47. Memorandum submitted by the UK
Noise Association
The UK Noise Association was founded in 2000.
It brings together a unique coalition of key organisations and
individuals lobbying on different aspects of noise. It services
the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Noise Reduction.
We welcome this Inquiry. We will confine our
comments to noise issues.
INTRODUCTION
Neighbour noise is a major source of anti-social
behaviour. It can have a serious impact on the victim. Neighbour
noise can take a number of forms. The most common are loud music,
barking dogs and excessive shouting and thumping. The noise can
be exacerbated by poor sound insulation.
MEASURES THAT
WOULD ASSIST
IN DEALING
WITH NOISY
NEIGHBOURS:
1. A change in the law.
The main piece of legislation used to deal with
neighbour noise is the 1990 Environment Protection Act. For action
to be taken by local authorities, it requires for them to prove
that the noise is a statutory "nuisance". In the case
of excessively loud and prolonged noise that is quite easy to
prove. But in many other cases, the tight legal definition of
the word "nuisance" means that local authorities are
reluctant to take action. We would argue that effective action
could be taken in many more cases if local authorities only needed
to prove "unreasonable annoyance".
2. Anti-social Behaviour Orders.
We welcome the use of anti-social behaviour
orders as an important tool in tackling noise problems. Anti-social
Behaviour Orders, rightly, put the onus on the noise perpetrator
to sort out his/her behaviour. We welcome the clauses, set out
in the ODPM's Anti-social Behaviour: Policy and Procedure—Code
of guidance for local housing authorities and housing action trusts,
requiring landlords to draw up statements on anti-social behaviour.
As far as noise is concerned, the more specific these are, the
more likely they are to be effective. We are not suggesting that
actual decibel levels for acceptable levels of noise are inserted
in the statement (as that would exclude low-frequency noise such
as that from a neighbour's washing machine), but it could be useful
to follow the practice used in places such as Germany or New York
where, it is clearly specified when lawns can be mowed or when
exactly barking dogs become a noise nuisance. This level of detail
makes both the acceptable boundaries clear to tenants and enforcement
easier for the authorities.
3. Tough Tenancy Agreements.
These should include a tough anti-noise clause.
Ideally, this should apply to private tenants as well. This would
provide landlords with an effective and inexpensive way of dealing
with noisy tenants. The tenancy agreement would both act as a
deterrent to anti-social behaviour and as a way of evicting the
tenant if that became necessary. As with anti-social behaviour
orders, tenancy agreements could benefit by detailing, in simple
language, just what is, and what is not acceptable.
— One of the advantages of making more
use of tenancy agreements and anti-social behaviour orders would
be that they need not be dependent on noise being a "statutory
nuisance" or even causing "unreasonable annoyance".
They are based on unreasonable behaviour.
4. A stronger stance by local authorities
This is key. In our experience many local authorities
are reluctant to use the powers they have to deal with the noise
perpetrator. It is likely they would be equally or more reluctant
to use stronger powers. Far too often local authority officers,
housing officers and housing association officials are reluctant
to term neighbour noise as anti-social behaviour. Instead they
tend to talk about "a clash of lifestyles" or "a
neighbour dispute" or brand the victim as "over-sensitive".
Greater involvement of the police would partly overcome this situation
(see below), but there would need to be an expectation/requirement
on local councils, housing authorities (including housing associations)
to make use of any tougher powers given them to deal if neighbour
noise is to be tackled effectively.
At present many local authorities and housing
associations are reluctant to attach blame. They tend to encourage
the use of mediation. Mediation may have a role to play if it
is minor noise dispute or if a reasonable person is unaware of
the effect of his/her behaviour on the neighbours. But its role
is limited. We endorse the view expressed in the current Consultation
on Draft Guidance on Noise Management (Anti-social Behaviour etc
Scotland Act 2004: "it is hard to see how mediation will
effectively deal with true Anti-social Behaviour complaints, especially
where there is an intent to annoy, or cause distress, or a clear
disregard for those affected by the noise makers' activities."
We argue to use mediation in these kind of circumstances allows
the noise perpetrator to avoid responsibility for his/her anti-social
behaviour by being able to imply that it is, in part, the fault
of the victim. This is unacceptable. In these circumstances the
result of mediation would be to prolong the anti-social behaviour.
In these situations tougher measures such as anti-social behaviour
orders would be much more appropriate. We would also favour more
use of confiscation of equipment (including dogs, where necessary!)
and for the appropriate powers to be given where necessary.
5. More use of the Police
There are strong arguments for giving the Police
a much greater role in dealing with neighbour noise problems:
— many people already contact the Police
if they have a problem;
— in our experience, noise sufferers
have much more confidence that the Police will deal with the perpetrator
than local authority officials;
— the Police have a wider range of
legal options to deal with the noise perpetrator than the local
authority officer.
This is not of course to argue that Environmental
Health Officers do not have a role to play. The expertise some—though
by no means all—of them have in noise issues is important,
but a greater involvement of the Police would give many more options
of dealing with the noise perpetrator and thus ending the noise
problem.
6. Improved Sound Insulation
We gave evidence to the Inquiry into Decent
Homes Standard by the ODPM Select Committee. We criticised the
Decent Homes Standard for not including adequate sound insulation
between homes. The Committee, in its report, came to a similar
conclusion. Poor sound insulation can cause and aggravate anti-social
behaviour. Any package to tackle anti-social behaviour, the problem
of noisy neighbours, must include measures to improve poor sound
insulation.
25 August 2004
| 
