model has to be developed.

9.101. On the basis of the results of this RIA, the Scottish Executive recommends Option 3, mapping by computer-based noise modelling, for the implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive.

9.102. Noise mapping and the preparation of action plans would improve the way that expenditure on controlling noise is targeted. It has not been possible to quantify this benefit but, as current expenditure on noise control is large, it could be substantial.

9.103. Of the technical options – mapping by computation or by measurement – the former would be the most cost effective and useful. It is a less resource intensive method of collecting data and enables information to be gathered separately for the four sources of noise, as required by END. The estimates of costs using computer-based modelling are far lower than by individual measurement. Furthermore, the costs of mapping by computation are likely to fall in the future, as data acquisition and management becomes more consistent across the organisations involved in the strategic mapping process.

9.104. The proposition that the Scottish Ministers be designated the competent authority will minimise the organisational costs by avoiding duplication and ensuring consistency of the data collected. The impact on business will also be minimised as most of the cost will fall on the Scottish Ministers.

< Previous | Contents | Next >