Draft Codes of Practice to Minimise Noise:
Response to Consultation

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION ON GUIDANCE ON DRAFTING CODES OF PRACTICE FOR MINIMISING NOISE IN ENGLAND

Introduction

This report summarises the responses received from consultees whose feedback was sought on a draft guidance document prepared by Defra with the assistance of a working group established by the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection (NSCA). The draft guidance document was prepared to assist authors of codes of practice (CoP) for minimising noise.

This report identifies and summarises the main themes arising from comments made by the consultees. It does not attempt to summarise all the comments made by all respondents. However, all comments were considered, whether or not they appear as a main theme.

Respondents

The Department issued 410 consultation papers and received 16 responses, a response rate of just under 4%. The consultation paper also was made available via the Defra web site and a further 5 responses were received from organisations and individuals who were not consulted directly. Of the 21 responses:

• 10 were from local authorities,
• 4 from professional organisations,
• 2 from lobby groups,
• 2 from consultants,
• 2 from trade groups, and
• 1 from The Commission for Local Administration in England.

Two of these responses arrived after the closing date 31 January 2002 but have been included in the statistics and commentary of this report.

Responses to the Consultation

The draft Code was welcomed by 13 respondents a number of whom made comments on particular aspects of the guidance. One expressed a belief that the development of new CoPs by joint working groups will improve dialogue over noise issues.

Four of the responses simply confirmed that the organisations concerned had no comments to make on the draft Code, one of these having been closely involved in the development of the guidance.

Another two respondents confined their response to detailed constructive comments on specific aspects of the Code.

A trade organisation reporting on behalf of its 55 member companies represented six replies with no comment on the guidance and a further 5 who made specific comments which were detailed in the response. Of those commenting, two were critical of the guidance and the remaining three supportive.

The only negative directly received response was made on behalf of a pressure group and concluded that the Code was "weak and flawed in its approach to this problem and should be withdrawn and redrafted in the light of [this response]."

Main Themes Identified by the Respondents

Need for Guidance

Most respondents commented on the fact that since the approval in 1982 and 1987 of the CoPs listed in Appendix A there have been no further successful applications. This was seen as a demonstration of the need for guidance with one respondent going as far as to suggest an additional Appendix C to include noise sources for which a CoP might be considered. Suggestions included:

skateboards and skate parks, clay pigeon shooting and shooting ranges, rifle and air gun shooting ranges, church bell ringing, mechanised gardening equipment (other than lawnmowers, e.g. leaf blowers and vacuums, pressurised water-jet pumps), car alarms, pleasure flights in helicopters and off road motorcycle use, to include quad bikes.

Uniformity

One respondent suggested that it was important that there was a UK wide guidance document rather than separate regional guidance to avoid the recommendations of one CoP being "played off" against another.

Another suggestion made was that before embarking on the development of CoPs for particular activities there should be commissioned the development of an overarching document to bring the advice in the current range of guidelines and standards on noise together as a logical and comprehensive reference source. This would include PPG24, BS4142:1997, BS8233:1999, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), and the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise (1999).

Duration

Whilst many respondents commented on the need to ensure sufficient time for consultation, consideration, review and amendment one expressed the view that "the process appears to be a long drawn-out one" risking filibuster by participants with a vested interest.

INTRODUCTION

Paragraph 3: The word "nuisance" be deleted because proceedings may result from other enforcement activity, e.g. planning enforcement action.

Paragraph 4: The words "good practice" be substituted for "best practice" so that all businesses could be confident of achieving the standards required of them.

PROCESS

Paragraph 5: Useful if Defra could indicate at outset whether a CoP on the proposed topic is likely to be acceptable (see similar comment under paragraph 24).

Proposals for CoPs should be announced and working parties should report progress at various milestones so progress may be monitored.

Paragraph 8: View expressed that the reference to "retaining the flexibility necessary to deal with local problems in a realistic way" is not appropriate and that "'regulation with a light touch' simply does not work". The same correspondent also suggested that "any activity judged by a CoP ought now to additionally be tested against the principles/criteria of 'sustainable development."

FORM A WORKING PARTY

Paragraph 9/10: Should be clearer guidance on how a working party should be constituted - suggested that some proposers might not know much about the governance of environmental matters and many would lack technical knowledge about noise.

Paragraph 10: In "Any relevant trade bodies should be included...." replace "should" with "must".

Paragraph 12: Guidance on general size of working group being between 4 and 10 individuals is useful but should not be seen as mandatory and appropriate in all cases.

FORMULATE THE CONTROL METHOD

Paragraph 15: The bullet points should additionally include a requirement that the control method take into account existing law and guidance.

DRAFT THE CODE

Paragraph 17: Suggestion that the following two bullet points be added to the existing list:

• wherever possible the CoP should contain the most authentic method available for predicting the noise levels which would be received from the source under standard conditions (with prediction methods details in an appendix to include one or more worked examples);
• a preferred strategy for rating the noise and setting acceptable received noise levels should be given (with the rationale stated in an appendix).

Cross referencing mentioned in 5^th bullet point may risk confusing the issue by "mixing up the criteria for acceptability for different types of noise". Correspondent suggests that any cross referencing is limited to noise control techniques.

Paragraph 18: Advice that the value of a CoP will depend upon the quality of the guidance within it seems a truism and could be omitted.

CONSULT ON THE DRAFT

Paragraph 19/22 Several respondents expressed concern that preconceived ideas of working group members may override views expressed by consultees. Suggestions made that all responses to the consultation should be forwarded to the Secretary of State when the draft is submitted for approval; also that a statement from the working group should be included showing how they have considered responses and recording their decisions about whether or not to modify the draft CoP.

Paragraph 19: List of consultees should be required to be submitted to the Secretary of State. Failure to do so should be justification for refusal to approve a draft CoP.

Paragraph 21: A second respondent commented that there should be there should be a required minimum consultation period and that evidence of compliance with the criteria in Appendix B must be submitted with the draft.

Paragraph 22: Guidance on "mechanisms" that might be suitable for considering responses would be helpful.

Where a consultation response cites new or alternative basic research there needs to be a thorough re-evaluation of the proposed CoP with time allowed for this.

Between 22/23: An additional section "Review and Amendment Process" was suggested. This could be used to overcome some of the concerns over the proper weight being given to consultation responses, especially if an independent review body was involved. It also could provide for further consultation on revisions.

A mechanism for periodic review and any necessary updating of CoPs to take account of new legislation and developments in best practice was suggested by another respondent.

SUBMIT DRAFT TO SECRETARY OF STATE

Paragraph 23: Final bullet point is the first and only mention of cost benefit appraisal of the proposed CoP.

These bullet points should come earlier in the Code as objectives of any proposed CoP.

An additional bullet point has been suggested:

• the CoP, as submitted, addresses concerns raised in the consultation process.

Paragraph 24: Because of the enormous amount of work involved in producing a CoP, the Secretary of State should consider at the outset whether in principle a particular topic is acceptable/desirable for a CoP.

Draft CoPs submitted but not approved by the Secretary of State and subsequently used as good practice guides within the trade should only be published with a statement of the reason(s) for refusal.

July 2002