annex 6 construction noise no0234

Defra Contract NO0234

An investigation into the effect of historic noise policy interventions

Revised Report

ANNEX 6

CONSTRUCTION NOISE

29 May 2013

Prepared by

RUPERT TAYLOR FIOA

Consultants in Acoustics and Noise Control

Spring Garden, Fairwarp, Nr Uckfield, E. Sussex, TN22 3BG

Telephone: 01825 712435 Fax: 01825 712542

Website: ruperttaylor.com Email: [email protected]

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 FORMAT AND STRUCTURE OF ANNEX ............................................................. 1 1.2 ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS REPORT ................ 1

2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE .................................................................................. 3

2.1 POLICY TO BE EXAMINED ............................................................................... 3 2.2 QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED ......................................................................... 3 2.3 POLICY BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY ........................................................... 3 2.4 THE POLICY IN PRACTICE ............................................................................... 3

3 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICY ............................................................ 5

3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 5 3.2 THE NOISE ABATEMENT ACT 1960 ................................................................ 5 3.3 THE WILSON REPORT (1963) ........................................................................ 6 3.4 THE SCOTT REPORT (1971) .......................................................................... 9 3.5 THE CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT 1974 ....................................................... 9 3.6 DEVELOPMENT OF CODE OF PRACTICE BS 5228 UP TO 1986 ....................... 14 3.7 THE EC DIRECTIVE ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) 1985 ... 15 3.8 EC DIRECTIVES RE NOISE FROM CONSTRUCTION PLANT 1986 AND 2000 ....... 16 3.9 THE CONTROL OF NOISE AT SURFACE MINERAL WORKINGS (1990) .............. 16 3.10 THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990 ............................................. 16 3.11 OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FROM CIRIA (1985 – 1999) ...................... 17 3.12 DEVELOPMENT OF BS 5228 UP TO 2009 ...................................................... 17 3.13 BS 5228: 2009 – OUTLINE AND AIMS .......................................................... 18

4 IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECT OF THE POLICY ...................................... 21

4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 21 4.2 ANALYSIS OF CIEH LA DATA RE CONSTRUCTION NOISE 1971 – 2009/10 ..... 21 4.3 NSCA SURVEYS: 1997 – 2002 ................................................................... 25 4.4 THE ROLE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE ........................................................... 27 4.5 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THE PERIOD 1971 TO 2010 ................................ 30 4.6 PERSPECTIVES OF PRACTIONERS ................................................................ 34 4.7 EXPERIENCE OF THE NOISE ABATEMENT SOCIETY ........................................ 39 4.8 SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECT ............................................... 40

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 44

5.1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 44 5.2 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 45

DEFRA PROJECT NO 0234 ANNEX 6 Page 1 of 48 POLICY INTERVENTION CONSTRUCTION NOISE Date of this version: 29 May 2013

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Format and Structure of Annex

1.1.1 The information is arranged as follows:

Section 2 Sets out the question to be examined and the main documents in the development of the policy

Section 3 Describes the development of the policy documents Section 4 Considers the implementation and effect of the policy Section 5 Presents the summary and conclusions

1.2 Organisations and individuals contributing to this report

Chartered Institute for Environmental Health

1.2.1 The history of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) can be traced back to the 1840s when Edwin Chadwick led a vigorous campaign for change which eventually resulted in the Public Health Act 1848. The Act provided for the appointment of Inspectors of Nuisances - the forerunners of today's environmental health practitioners - in areas of need. The Association of Public Sanitary Inspectors was established in 1883 and this was the forerunner of the CIEH which a registered charity and the professional voice for environmental health.

1.2.2 The CIEH provides information, evidence and policy advice to local and national government and environmental and public health practitioners in the public and private sectors. The Institute carries out an annual survey of Local Authorities to gather data on complaints received and action taken under the various statutes that are enforced by Environmental Health Departments.

1.2.3 The CIEH also aims by campaigning to promote improvements in environmental and public health policy1. Information has been provided by Howard Price, the Principal Policy Officer at the CIEH who has long experience of the process for implementing policy including presenting evidence to Parliament.

Environmental Protection UK (EPUK)

1.2.4 Environmental Protection UK traces its roots back to the foundation of the Coal Smoke Abatement Society (CSAS) in 1898, making it one of the oldest environmental NGOs. CSAS was founded by London based artist Sir William Blake Richmond and over the following decades the Society was instrumental in the introduction of the 1926 Public Health (Smoke Abatement Act) and the 1956 Clean Air Act.

1 Howard Price and Kim Willis provided the input and analysis from the CIEH data archive.


1.2.5 Following increasing concerns from members about involvement in noise issues, a National Noise Committee was established in 1984 and a Land Quality Committee in the late 1990s. The NSCA changed its name to Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) in October 2007. Particular contributions to this report are the surveys undertaken by the NSCA in 19997 – 2002 of the views of local authority officers concerning noise. The information has been provided by Mary Stevens, the former Head of Policy at EPUK drawing n the EPUK data archive.

Noise Abatement Society

1.2.6 The Noise Abatement Society (NAS) was founded in 1959 by the late John Connell OBE, whose campaigning led to the Noise Abatement Act and the designation of noise as a 'statutory nuisance'. Since then, the NAS has continued to provide informed input to Government to guide noise policy and has developed other roles that support its objective to raise awareness of, and find solutions to, noise pollution.

1.2.7 The NAS runs the UK‘s only national noise helpline offering free advice for those who are suffering from noise nuisance at home, work and in the community and is also involved in many projects and campaigns which aim to improve the aural landscape for all. The NAS works with industry to encourage the production of quieter goods, with academics and scientists to identify the issues and research possible solutions, and with government to change policy and effect change.

1.2.8 The NAS‘s information was provided by Lisa Lavia, the Managing Director.

Individual acousticians

1.2.9 Personal communications from individual acousticians:

Dr Alan Wills Noise and vibration specialist in construction firm and current chairman of BSI BS5228 Committee

Roger Tompsett MIOA Noise consultant and developer of BS5228 prediction software

Alan Bloomfield FIOA Former noise specialist in local, regional, and national government

Mike Wright MIOA Noise consultant and former member of a Road Construction Unit


2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE

2.1 Policy to be examined

ix) policies to control noise from construction sites 2.2 Question to be answered

2.2.1 Did BS 5228 help reduce complaints from construction noise?

2.3 Policy Background and Summary

2.3.1 In 1960 Local Authorities‘ powers were extended to enable them to take action in respect of noise or vibration under existing ‗statutory nuisance‘ legislation.

2.3.2 In 1963 the Wilson Report2 proposed that specific procedures be considered for noise from construction sites and that local authorities (LA) should be given some statutory control over particularly noisy operations from construction activity.

2.3.3 The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (CoPA) introduced such powers (S60) and also a procedure (S61) whereby a person intending to carry out construction works could apply to the LA for approval of their proposed working methods and programme.

2.3.4 CoPA also introduced a power under which the Secretary of State could approve Codes of Practice on particular aspects of noise.

2.3.5 In 1975 the British Standards Institute published a Code of Practice (BS5228) on the control of noise and vibration from construction and open sites which was then approved as a Code of Practice under CoPA.

2.3.6 BS 5228 was revised (in whole or part) in 1984, 1986, 1992, 1997, and 20093.

2.4 The policy in practice

2.4.1 It was recognised in the Wilson Report that construction sites posed ‗special problems of noise control compared with most other types of industrial activity‘4. The availability of the defence of ‗best practicable means‘ in respect of statutory nuisance could also lead to some operations producing noise levels that exceeded their proposed daytime noise criteria. The Committee‘s recommendations covered: sources of noise and methods of reducing it, the importance of proper planning (of work on sites), and maximum desirable noise levels. Their recommendations were intended to create a special approach for managing this source of noise. (Further detail is provided in Section 3.1).

2 Committee on the problem of noise: Noise – Final Report. Cmnd. 2056, HMSO.

3 Published 31 December 2008.

4 eg, being mainly carried out in the open with noise levels varying greatly for different phases

of the work.


2.4.2 The formal foundations of the policy were laid by CoPA and the first approved Code of Practice (BS 5228:1975) implemented some of the recommendations of the Wilson Report on this topic.

2.4.3 The S60/S61 procedures of the Control of Pollution Act were not repealed by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), (which did repeal and replace the statutory nuisance provisions of CoPA).

2.4.4 BS 5228 provided a method for predicting noise from construction and demolition sites and a database of noise levels for a range of plant and activities.

2.4.5 There has been no change5 to the underlying policy provisions since they were introduced and the current implementation of the policy has been largely developed by the response of enforcing and approving bodies6 and of promoters of schemes (and the acoustic consultants to both these categories of organisation) to changing needs and expectations.

5 The EC Directive on EIA, discussed later, made assessment of the construction phase of a

project a formal requirement but this was not a part of the policy itself. 6 CoPA specifies that powers to serve S60 Notices and powers to approve S61 Applications

rest with LAs. However, the effects and outcomes of S60/S61 procedures may be presented as evidence to and therefore considered by Planning Inspectors and Parliamentary Committees.


3 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICY

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This section provides an overview of the development of the statutory controls and the Code of Practice from the introduction of the Noise Abatement Act 1960 up to the current version of the Code of Practice (2009).

3.1.2 Information on other relevant controls together with reports and non-statutory guidance is also included.

3.2 The Noise Abatement Act 1960

3.2.1 In October 1960 the Noise Abatement Act (NAA) extended the concept of ‗statutory nuisance‘, which had been introduced in the 19th century and at that time was embodied in the Public Health Act 19367 (PHA) to cover noise and vibration. The NAA empowered LAs to take action in respect of noise and vibration nuisance including nuisance arising from construction sites.

3.2.2 However, the following defences and exemptions applied to the statutory nuisance legislation:

A defence of ‗best practicable means‘ (BPM)

An exemption for ‗statutory undertakers‘

The general exemption known as ‗Crown Immunity‘

Best Practicable Means 3.2.3 This defence was available (under S3) if the noise nuisance arose in the

course of a trade or business. The same defence was already available in the PHA for some of the other kinds of statutory nuisance already specified within it.

3.2.4 The relevant sub-section of the NAA states that: ―it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that the best practicable means have been used for preventing, and for counteracting the effect of, the noise or vibration‖.

3.2.5 The PHA provides that8: ―In determining for the purposes of this Part of this Act whether the best practicable means have been taken for preventing, or for counteracting the effect of, a nuisance, a court shall have regard to cost and to local conditions and circumstances.‖

3.2.6 Thus the court was the ultimate arbiter of whether the defence was valid in a given case.

7 The first permanent national act was the Nuisance Removal Act of 1855 which consolidated

and amended the Nuisance Removal and Disease Prevention Acts of 1848 and 1849. 8 PHA S101(2).


Statutory Undertakers 3.2.7 The NAA did not permit a notice to be served or proceedings brought under

S1(1) against statutory undertakers ―in respect of noise or vibration caused by statutory undertakers in the exercise of powers conferred on them by any enactment or statutory order.‖ 9

3.2.8 The PHA defines statutory undertakers as " ... any persons authorised by

an enactment or statutory order to construct, work or carry on any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, tramway, gas, electricity, water or other public undertaking ;”10

Crown Immunity

3.2.9 Crown immunity means that emanations of the Crown are not susceptible to prosecution for offences either created by statute or of the common law. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by an "emanation of the Crown", but it is clear that ministers and their departments are included. Crown Immunity is today primarily an issue of the criminal law. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 substantially reduced the Crown's immunity from civil proceedings11.

3.3 The Wilson Report (1963)

3.3.1 In April 1960 the Government had appointed a committee chaired by Sir Alan Wilson to „examine the nature, sources and effects of the problem of noise ....‘. The committee published their final report in 1963.

3.3.2 As part of their inquiries the Wilson Committee had sent a questionnaire (in 1960) to all the local authorities in Great Britain12. In their Final Report the committee note that nearly a quarter of the complaints about industrial noise which were received in 1960 by LAs to whom the Committee had issued a questionnaire related to noise from construction or demolition work13.

3.3.3 The committee commented that they did not like to rely on complaints as a measure of disturbance but remained convinced that from the evidence received and their own observations that “ :.. noise from construction and demolition work is a serious cause of disturbance and annoyance to people nearby.‖ 14

9 NAA S1(4)

10 PHA S343(1)

11 Select Committee on Public Accounts Minutes of Evidence, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/588/2102314.htm Accessed 16 March 2012 12

Paragraph 72 of the Wilson Report. 13

Paragraph 402 of the Wilson Report 14

Paragraph 403 of the Wilson Report


3.3.4 The Committee defended the use of the law relating to nuisance as a remedy where other methods fail saying the factors governing it are ‗so many and subtle that it is possible in only a few instances to fix a quantitative limit to noise.‘ Nevertheless they made a number of recommendations to assist in the use of statutory nuisance powers including:

provision of power to serve a notice where a nuisance is temporary or is likely to recur

removal of the of the exemption of statutory undertakers from proceedings under the Act

3.3.5 The Committee also made a number of observations and recommendations

in relation to noise from construction and demolition sites15:

Observations I Unless the need for effective noise control is recognised, further

increases of mechanisation will inevitably result in further increases in noise.

II If the standards of practice of the best contractors were achieved on all sites the amount of disturbance caused by noise would be very significantly reduced.

III It is necessary to create conditions which will encourage contractors to work as quietly as possible

IV There is a good deal that could be done to reduce noise if more attention was given to it in both the design and operation of the plant.

V We welcome the suggestion made to us that a publicity campaign should be conducted within the industry to remind contractors and their employees of the need to reduce noise and of the large contribution that they could make.

Recommendations

a In principle there should be statutory limits to the noise from powered plant used in construction and demolition sites

b We recommend that contractors, local authorities and statutory undertakers should be encouraged to undertake practical trials with, and to make use of, enclosures for pneumatic drills.

c We recommend that, pending the establishment of statutory noise limits, general legislation should be introduced to provide that all internal combustion engines, used as prime movers, should be fitted with efficient exhaust silencers.

d Research into noise in diesel engines of the types used as prime movers is being carried out and should be encouraged, as should the application of the knowledge gained.

e The prime movers of contractors' plant are often left running even when the plant is not in use. This should be discouraged wherever it may result in a noise nuisance.

15

Paragraph 681 et sequi of the Wilson Report


f Developers, architects and civil engineers should consider, in preparing their designs, whether there are alternatives which will involve less noise in construction. The noise from building sites can be reduced if this factor is considered in planning the layout of the site.

g It is probable that the extra cost in use of quieter machinery on a typical large building scheme would be a very small proportion of the total cost of the work. The cost of noise from building and civil engineering sites to people working nearby must be weighed in the balance against any additional cost from noise reduction.

h The noise from construction and demolition sites between, say, 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. should not exceed the level at which conversation in the nearest building would be too difficult with the windows shut.

i We suggest that, at present, noise levels in daytime outside the nearest building at the window of the occupied room closest to the site boundary, should not exceed :— 70 dBA in rural, suburban and urban areas away from main road

traffic and industrial noise 75 dBA in urban areas near main roads and in heavy industrial

areas. j We recommend that criteria be established for building noises at night

corresponding to the empirical procedures and criteria for assessing the likely reaction of the public to noise from industrial premises.

k The noise limits that we suggest should be useful to local authorities in deciding whether to take proceedings under the Noise Abatement Act or action at Common Law. We think it would be premature to give legal force to the limits until enough experience has been obtained to establish their validity.

l There should be statutory control by local authorities over particularly noisy operations which cannot be quietened sufficiently to meet the criteria. There should be a right of appeal against the local authority's decision.

3.3.6 Thus the advice includes practical suggestions for minimising noise (II – V

and e – g) and specific maximum noise limits outside the nearest building for the daytime as an aid to assessing noise levels from construction activity (h, i). However, the Committee did not consider that those noise limits should be given statutory force until their validity had been established, but that ‘they would best be considered as a desirable code for the industry‘16.

3.3.7 The approach to deriving the interim maximum noise limits was that the noise ‗should not exceed the level at which conversation in the nearest building would be too difficult with the windows shut‘17. Their own test found that with an external level of 70 dB(A) outside a window that reduced the noise by about 15 dB(A), they could ‗conduct business, and telephone [conversation], without undue difficulty‟.

16

Paragraph 437 of the Wilson Report 17

Paragraph 433 of the Wilson Report.


3.3.8 The report also states that ‗building work is not usually done outside these hours [ie, 0700 – 1900] ‗ .. but, if it is, we consider that it should not be allowed to disturb people sleeping nearby ...‘.18 The Committee considered that in some areas higher noise levels would have to be accepted at present (partly because of the existing level of noise in those areas)19 and partly because certain types of work (eg carried out for reasons of safety or public health, or because particularly noisy operations have to be carried out20).

3.3.9 The Committee also recommended (item l, above) that local authorities should be given some statutory control over particularly noisy operations which could not be quietened sufficiently to meet those levels (eg, sheet steel pile driving). Under these suggested provisions LAs

‗should be empowered to obtain such information as they need to satisfy themselves that no alternative quieter process to that proposed is practicable and reasonably economical, and to impose conditions such as the restrictions on the times of day and days of the week during which the process might be used.‘

3.3.10 The Committee considered that these powers would need to be used at a very early stage in the planning of the construction scheme so as to enable those involved to take it into account when designing and tendering for the work.

3.4 The Scott Report (1971)

3.4.1 In 1970 the Noise Advisory Council (NAC) appointed a working group under the chairmanship of Sir Hilary Scott to ‗study further the working of the Noise Abatement Act ...‘. The working group published its report ‗Neighbourhood Noise‘ in 1971.

3.4.2 Among its suggested modifications to be made to the Act it suggested that:

Statutory undertakers should no longer be exempt from nuisance proceedings but instead that their special position and obligations should be taken into account by the courts

3.5 The Control of Pollution Act 1974

3.5.1 The Control of Pollution Act (CoPA) was enacted in 1974 and Part III, which was concerned with noise; was implemented in England and Wales at the start of 1976.

3.5.2 CoPA 1974 included Sections 58 and 59 which replaced the statutory nuisance provisions in the Noise Abatement Act 1960, and three sections directly or indirectly relevant to construction noise.

3.5.3 CoPA also made changes to the interpretation of BPM and its application to statutory undertakers.

18

Paragraph 436 of the Wilson Report. 19

Paragraphs 434 and 435 of the Wilson Report. 20

Paragraph 438 of the Wilson Report


3.5.4 Under the NAA statutory undertakers exercising their powers were exempt from proceedings in respect of statutory nuisance and consequently the NAA could not be used to ensure that BPM were employed in carrying out works that the statutory undertakers were authorised to do.

3.5.5 CoPA implemented the recommendations of the Wilson and Scott reports in relation to statutory undertakers and provided that21:

―The test of best practicable means is to apply only so far as compatible with any duty imposed by law, and in particular is to apply to statutory undertakers only so far as compatible with the duties imposed on them in their capacity of statutory undertakers.‖

3.5.6 Under the NAA and the PHA there is little guidance on what constitutes

BPM but S72 of CoPA provides more detail, thus:

(1) This section shall apply for the construction of references in this Part of this Act to best practicable means.

(2) In that expression " practicable" means reasonably practicable having regard among other things to local conditions and circumstances, to the current state of technical knowledge and to the financial implications.

(3) The means to be employed include the design, installation, maintenance and manner and periods of operation of plant and machinery, and the design, construction and maintenance of buildings and acoustic structures.

(4) The test of best practicable means is to apply only so far as compatible with any duty imposed by law, and in particular is to apply to statutory undertakers only so far as compatible with the duties imposed on them in their capacity of statutory undertakers.

(5) The said test is to apply only so far as compatible with safety and safe working conditions, and with the exigencies of any emergency or unforeseeable circumstances.

(6) Subject to the preceding provisions of this section, regard shall be had, in construing references to " best practicable means ", to any relevant provision of a code of practice approved under the preceding section.

3.5.7 Sections 60 and 61 applied specifically to activities on construction sites,

which are quite widely defined under Section 60(1) as:

―works of the following description, that is to say-

the erection, construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of buildings, structures or roads;

breaking up, opening or boring under any road or adjacent land in connection with the construction, inspection, maintenance or removal of works;

demolition or dredging work; and

21

CoPA S72(4)


(whether or not also comprised in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above), any work of engineering construction‘‘

3.5.8 Section 60 empowers a local authority to impose controls on noise

emissions from construction sites whilst Section 61 enables developers or contractors to apply to local authorities for prior consent to carry out construction works subject to commitment to the use of ‗best practicable means‘ (as defined in Section 72 of CoPA 1974) to minimise the noise. Section 73(1) states that except where the context otherwise requires, in Part III of the Act ―noise‖ includes vibration.

3.5.9 The Act does not lay down noise (or vibration) limits of any kind, leaving this to the enforcing local authority to determine, as appropriate, according to the local circumstances.

3.5.10 A further provision of the Act is indirectly relevant to construction noise. Under Section 71(2) the Secretary of State has powers to prepare or approve a Code of Practice in respect of works to which Section 60 of the Act applies. To this end British Standards Institution (BSI) published BS 5228: 1975, a single and comparatively short document dealing only with noise (although S60/S61 applied to vibration, too).

3.5.11 The effect of Sections 60 and 61 is to provide a means of managing the works in order to control noise (and vibration). Under S60 the LA takes the initiative and may serve a notice specifying the method etc, whereas under the provisions of S61 it is the person who proposes to carry out the works who takes the initiative by applying to the LA for a ‗consent‘.

3.5.12 An important aspect of S60/61 is that if noise is caused by works authorised under the S60 or S61 procedures that constitutes a defence to proceedings brought by the LA for an offence relating to breach of an abatement notice in respect of statutory nuisance.

Procedure under Section 60

3.5.13 The notice served under S60 is not an abatement notice such as can be served by the LA under S58 in the case of statutory nuisance. The S60 notice may impose ―requirements as to the way in which the works are to be carried out‖22.

3.5.14 In particular, the notice may23:

a specify the plant or machinery which is, or is not, to be used ; b specify the hours during which the works may be carried out ; c specify the level of noise which may be emitted from the premises in

question or at any specified point on those premises or which may be so emitted during specified hours ; and

d provide for any change of circumstances. 3.5.15 In acting under this section the local authority shall have regard24:

22

CoPA S60(2) 23

CoPA S60(3) 24

CoPA S60(4)


a to the relevant provisions of any code of practice issued under this Part of this Act

b to the need for ensuring that the best practicable means are employed to minimise noise ;

c before specifying any particular methods or plant or machinery, to the desirability in the interests of any recipients of the notice in question of specifying other methods or plant or machinery which would be substantially as effective in minimising noise and more acceptable to them ;

d to the need to protect any persons in the locality in which the premises in question are situated from the effects of noise.

Procedure under Section 61

3.5.16 The Act provides less detail of content of the application under this section and merely states that it shall contain particulars of

a the works, and the method by which they are to be carried out ; and b the steps proposed to be taken to minimise noise resulting from the

works. 3.5.17 However, it may be inferred that it is the mirror-image of a S60 notice since

S61(4) provides that ―If the local authority considers that the application contains sufficient information for the purpose and that, if the works are carried out in accordance with the application, it would not serve a notice under the preceding section in respect of those works, the local authority shall give its consent to the application.‖

3.5.18 Section 61(5) goes on to say that: “In acting under this section a local

authority shall have regard to the considerations set out in subsection (4) of the preceding section and shall have power to -―25

a attach any conditions to a consent ; and b limit or qualify a consent to allow for any change in circumstances; and c limit the duration of a consent,

Relationship between S58 and S60/61

3.5.19 Sections 60 and 61 cater for two situations envisaged by the Wilson Committee in its recommendations which represent opposite extremes of the range of noise levels that might emanate from a construction site.

3.5.20 First there is the situation whereby a significant reduction in disturbance could be achieved by following best practice at little or no cost to the contractors. Unlike the S58 procedure, under the S60/61 procedure it is not necessary for the LA to demonstrate that there is a statutory nuisance to ensure that the BPM are being employed. In principle, the noise level achieved might be lower than would occur using the S58 procedure which only requires BPM to be employed to the extent necessary to abate a nuisance.

25

ie, S60(4); reproduced in paragraph 3.5.15 of this Annex.


3.5.21 The second situation recognises that there might be circumstances in which even with the application of BPM, noise from this kind of activity might be above desirable levels (eg, the guideline criteria proposed in the Wilson Report). If the LA took action on the basis of statutory nuisance, the lowest noise level that could be achieved would be whatever resulted from the use of BMP, even if that did not abate the nuisance. Thus, the S60/61 procedure, which is based on the application of BPM, would achieve the same result but without the need to consider the issue of statutory nuisance.

Circular 2/76 – CoPA 1974, Implementation of Part III - Noise

3.5.22 The aims of the policy in relation to the control of noise from construction and other works is set out in paragraphs 23 – 24 of this circular:

“21 Sections 60 and 61 have been designed to meet the need for effective powers to control this type of noise nuisance while avoiding undue hindrance or disruption of the works in question.

22 One of the most important features of these sections is the opportunity they give for local authorities and those responsible for construction works to settle any questions about noise before work starts. Although an approach for a formal consent under Section 61 cannot be made until the building regulations approval stage (where this applies), this should not preclude earlier informal consultation where this would be useful. Early consultation will often enable any formal consents or notices to be issued expeditiously when application is made. Local authorities wishing to exercise their powers under Section 60 before work starts may find it useful to make arrangements with the local planning authority for setting up an early warning system to alert them to any potentially difficult cases where noise is likely to be a significant problem.”

3.5.23 The guidance available to support the policy is described in paragraph 28

“28 The code of practice for noise control on construction and demolition sites prepared by the British Standards Institution, BS5228: 1975, gives guidance on the technical areas of predicting, estimating and measuring noise levels from construction processes and on methods available for controlling the construction site noise. Although the guidance in the code cannot be comprehensive, it lays down useful principles and guidelines which should help ensure general consistency of practice throughout the country. But the code must be applied reasonably to the particular circumstances of each case. Local authorities will have to be prepared to defend their decisions in individual cases if necessary. Department of the Environment Advisory Leaflet No, 72 "Noise Control on Building Sites" has been updated in line with the code.”

3.5.24 The S60/61 procedure therefore provides a means of controlling noise which

should achieve noise levels no higher than would arise under the S58 procedure and could, in principle, result in lower levels in some circumstances. Furthermore, the S60/61 procedure requires forward planning and consideration of options for working methods and noise control in advance of the activity thereby leading to a greater likelihood of achieving lower noise levels and at lower cost.


3.5.25 The Act envisaged that technical and practical guidance for the application of these procedures would be provided by an approved Code of Practice and that was provided by BS5228 (and the revised Advisory Leaflet AL7226).

3.6 Development of Code of Practice BS 5228 up to 1986

3.6.1 BS5228:1975 was prepared under the auspices of the British Standards Institution (BSI)27 and was approved under S71 of the Control of Pollution Act28.

3.6.2 In addition to guidance on predicting and controlling noise from construction activity the 1975 Code of Practice included (as guidance in Appendix D) ‗Levels of neighbourhood noise‘, under clause D.1:

―Using quieter techniques and plant discussed in this code it should generally be possible to limit the noise 1 m outside the nearest noise-sensitive building to an equivalent continuous sound level over a typical daytime period (e.g. 07.00 hours to 19.00 hours Leq (12h)) of 75 dB(A). Such a level would keep exposure to noise within limits in line with those proposed by the Wilson Committee while still leaving the contractor some flexibility. However, each situation should be carefully considered since there will be some circumstances where conditions show that a higher value of Leq could be tolerated and others where it is essential to achieve a lower level.‖ 29

3.6.3 Unfortunately, this clause led to many users, including enforcing and approving bodies, adopting the advice in the first sentence and paying little heed to the caveats in the second sentence. It may also be noted that the Wilson Report referred to noise limits of 70 dB(A) or 75 dB(A) according to location, but not couched in terms of Leq.

3.6.4 Whilst the rapid introduction of a Code of Practice provided technical guidance to support the control framework of the Act for the time being, it was also recognised that further refinement would be necessary in any revision. The plant noise database used was comparatively limited (fewer than three pages) and sound power levels for plant items were given in terms of ranges, typically with a spread of 10 dB(A) and in one case a difference of 29 dB(A) between the upper and lower ends of the range. This was not ideal for predictive purposes.

26

In 1968 the then predecessor to Defra (the Ministry of Public Building and Works) issued Advisory Leaflet (No. 72) ―Noise Control on Building Sites‖. The third and final edition, this time published under the aegis of the Department of the Environment (DoE) and the Property Services Agency (PSA), appeared in 1976. 27

The then Building Research Station (now BRE) assisted in the preparation of the code. 28

Control of Noise (Code of Practice for Construction Sites) Order 1975 (SI 1975 No 2115). 29

These levels were also included in AL72 under the heading ‗Maximum tolerable noise levels on building sites‘ (sic).


3.6.5 In order to improve the guidance a research project was conducted under the management of CIRIA (The Construction Industry Research and Information Association), culminating in CIRIA Report 64 (1977) by R.D. Jones and A.L. Beaman. The data acquired and the calculation procedures proposed (including the Activity LAeq at 10 m method) in that report formed the basis for the first revision of the Code of Practice in 1984.

3.6.6 The BSI Technical Committee BLCP/93 responsible for drafting the Code of Practice envisaged at that time a revised Standard in eight Parts, comprising a basic code, a guide to the legislation with reference to road and other general construction works, and six industry specific parts, covering open cast coal mining, piling, surface extraction of hard rock minerals, surface extraction of sands and gravels, railway construction, and dredging.

3.6.7 The multiple part revision of BS 5228 was welcomed by the National Coal Board Opencast Executive and by the Federation of Piling Specialists, but was less well received from the other industry groups listed above. Hence in 1984 BS 5228: Parts 1 (basic code), 2 (a guide to the legislation with reference to road and other general construction works) and 3 (open cast coal mining) were published, followed in 1986 by Part 4 (piling) 30.

3.7 The EC Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 1985

3.7.1 The EC Directive ‗on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment‘ 31 is commonly referred to as the EIA Directive. Its provisions were transposed into English law by a series of Statutory Instruments32. It has subsequently been amended three times in 1997, 2003, and 200933.

3.7.2 The Directive required the assessment of projects for which the environmental effects were likely to be significant; noise was one of the topics of environmental effect to be considered. The Directive did not specify the detailed assessment methods to be used but provided a framework so that the assessments for different environmental topics use a consistent scope and approach.

3.7.3 Its relevance to construction noise is that the assessments required under the Directive are not confined to the operating phase of a project but also have to consider the construction and de-commissioning phases. Consequently, the assessment of large-scale infrastructure projects (which are generally subject to the Directive) had thereafter to include a formal consideration of construction effects according to a prescribed system.

30

BS 5228 Noise control on construction and open sites Part 4. Code of practice for noise control applicable to piling operations, BSI, London, 1986 31

85/337/EEC 27 June 1985. 32

The first of these was the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. SI 1988 No. 1199. 33 The initial Directive of 1985 and its three amendments have been codified by Directive 2011/92/EU of 13 December 2011.


3.8 EC Directives re noise from construction plant 1986 and 2000

3.8.1 Progress has been made on limiting construction plant noise levels through EC Directives. One of the first of these Directives in 1986 covered noise from plant such as excavators, dozers and loaders34. More recently, a wider range of plant has been covered by the EC Directive 'Noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors'35. These Directives have set noise limits in terms of maximum sound power level as measured under specified conditions.

3.9 The Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings (1990)

3.9.1 In 1985 the Department of the Environment (DoE) commissioned a research project from WS Atkins into the ‗Control of Noise from Surface Mineral Workings‘. The terms of reference included assessing and, if possible, improving the application of predictive noise models for this activity. The final report of the study was published in 1990.

3.9.2 The study found that most mineral planning authorities used the prediction procedures in BS 5228:1984 but they were applied in a variety of ways and there was no coherent approach across the country.

3.9.3 The project also undertook combined prediction and validation measurements at several sites and concluded that though the procedures in BS5228 were based on well-proven principles it had some limitations.

3.9.4 The study then reviewed enhancements to the BS5228 prediction procedures in relation to, haul roads (ie, the internal road network used at a site by the plant), attenuation by barriers, and the excess attenuation with separation distance that occurs when the sound propagates over acoustically absorbent ground (ie, ‗soft‘ surfaces rather than concrete, tarmac, water, etc).

3.9.5 The study then made recommendations for enhancements to the BS5228 prediction methods to provide good accuracy.

3.10 The Environmental Protection Act 1990

3.10.1 Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) which covers statutory nuisances came into force on 1 January 199136.

3.10.2 It repealed the relevant sections (58 and 59) of CoPA and replaced them with broadly equivalent sections (79 – 82) dealing with statutory noise nuisance (see also Annex 5 – Noise Control Legislation)37.

34

European Council Directive 86/662/EEC, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31986L0662:en:NOT - Accessed 21 February 2012. 35

European Council Directive 2000/14/EC, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/documents/guidance/noise-emissions/index_en.htm - Accessed 21 February 2012. 36

The provisions in CoPA relating to Noise Abatement Zones also continued in force. 37

S159(1) of the EPA removed Crown Immunity in relation to statutory nuisance but not S60/61 of COPA.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31986L0662:en:NOT

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31986L0662:en:NOT

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/documents/guidance/noise-emissions/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/documents/guidance/noise-emissions/index_en.htm


3.10.3 However, Sections 60 and 61 of CoPA were not repealed and continued to be available for use in controlling noise from construction works etc.

3.10.4 Nevertheless, complaints about noise and vibration from construction and related activities were also dealt with using noise abatement notices under S80 of EPA, as they had been under S58 of CoPA and S1 of the NAA.

3.11 Other supporting documents from CIRIA (1985 – 1999)

3.11.1 Reports of CIRIA studies have provided input to different versions of BS5228 (see paragraphs 3.6.5 and 3.12.2). The following CIRIA documents were also been published during the study period to provide useful advice to contractors about controlling construction noise http://www.ciria.org.uk/:

Practice Note SP38 ‗The use of screens to reduce noise from sites‘ – concise practical advice on use of acoustic screens to reduce site noise exposure at sensitive locations (ISBN 0 86017 253 8) – 1985

Technical Note 138 ‗Planning to reduce noise exposure in construction‘ – a good source of guidance on design and assessment for noise control (ISBN 0 86017 317 8) – 1990

Project Report 70 ‗How much noise do you make? A guide to assessing and managing noise from construction sites‘ (ISBN 978-0-86017-870-5) – 1999.

3.12 Development of BS 5228 up to 2009

3.12.1 When the document that became the 1986 Part 4 (Piling operations) revision was at the draft for comment stage it was clear that there was a need to address vibration as well as noise. A CIRIA research project on ground-borne vibrations from piling had been underway from 1980 and so it was possible to put in hand a revision of BS5228:Part 4 to cover vibration as well as noise from piling and that was issued as BS 5228: Part 4: 1992.

3.12.2 The text was sub-divided into three sections: General; Noise; and Vibration. Guidance was included on measurement of vibrations (measurement of noise having already been covered in Part 1) and case history data on vibration levels from various techniques (gleaned from the CIRIA research and other sources) were also included. Publication of Part 4 in 1992 in fact preceded publication of the final CIRIA project report Technical Note 142, by J.M. Head and F.M. Jardine, by several months.

3.12.3 After publication of BS 5228: Part 4: 1992, a review of the other three parts commenced. By this time the mineral extractive industry trade associations showed renewed interest in the Code and so a new Part 5 (covering both hard rock and sands and gravels) was drafted, with the revised Standard being published as BS 5228: Part 1: 1997, BS 5228: Part 2: 1997; BS 5228: Part 3: 1997 and BS 5228: Part 5: 1997.

http://www.ciria.org.uk/


3.12.4 These revised parts included some references to vibration, albeit more limited in extent than in BS5228: Part 4: 1992. BS 5228: Part 1: 1997 also included more recent noise data for open cast coal mining, provided from research commissioned by the Open Cast Executive38 prior to privatisation of the industry; other additions were the table of noise limits on certain categories of construction plant imposed by a series of European Directives, frequency dependent barrier corrections based on path difference and formulae for the attenuation of sound propagating over soft ground.

3.12.5 The Working Group and the Technical sub-committee regretted that inadequate new plant noise data were available for incorporation into the revised Code, despite the downward pressure exerted on noise levels by the European Directives.

3.12.6 However, the responsible Government Department (Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ―Defra‖) later commissioned further research into construction site noise. This resulted in a new noise database, published on the Defra website in 2005. Noise levels were quoted

principally as LAeq at 10 m and included octave band spectra. Following

publication Defra permitted BSI to incorporate their database into the next revision of BS 5228, (ie, the latest version, 2009)39.

3.13 BS 5228: 2009 – Outline and Aims

3.13.1 While the Defra noise database gave added impetus to the need for issuing a revised code, there were also several other developments both on the legislative side and on technical issues that had occurred in the decade or so since the previous revision that made an update desirable.

3.13.2 The broad aim of BS 5228 is to encompass best practice in the application of Sections 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act at construction sites and comparable legislation covering the mineral extractive industries, so that both local authorities (who are delegated the responsibility for enforcement of Part III of the Act) and contractors and developers are able to ensure that disturbance by noise and vibration from the operations at these sites is minimised.

3.13.3 In outline, the pattern of contents is similar in both Parts. The topics covered in the Annexes are listed in the Table below. Because the focus of this policy study is noise, the development of the vibration content of BS5228 has not been examined.

38

Hepworth Acoustics Ltd undertook that research. 39

Published on 31 December 2008.


Table 3.1 Structure of BS 5228 2009 Parts 1 and 2

Annex Ref BS 5228 Part 1: 2009 BS 5228 Part 2: 2009

A Legislative background Legislative background B Noise sources, remedies and their

effectiveness Significance of vibration effects

C Current sound level data on site equipment

Measured vibration levels for piling (current data)

D Historic sound level data Measured vibration levels for piling (historic data)

E Significance of noise effects Prediction of vibration levels F Estimating noise from sites Description of vibration G Noise monitoring Air overpressure H Types of piling Examples of record sheets I Air overpressure –

3.13.4 In the Annexes, Annex A brings together the relevant legislative content in

the 1997 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 5, and the 1992 Part 4. The material has been extensively revised to take into account the various changes that have occurred, substantially but not exclusively arising from the impositions of European Directives. Similar revision has been carried out for Annex A in BS 5228 Part 2: 2009.

3.13.5 Annex C incorporates the Defra noise database, together with some additional material specific to more recent data for certain types of piling operation. The Defra noise levels include octave band spectra and

A-weighted Activity Leq values at 10 m from the machine, although for some

items of mobile plant LpA(max) during drive by (at the same distance) are

recorded instead. An independent validation exercise to verify the soundness of the methodology of measuring and assessing construction plant noise was undertaken by the University of Salford. Octave band spectra were not available for the supplementary data on piling that are included in Table C.12 of the Annex.

3.13.6 Although the research leading to the Defra noise database covered a wide range of sites and processes, and so in the absence of plant and site specific noise data for a particular project the database represents a good basis for estimating environmental noise levels, it was decided that the data previously published in earlier versions of BS 5228 should be retained as historic data in Annex D, for additional guidance where appropriate. Some items of construction plant show remarkable longevity.

3.13.7 In Annex E, various methods for establishing control of noise levels are illustrated, with examples drawn from major infrastructure projects. Attention is also drawn to criteria set down in mineral planning guidance for controlling noise emissions from long term open sites, which may be operating for many years. As with the majority of the other Annexes, Annex E is informative and is intended to give more guidance on setting noise control targets, and not to be prescriptive.


3.13.8 Annex F, which contains noise level prediction methods, indicates the hierarchy of methods of selecting the plant noise data: either use measurements of the specific plant operating in comparable site conditions to those expected to prevail on the site in question; or in the absence of plant and site specific data, use values from Annex C for equivalent plant; or where older plant is involved use values from Annex D; or, finally, refer to the maximum levels permitted by European Directive as applicable to certain categories of plant.

3.13.9 At the time of writing, the new versions of BS 5228 have not yet been approved under Section 71(2) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

3.13.10 BSI has received representations from expatriates and others in overseas territories commending the Code of Practice and calling for it to be advanced for consideration by ISO for adoption as a model on which to base an International Standard, as there appears to be a lack of a comparable Code of Practice elsewhere. Exploratory moves are currently underway, but it is too early to report any significant progress at this time.


4 IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECT OF THE POLICY

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This section considers information from the following sources:

CIEH data on LA activity and complaints

EPUK survey data on LA opinions

NAS views on effectiveness of legislation

Individual acousticians see section 1.2.9 4.2 Analysis of CIEH LA Data re Construction Noise 1971 – 2009/10

4.2.1 The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) has been collecting data on local authority noise enforcement activity in England, Wales and N Ireland since 1964. The information collected includes complaints received, and notices served, and distinguishes between noise from domestic premises, industrial and commercial noise sources, and noise from construction and similar activities40.

4.2.2 CIEH specifically examined their records focusing on noise relating to construction activities to determine whether the introduction and subsequent revisions of BS 5228 (Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites) and associated legislation had had any effect on complaints etc.

4.2.3 There are a number of factors that make the analysis and interpretation of the data from these surveys less than straightforward.

4.2.4 Within a particular local authority area the numbers of noise complaints, nuisances or other breaches confirmed, and notices served can show considerable variation from one year to another. This can be simply 'how it is' but, equally, the result of a particular incident or event, or because of a concerted campaign to deal with a particular issue that leads to increased public awareness and enforcement activity by the local authority concerned.

4.2.5 The interpretation of data is also complicated by recording and reporting errors by respondents and by the surveys' shifting sample base (ie, the same local authorities do not respond to the same questions, or necessarily at all, every year).

4.2.6 A further variable factor is the population covered by each local authority. First, there are wide differences in the population covered by different LAs. Even those differences are not static, however. Changes in the local authority population can also result from formal re-organisations of councils that have occurred periodically and, more recently, the establishment of 'shared services' whereby neighbouring councils pool resources and so the population they serve is greater than that of either LA on its own.

40

These categories are not all separately available for all years in the survey period.


4.2.7 A different aspect affecting the interpretation of data is the significance that can be placed on some measures. The number of complaints, for example, can be affected by factors that lead to them being an underestimate of the extent of a community‘s disturbance (since some people are unwilling to complain) or an overestimate as a result of particular sensitivity by individuals, or a general increase in the standards expected. (The Wilson Committee were reluctant to rely on complaint data as a measure of disturbance, for example.)

4.2.8 Such causes of variation need to be borne in mind when considering differences in the figures between years. The overall consequence of these factors is that great care needs to be taken before inferring even short-term trends from the data.

4.2.9 As noted above, complaints can be a perverse indicator of legislative effectiveness, ie, if authorities become more effective in responding to complaints, there may be an increase in complaint numbers, at least until the gap between the proportion who complain and the proportion 'suffering in silence' has been closed.

4.2.10 The CIEH conducted the analysis in two ways: first, by looking at the trend in construction complaints normalised a) as the proportion of all complaints reported, and b) per responding local authority, and secondly, looking at the trend in notices served, normalised by complaints about construction noise. In each case, no data are available prior to 1971.

4.2.11 Despite annual variations, there is a clear long-term downward trend in the proportion of noise complaints reported in the survey that were about construction noise (other sources covered by the survey are domestic and industrial noise, see paragraph 4.2.1) (Figure 4.1).


4.2.12 Notwithstanding the implication of Figure 4.1, and despite, annual

variations, there is a clear upward trend in the numbers of complaints about construction noise made to reporting authorities, though the actual level of complaints falls off after 2003/4 and is fairly constant thereafter (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2 Complaints received for construction noise per responding LA Note: Total complaints for 2004/5 are not available

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Figure 4.1 Complaints received for construction noise as % of all complaints reported Note: Total complaints for 2004/5 are not available


4.2.13 To attempt a more detailed interpretation of these data would require information on the level of construction activity year by year in each of the responding LAs but that is not available.

4.2.14 The result of a third kind of analysis is shown in Figure 4.3 which shows the number of notices served per 100 complaints (about construction noise). This an attempt to avoid the effects of some of the confounding factors described above that occur if the analysis is based directly on the number of complaints.

4.2.15 Notes for Figure 4.3:

Years 1971 -1975 are notices under s.1 Noise Abatement Act 1960

Data for 1976 is for s.58 CoPA 1974 only

Data for 1977 – 1990/91 are for ss.58 and 60 CoPA 1974

Data for 1991/2 - 2003/4 are for s.60 CoPA 1974 only

Data for 1991/2 and 1999/2000 include submissions too late for publication at the time but included in the analysis here

Number of complaints for 2004/5 is estimated from reported number of incidents

Data for 2004/5 - 2009/10 are for s.80 EPA 1990 only

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

BS5228 published May 1975 BS5228 revised May 1984 BS5228 revised May 1997

BS5228 revised December 2008

Figure 4.3 Statutory Notices served for construction noise per 100 complaints about construction noise See 4.2.15 for notes


4.2.16 Interpretation of the data in Figure 4.3 is itself hampered by two further factors. First, in common with other sources of noise which require action by LAs, a substantial proportion of the resolution of ‗justified‘ complaints is achieved by informal methods.

4.2.17 A second factor is that there are two formal procedures available to LAs for dealing with construction noise. Action by the LA can be taken under either S58 of CoPA or S80 of EPA (ie, statutory nuisance) or under S60 of COPA (construction noise). Depending on the year, the survey returns include notices of either or both kinds and so it is not possible to identify separately longer term trends in action under S60.

4.2.18 Finally, it is important to realise that if noise at a construction site is controlled by virtue of S61 of the CoPA, because that involves an approved consent from the LA and not a notice served by it, then that approved consent will not feature in the CIEH survey returns at all.

4.2.19 The CIEH data show small variations from year to year but also suggest a possible cyclical variation over a period of several years. However, the length of those periods and the years in which the ‗maxima‘ occur do not appear to be related between the first two analyses (roughly: Figure 4.1 first max 1972, next max 1989; Figure 4.2 first max 1987, next max 2001).

4.2.20 The corresponding pattern of peaks and long-term trends for the data on notices served (see Figure 4.3) consists of peaks in the periods around 1980 and the mid to late 1980s, and the longer-term trends are an increase up to about 1988/90 with a fall thereafter.

4.2.21 The above patterns for these three sets of data appear to have no obvious relationship beyond an approximate coincidence of maxima in the period about 1987 – 1990.

4.2.22 Overall, the number of complaints about construction noise appears to have been on a long-term up-ward trend over the period 1971 to about 2003 (Figure 4.2), masked only by the greater increase in all complaints during that period – ie, the rate of increase of complaints about construction noise has been lower than for other sources of noise. It is not clear why that should be. The number of statutory notices served per 100 complaints) fell over the long-term but that provides no indication of any change in the use of the S61 procedure. In any event, there is little if anything to suggest that the BS or any of its revisions has had any effect.

4.3 NSCA Surveys: 1997 – 2002

4.3.1 NSCA undertook noise surveys in England and Wales from 1997 – 2002 (no data are available for 1999), to gauge the opinions of local authority noise control officers on noise legislation and levels of complaint about noise.


4.3.2 Officers were asked to say which were the most common sources of complaint about noise (other than neighbours). In 1997 construction noise was the least common source of complaint (compared to traffic noise, industry and pubs and clubs) reported. In the surveys from 1998 to 2002 it was the second most common complaint for 19 – 24% of the LAs responding (see Table 4.1), and throughout the survey period (1998 – 2002) was the most common source of noise complaint for 5 – 12% of responding LAs.

Table 4.1 Percentage of LAs reporting Construction Noise as second most common cause of complaint

Survey Year Areas covered Percentage of Responding LAs

1997 UK 15 1998 England, Wales and NI 22 1999 England, Wales and NI 19 2000 England, Wales and NI 24 2001 England, Wales and NI 23 2002 England, Wales and NI 24

4.3.3 Officers were also asked how, in their opinion, levels of noise complaints

had changed over the previous year. The results for construction noise are shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 LA Officers’ views of Construction Noise Complaints

Survey Year

Total number of respondents

Number of Officers who considered that the level of complaints compared to the previous year was:

More The same Fewer Number % Number % Number %

1997 341 142 42 47 14 141 41 1998 241 103 43 101 42 28 12 1999 252 99 39 45 18 86 34 2000 248 93 38 110 44 34 14 2001 221 82 37 97 44 31 14 2002 208 61 29 96 46 35 17


4.4 The role of computer software

4.4.1 The period from the 1970s to the present day has seen many significant changes in the availability and power of computation equipment. This section briefly reviews those changes and considers how these developments interacted with the need for and use of more and more complex prediction and assessment of construction noise.

4.4.2 At the start of this period electronic computers were either mainframes or mini-computers and so their use in science and engineering was mainly confined to large organisations and academic institutions. Hand-held electronic calculators with the scientific functions required for noise predictions appeared in the mid to late 1970s and programmable hand-held electronic calculators were in use by the early 1980s.

4.4.3 In any event, the first version of BS 5228 (1975) contained a small dataset of noise levels and some basic graphs and nomograms for undertaking calculations, but fell short of a fully-fledged calculation method and was not ideally suited for computer implementation.

4.4.4 The development of a fully computerised implementation of procedures for predicting noise from construction operations was the result of several factors that emerged and evolved over the study period:

1 the need to assess noise levels from the operation of large road schemes under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973 (as amended)41

2 the need to assess noise from the construction phase of road schemes and other large projects

3 changes in computing capabilities and costs including the advent of personal computers and the ‗ Microsoft Windows‘ system

4 the development of the prediction procedures in BS5228

Some of these factors interacted with others. 4.4.5 The Urban Motorways Committee report of 1972 resulted in the 1973 Land

Compensation Act and the first (1973) version of the Noise Insulation Regulations (NIRs). These required noise calculations to be made but the procedures were perhaps too rudimentary to be implemented in a computer42. Nevertheless, the NIRs created a huge demand for noise calculations, as the Greater London Council (GLC) instituted a policy of calculating noise from all the new roads that had been built in Greater London over recent years.

4.4.6 In 1975 new NIRs and an improved calculation scheme (CRTN) 43 were introduced in which the procedures were amenable to computer implementation.

41

These regulations provided for sound insulation of dwellings affected by noise from new or improved roads under certain conditions including specified noise levels and changes in level. 42

Using the BRE‘s Design Bulletin 26 and some additional procedures devised by NPL. 43

The technical memorandum Calculation of Road Traffic Noise 1975. (CRTN 1975)


4.4.7 Atkins developed software to implement CRTN prediction equations which had a huge impact on working capability since at that time there were no computer spreadsheets or electronic calculators. To improve accuracy it was found necessary to upgrade the software so that as well as undertaking the computation, the computer could hold a 3D model of the area including terrain type, heights, and barriers. That enabled the program to determine the necessary distance and angle values required for the calculations as well to identify buildings and landforms that screened the receptors from the noise source.

4.4.8 The ability of software to use a 3D model of the area and derive from it information such as distances for use in a set of equations was later adapted to implement prediction procedures for construction noise.

4.4.9 This CRTN program system (known then as ROPLAN) was fully operational by 1979, but had to operate on mainframe and ‗time-share‘ computers. These all used different, incompatible operating systems, so the program had to be customised at great expense for each computer.

4.4.10 Once the IBM PC was launched in 1981, it was possible to adapt the software to the IBM PC and provide improved facilities for viewing the model in 3D. However, the PCs at that time had little processing power and storage capacity (by comparison with existing mainframe and mini computers), and the user interface required some knowledge of computing.

4.4.11 A paper on ROPLAN was written for the Institute of Acoustics in 1985 and this was effectively the commercial launch of the software. The first sale of ROPLAN was to a County Council in 198544, and this was quickly followed by sales to Kent County Council, Sir Frederick Snow and Partners and to other highway authorities.

4.4.12 The catalyst for the development of a program to implement BS5228 was a research contract awarded to Atkins by the then DoE to review the noise impact of noise from surface mineral workings. One requirement of the research was to develop a method of predicting noise from such operations (see section 3.9). As a result of this project, a prediction method based on BS5228:1884 but with enhanced procedures was developed and tested using a computer program. In 1989 a computer program (SiteNoise) was produced, that implemented both the basic method of BS5228:1984 and the new enhancements. The research report for the DoE was published in 1990 45.

4.4.13 These enhanced calculation procedures (or their equivalent) were subsequently incorporated into BS5228:1997.

44

To Dorset County Council. The software was installed on their ‗accounting computer‘ a VAX minicomputer. 45

The Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings, HMSO.


4.4.14 Meanwhile, in the 1980s the GLC‘s Scientific Branch46 commissioned a program (MWAY) to implement the calculation procedures of CRTN to predict noise from the operational phase of road schemes. By 1987 a similar program, CWAY, had been developed primarily to implement the procedures of BS5228 to predict noise from the construction phase of road schemes47. However, neither of these programs were available for use (under licence) by other bodies.

4.4.15 The computer implementation of CRTN (now called RoadNoise) was released in 1989 and was immediately successful, as it was the only commercial available implementation of CRTN 1988 available then.

4.4.16 SiteNoise was also released in 1989, following the work described above on the Surface Minerals study. Take-up was initially limited to the main surface minerals operators (British Coal and independent operators) and a small number of specialist consultants. SiteNoise did not really gain much attention until the release of MPG 11 „The Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings‘ in 1993, when it was the only computer implementation of the recommended noise prediction method as well as the basic procedures in BS5228:1984.

4.4.17 The biggest surge of use came in 1998 with the release of the full Windows version of the software. This was made possible by the release and general acceptance of Windows 95, quickly followed by Windows 98. A Graphical User Interface was now possible, with live graphics on-screen, removing the need for expensive and cumbersome ‗digitising tablets‘ and revolutionising the user experience.

4.4.18 Software did not take over from spreadsheets until it was obviously easier to use. This came much sooner for large road schemes where noise barriers and noise insulation had to be designed, but much later for construction sites, where noise was considered to be inevitable48. Subsequently, projects, such as the Docklands Highways (including the Limehouse Link) in the late 80s, and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link instituted the idea of Codes of Construction Practice and the use of Section 61 Agreements in a quantitative way that is now normal.

4.4.19 The assessment of cumulative noise impact is now of concern to the public and local authorities.

4.4.20 Note that other computer programs that implement the procedures of BS 5228 are now commercially available49.

46

In March1986 the GLC was abolished and its powers and functions were devolved to other bodies including the LAs in inner London. Some of these were temporarily established for the purpose including the London Residuary Body and London Scientific Services which took on the role of the GLC‘s Scientific Branch. 47

London Environmental Bulletin Spring 1987, Vol 4 No 2 p13-14. 48

In practice, spreadsheets continue to be used even on quite large schemes and are also used in conjunction with proprietary programs to post-process their output when applying complex analysis. 49

These started to be developed from the early 2000s when the Environmental Noise Directive led to tenders being invited to provide noise maps for areas in England. In order to respond to those tenders software written in other European countries was adapted to use UK prediction methods for Road and Railway noise and subsequently some added BS5228, too.


4.5 Construction activity in the period 1971 to 2010

4.5.1 In the analysis of the CIEH survey data described in section 4.2, it was noted that interpretation of the year-on-year results and trends was hampered by the lack of corresponding information on the level and type of construction activity in the areas of the specific LAs that had responded in each of the survey years.

4.5.2 This section provides some context for the CIEH survey data described above (section 4.2) and for the anecdotal evidence from practioners that follows this section of the Annex (section 4.6).

4.5.3 First, data on the scale of activity in the construction sector over the period 1971 to 2010 is provided, though this is for the whole of Great Britain (ie, not limited to England) and is not related to specific regions or LA areas.

4.5.4 Secondly, data for the number of miles by which the motorway network increased50 each year is presented.

4.5.5 Finally, general information about large scale construction projects known to have occurred during the period after the introduction of the policy is provided. This is not a comprehensive list of all major projects that were undertaken in that period but is intended to provide some examples which illustrate the flexibility of the policy in accommodating very large projects and provide a context for some of the practical procedures that were used to implement it in practice.

Output of the Construction Sector 4.5.6 Fluctuations in the level of construction activity over the period 1971 – 2010

51are shown in Figure 4.4 in terms of the annual value of construction output (normalised to 2005 prices) for:

1 All Construction Work (ie, including repairs and maintenance) 2 All New Work (ie, including housing, infrastructure, and other kinds of

development) , and 3 All (new) Infrastructure Work (eg, including road and rail projects)52

4.5.7 Each category includes both private and public sector work. Item 1 includes

all the output value contained in item 2 which in turn includes all the output value from item 3.

4.5.8 For the categories All Work and All New Work, construction output (measured at 2005 prices) shows a series of peaks and troughs against a longer term trend of falling output for the period 1971 – 1981 followed by a generally rising trend thereafter. There are peaks for the years 1973, 1979, 1989, and 2004 after which it is fairly constant till 2007 after which there is another reduction. The periods between these peaks are therefore 6, 10 and 5 years.

50

In a few years the total number of miles of the motorway network did not change or decreased slightly. 51

outputintheconstructionindustryapril2012_tcm77-267336.xls. Downloaded from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-243479 52

The full list of topics is: Water, Sewerage, Electricity, Roads, Railways, Harbours, Gas, Air, and Communications.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-243479


4.5.9 Output for the (new) Infrastructure category, for which data are only reported from 1980, also shows some peaks. In this case they occur for the years 1993, 1996, 2002 and 2010 – against longer trends consisting of a rising trend from 1971 to the first peak in 1993, followed by a falling trend to 2007, and a rising trend thereafter.

4.5.10 The value of the output for the Infrastructure category is only about 10% of the value of All (Construction) Work and so Infrastructure output is insufficient to have much effect on the value for All Work. Since the pattern of peaks for Infrastructure appears to be unrelated to that for All (Construction) Work .it seems that there is not a strong link between them.

Road Construction 4.5.11 The first motorways in England were opened in the late 1950s and so

motorway construction spans the period covered by this study. DfT statistics show that there has been a fairly steady year-on-year increase in the length of motorways in the UK over the course of the study period (though in some cases the change from one year to another is zero, or even a small negative vale – ie, a slight reduction in the total length of the network).

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

All Work All New Work Infrastructure

Figure 4.4 Volume of Construction Output 1971 – 2010 (£ million, normalised to 2005 prices. ONS data time-series data.)

Note: For Infrastructure (not reported before 1980) chart uses right hand scale.

CoPA EPA


4.5.12 To provide indicative data on the amount of motorway building activity each year it has been assumed that where difference in the length of motorway network from to year is positive or zero it reflects the new motorway mileage constructed and no account has been taken of any motorway mileage that might have been removed from the motorway network (eg, by closure or re-designation).

4.5.13 These differences are shown in Figure 4.5 and it can be seen that, not surprisingly, the greatest percentage change occurred in the earlier years and the long-term trend is for the extra miles of motorway added per year to fall (though there was a small ‗recovery‘ at the start of the 1990s). In the period 1976 to 1994 the length of UK motorways increased by 50%53.

4.5.14 The same DfT dataset shows that the lengths of A-road and B-road

networks also increased but at a much slower rate since there was a larger existing network in the case of those road types. Over the period 1976 to 1994 the length of the A-road network increased by about 3% up to 1990 but then contracted to stand at 99% of the 1976 value54 in 2010.

4.5.15 Over the period 1976 to 1994 the length of the B-road network increased to 109% of the 1976 value and that is also the ratio of the length of the 2010 network to its length in 1976.

53

Determined from DfT Table RDL0103. 54

In 2010 it was again at 103% of the 1976 value.

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

Change in Motorway miles 1971 - 2010

CoPA EPA

Figure 4.5 Annual change in length (miles) of Motorways in Great Britain From DfT Table RDL0103


Examples of Major Construction Projects 4.5.16 The projects listed below are respectively: a light rail scheme, a commercial

building development, an urban road project (cut-and-cover-tunnel), an extension to an underground railway, and a new high speed rail line.

4.5.17 Several of these projects were undertaken in the same London Borough (LB)55 and anecdotal evidence from an LA officer in post there at the time is included in a subsequent part of this Annex (paragraph 4.6.18 et sequi).

4.5.18 The planning, assessment, design, and construction of the projects listed below spans the period from the mid 1980s to the 1990s. They all include a significant construction element and are located close to densely populated urban areas so there is a high potential for disturbance from the construction works56. Within this period the EC Directive on EIA was introduced which led to a greater emphasis on a formal assessment of the environmental effects of the construction phase of a project (see paragraph 3.7).

Docklands Light Railway (DLR) 1984 (Start of Construction of first line)57 LB of Tower Hamlets (plus some in LB of Newham)

Canary Wharf 1988 (Start of Construction) LB of Tower Hamlets

Limehouse Link 1989 (Start of Construction)58 LB of Tower Hamlets

Jubilee Line Extension Project (JLE) 1990 (Environmental Statement) Traversed areas of 6 London Boroughs

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) 1996 (Environmental Statement) Traversed areas of multiple LAs in Kent and London

55

Tower Hamlets 56

Some of the projects also run through non-urban areas but include a substantial element of works within urban areas. 57 Construction of extensions to the DLR started later in the 1980s and continued in the 1990s. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/dlr/history/2982.aspx accessed 1 August 2012 58 The 1.8 km Limehouse Link tunnel, opened in 1993, was designed, planned and built in just over seven years. At the time it was the second biggest engineering project in Europe after the Channel Tunnel. http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/wapping/index.html#LLink accessed 1 August 2012

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/dlr/history/2982.aspx

http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/wapping/index.html#LLink


4.6 Perspectives of Practitioners

4.6.1 The anecdotal evidence for the period immediately after introduction of the Code of Practice and Sections 60/61 of CoPA is from the experience of acousticians working for or in the following types of organisation: a Road Construction Unit (RCU)59, a construction company, an engineering consultancy, a railway promoter, an environmental consultancy, and a London Borough Council.

Experience at an RCU Sub Unit and later with WS Atkins: 1970s to 1980s

4.6.2 Before the coming into force of CoPA it was known that the then TRRL60 had undertaken work on noise from road construction sites. However, before CoPA, specifications on noise at Department of Transport (DoT) construction sites were limited to advisory phrases with no specified noise levels. Whilst working hours were usually limited to the traditional 0700 – 1900, there was scant regard to the use and maintenance of properly silenced equipment. Prior to CoPA, there was little done to limit noise from construction sites but there was an awareness that much needed to be done.

4.6.3 After the advent of CoPA DoT contracts followed the spirit of the Act and immediately introduced specifications with simple provisions. Working hours were specified as daytime only (no Sundays or Bank Holidays) and the maximum noise limits in BS5228 were set as values to be met at the boundary of noise-sensitive areas. The BPM approach was incorporated eg, by requiring silencers to be properly maintained and ‗Sound Reduced‘ plant to be used.

4.6.4 Some attempt was made to tailor noise to the specific conditions in the area.

In some cases, complicated tables limiting LAmax, LA01 61 etc, and levels

during day, evening, night and weekend were given. On many large sites, surveys of pre-existing noise levels were undertaken as there was a move to control site noise to certain limits above background.

4.6.5 Assessments were made to determine potential impacts. However, the ‗broad brush‘ methods to predict noise almost inevitably over-predicted noise, particularly beyond 50m or so.

4.6.6 In the initial years, sites often adopted rigorous policing of noise and inspectors often carried lower cost sound level meters to be seen to be upholding the specification. In order to facilitate quick access to key points of the site, ‗noise control stations‘ were often established rather than the more intrusive approach of trying to access people‘s property. However, this approach sometimes caused contractors to ‗work round‘ the system.

59

From 1968 till 1980/81 the design of trunk roads and the supervision of their construction was undertaken by regional RCUs jointly staffed by the Ministry of Transport staff with LA staff on loan. Between 1980 and 1981 they were disbanded and their staff transferred to engineering consultancies such as WS Atkins. 60

Transport and Road Research Laboratory; now TRL (Transport Research Laboratory). 61

The LAmax is the maximum sound pressure level measured in a specified period. The LA01 is the sound pressure level exceeded for 1% of the specified period.


4.6.7 In terms of costs: CoPA 1974 set in motion big improvements in the way that noise was controlled. However, there was undoubtedly a cost implication.

4.6.8 Noise insulation of affected dwellings was often the means used to resolve construction noise problems62. In the early years after CoPA became law, houses within a certain distance of noisy operations were insulated where other means were not possible to meet specified noise limits. If the contractor wanted to work at night, the extent of insulation would be increased considerably.

4.6.9 More recently, contractors take the ‗insulation‘ option as a last resort and a ‗prior consent‘ approach is more common. However, local authorities have tended to encourage more informal approaches. At the same time, the BPM approach rather than noise limit approach seems to have been more favoured.

4.6.10 The cost of noise mitigation from construction sites is believed to be much less than it was during the early years. Construction plant is generally much quieter than in the past, thanks to a considerable amount of legislation, including that for the working environment, and the way sites are managed, usually with a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (C&EMP), is much improved.

Construction Company: mid-1970s to early 1990s

4.6.11 The take up by both local authorities and developers/contractors of the Section 61 process got off to a slow start after implementation of Part III of CoPA at the beginning of 1976.

4.6.12 The level of detail involved was relatively limited. Semi-official pro-formas published by Legal Stationers were simple two page documents. For a town-centre project in Essex in 1981 the LA requested that the S61 procedure be used and they had developed their own pro forma but this was still quite a brief document.

4.6.13 Elsewhere, including within London, S60 seemed to be the main instrument of control. However, documents for highways works would refer to the existence of S61 in an Appendix but not stipulate its use as a contract requirement.

4.6.14 It does seem that with the occurrence of large infrastructure projects in the late 1980s and early 1990s the use of S61 became more widespread and in some cases it was a legal requirement and/or contractual requirement. It was first encountered on a really large scale on the Jubilee Line Extension. However, there are still large areas of the country where the procedure is not commonly used and indeed some local authorities prefer not to use it.

62

The Noise Insulation Regulations give Highway Authorities a discretionary power to provide noise insulation for dwellings against noise from the construction phase of works for new or improved roads.


Engineering consultancy: mid 1970s 4.6.15 The attitude of contractors at that time was that the project had to be built

and that noise was unavoidable, so ‗they can‘t stop us‘. The provisions were ignored by local authorities and contractors alike.

London Borough: late 1970s to early 1980s

4.6.16 There was limited use of S60 or S61 probably because most construction projects were relatively small. One local firm did use the S61 procedure on a relatively small project. However, the application provided limited details (working hours and general nature of construction) and was delivered a few days before the works were scheduled to start. In the event no consent was granted and there was no appeal by the applicant.

4.6.17 In this period it appeared that British Rail had a policy of not making a formal application under S61 eg, where they were using a weekend possession to replace a rail bridge over a road. However, in effect BR used the same procedure, albeit informally, and provided information about plant and working hours (though not noise levels). BR also liaised with the council so that noise levels from similar work in the vicinity (in the area of another LA) could be monitored.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH): 1989 onwards

4.6.18 In Tower Hamlets the Canary Wharf development to some extent triggered transport infrastructure projects that affected the councils in the area eg, the Jubilee Line Extension (JLE, see below) and the extension to the Docklands Light Railway (DLR).

4.6.19 LBTH worked with Olympia & York (the promoters of Canary Wharf) to develop S61 agreements as basis for managing construction noise and vibration from the project and that led to more or less standard working hours and requirements (including limits for noise and vibration) – in effect a LA policy was devised using the framework provided.

4.6.20 These procedures were then applied to other major projects in the LA‘s area as and when they arose, for example, the Limehouse Link road tunnel constructed in the period 1989 – 1993 by the cut-and-cover method.

4.6.21 Owing to LBTH‘s early experience in this field other LAs often consulted it when similar major projects were first proposed in their own areas and so a degree of consensus developed in the application of these procedures among many other London LAs.

Consultant to the 1990 JLE Project63: 1990 to 1998

4.6.22 The approval process for this project was by a Parliamentary Bill, not by a planning consent from the LPA.

63

Note that this contribution was supplied by an acoustic consultant to the project and does not constitute the official view or opinion of the promoters themselves.


4.6.23 While the preparations for the Select Committee hearings were underway high noise levels at dwellings were predicted over extended time periods arising from the construction of new stations using the ‗top down‘ method and the need for 24-hour operation at tunnelling sites. At that initial stage it was considered that even with the application of noise mitigation to the site there would be locations where noise levels would still be unacceptable if they occurred for extended periods.

4.6.24 The project therefore devised a Noise Insulation scheme modelled on that for roads under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (NIRs) (The NIRs empowered highway authorities to use them to mitigate noise from road construction but no noise limits or periods of exposure we set down for that situation; see footnote 62, page 35.) A set of criteria were developed that took into account the predicted noise level from construction, the existing noise level, the time of day, the day of the week, and the frequency and duration the noise was predicted to occur (ie, in terms of the number of days over a period of weeks).

4.6.25 A further innovation was the production of a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) which was not limited to noise and vibration but covered a range of environmental topics (eg, dust, ecology). The noise section was not intended to displace BS5228 but incorporated the general advice in BS5228 on BPM together with more detailed information for the project (eg, on working hours). As well as project-wide commitments there were also more specific sections for individual worksites that took account of local circumstances and the works required at that site. The CoCP formed part of the project documentation.

4.6.26 The project policy was that the contractors would submit S61 applications to the LA‘s in whose areas the works were to be undertaken and attempt to agree with them acceptable working practices leading to an outcome acceptable to both parties.

4.6.27 The project CoCP helped to inform that process and approach. The use of a combination of a project CoCP (sometimes known as a Construction and Environmental Management Plan on later projects) together with S61 applications well in advance of the works became the norm for large projects of this kind.

4.6.28 The way in which the S61 process was used took account of the practical aspects of the project. The approach was to make S61 consents time limited (ie, to be valid for a specified period) and to tailor their terms to specific phases of the work at a site. In that way the working hours and/or noise levels reflected what was achievable with the application of BPM for the activities in a given phase. This approach ensured that the noise levels were as low as practicable for each phase. The power to limit the duration of a S61 consent is explicitly provided in CoPA64.

64

S61(5)(c).


4.6.29 For short-term activities within a phase that required longer working hours and or higher noise levels than the general values for that phase (eg, a large concrete pour which once started would need to continue for several hours), a procedure known as ‗Dispensations‘ was used. This had the effect of temporarily suspending the terms of the S61 consent for that phase for a short period (eg, 24-hours) for a specific activity. The terms of the S61 consent would be reverted to after the ‗Dispensation‘ period/activity had passed. Except in an emergency, agreed periods of notice had to be given to the LA when seeking a Dispensation. The power to attach conditions to a consent are also explicitly provided in the Act65.

4.6.30 The above procedures ensured that the best practicable means (BPM) appropriate to the activity in question were employed to mitigate noise and that if noise limits specified in the Promoter‘s Insulation Scheme were still exceeded for periods set out in the CoCP then mitigation (sound insulation or temporary re-housing) would be provided for the affected occupiers.

4.6.31 In practice then, during the later detailed planning for specific worksites the on-site mitigation that was practicable for each case was assessed since the preference was to apply the mitigation to the source or path rather than to the receptor (subject to BPM). Mitigation measures applied included very high barriers at the site boundary to protect medium rise flats on the opposite side of the road and in one case completely enclosing a tunnelling worksite which was adjacent to rooms used for residential purposes. The predictions for this stage used the commercial computer implementation of BS5228 described in section 4.4.

4.6.32 A further measure used to control noise and vibration during construction was the appointment of specialist ‗environmental engineers‘ by the project. Their role was to monitor compliance with agreements and the actual noise levels, and to provide advice for the site managers. They also liaised with the LAs and the support provided by the project‘s specialist consultants in order to resolve any noise and vibration issues that arose in the course of construction.

Further technical factors

4.6.33 Practical experience has highlighted two issues, one that can affect the accuracy of predictions and a second that might lead to more accurate predictions in the future, perhaps after additions to the Code.

4.6.34 The first issue affects prediction accuracy and concerns the assumed operating time of the plant for which predictions are undertaken. The

method in the Code predicts the ‗average‘ noise level (ie, the LAeq) over a

specified period and so the operating time used has a direct effect on the

LAeq value.

65

S61(5)(a).


4.6.35 The operating time is commonly assessed as a two-stage process. First the percentage of the day for which the plant is present on the site is determined – eg, from an activity schedule for the project. The second stage is necessary when the equipment operates in cycles and only the maximum noise level is known. In those circumstances it is necessary to determine the percentage of the time for which the plant/activity operates at its maximum output since for the remainder of the time in a cycle it will emit a lower noise level (or be idling or even turned off). Obtaining this type of time information can be more difficult and can also be misunderstood.

4.6.36 Applying the correct time factor is considered to be one of the most important parts of the prediction process66.

4.6.37 The second technical issue is noise monitoring and that also has a bearing on prediction accuracy but in a different way. After the introduction of the Code both BRE and the then TRRL investigated the accuracy of the prediction method67. However, in most cases any monitoring that is undertaken is more likely to be to check compliance with specified noise limits rather than to investigate the accuracy of the predictions68.

4.6.38 Twenty-five years ago bespoke systems had to designed and constructed if real-time monitoring of construction noise and remote access to the results was required. However, equipment is now available off-the-shelf with this facility and that provides an opportunity to assess predicted and measured levels as well as checking compliance with specified limits. However, validation exercises of that kind are only likely to be practicable on large infrastructure projects69.

4.7 Experience of the Noise Abatement Society

4.7.1 Many local authorities have produced their own Codes of Practice for construction sites to assist developers in meeting their requirements. Because these have usually been designed to cover the whole range of construction operations likely to take place in a local authority area, they are typically fairly general in tone and content.

4.7.2 Most local authorities contain a mix of different types of area, in terms of land use mix, background noise levels, etc., so authorities often find it better to apply requirements on a case-by-case basis, rather than attempt to include numerical or other tightly-specified requirements in their overall Code of Practice. This appears sensible in terms of achieving a good outcome for neighbours which is also affordable for the developer.

66

BS5228:2009 provides a flow chart for the calculation process that distinguishes between these two time correction factors but values for percentage on-time are not available for all the database tables included in the standard. 67

eg, Prediction and measurement of the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) during the

construction of a main drainage system. P Lawson. BRE CP 9/76. 1976 68

A similar situation as regards monitoring arises in the field of Environmental Assessment. 69

An amendment of Appendix G (Noise monitoring) of BS5228:2009 is in progress. However, that amendment will address instrumentation standards not the wider issue of validation testing which in any event might not be appropriate for smaller scale projects with less widespread impacts.


4.7.3 Land use mixing policies have, however, been increasingly adopted in town planning over the last 20 to 30 years. Mixing housing and workplaces can, of course, make it more difficult to find optimum times for noisy construction activities, notably trying to avoid both the working day in offices, and evening/night for residents.

4.7.4 Economic pressures for 24 hour working on very large buildings can be considerable, particularly if techniques involve continuous activities including moving of vehicles to and from the site; pouring of concrete, such as for the core of a high building; and waste removal. Work on transport systems can be highly challenging, with pressure to carry out the most major, disruptive (and thus potentially noisy) operations at night, weekends and holiday periods, when there is least disruption to road or rail traffic. Similar factors apply to runway maintenance and other airport works.

4.7.5 Promoters of large schemes may themselves develop a Code of Construction Practice.

4.7.6 For example, for the construction of the facilities within the Olympic Park, the Olympic Delivery Authority developed their Code of Construction Practice (2007)70 to ‗optimise positive and minimise adverse impacts on land, water, noise and air quality‘. The construction phase is widely regarded as having been a success, with few complaints, typically attributable to a specific mistake or the use of incorrect equipment.

4.8 Summary of Implementation and Effect

4.8.1 This section compares the trends in the sets of data presented above from the LA surveys undertaken by the CIEH (Section 4.2) and the then NCSA (Section 4.3), and the data reported by the ONS (paragraph 4.5.3) and the DfT (paragraph 4.5.11). That information is also related to the anecdotal evidence presented.

Overview 1971 – 2010

4.8.2 The long-term data from the CIEH LA surveys and from ONS datasets on construction output all showed to some degree a series of short term peaks and troughs overlain on longer term trends. However, none of the patterns of peaks and troughs appeared to be related to others within each dataset.

4.8.3 In Figure 4.6 the complaints data from the CIEH surveys (Figure 4.2) and the ONS data for all Construction Work (Figure 4.4) are overlaid.

4.8.4 On Figure 4.6 the blue columns show the annual number complaints per responding LA and use the left hand scale – eg, for 1989/90 there were between 30 and 35 complaints per LA. The straight black line shows the trend of those complaints over the period for which the data were collected (ie, as on Figure 4.2). The brown line on Figure 4.6 that rises and falls over the period represents the volume of construction industry output measured in millions of pounds (normalised to 2005 prices) and uses the right hand scale; so in 2009/10 the figure was just below 100,000 (million £).

70

Olympic Delivery Authority, http://www.london2012.com/publications/code-of-construction-practice.php - Accessed 26 February 2012

http://www.london2012.com/publications/code-of-construction-practice.php

http://www.london2012.com/publications/code-of-construction-practice.php


4.8.5 There is some coincidence between the peak in complaints per LA in the

period 1987 – 1991/2 and the peak in construction output in that period. Correspondence between complaints and construction output is less pronounced outside that period.

1971 to 1984 – BS:5288:1975

4.8.6 After the introduction of CoPA the number of construction noise complaints per LA was fairly steady (at about 7, Figure 4.2) and higher than the level (of about 3 per LA) in the years immediately preceding the policy‘s introduction. The change in the number of statutory notices served per 100 construction noise complaints between the period a few years before the policy‘s introduction and a few years after that to 1978-81 was larger (from about 2 or 3 to about 11, Figure 4.3).

4.8.7 The level of construction activity initially fell but output in the period 1975 to about 1984 was fairly steady (Figure 4.4, Figure 4.6) though there was a dip in activity in the period 1980-2 which overlaps the period 1978-80 when the use of notices appears to have increased.

4.8.8 The change in the use of statutory notices is consistent with the anecdotal evidence of the use of S60/S61 procedures for the early part of the period (from its introduction to the mid 1980s) which suggests that the initial take up was slow both by LAs and developers. Where it was applied the level of detail used was limited. Moreover, there was in some cases an attitude issue in that the policy was either ignored or worked around.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 4.6 Complaints received for construction noise per responding LA Volume of Construction Output 1971 – 2010 CIEH LA survey data, left hand scale, and ONS time series data - £ million, normalised to 2005 prices - right hand scale.


4.8.9 Nevertheless, the policy did lead to more attention being paid to construction noise and so experience was gained on the technical issue of prediction procedures. Before the first revision in 1984, the prediction procedures and plant/activity data provided by the Code of Practice were limited.

4.8.10 It seems that in the case of road construction, the approach to excessive noise levels in this period was to provide noise insulation for the affected dwellings rather than by mitigation of the machinery itself or by using barriers. Motorway construction appears to have been on a falling trend over this period (Figure 4.5).

1985 to early 1990s – BS:5288:1984, 1986 and 1992

4.8.11 In this period there was higher level of construction related complaints both in terms of the number per LA and as a percentage of all complaints. There was also an increase in the number of statutory notices served per 100 complaints.

4.8.12 Construction output was also at a higher level than for the preceding period.

4.8.13 The anecdotal evidence suggests that in the later part of this period there was an increase in large-scale infrastructure projects (initially, at least, London/SE) which was the catalyst for the wide scale adoption and practical development of the policy.

4.8.14 There was a large increase in output associated with infrastructure from about 1988 which reached a peak in 1993 (Figure 4.4).

4.8.15 By this time the Code of Practice had a larger database of plant/activity noise and improved prediction techniques. A specific ‗part‘ of the Code was devoted to noise and vibration from piling71.

4.8.16 During this period the GLC72 developed the computer program (CWAY) that implemented BS5228:1984 for their own use and Atkins started to licence their program (SiteNoise) to LAs and Consultants. SiteNoise implemented BS5228:1984 but also included (as options) the enhanced prediction techniques arising from the DoE‘s Surface Mineral Workings research project. Procedures based on those techniques were later incorporated into BS5228:1997.

Mid 1990s to 2002 – BS:5288:1997

4.8.17 The NSCA survey data (1997 – 2002) does not all show the same pattern as the CIEH survey data for the same period.

71

Initially only noise for piling (1986) and then noise and vibration (1992). 72

The GLC was abolished in March 1986 and the functions of its Scientific Branch were operated by the London Residuary Body until that was wound up in 1996 when all the GLC‘s assets had been disposed of. (See also footnote 46, page 29.)


4.8.18 In terms of the relative incidence of construction noise complaints compared to other sources there is an element of agreement. CIEH analysis shows that as a proportion of all complaints the level of those for construction noise was relatively steady over the period 1998 – 2002 (at about 4%, Figure 4.1). The NSCA survey found that the percentage of responding LAs in which it was the second most common cause of complaint remained broadly stable over that period (at about 22%, Table 4.1).

4.8.19 However, the CIEH analysis for 1997 – 2002 shows the number of construction noise complaints per LA increasing over that period (from about 35 to 45, Figure 4.2) whereas the NSCA survey showed that the percentage LA officers in the survey who thought that construction complaints were rising year-on-year fell over that period (from about 42% to 29%, Table 4.2).

4.8.20 The number of statutory notices served for construction noise per 100 complaints was fairly steady for this 1997 – 2002 (about 7, Figure 4.3).

4.8.21 So according to the CIEH data the rate of complaints continued to rise, though not as quickly as those for other sources of noise did. Fewer notices were served (in relation to construction noise). Infrastructure work was on a falling trend though overall Construction Work was slightly increasing.

4.8.22 The Code of Practice added new parts for specific types of work and the prediction techniques were updated to incorporate more complex methods based on those that had been investigated as part of the DoE‘s Surface Mineral Workings research.

2002 to date – BS:5288:2009

4.8.23 Construction complaints (both number per LA and as percentage of all) and number of notices (per 100 complaints) fell over this period.

4.8.24 Infrastructure work fell sharply till about 2007 and then output recovered sharply. Output for All Construction Work rose slightly at first, was then fairly steady till about 2007 after which it fell.

4.8.25 The 2009 version of the Code included an updated plant database (with octave band data) derived from the 2004-2006 Defra research project.

4.8.26 The NAS notes that economic pressure/logistics can lead to pressure for 24-hour working on some kinds of works. The development of mixed use land policies over the last 20 years can mean that offices and housing are both affected by works and that makes finding a suitable timetable for working more difficult than for a single use area.

4.8.27 The NAS also notes that many LAs and some promoters of large schemes have developed their own Codes of Practice which incorporate the advice and guidance on noise control etc from the British Standard but with additional procedures and requirements appropriate to the area and project in question. An example is that of the Olympic Delivery Authority and the construction phase for that project is widely regarded as having been a success, with few complaints.


5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Summary

5.1.1 The concepts for the policy were provided in the Wilson Report (1963) following initial experience gained of the Noise Abatement Act 1960.

5.1.2 The essence of the policy was to provide a framework for the forward planning of construction works thereby enabling optimum application of BPM to control noise. This is required at the day-to-day level (eg, shutting off equipment when it is not in use) and also at the strategic level (eg, considering alternative designs and working techniques).

5.1.3 This approach is an alternative to the use of the statutory nuisance legislation which is, in practice, a mainly reactive procedure implemented after the source of the noise is already on site and any disturbance is ongoing. The choice by the LA of using the statutory nuisance procedure or their S60 powers will depend on the circumstances.

5.1.4 The policy provides for the LA (S60) or the project promoter (S61) to take the initiative in the use of the policy but in both cases the policy envisages a collaborative approach73.

5.1.5 The fundamental policy has not been changed since its introduction but there have been developments that have assisted its implementation. These include the continued enhancement of the guidance and information provided by BS5228 itself, as well as unrelated initiatives such as the EC Directives imposing noise limits on a range of construction plant.

5.1.6 In the UK proprietary software to undertake the calculation procedures in BS5228 was developed from software that was written to implement the procedures of CRTN for large road schemes. The software became commercially available in 1989 and enabled more sophisticated calculation techniques to be tested and they were subsequently included in a later version of the Code of Practice74.

5.1.7 The emerging availability of electronic means of calculation, both spreadsheets and proprietary programs, has enabled these more complex procedures to be adopted.

5.1.8 The Code has also been updated (2009) to provide a noise database for plant and activities for modern equipment working on site rather than data for old equipment or data obtained under test conditions.

5.1.9 Much of the additional information for the databases and on improvements to the prediction methods have arisen from work by other organisations including CIRIA and Defra (and its predecessors). The versions of BS5228 and studies on which the standard has drawn are listed in Table 5.1.

73

see S61(4)(c) and paragraph 22 of the accompanying circular (2/76) on p13 of this Annex. 74

1997.


Table 5.1 Summary of Development of BS5228 and related documents

Year: Scope Comments Part

1975 Noise only Limited

Wide variation in level for same plant/activity 1984 1 Basic Code ) 2 Legislation )Database from CIRIA Report 64 (1977) included 3 Open Cast ) 1986:4 Piling Noise only 1992:4 Piling Noise and Vibration

Database from CIRIA Technical Note 142 (1992) included 1997:1 Basic Code Barrier correction 1997:2 Legislation ) Plant noise limits from EC Directives 1997:3 Open Cast ) Incorporates enhanced procedures derived from 1990

) DoE Surface Mineral Study 1997:5 Hard Rock + Sands

& Gravels ) Updated by Research for ) Open Cast Executive

2009:1 Noise

1 Incorporates databases from Defra studies 2004-6

2009:2 Vibration 1

Note 1 Includes air-overpressure

5.1.10 CIEH data shows that the LA action to control noise from construction

operations is undertaken using both the special procedure of Section 60 and the measures to deal with statutory nuisance.

5.1.11 Both LAs and project promoters have developed Codes of Construction Practice for use within their area or on specific projects. These Codes do not supplant the British Standard but incorporate its advice and guidance while including additional procedures or controls tailored to circumstances of the area and/or project.

5.2 Conclusions

5.2.1 BS 5228 has made considerable progress since its first introduction in 1975. The main changes to the contents of the Code of Practice have been to provide pragmatic guidance on up-to-date good practice in relation to the control and management of noise and vibration on those construction sites to which Sections 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are applicable, and other open sites employing similar plant and techniques.


5.2.2 BS5228 and the procedures set out in S60/61 of CoPA have provided flexibility, and, if used well, have enabled people to be protected. There are difficulties in analysing complaints owing to the very wide range of construction activities, kinds of plant and relationships with those affected. Despite annual variations, there is a clear long-term downward trend in the proportion of total noise complaints reported although there is also a clear upward trend in the numbers of complaints about construction noise. This shows that, while complaint numbers increased, they rose more slowly than for other noise sources.

5.2.3 Over the period 1971 to 2008/9 nearly 5 million complaints and 39,000 notices served by LAs in respect of construction were reported in the CIEH LA surveys. Although the CIEH survey is sent to all LAs, the number responding varies from year to year and so these figures do not represent a complete set of data.

5.2.4 It is also important to note that because the S61 procedure is not initiated by the LA, statistics on its use are not collected in the CIEH surveys. The S61 approach is typical of large-scale, longer term infrastructure projects and so its use has potentially been of benefit to large numbers of people.

5.2.5 It seems that practitioners, both LAs and promoters, developed the detail and procedures within the policy framework in response to the need to manage noise from a series of large schemes built in London in the late 1980s/early 1990s. That early experience was then adopted for subsequent major projects in other parts of London and elsewhere.

5.2.6 Computer software was originally developed to assist with assessments for large road schemes but the software also enabled more sophisticated calculation techniques to be tested and they were subsequently included in later versions of the Code of Practice.

5.2.7 The code has also been also updated to provide a noise database for plant and activities for modern equipment working on site rather than data for old equipment or data obtained under test conditions.

5.2.8 The use of a special approach and its supporting Code of Practice on construction noise is unusual. There have been suggestions from expatriates and others in overseas territories that it be advanced for consideration by ISO for adoption as a model on which to base an International Standard, as there appears to be a lack of a comparable Code of Practice elsewhere. Exploratory moves are currently underway, but it is too early to report any significant progress at this time.

annex 6 construction noise no0234

Documents