Neighbourhood noise / report by the Working Group on the Noise Abatement Act.
- Great Britain. Working Group on the Noise Abatement Act.
- Date:
- 1971
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: Neighbourhood noise / report by the Working Group on the Noise Abatement Act. Source: Wellcome Collection.
26/92 page 18
![Isolation The use of anti-vibration and resilient materials to isolate machinery and plant from structures, to prevent the transmission of structure- borne noise and vibration. Some cases are technically more difficult to solve than others and it is necessary to make both an objective and subjective assessment of the problem to obtain the best practicable means of a uae the noise level to acceptable limits. Plant is never installed with the deliberate intention of causing a noise nuisance, but it is often installed without due consideration to the effect of the noise on neighbours, be the adjoining premises industrial, commercial or residential in character.” 87. A number of local authorities have supplied to the Department of the Environment detailed analyses of noise sources giving rise to nuisance or complaint of nuisance. The sources are, as might be expected, extremely diverse. It is noteworthy, however, that pneumatic drills are the most frequent and universal cause of complaint, with air compressors and fans following close behind. Handling of materials (especially metal) and truck deliveries (especially at night) are also prominent. Many authorities also report frequent complaints about noise from coin-operated laundries and freezer motors in shops. 88. In assessing the degree of success being achieved in the operation of the Act, much turns on the interpretation to be placed on the rather striking fact that over 90% of confirmed noise nuisances are being dealt with without resort io the formal service of abatement notices or to the Courts. In so far as this suggests that there is a high level of voluntary co-operation by industrialists and others in abating noise nuisance it is clearly a cause for satisfaction. But it has to be remembered that about half of all complaints are not confirmed by the local authorities as representing a statutory nuisance. Does this mean that all these complaints are frivolous or at any rate without substantial foundation? We doubt it. It seems more likely in at least a proportion of cases to mean no more than that the ~ authority find themselves unable to pin the responsibility for the disturbance suffered on a particular source and to be confident (in the face perhaps of conflicting technical evidence) of satisfying the local court that it is bad enough to amount to a statutory nuisance. One Public Health Inspector whose judgment and ability we respect has told us: “ Industrialists recognise the weakness of the [existing] legislation. ... The difficulty of establishing nuisance has led me to avoid legal proceedings in every possible way ” 89. Against this background it seems probable that there are many cases in which a local authority conclude that they must write a case off as “ dealt with ’, though only a minor degree of alleviation has been obtained for the complainant, because they judge that the magistrates are unlikely to support them in pressing for more radical and costly measures. For some smaller councils the costs of court proceedings (especially if there is a possibility of appeal to a higher court) are a real consideration, and are unlikely to be incurred unless there is a good prospect of success.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32219842_0026.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
