Institute of Acoustics (IOA) – Written evidence (ALN0064)

 

Background

 

The Institute of Acoustics (IOA) is the UK’s professional organisation for those working in the fields of sound, noise and vibration. Members of the Institute carry out research into the effects of noise on human health and wellbeing and are also involved in the development and implementation of the national policies, legislation and guidance that deal with the management of noise. The Institute’s membership includes:

 

Given this wide range of membership, the Institute feels well placed to address the questions raised by the Committee and to provide this evidence in order to assist the Committee with its deliberations.

 

The Institute’s response relates to noise pollution and specifically refers to Questions 4 and 5 in the call for evidence.

 

This response has been prepared by experienced members of the Institute and has been approved by the IOA’s Executive Committee on behalf of the IOA’s Governing Council.

 

Summary

 

The overarching policy on noise management in England is set out in the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE)[1]. Whilst it dates back to 2010, its vision to

 

“Promote good health and a good quality of life through the effective management of noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development”

 

is still as relevant today as it was back then. Two key aspects are

 

 

Whilst our understanding of how noise affects health and quality of life has markedly improved since 2010, there are still major evidence gaps that affect the implementation of the NPSE, such as understanding what a Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) may be.

 

The NPSE states:

“It is not possible to have a single objective noise-based measure that defines SOAEL that is applicable to all sources of noise in all situations. Consequently, the SOAEL is likely to be different for different noise sources, for different receptors and at different times. It is acknowledged that further research is required to increase our understanding of what may constitute a significant adverse impact on health and quality of life from noise. However, not having specific SOAEL values in the NPSE provides the necessary policy flexibility until further evidence and suitable guidance is available.”

 

Unfortunately primary research to answer these questions is still lacking, and major decisions on policies, regulations and infrastructure projects are largely based on precedent and UK research dating back to the 1960s-1980s. Furthermore, whilst the

 

“application of the NPSE should mean that noise is properly taken into account at the appropriate time”,

 

this is still not necessarily happening – for example noise is absent from the recently launched Environment Improvement Plan 2023[2].

 

The second aspect is framing noise within a broader context of sustainable development. The acoustic environment, including its effect on health, is closely aligned with the UN sustainable goals, including

 

 

In this area there are also important evidence gaps, particularly on how noise can disproportionately affect subgroups of the population through vulnerabilities acquired either at birth or throughout the life course, and also on the opportunities afforded by health promoting sound environments.

 

Noise management is a devolved matter, and since devolution, there has been a gradual diversion in the policy detail across the four nations. In England responsibility is spread over a large number of Government departments or parts of departments.

 

Whilst in principle there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this arrangement, the challenge comes because for most officials, noise management is only a small part of their policy responsibility. Consequently, the noise implications may not be given the attention required or at worse may be completely overlooked. Furthermore, not all policy areas which can affect the sound and noise environment have readily available to them the necessary expertise to address these issues properly. This can lead to an uneven or inconsistent development, implementation and updating of policy, incomplete management of noise or unintended adverse consequences.

 

As mentioned above, the current overarching policy in England (the NPSE) is relevant and the IOA believes it is written such that its implementation can automatically reflect any new reliable evidence regarding the effects of noise. The vision and aims of the policy do not need to change.

 

However, the current implementation of the NPSE is generally confined to managing the noise impact of new developments and meeting the first two aims of the policy.

 

What is missing is a strategy which requires positive action to contribute to improving health and well-being by reducing the overall exposure to noise and to encourage positively the use of soundscape principles.

 

Consequently, the IOA would recommend the development of a Sound and Noise Management Strategy. This would set

 

 

In terms of policy changes, the IOA would also remove permitted development rights from any development that can affect or be affected by the sound environment.

 

Given the interest in this issue by members of both the House of Lords and House of Commons beyond any local constituency matter, the IOA now believes that there would be great benefit in harnessing that interest through the establishment of an All Party Parliamentary Group on Sound and Noise Management (no such group currently exists).

 

Such a group would provide a means for the IOA to raise issues with politicians and explain the concerns identified so that, hopefully, the noise issue is properly managed before it becomes a problem. Furthermore, should a Sound and Noise Management Strategy be developed, that Group could monitor its progress. On a point of detail, the IOA would be happy to act as secretary to the group.

 

The IOA has aimed to provide detailed answers to Questions 4 and 5 in order to assist the Committee in its deliberation. The Institute would be happy to answer any queries members of the committee may have about any of the issues raised.

 


Response to Question 4

 

Please note that relevant references have been provided. These are indicated numerically and listed at the end of the response to this question

 

What are the mechanisms by which noise pollution has an impact on human health? What are the negative impacts it can have?

 

1.     Environmental noise is accepted as a public health issue and has significant impacts on physical health, mental health, and wellbeing1. The past two decades have seen an increase in evidence linking exposure to

 

 

2.     Environmental noise can trigger biological responses in an individual, such as increasing stress hormone levels and increase risk factors for poorer cardiometabolic health such as blood pressure, blood sugar and blood fats12 13. If these biological responses are triggered over a long period, they can lead to poorer mental health and diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart attacks, strokes and dementia. These biological responses can also be triggered by annoyance and sleep disturbance associated with noise exposure5 14.

 

Humans continue to respond to sounds in the environment even when asleep and studies have shown that noise can affect sleep in terms of

 

 

3.     Annoyance is the most prevalent community response in a population exposed to noise, describing negative reactions to noise such as disturbance, irritation, dissatisfaction and nuisance17.

 

Exposure-response functions (ERFs) plotting the ‘percentage highly annoyed’ (%HA), assessed following the relevant Technical Standard18 19, against noise exposure using time-averaged metrics for the day or night (e.g., LAeq,16h, LAeq,8h) increasingly inform assessments, guidance, and policy aiming to protect public health (e.g., the World Health Organization). Annoyance is itself a potential risk factor for poorer mental health14.

 

4.     However, wide-ranging estimates of annoyance are found for the same sound exposure across studies2 20, because sound exposure accounts for only part of the annoyance response observed. Non-acoustic factors, such as the fear associated with the noise source, interference with activities, ability to cope, noise sensitivity, expectations, anger, perceived fairness, attitudes to the source – both positive or negative, and beliefs about whether noise could be reduced by those responsible influence annoyance responses21, as well as individual factors such as age, social disadvantage, and employment status22-26. The effect of soundscapes, defined as the human perception of sound in context41, studies the impact of the holistic sound environment, comprising all sources, on people in place and time42. Soundscape is a multi-disciplinary practice and similar to landscape or biodiversity planning in its integrative approach. Aural diversity studies the wide-ranging differences in human hearing not represented in standardised noise measurement indices (i.e. the decibel). Aural diversity, for example, can include those with autism, tinnitus, certain types of physical injury, and other medical conditions43. Non-acoustic, soundscape and aural diverse factors have a limited evidence base compared with long established noise and health research. Therefore many aspects of these emerging areas are not yet well understood and their consequences are difficult to estimate at the population level, however they are widely acknowledged to have significant impacts on certain cohorts.

 

What are the primary causes of noise pollution and how well do we understand them? Is there evidence regarding which types of noise pollution, in terms of frequency or intermittency, are the most harmful?

 

5.     There are many sources of noise pollution. These include

 

Research, both nationally and internationally, has focused almost exclusively on the negative effects of transportation noise. Wind turbine noise has been studied internationally but not in the UK. The focus on transportation noise reflects methodological developments in the past two decades which have increased our ability to model external transportation noise at residential addresses (through the implementation of the Environmental Noise Regulations). It is methodologically challenging to examine neighbour noise and neighbourhood noise, due to the individual differences in exposure and residential quality.

 

6.     The European Environment Agency recently estimated that in the UK,

 

In the UK, these levels are estimated to cause

 

These are likely to be underestimates, as the burden of disease is estimated only for the highest noise exposures within the population and covers a limited range of health outcomes.

 

7.     Noise sources can have a differential effect on health outcomes at the same sound level. For example, it has been established that aircraft noise is more annoying at the same sound level, followed by road traffic and then railway noise 27. However, analyses examining effects on objective sleep disturbance – assessed physiologically using polysomnography, have found that railway noise was more likely to cause awakenings, followed by road traffic and then aircraft noise 16. These differences may have importance for policy.

 

8.     The Swiss SiRENE (Short and Long-Term Effects of Transportation Noise Exposure) found that the intermittency of the noise, whether the time-average noise exposure is made up of distinct or a high number of distinct pass-by events (described as a high IR) or constantly flowing events (described as a low IR) did not influence annoyance for railway noise or aircraft noise 28. For road traffic noise, more constant noise was more annoying than intermittent noise. A later paper found that aircraft noise, road traffic noise and railway noise were associated with cardiovascular mortality, and that effects were greater for those exposed to intermittent noise 29

 

9.     There remain many established and new noise sources for which there is little or no evidence relating to the potential effects on health. Established sources include neighbour noise and neighbourhood noise (see paragraph 5 above). New sources for which evidence needs to be established to inform policy include heat pumps; drones, and urban air mobility.

 

10. A recent Danish paper which found effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular outcomes, suggested that exposure to 2 or 3 transportation noise sources was associated with a larger effect than exposure to only one source 30.

 

Is there evidence that the impacts of noise pollution are worsening over time? Has our understanding of this issue evolved recently (e.g. in the last 10–15 years)?

 

11. The National Noise Attitude Survey 2012 25 found that from 2000 to 2012 there was

“an increase in the percentage of respondents who reported noise as one of their top five environmental problems”,

and noise moved up from ninth to fourth place in the list of twelve environmental problems.

Whilst the list of environmental problems was not exhaustive, respondents placed noise equal to air quality in 2012 and above many of the other environmental issues such as recycling, quality of drinking water, sewage on beaches or in bathing water, and loss of plant life and/or animal life.

 

12. There is some suggestion that the negative effects of noise pollution have worsened over-time. For example, a study comparing aircraft noise annoyance suggested that annoyance responses have increased at the same level of exposure in recent decades3. In recent years, the public has also become increasingly aware of the potential negative effects of environmental noise.

 

13. Noise is increasingly seen as a no-threshold effect. Prior to the mid-2000s studies often did not assess exposures below 50dB, nor did they examine potential health effects across a range of exposures. Studies often compared groups with ‘high’ exposure with groups with ‘lower’ exposure, with different definitions and ranges of exposures adding to uncertainty in findings across the studies. Research now assesses and examines effects at both lower exposures and across a wide-range of exposures, using estimates derived from validated Geographical Information Systems (GIS) models which have improved the quality and range of noise exposure estimation for use in epidemiological studies.

 

14. In the past 10-15 years, methodologically robust, higher quality studies of large samples have been published in peer-reviewed journal papers or by reputable public health agencies. These have, in turn, enabled and informed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which synthesise the findings across studies for annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardiometabolic health and children’s learning and mental health.

 

15. In 2018, the World Health Organization published a series of 8 systematic reviews of the field2 5 31 36, that informed its Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. Further systematic reviews have also been published including work commissioned by Defra7 37-39. In addition, ICCAN (the former Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise) published a Rapid Review of aviation noise and health effects in 202040. Many of these reviews provide updated effect estimates that can be applied in environmental and health assessment and burden of disease methodologies. Whilst much of this evidence is not from the UK, it represents the best estimates available, to date.

 

16.            UK policy has failed to utilise the evidence currently available from existing meta-analyses. The Interdepartmental Group on Cost and Benefits (Noise), which oversees the Department for Transport’s TAG (Transport Appraisal Guidance) is used to monetise the effects of environmental noise on health to inform infrastructure development. It has failed to update the evidence base for its calculations since 2014 despite the availability of new evidence. The current evidence base is now 10 years out of date; relies on incorrect prevalence data and exposure-response functions; lacks specific ERFs for some noise sources; and therefore, underestimates the public health impact of noise. Given the evolving evidence in the field, a system with more flexibility for updating the use of evidence is required.

 

17.            The UK government has only provided a very limited response to the updated World Health Organization guidelines, which were now published five years ago. Written answers to Parliamentary Questions on this issue stated:

 

The Government has noted the recent new Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region published by the World Health Organisation(WHO). The WHO report agrees with the ambition to reduce noise and to minimise adverse health effects, but it also emphasizes the importance of policy being underpinned by the most robust evidence available on these effects. (Department for Transport, November 2018); and

 

We are working across Government to consider the guidelines and their relevance to future guidance and policy. An officials group is assessing the evidence base as well as other relevant recent research carried out in the UK and abroad, to inform our thinking on this. (Defra February 2019).

 

Nothing has been published by that officials group mentioned in the Defra response.

 

It is the Institute’s view that the ERFs set out in the WHO guidelines are extremely helpful, but care is needed with the proposed guideline levels in that document as they do not take proper account of the social and economic consequences of meeting them at this time. However, the lack of a fuller Government response means that it is unclear whether or not they agree with this view.

 

How reliable is our evidence base for these impacts – are there areas where we are less confident or additional studies that are needed?

 

18.            Uncertainty in the evidence remains and takes several forms including

 

19. There remains a lack of evidence for many types of noise source and outcomes. Key research needs to improve the UK evidence base for policy include:

 

20.            Whilst the UK has internationally renowned expertise to lead in this field and the networks to use to deliver robust high-quality research, there has been a lack of substantial as well as joined up investment by the UK research and Innovation (UKRI) to fund policy relevant research of this nature. Other countries have benefitted from substantial multi-million pound investments in nationwide noise and health studies, by linking detailed noise modelling to existing health registers (e.g., Denmark), collecting new data via national surveys (e.g., Switzerland), or investigating the effectiveness of interventions (e.g. Germany).

 

UKRI has yet to provide cross-council avenues necessary for research in this field. Applications are bounced between the councils, and compete with research on air pollution, which seems to be viewed as the only environmental pollutant.

 

Does the UK have a sufficient research base? Who are the main organisations conducting research into noise pollution and how are they funded?

 

20.            Overall, the UK does have a wide-ranging acoustics research community spread across academia, industry, public sector and NGOs[3]. Academic organisations which focus particularly on the effects of noise on health and well-being include:

 

 

The EPSRC-funded UK Acoustics Network (UKAN) brings together the wider UK acoustic research community, providing a wide variety of opportunities for research collaboration. The UKAN is led by Kirill Horoshenkov, Professor of Acoustics at The University of Sheffield and Richard Craster, Dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences at Imperial College London[4].

 

In terms of funding, Government departments, their agencies and other public bodies do occasionally commission research in this area, and some do applied research in collaboration with external stakeholders. The main funding, though, comes from research grants. However, as indicated above, it is very difficult to secure funding for the large scale longitudinal studies which would provide the necessary evidence regarding, in particular, the health effects of noise exposure.

 


Response to Question 4 - References

 

1. European Environment Agency. Environmental Noise in Europe 2020. Luxembourg: Publications of the European Union, 2020.

2. Guski R, Schreckenberg D, Schuemer R. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A systematic review on environmental noise and annoyance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2017;14(12):1539.

3. Janssen SA, Vos H, van Kempen EE, et al. Trends in aircraft noise annoyance: the role of study and sample characteristics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2011;129(4):1953-62.

4. Basner M. Effects of noise on sleep. Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology: Elsevier 2021.

5. Basner M, McGuire S. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Effects on Sleep. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2018;15(3):519.

6. van Kempen E, Casas M, Pershagen G, et al. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects: A Summary. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15(2) doi: 10.3390/ijerph15020379 [published Online First: 2018/02/23]

7. Clark C, Head J, van Kamp I, et al. A meta-analysis of the association of aircraft noise at school on children's reading comprehension and psychological health for use in Health Impact Assessment. J Environ Psychol 2021:101646.

8. Clark C, Paunović K. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A systematic review on environmental noise and cognition. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15:285. doi: 10.3390

9. Clark C, Paunović K. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: Systematic review of the evidence on the effects of environmental noise on quality of life, wellbeing and mental health. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15(11):2400.

10. Hegewald J, Schubert M, Freiberg A, et al. Traffic Noise and Mental Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(17) doi: 10.3390/ijerph17176175 [published Online First: 2020/08/29]

11. Cantuaria ML, Waldorff FB, Wermuth L, et al. Residential exposure to transportation noise in Denmark and incidence of dementia: national cohort study. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2021;374:n1954. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1954 [published Online First: 2021/09/10]

12. Munzel T, Sorensen M, Schmidt F, et al. The Adverse Effects of Environmental Noise Exposure on Oxidative Stress and Cardiovascular Risk. Antioxidants & redox signaling 2018;28(9):873-908. doi: 10.1089/ars.2017.7118 [published Online First: 2018/01/20]

13. Munzel T, Sorensen M, Gori T, et al. Environmental stressors and cardio-metabolic disease: part II-mechanistic insights. Eur Heart J 2017;38(8):557-64. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw294 [published Online First: 2016/07/28]

14. Gong X, Fenech B, Blackmore C, et al. Association between noise annoyance and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of environmental research and public health 2022;19(5):2696. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19052696

15. Basner M, Samel A, Isermann U. Aircraft noise effect on sleep: application of the results of a large polysomnographic field study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006;119(5):2772-84.

16. Elmenhorst E-M, Griefahn B, Rolny V, et al. Comparing the Effects of Road, Railway, and Aircraft Noise on Sleep: Exposure–Response Relationships from Pooled Data of Three Laboratory Studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2019;16(6):1073. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16061073

17. Guski R. Personal and social variables as co-determinants of noise annoyance. Noise Health 1999;1(3):45-56. [published Online First: 2003/04/12]

18. ISO/TS15666:2021. Acoustics - Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio-acoustic surveys. Geneva; Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2021.

19. ISO/TS15666:2003. Acoustics - Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio-acoustic surveys. Geneva; Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2003.

20. Guski R, Schuemer R, Schreckenberg D. Aircraft noise annoyance - Present exposure response relations. Euronoise Crete 2018

21. WHO. Guidelines for Community Noise. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Europe, 2000.

22. Civil Aviation Authority. CAP1506 Survey of Noise Attitudes 2014. London: Civil Aviation Authority, 2017.

23. Clark C, Smuk M, Skinner C, et al. Current Noise Attitudes: SoNA 2013 (Survey of Noise Attitudes). London: Queen Mary University of London: Queen Mary University of London, 2015.

24. Gjestland T. A Systematic Review of the Basis for WHO's New Recommendation for Limiting Aircraft Noise Annoyance. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15(12) doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122717 [published Online First: 2018/12/06]

25. Notley H, Grimwood C, Raw G, et al. National Noise Attitude Survey 2012 (NNAS2012): Summary Report. London: DEFRA, 2014.

26. Fenech B, Lavia L, Rodgers G, et al. Development of a new ISO Technical Specification on non-acoustic factors to improve the interpretation of socio-acoustic surveys. Paper presented at the 13th ICBEN Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. 14-17 June, Stockholm, 2021.

27. European Commission. Position paper on dose response relationships between transportation noise and annoyance. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publicaitons of the European Commission, 2002.

28. Brink M, Schaffer B, Vienneau D, et al. A survey on exposure-response relationships for road, rail, and aircraft noise annoyance: Differences between continuous and intermittent noise. Environ Int 2019;125:277-90. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.01.043 [published Online First: 2019/02/08]

29. Vienneau D, Saucy A, Schaffer B, et al. Transportation noise exposure and cardiovascular mortality: 15-years of follow-up in a nationwide prospective cohort in Switzerland. Environment International 2022;158 doi: ARTN 106974

10.1016/j.envint.2021.106974

30. Thacher JD, Poulsen AH, Hvidtfeldt UA, et al. Long-term exposure to transportation noise and risk for atrial fibrillation: A Danish nationwide cohort study. Environmental Research 2022;207:112167. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112167

31. Clark C, Paunovic K. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Quality of Life, Wellbeing and Mental Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2018;15(11):2400.

32. Śliwińska-Kowalska M, Zaborowski K. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Permanent Hearing Loss and Tinnitus. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2017; 14(10).

33. Clark C, Paunovic K. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Cognition. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2018;15(2):285.

34. Van Kempen E, Casas M, Pershagen G, et al. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects: A Summary. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2018;15(2):379.

35. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Ristovska G, Dadvand P. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Adverse Birth Outcomes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2017; 14(10).

36. Brown AL, Van Kamp I. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review of Transport Noise Interventions and Their Impacts on Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2017; 14(8).

37. Clark C, Crumpler C, Notley H. Evidence for environmental noise effects on health for the United Kingdom policy context: A systematic review of the effects of environmental noise on mental health, wellbeing, quality of life, cancer, dementia, birth, reproductive outcomes, and cognition. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020;17(393)

38. van Kamp I, Shilton S, Notley H, et al. Evidence Relating to Environmental Noise Exposure and Annoyance, Sleep Disturbance, Cardio-Vascular and Metabolic Health Outcomes in the Context of IGCB (N): A Scoping Review of New Evidence. International Journal for Environmental Research and Public Health 2020;17:3016.

39. Smith MG, Cordoza M, Basner M. Environmental Noise and Effects on Sleep: An Update to the WHO Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environ Health Perspect 2022;130(7):76001. doi: 10.1289/EHP10197 [published Online First: 2022/07/21]

40. Grollman C, Martin I, Mhonda J. Aviation noise and public health: Rapid evidence assessment: NatCen Social Research, 2020.

41 ISO 12913-1: 2014: Acoustics—Soundscape Part 1: Definition and Conceptual Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2014.

42 Kang, J., & Schulte-Fortkamp, B. (Eds.). Soundscape and the Built Environment (1st ed.). CRC Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19145 

43 Drever, J.L., & Hugill, A. (Eds.). Aural Diversity (1st ed.). Routledge, 2022. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003183624

 

 


Response to Question 5

 

Where does noise pollution intersect with public policy in the UK?

 

Of all the environmental pollutants, the requirement for effective noise management arguably intersects with the widest range of public policy areas. This is inevitable as so much of day to day life can cause noise (commonly described as unwanted sound) which potentially adversely affects people’s health and quality of life (well-being).

The complexity of managing noise is recognised in the Noise Policy Statement for England where it states:

 

For some the noise of city life provides a desirable sense of excitement and exhilaration, but for others noise is an unwanted intrusion that adversely impacts on their quality of life, affecting their health and well being[5]

 

Noise Management is a devolved matter and over the years there has been a divergence in policy emphasis and implementation across the home nations. Consequently, the response to this question is different for each country.

 

England

 

The overarching policy on noise management in England is set out in the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE)[6]. Whilst it dates back to 2010, its vision to

 

“Promote good health and a good quality of life through the effective management of noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development”

 

is still as relevant today as it was back then. Two key aspects are

 

 

Whilst our understanding of how noise affects health and quality of life has markedly improved since 2010, there are still major evidence gaps that affect the implementation of the NPSE, such as understanding what a Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) may be.

 

The NPSE states:

 

“It is not possible to have a single objective noise-based measure that defines SOAEL that is applicable to all sources of noise in all situations. Consequently, the SOAEL is likely to be different for different noise sources, for different receptors and at different times. It is acknowledged that further research is required to increase our understanding of what may constitute a significant adverse impact on health and quality of life from noise. However, not having specific SOAEL values in the NPSE provides the necessary policy flexibility until further evidence and suitable guidance is available.”

 

Unfortunately primary research to answer these questions is still lacking, and major decisions on policies, regulations and infrastructure projects are largely based on precedent and UK research dating back to the 1960s-1980s. Furthermore, whilst the

 

“application of the NPSE should mean that noise is properly taken into account at the appropriate time”,

 

this is still not necessarily happening – for example noise is absent from the recently launched Environment Improvement Plan 2023[7]. (See the response to Question 4 for more information about the research issues)

 

The second aspect is framing noise within a broader context of sustainable development. The acoustic environment, including its effect on health, is closely aligned with the UN sustainable goals, including

 

 

In this area there are also important evidence gaps, particularly on how noise can disproportionately affect subgroups of the population through vulnerabilities acquired either at birth or throughout the life course, and also on the opportunities afforded by health promoting sound environments.

 

However, the overarching policy in England enables these issues to be tackled and enables the implementation of the policy to the support delivery of a sustainable future for all its citizens and provide a global lead for other nations to follow to achieve this goal together.

 

In England, the breadth of potential sources of noise is reflected in the current policy and legislative landscape.

Figure 1 below shows schematically the Policy and Regulatory Framework in England

 


Figure 1

Noise Management Policy and Regulatory Framework in England

 

The diagram shows the number of different sources of noise that have to be managed including transportation, industrial, energy generation, building, entertainment and individual behaviour.

 

Figure 2 shows the same diagram but colour-coded to show the different Government departments or parts of departments responsible for that policy area.

 


Figure 2

Noise Management Policy and Regulatory Framework in England

Colour Coded to show Government Departmental Responsibility

 

The overarching policy found in the Noise Policy Statement for England is the responsibility of Defra and shown in green along with their other policy and legislative responsibilities. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (yellow) is responsible for Planning Policy, the Permitted Development policy, Building and Environmental Impact Regulations as well as the Land Compensation Act which covers the Noise Insulation Regulations. The Department for Transport deals with road traffic (red)[8], Aviation (grey), Railways (light orange) and Ports (light blue).

 

Other Government departments with responsibility for policy areas that can affect the management of noise include the Home Office (purple), the Department for Culture Media and Sports (pale yellow), the Department for Energy and Net Zero (dark orange) and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (blue).

 

It is the Institute’s view that, whilst in principle there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this arrangement, the challenge comes because for most officials, noise management is only a small part of their policy responsibility. Consequently, the noise implications may not be given the attention required or at worse maybe completely overlooked. Furthermore, not all policy areas which can affect the sound and noise environment have readily available to them the necessary expertise to address these issues properly. This can lead to an uneven or inconsistent development, implementation and updating of policy, incomplete management of noise or unintended adverse consequences.

 

Wales

 

In Wales, air quality policy has been combined with noise policy to include the consideration of Soundscape in the Noise and Soundscape Action Plan 2028-2023[9]. Whilst Noise pollution has a proven link with impacts on human health, for policy to support human wellbeing requires consideration of the sound environment in terms of its positive effects and not just the negative impacts of noise. The Welsh environmental and planning policy evolution has now embraced this direction of travel, supported by the recommendations for the UN Frontier report 2022[10] as one of the three environmental risk factors that require focus.

 

Scotland

 

In Scotland, noise is managed through a combination of planning policy and legislation. The policy was last revised in 2006[11] and supporting guidance on noise management was published in 2011[12]. While the general principles are similar to that found in England, there are some differences.

 

There are also some legislative differences, for example, the Anti-Social Behaviour Legislation, the standards and descriptors in Building Regulations and the strict application of the Noise Insulation Regulations. The corresponding regulations concerning noise mapping also show some differences.

 

Northern Ireland

 

Within Northern Ireland the noise policy is contained within the Noise Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (September 2014) which is closely comparable to the Noise Policy Statement for England, and the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (September 2015). These documents do not provide specific guidance on what criteria should be used. Practitioners tend to make reference to the relevant sector guidance that is applicable within England.

 

Is the Existing Regulatory Regime Effective

 

In responding to this question, the response focuses on England. Furthermore, it has been assumed that “regulatory regime” covers all the areas shown in Figures 1 and 2 and not just those parts of noise management addressed through legislation.

 

There is not a simple answer to this question as is explained below.

 

The advent of the Noise Policy Statement in 2010 provided an overarching policy that can be applied to any source of noise in any situation where the noise impact could be an issue[13]. The policy requires that the management of noise should not be treated in isolation, but instead, proper account should be taken of the economic and social benefits of the activity causing the noise.

 

It is helpful that the noise policies found in the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Policy Statements use consistent language to that found in the NPSE and also require consistent outcomes. Consequently, almost regardless of the situation what has to be achieved is the same.

 

Furthermore, the NPSE was carefully written such that it aligned with the existing legislation on noise management. Consequently, any possible policy and legislative conflict has been avoided.

 

Unfortunately, effective implementation of this noise management policy is hindered in two ways.

 

A feature of legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act and policy described in the Noise Policy Statement for England, the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance on Noise and the Licencing Act 2003 and its guidance is that there are no requirements to meet numerical values in order to secure effective noise management. The noise nuisance legislation in the EPA is rooted in Common Law nuisance dating back several centuries and relies on a judgement being made regarding the extent of the disruption being caused by taking account a number of factors.

 

This in itself is not a problem as the complexity of noise as a pollutant means there is not a single objective noise-based measure that can be used in every situation.

 

However, as described in the answers to Question 4, determining the extent of any noise impact is complicated because it depends on a number of factors, not all of which relate to the level of noise exposure. Consequently, effective noise management cannot be achieved by simply requiring a certain numerical noise limit to be achieved. People are affected by different noise sources to different extents.

 

If a noise exposure limit was set such that no-one would be expected to be adversely affected, society as we know it today would probably come to a standstill with all the economic and social dis-benefits that would entail.

 

It is also the case that silence is not the perfect, or even universally desired, outcome for noise management, as the right sound in the right place at the right time can have a positive effect on sense of place, connection to our surroundings and the natural world. Although the third aim of the NPSE requires, where possible, contributing to improving health and quality of life through effective noise management, this aspect is only occasionally implemented. However, such an approach is increasingly emerging through the broader consideration of soundscapes.

 

Therefore, acoustics professionals, local authority regulators and policy officials have to appreciate the complexity of the subject and be prepared to deal with it accordingly. What is encouraging is that there is an increasing understanding across the acoustics profession of the challenge. The Institute of Acoustics is continuing to work hard to assist its members in properly implementing the requirements of noise policy and legislation so that in any situation the optimum outcome is achieved.

 

Are the government agencies, departments or local authorities currently responsible for monitoring and regulating noise pollution appropriately resourced?

 

The IOA believes that, in general, the answer is no, however there is better recognition of the health and quality of life impacts of noise across a number of disciplines and policy areas. Furthermore, as mentioned above, not all policy areas which can affect or be affected by the sound and noise environment have readily available to them the necessary expertise to address these issues properly. Various Government departments do make use of external acoustics specialists from time to time, but because of the technical inexperience of some officials, the questions asked of the consultant are not always the questions that should be asked. This can sometimes lead to challenges and a failure to achieve the best outcome.

 

It seems that the number of formally technically qualified acousticians within local authority environmental health departments is far fewer than it was 10 -15 years ago. This means that, at times, there is poor understanding and implementation of policy and hence the noise management is not as effective as it could be. Furthermore, there can be missed opportunities to achieve acoustic environments that are supportive of human and natural health.

 

Have there been any changes to Government policy following the updated World Health Organisation guidelines

 

No but, overall, no changes are needed to the vision and aims of the policy itself.

 

The NPSE and other related policies are written such that their implementation can automatically reflect any new reliable evidence regarding the effects of noise. For example, if evidence suggests that significant observed adverse effects occur at a lower exposure than previously thought, the thresholds used for such effects are simply reduced when implemented. The policy requirement that such effects are to be avoided remains the same. Therefore, were such new evidence to emerge, policy implementation would mean that more people would be protected than previously was the case. This would be achieved without the need to revise the visions and aims of the policy.

 

Having said that, the current implementation of the NPSE is generally confined to managing the noise impact of new developments and meeting the first two aims of the policy.

 

What is missing is a strategy which requires positive action to contribute to improving health and well-being by reducing the overall exposure to noise and to encourage positively the use of soundscape principles. The information that arises from the noise mapping being carried out would enable medium to long term targets being set regarding reducing either the number of people exposed to certain levels of noise exposure or the proportion of the population so exposed. This could focus initially on road, rail and air transport and require the relevant authorities to continue to work on noise exposure reduction. Furthermore, to achieve such targets, would also mean the careful location of new housing to avoid exacerbating the problem.

 

The strategy could also include targets for the number or size of areas where the soundscape has been positively managed.

 

The third strand of the strategy could focus on primary research to help improve the evidence base. At present, major decisions on policies, regulations and infrastructure projects are largely based on precedent and UK research dating back to the 1960s-1980s. As a simple example, we do not know what level of exposure to road traffic noise causes a significant adverse effect to those living in the UK.

 

The strategy, therefore, would focus on the better implementation of the NPSE, through a combination of primary scientific research, evidence synthesis, incentives and a roadmap for quantitative targets.

 

What role should Planning Authorities play in determining plans or restrictions on noise pollution?

 

Planning Authorities have a very important role. In the field of acoustics, there is an adage which states “prevention is better than cure”. Effective implementation of the current noise management policies at the planning stage would prevent the problem of adverse effects of noise from worsening. Furthermore, in many cases, the situation can be improved by careful planning and good acoustic design.

 

One of the challenges faced by acousticians, is that they are often not brought into the process early enough. One example relates to new housing developments, which remains a challenge for Government in terms of encouraging sustainable development. The acoustician is often presented with the layout by the designer and asked simply what additional sound insulation is needed to meet the minimum planning requirements. The acoustician has been given no opportunity to assist in optimising the layout of the housing to account for nearby noise sources or to optimise similarly the internal layout.

 

But these principles of Good Acoustics Design are set out in one of the documents described by Government in their Planning Practice Guidance on Noise as potentially being of assistance.[14] So the guidance exists, but arguably is not used as much as it should be, and therefore, optimum outcomes regarding noise management are not always achieved. Planning Authorities could easily check that, in this example, the best possible layout has been identified.

 

Poor planning may also result in implications for vibrant cultural centres where residential development is permitted to encroach without adequate acoustic protection. Despite the Government advocating the use of the Agent of Change principle, development can lead to restrictions of those businesses by virtue of complaints resulting in regulatory levers. This is a particular risk where permitted development is resulting in residential creep into vibrant night time economy areas.

 

Are the current guidelines on noise pollution set under the Government’s advice for planning authorities, or the Noise Policy Statement for England, adequate?

 

Again, there I not a simple answer to this question as is shown below.

 

As mentioned earlier, the NPSE recognises the complexity of the issue and that, given the current state of technology, many activities inevitably generate noise that can cause adverse effects on health and quality of life. The policy is flexible insofar as if evidence changes regarding the effects of noise, the policy itself does not need to change, but instead, only how it is implemented.

 

For example, the guidance found in the Planning Practice Guidance on Noise rightly identifies the various issues that should be considered for any situation involving a noise source (either new or existing). The complexity of the subject means that there is no one single methodology or process that can be adopted in all situations. Likewise the guidance found in relation to noise from licensing premises deals with the wide range of different sources including music, people and deliveries.

 

The challenge is that, potentially, practitioners are either not familiar with the guidance or fail to realise how it can help.

 

Further guidance would be helpful relating to how careful management of sound can contribute to the positive effects in terms of sense of place, community and connection with nature and each other. This is an area that the UN Frontier Report encourages urban planning in particular to address early.

 

What recommendations would you make for changing Government policy on noise pollution

 

In terms of the policy on noise pollution per se, none. The overarching vision and aims of the policy do not need to change to achieve more effective noise management.

 

However, as stated above, the implementation of policy is currently primarily focused on avoiding significant adverse effects and minimising adverse effects in the context of Government policy on sustainable development. What is missing is positive action to address the third of the NPSE regarding contributing to improving health and wellbeing.

 

Consequently, the IOA would recommend the development of a Sound and Noise Management Strategy. This would set

 

 

There is one specific area of Government policy which could be changed to improve the management of noise. Over the last 10 years or so, the Government has employed permitted development rights (PDR) to encourage various developments. The essence of this process is to enable developers to pursue schemes without having formally to seek planning consent. In other words, the Planning Authority cannot intervene.

 

In terms of noise, the PDR allowing offices to be converted to residential regardless of location means there is no way of checking that the potential impact of nearby transportation sources is properly addressed.[15] The Institute of Acoustics raised this issue with the All Party Parliamentary Groups on Healthy Homes and Buildings and this point was identified in the White Paper published in 2018.[16]

 

PDR also exist for installing Air Source Heat Pumps. These pumps generate noise and although there is an accompanying scheme for trying to address the noise issues, problems are occurring which are hampering the roll out of the technology at a time when the shift to renewable energy is needed at pace to achieve net zero targets. Consequently, the desired replacement of gas boilers with ASHPs risks being hindered without the noise issues being properly managed. The Institute is encouraged to understand that the Government has recently commissioned some research to investigate this issue in Wales and England. The cumulative impacts of noise from heat pumps at all times of day and night on existing soundscapes in high density areas of residents, could be as big a potential issue as noise from road traffic became since the invention of the motor car.

 

In summary, therefore, any permitted development that affects the sound environment is not a good idea and is likely to mean that effective noise management is not achieved.

 

What are the possible interventions that could be deployed to mitigate the effects of noise pollution and how well understood are their effects?

 

Systematic noise management has occurred in this country for over 60 years. There are many measures that can mitigate the adverse effects. Some are driven internationally (e.g. noise limits on aviation noise); some are driven nationally (e.g. noise limits on cars, motor cycles and machinery); some are driven by various authorities (e.g. the use of highway noise barriers or low noise road surfaces); some are driven through licensing (e.g. the management of noise from concerts or other licensed premises); some are driven by Building Regulations (e.g. the sound insulation between dwellings or the minimum acoustic design standards for schools); and, as indicated above, some are driven by Planning Authorities.

 

New techniques are emerging all the time and as their effectiveness is determined, they can provide another tool to assist with noise management.

 

In summary there are many interventions available and which is the most appropriate to use depends on the situation, the type of sound and how it is perceived in context of the place as well as the associated and other non-acoustic factors. The Institute of Acoustics would be happy to advise the committee on any specific type of intervention that might be of interest to the committee, but would draw attention to recent Briefing Notes[17] that have been produced by the IOA on emerging areas of interest for decision makers, including Drones, Heat Pumps, Low Frequency Noise and Noise Cameras.

 

In order to create a sustainable UK, it is essential that there is early consideration of the acoustic issues. As well as securing a viable future by tackling the climate crisis, there is the need to create places that are supportive and restorative for human health and wellbeing as well as the health of the Biosphere and the natural world which relies on it.

 

Are there any interventions that have been pursued effectively in other countries that could be replicated in the UK?

 

The main difference between the UK and other world leading countries is that the latter still invest at a national scale in research into both the effects of noise and also how to mitigate noise sources. The UK used to be a leader in this area, with organisations such as the Transport Research Laboratory, the Building Research Establishment and the National Physical Laboratory. These institutions have much reduced revenue now and are required to act as commercial consultants. They are no longer able to contribute to our understanding of this issue. Although we have the British Standards Institute and can join international colleagues on International Standards Committees, the UK’s ability to contribute effectively to the standardisation and implementation of new technologies is greatly diminished by carrying out limited research and hence has limited scope to contribute authoritatively to the debate. Arguably, the greatest intervention that could be made would be to invest again in such or similar bodies.

 

Historically, the UK used to lead the work in acoustics globally in many respects, in its policy, regulation and guidance to tackle noise pollution. The opportunity now exists to lead the world by recognising the value of considering acoustics at an early stage in the design of infrastructure, buildings and healthy soundscapes. The development of a Sound and Noise Management Strategy as described above would provide a means of improving the situation.

 

The challenge facing Government is huge, given the breadth of policy areas that can affect the management of noise. Members of the Institute are involved with all types of noise sources in many situations. They are in a position to identify when potential noise issues might be arising that are not apparently being properly addressed by Government. Although contacting the relevant officials is a way of raising the concern, traction is rarely secured.

 

It is clear that there are members of both the House of Lords and House of Commons who take an interest in this issue, beyond any local constituency matter. The Institute now believes that there would be great benefit in harnessing that interest through the establishment of an All Party Parliamentary Group on Sound and Noise Management (no such group currently exists).

 

Such a group would provide a means for the IOA to raise issues with politicians and explain the concerns identified so that, hopefully, the noise issue is properly managed before it becomes a problem. Furthermore, should a Sound and Noise Management Strategy be developed, that Group could monitor its progress. On a point of detail, the IOA would be happy to act as secretary to the group. The IOA would be happy to discuss this proposal further with the committee.

 

3 March 2023

 

27

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69533/pb13750-noise-policy.pdf

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-improvement-plan

[3] For example, the Noise Abatement Society led Lisa Lavia, Managing Director

[4] https://acoustics.ac.uk/about-the-network/

[5] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69533/pb13750-noise-policy.pdf

[6] Ibid

[7] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-improvement-plan

[8] The Noise Policy Statement for National networks covers both road and rail transport

[9] https://www.gov.wales/noise-and-soundscape-action-plan-2018-2023-0

[10] https://www.unep.org/resources/frontiers-2022-noise-blazes-and-mismatches

[11] Planning Advice Note 51: planning, environmental protection and regulation

[12] Technical Advice Note 11 – Assessment of Noise

[13] The NPSE does not cover occupational noise exposure

[14] ProPG: Planning & Noise – Professional Practice Guidance on Planning & Noise- New Residential Development (Association of Noise Consultants, Institute of Acoustics and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, May 2017).

[15] Originally, no external noise sources were addressed, but because of issues relating to the entertainment profession, external commercial sources have now to be considered.

[16] Building our Future: Laying the Foundations for healthy Homes and Buildings (APPG Healthy Homes and Buildings, October 2018

[17] www.ioa.org.uk