PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
Category A Housing Development at Bel Royal, St. Lawrence –
Noise Protection Scheme
Purpose of the Report
To consider the ‘Noise Protection Scheme (Issue 2)’ for the above development, submitted in order to discharge the first part of Planning Condition No.31 (Noise Exposure). This condition requires the Minister’s specific approval for the proposed scheme.
Background
- On 21st March 2007, the Minister for Planning and Environment (The Minister) decided to grant planning permission for development at the site comprising inter alia 102 Category A homes. This decision was subject to finalisation of planning conditions.
- The potential noise impact from Jersey Steel was one of the most difficult issues to resolve during the long and protracted planning process. This is well documented elsewhere and, notably, in the report of the Minister on his decision to grant planning permission (May 2007). In his report, the Minister recognised he had a responsibility to ensure that any proposed development would not be subject to an unacceptable degree of noise disturbance. However, he was also aware of the need to ensure that he did not place unjustifiable and unreasonable obstacles in the way of developments…“particularly, developments of much needed affordable homes on land zoned for the purpose”. He concluded that:
- he should aim to ensure there is a reasonable and proportionate response to the noise issue;
- he should take account of advice from Health Protection Services; and
- the matter should be addressed by imposing a planning condition requiring the submission of a satisfactory ‘noise protection scheme’ to comply with UK government and World Health Organisation policy guidelines.
- Devising a suitable noise condition proved difficult, because of the long-running disagreements between Health Protection Services and the developer’s appointed noise consultants, Peter Brett Associates (PBA). During the protracted negotiations regarding the ‘noise issue’ and its potential impact on the Category A housing development, Health Protection Services called for an assessment of maximum noise levels (LAmax) across the housing site (i.e. the highest A weighted noise level recorded during a noise event). This was in addition to the average noise levels (LAeq), which were called for in its original specification. In this regard, it was initially indicated that the upper limit for the outdoor daytime noise level at the façade of each dwelling should be 60dBLAmax. This is the equivalent of the night-time criteria in the WHO Guidelines, as set out above, and there does not appear to be any clear evidence that it is based on recognised / published standards, or guidance.
- It is also worth noting that in March 2007, Health Protection Services asked for a more stringent exterior daytime noise target of 50dBLAmax (i.e. half as loud again as 60dBLAmax), which could not practically be met. This prompted PBA and the developers to argue that the target could not be justified and was unrealistic and impractical. They also pointed out that the proposed daytime target was far stricter than the WHO Guidelines for night-time noise. When asked to reconsider its position, Health Protection Services said they could vary the exterior daytime noise target to 55dBLAmax and 40dBLAeq (over 16 hours). Both of these targets are still more onerous than the WHO Guidelines for night-time and were again challenged as unreasonable by the developers. Health Protection Services regard this parameter as relevant, believing “we should go belt and braces here to try to prevent nuisance”.
- A permit was eventually issued on the 8th May 2007, subject to numerous planning conditions, including No.31 governing exposure to noise from the adjacent Jersey Steel site.
6. Planning Condition No.31 (see Appendix 1) is essentially in two parts. The first part requires the submission of a ‘Noise Protection Scheme’, which complies with current UK Government policy guidance on planning and noise (PPG24) and the World Health Organisation noise guidance (Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999). This scheme must include a number of specified on- and off-site noise mitigation measures and must be approved by the Minister in consultation with the Health Protection Department. The second part of the condition requires the approved ‘Noise Protection Scheme’ to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Minister, in consultation with Health Protection Services.
7. The on- and off-site noise mitigation measures specified in the condition, include:
- Automatic roller shutter doors at the eastern entrance to the Jersey Steel factory;
- A lean-to building over the eastern entrance to the Jersey Steel factory;
- A close-boarded fence at Jersey Steel parallel to the Perquage Walk;
- A 5m high acoustic berm with close planting on Field 853, between Le Perquage and the approved housing;
- All generally eastward facing boundary walls / fences to private gardens to be a minimum of 1.8m high close-boarded or solid construction;
- Acoustic glazing and whole house ventilation or other satisfactory means of ventilation, as appropriate; and
- Additional noise mitigation measures included in para. 5.2.1 of the ‘Maximum Noise Level Assessment Report’, PBA, March 2007.
8. The ‘Noise Protection Scheme’ has been prepared with a view to discharging the first part of Planning Condition No.31. It was originally submitted in June 2008 and forwarded to Health Protection Services for formal comment. Health Protection Service’s initial comments in August called for some detailed amendments, but also re-opened the conflicts between it and PBA, particularly with regard to its LAmax daytime noise targets, prompting considerable and further drawn out consultations between all the relevant parties. Health Protection Services is not prepared to compromise on its stance regarding these targets and, in the event of a Statutory Noise Nuisance occurring leading to legal proceedings, it will defend its stated position that a 55dBLAmax exterior daytime noise limit is appropriate for this development and will contest the assertion that this is unreasonable.
9. Notwithstanding the above, Health Protection Services does accept that Planning Condition 31 is what it is. At this time, therefore, it simply asks that the permit condition and the associated required standards be discharged…”nothing more, nothing less”. That said, it is not prepared to confirm whether the submitted scheme complies with PPG24 and WHO guidelines until the works are complete and actual noise levels are assessed, arguing that the applicant must demonstrate compliance and that it is “not going to allow liability for compliance to transfer to Health Protection Services…”. It is also of the view that the Minister can’t determine whether the ‘Noise Protection Scheme’ has been implemented to his satisfaction (i.e. the second part of the condition), until there is satisfactory evidence provided by the applicant to show that the objectives and benefits of the modelled scheme have been met.
10. Health Protection Services’ terms for signing off the condition are that:
- The ‘noise scheme’ should set out a methodology whereby the applicant describes how it intends to demonstrate that it has adhered to PPG24 and the WHO Guidelines;
- The applicant commits to monitoring the noise environment post construction and prior to further occupation, to prove compliance with the condition;
- The minimum mitigation requirements set out in the condition are completed prior to further occupation;
- The additional mitigation measures set out in para. 5.2.1 of the ‘Maximum Noise Level Assessment Report’, PBA, March 2007 are implemented where properties are subject to daytime noise levels above 60dBLAmax; and
- the ‘noise scheme’ is revised to reflect changes discussed in correspondence between relevant parties.
11. In the light of the above, the applicants’ noise consultants were asked to amend the ‘Noise Protection Scheme’ to acknowledge the position of Health Protection Services (as well as their own position and understanding) and address the points raised in the correspondence between the relevant parties. They were also requested to provide a letter of assurance that, in their professional opinion, the scheme complies with the terms of Planning Condition No.31 and, notably, PPG24 and WHO Guidelines.
Planning and Noise Policy Guidance Criteria
12. The basic requirements for compliance with the policy guidance in question (i.e. to ensure a residential development has a suitable noise climate) can be summarised as follows:
PPG24 |
Requires upper boundary of 55dBLAeq for the daytime (16 hours) for Noise Exposure Category A for ‘mixed source’ noise, which includes industrial noise. The PPG states that noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission (although the noise level at the high end of the Category should not be regarded as a desirable level). |
BS8233: 1999 |
This supersedes the British Standard referred to in PPG24 covering ‘Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction in Buildings – Code of Practice’. |
Recommended indoor noise levels for habitable rooms | Good (30dBLAeq) Reasonable (40dBLAeq) |
Recommended outdoor living areas / gardens | Desirable (50dBLAeq) Upper limit (55dBLAeq) |
WHO: Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999 |
Provides guidelines for Community Noise in specific environments. |
Outdoor Living | Serious Annoyance (daytime and evening): | 55dBLAeq |
| Moderate Annoyance (daytime and evenings) | 50dBLAeq |
Indoors | Speech intelligibility and moderate annoyance (daytime and evenings) | 35dBLAeq |
Inside bedrooms | Sleep disturbance (night-time) | 30dBLAeq (45dBLAmax) |
Outside bedrooms | Sleep disturbance (night-time): – window open: | 45dBLAeq 60dBLAmax |
Discussion
13. The ‘Noise Protection Scheme’ report dated 17th October 2008 has been prepared and submitted by PBA with a view to satisfying part one of Planning Condition No.31. The report has been amended to address comments arising from correspondence with relevant parties.
14. The calculations contained in the report model three situations:
- Noise Levels (LAmax parameter) with roller shutter door to Jersey Steel open;
- Noise Levels (LAmax parameter) with roller shutter door to Jersey Steel closed;
- Noise Levels (LAeq parameter) with roller shutter door to Jersey Steel open.
15. ‘Grid Noise Contour Maps’ are provided for each situation to predict noise levels at ground floor (1.5m high) and first floor (4.5m high).
16. The findings in the report suggest that:
(i) With the roller shutter door closed, daytime outdoor noise levels will not exceed 60dBLAmax at ground or first floor level for any home.
(ii) With the roller shutter door open:
- 6 of the 102 homes would be exposed to daytime outdoor noise levels at ground floor level between 60 and 65dBLAmax. i.e. No.s 1-6 (Block2)
- 16 homes would be exposed to daytime outdoor noise levels at first floor level between 60 and 65dBLAmax, which will require additional acoustic treatment, including special glazing and ventilation measures and roof sound ventilation. i.e. No.s 1-6 (Block 2), 14-16 (Block 3), 13 (Block 4), 18-19 (Block 15), 50 & 51 (Block 17), 55 (Block 18) and 90 (Block 23).
(iii) With the roller shutter door open, daytime outdoor noise levels will not exceed 50dBLAeq at ground level or first floor level for any home.
(iv) Internal noise levels for most of the homes will be 29dBLAmax and for the 16 most exposed dwellings will be 19dBLAmax (i.e. in comparison to the 35dBLAmax criterion stated in the WHO Guidelines).
17. The report generally concludes that the proposed mitigation will provide a good level of attenuation of noise from Jersey Steel operations. It also concludes that the internal and external noise levels for the homes are within guidance limits specified in PPG24 ‘Planning for Noise’ and WHO ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’.
18. In a covering letter dated 20th October 2008 (see Appendix 2), Richard Carter of PBA clearly states that:
- the details of the noise calculations in the ‘Noise Protection Scheme’ confirm the effectiveness of the specified noise mitigation measures;
- the levels of noise from Jersey Steel operations have been calculated to be within the adopted limits of PPG24 and WHO, both internally and externally at the dwellings.
- In addition to PPG24 and WHO, impulsive noise from Jersey Steel has been considered using the LAmax parameter and that, on this basis, additional noise mitigation has been specified for 16 homes.
19. As requested, the covering letter also contains the following written assurance:
“As a corporate member of the Institute of Acoustics and an experienced environmental noise consultant, it is my professional opinion that the PBA ‘Noise Protection Scheme’, dated 17th October 2008, complies with the terms of Planning Condition 31, Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 ‘Planning and Noise’ and World Health Organisation ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’, 1999”.
Richard Carter BEng MIOA AMIMechE, Senior Acoustic Engineer
20. In view of the above, there seems to be no reason why the Minister should not approve the ‘Noise Protection Scheme’ as complying with the first part of Planning Condition No.31.
Legal implications
There could be legal implications in the future, if there is a complaint by future residents about noise arising from Jersey Steel where this is determined to be a Statutory Nuisance. In such circumstances, a ‘noise abatement notice’ would be served on Jersey Steel, who would in all likelihood appeal, meaning the matter would probably end up in the Royal Court. As alluded to above, Health Protection would argue the case for imposing a more restricted noise target of 55dBLAmax and Minister may be called upon to explain why Planning Condition 31 does not include this parameter.
In such an event, Jersey Steel could point to the noise condition attached to the planning permission for the housing development, the findings of the ‘Noise Protection Scheme’ and the extensive noise mitigation measures that are to be put in place. It might also highlight the previous conclusions of Health Protection Services’ own noise consultants (Industrial Noise and Vibration Centre Limited) in 2006. Its recommended solution was the installation of automatic roller shutter doors at the Jersey Steel premises. In the light of these findings, Health Protection Services confirmed, at that time, that the installation of the doors, aligned with the filling of holes in the structural façade of the Jersey Steel building “will provide the necessary acoustic reassurance to overcome the outstanding concerns of noise nuisance”.
On the basis of previous legal advice, the Department is of the view that Jersey Steel would have no claim against the Minister if it was unsuccessful in an appeal. It is also the Department’s view that no such claim could be made by residents who may be successful in bringing private law proceedings that require Jersey Steel to cease making undue noise.
Consultation
The matter has been discussed and the subject of written consultations with representatives of the land owners (Bel Royal (Jersey) Ltd) and Health Protection Services.
Recommendation
That the Minister for Planning and Environment decides to:
- approve the ‘Bel Royal Noise Protection Scheme (Issue 2)’, prepared by Peter Brett Associates on behalf of Dandara Jersey Ltd and dated October 2008.
(2) Advise the applicant that in order to discharge the second part of Planning Condition 31 concerning satisfactory implementation prior to further occupation of the homes, he will require evidence that the finished scheme complies with PPG24 and WHO Guidelines and delivers the benefits modelled. To this end, the Minister expects the applicant to demonstrate compliance through appropriate monitoring / measuring / testing of the noise environment by a qualified acoustic consultant. The methodology for the compliance test and the findings will be audited for robustness by Health Protection Services, who will then advise the Minister.
Reason(s) for Decision
- To protect the amenities of future occupants of the approved properties at the Category A Housing Site comprising Fields 848, 851, 853 (part) and 854 (part), St. Lawrence from noise arising from the nearby Jersey Steel operations.
- To effect compliance with the first part of Planning Condition No.31 (Noise Exposure) attached to the planning permission, which requires the submission of a noise protection scheme that complies with Department of Environment Planning Policy Guidance 24 ‘Planning and Noise’ and the World Health Organisation publication ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’, for the approval of the Minister in consultation with the Health Protection Department.
- To ensure that the completed development successfully meets the objectives of, and delivers the benefits modelled in, the ‘Noise Protection Scheme’.
Action Required
- inform the land owner, local political representatives and Health Protection Services.
Written by: | Roger Corfield, Principal Planner – 5th November 2008 |
| |
Approved by: | Kevin Pilley, Assistant Director – Policy and Projects |
| |
Endorsed by: | |
Attachments:
- Appendix 1: Planning Condition No.31 (Noise Exposure).
- Appendix 2: Cover letter for ‘Noise Protection Scheme’ from Richard Carter, Peter Brett Associates, dated 20 October 2008.
File ref: P/2006/2489
APPENDIX 1: Planning Condition No.31 (Noise Exposure), as amended.
A noise scheme for protecting the proposed housing from noise from Jersey Steel, in compliance with Department of Environment Planning Policy Guidance 24, ‘Planning and Noise’ and World Health Organisation publication ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’, 1999 shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, in consultation with the Health Protection Department, within 6 months of the Planning Obligation Agreement being registered in the Royal Court and prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, with the exception of plot numbers 50, 52-58, 60, 62, 76, 90, 91, 94 and 96.
The scheme shall include details of the proposed noise mitigation measures, details of the noise calculations confirming the effectiveness of proposed noise mitigation measures and details of the proposals for implementing them.
As a basic minimum, the noise scheme shall include the following on- and off-site noise mitigation measures:
- automatic roller shutter doors (default closed) at the eastern entrance of the Jersey Steel factory;
- a lean-to building over the eastern entrance to the Jersey Steel factory;
- a new close-boarded boundary fence at Jersey Steel parallel to the Perquage Walk;
- a 5m high acoustic berm with close planting on Field 853, between Le Perquage and the approved housing;
- all generally eastward facing boundary walls / fences to private gardens to be a minimum of 1.8m high close-boarded or solid construction;
- acoustic glazing and whole house ventilation or other satisfactory means of ventilation, as appropriate;
- the additional noise mitigation measures included in paragraph 5.2.1 of the ‘Maximum Noise Level Assessment Report’, PBA, March 2007.
Any approved noise scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment, in consultation with the Health Protection Department, prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted with the exception of plot numbers 50, 52-58, 60, 62, 76, 90, 91, 94 and 96. For the avoidance of doubt, the above specified units shall be made to comply fully with the approved noise protection scheme.
gov.je