Evidence and Usage of LOAEL, SOAEL etc. - GOV.UKrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=13334... · significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur. 1.1.5 The EN

Evidence and Usage of LOAEL, SOAEL etc.

Final Report

October 2014

47067932.NN14-05. R1/03

Prepared for: Defra

UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND

Defra – NN14-05: Evidence and Usage of LOAEL, SOAEL etc.

REVISION SCHEDULE

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

01 March 2014 Draft Report Angela Hornby Chris Skinner Paul Shields

02 October 2014

Updated in response to Defra review

Angela Hornby Chris Skinner Paul Shields

03 December 2015

Minor changes Chris Skinner Chris Skinner Paul Shields

URS 12 Regan Way Chetwynd Business Park Chilwell Notts NG9 6RZ

EVIDENCE AND USAGE OF LOAEL, SOAEL ETC. October 2014 FINAL REPORT

47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 2


Limitations

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report

The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between 9th August 2013 and 29th October 2014 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances.

Where assessments of works or costs identified in this Report are made, such assessments are based upon the information available at the time and where appropriate are subject to further investigations or information which may become available.

URS disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to URS’ attention after the date of the Report.

Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. URS specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report.

Unless otherwise stated in this Report, the assessments made assume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current purpose without significant changes.

Where field investigations are carried out, these have been restricted to a level of detail required to meet the stated objectives of the services. The results of any measurements taken may vary spatially or with time and further confirmatory measurements should be made after any significant delay in issuing this Report.


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 3


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................... 1

1.2 Aims of the study ............................................................. 2

2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 3

2.1 Literary search ................................................................. 3

3 USAGE REVIEW ............................................................... 5

3.2 Local Authority Policy documents ................................. 5 3.3 Educational documents and peer presentations ......... 7

3.4 Terminology in practice .................................................. 9

3.5 Professional bodies and publications ......................... 14

4 DISCUSSION ................................................................... 17

5 REFERENCES ................................................................ 18

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF LOCAL AUTHORITY GUIDANCE CRITERIA ........................................................................ 20


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 4


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 URS have been commissioned through the Noise and Statutory Nuisance ad-hoc technical support contract to assist Defra in identifying the evidence and usage of observed effect level terminology (LOAEL, SOAEL, etc.) by public, private and professional bodies, particularly guidance to professionals and the public explicitly published by Local Authorities since the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework1 (NPPF).

1.1.2 The Noise Policy Statement for England2 (NPSE) was published in March 2010 and provides the overarching statement of noise policy for England applying to all forms of noise other than occupational noise, and setting out the long term vision of Government noise policy which is 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.”

1.1.3 That vision is supported by the following aims:

“Through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development:

• avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life;

• mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life; and

• where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life.”

1.1.4 The Explanatory Note3 (EN) issued alongside the NPSE has introduced three observed effect level (OEL) definitions to the assessment of noise in England, in order to identify and rate noise impact on the community from any proposed development:

• NOEL – No Observed Effect Level. This is the level below which no effect can be detected and below which there is no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to noise.

• LOAEL – Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level. This is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected.

• SOAEL – Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level. This is the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur.

1.1.5 The EN does not define the OELs numerically, and for the SOAEL the NPSE makes it clear that the noise level is likely to vary depending upon the noise source, the receptor and the time of day/day of the week, etc.

1.1.6 The EN also acknowledged that there is a requirement for more research to investigate what may represent a SOAEL, and the NPSE asserts that ‘not stating specific SOAEL levels provides policy flexibility in the period until there is further evidence and guidance’.

1.1.7 The NPSE concludes by explaining in a little more detail how the LOAEL and SOAEL relate to the three ‘vision aims’ listed above. It starts with the aim of “avoiding significant adverse effects on health and quality of life”, then addresses the situation where the noise impact falls between the LOAEL and the SOAEL when “all reasonable steps should be taken to mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life while also taking into account the guiding principles of sustainable development.”


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 1


1.1.8 Although the terms of assessment have been introduced, the direct methodology used to draw

conclusions of impact has not been provided, allowing individual authorities an element of freedom to assign locally appropriate guidance to the assessment of noise impact. It is most likely that any values assigned will be based upon existing British Standard methodologies and internationally recognised guidance, such as publications by the World Health Organisation.

1.2 Aims of the study

1.2.1 This review aims to identify the emergence of local guidance documents and what documented discussion exists amongst those implementing the policy. In particular, reference to observed effect levels both in local guidance documents and in noise impact assessments has been sought.

1.2.2 In summary the scope of this report includes:

• A review of the evidence of (general or specific) reference to and the usage of defined observed effect level classification by environmental planning professionals in noise assessment submitted as part of the planning application system since March 2012;

• Identification of references to potentially acceptable numerical values for observed effect levels of noise proposed for wider use within literature and conference proceedings;

• Identification of references to observed effect levels identifiable criteria within revised Local Authority guidance; and

• Summary of the findings, highlighting any issues raised for further discussion.

1.2.3 It should be noted that this report presents a snapshot of publically available information available at the time of writing (up to October 2014). Any development of policies and guidance documents since this date has not been considered.


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 2


2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Literature search

2.1.1 The study has been largely based upon a web-based literary search of public-domain documentation such as draft and formally adopted Local Planning Policies, Supplementary Planning Guidance and general information supporting Environmental Health teams’ expectations of noise assessments submitted in support of planning applications. It has not been possible to identify all sources of reference to the OEL concept at Local Government level within the scope of this report, and the documentation search has been focussed to identify references to OELs occurring from around six months prior to the introductiona of the NPPF and PPG24 being rescinded to the time of writing.

2.1.2 It is intended to identify documents which not only mention NOEL, LOAEL, SOAEL terminology within the NPPF and NPSE context, but to expand and discuss attempts to quantify suitable noise levels to each threshold in local guidance documents.

2.1.3 It was also considered important to identify how the information on implementing this change in noise assessment requirements has been disseminated at ‘ground level’ and it has been is assumed that within key professions, such as Environmental Health Officers, Town Planners and Acoustic Consultants there will be identifiable training resources such as presentations, conferences and journalistic documents on how best to interpret and implement the new policy.

2.1.4 Professional publications reviewed include:

• Noise Bulletin, Environmental Management Publishing Ltd;

• Acoustics Bulletin, Institute of Acoustics;

• EHNews Online, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health; and

• Local Government Lawyer, HB Editorial Services Ltd.

2.1.5 Current and on-going applications in the planning system have also been considered, with major developments such as HS2 and Bank Station Upgrade being referenced, in terms of the usage of the OEL within noise assessments to support the planning applications process and fulfil EIA requirements.

2.1.6 The documentary evidence reviewed generally falls within one or more of the following themes, which are presented in more detail later in the report:

1. examples of Local Authority policy documents revised since the introduction of the NPPF (and withdrawal of PPG24) which now specifically prescribe the use of LOAELs, SOAELs etc.;

2. educational material which attempts to explain and further rationalise the use of the NPSE noise effect level terminology to practitioners and enforcers, non-noise specialists such as, planners, campaign groups etc.;

3. evidence of the terminology used in practice, primarily by noise professionals in reports submitted to planning authorities and available in the public domain; and

a This time frame was selected to allow for documents written subsequent to the publication of the NPSE, and in the knowledge of future changes to planning guidance, to be included. EVIDENCE AND USAGE OF LOAEL, SOAEL ETC. October 2014 FINAL REPORT

47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 3


4. discussion amongst specialist groups e.g. IOA members meetings and conference

proceedings concerning the lack of formal guidance and the way forward for its members.


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 4


3 USAGE REVIEW

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The outcome of the web based search on the usage of the observable effect level terminology is presented below, organised by the themes identified in the previous section.

3.2 Local Authority Policy documents

3.2.1 A review of a selection of Local Authority websites has identified that relatively few are up to date with the harmonisation of local plans with the new planning frameworkb. However, it should also be considered that the process of reviewing local plans and supplementary planning guidance documents is a rolling process within local government and many will not release documents for consultation until considerable preparation of the whole local plan re-issue has been undertaken.

3.2.2 Of the Local Authorities which have revised published local plans and or guidance material, there was agreement that the determination of appropriate design criteria would be readily defined from the WHO 19994 and BS82335, and some effort was also made to establish links between the assessment outcomes of a BS41426 to the OEL terminology. However, few have gone on to provide specific effect level criteria.

3.2.3 It has been noted, that in general the Authorities which have made the most progress in terms of publishing policy and guidance documents are those with significant noise sources or future development plans within the District, for example Gatwick airport within Crawley BC, and HS2 in Lichfield BC.

3.2.4 Examples of the level of locally developed policy are provided below, and a comparison of the OEL levels set by each Authority provided in Appendix A:

3.2.5 Birmingham City Council (BCC) has prepared a draft “Planning Consultation Guidance”7 which outlines the Environmental Protection Unit’s expectations regarding supplementary information to be provided with planning applications.

3.2.6 This was found to be one of the most detailed documents reviewed, including numerical values to be used for LOAEL and SOAEL for a variety of situations, as reproduced in Appendix A. However, a finalised version is yet to be made publically available on the Council’s website. It is felt that due to the attention this document has been given by the acoustics profession, the draft is significant and may unofficially lead the way for other Councils wishing to revise their existing documentation.

3.2.7 Crawley Borough Council (CBC) have published the “Crawley Local Plan Noise Annexe”8 to provide specific planning guidance for developers and set local standards for noise and planning following the revocation of PPG24. Sections 2.1.5 and Section 3 deal with the emergence of the new terminology and provides definitions and Section 4 goes on to provide a matrix of expected noise levels for NOEL, LOAEL and SOAEL identified by the EPU to support the local plan policy (ENV11). Key sections of this document are reproduced in Appendix A.

b It is accepted that a full survey of all English Local Authorities would be required for a robust analysis of the implementation of new locally specified noise guidance, as not all LAs will readily publish guidance on their websites; this report provides a snapshot of readily accessible electronic documents. EVIDENCE AND USAGE OF LOAEL, SOAEL ETC. October 2014 FINAL REPORT

47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 5


3.2.8 The key motivator in providing relevant local guidance is likely to be the presence of Gatwick

airport and the M23 within the District, which will require assessment of the noise contribution to development applications within the District.

3.2.9 Swale Borough Council (SBC) has issued up to date local guidance9 relating to new developments and noise which has been written referencing the NPPF and NPSE, and identifies the OEL terminology.

3.2.10 SBC information includes a number of design criteria for various sources and receptors are discussed, with criteria based upon WHO 1999, BS8233 and BS4142, the guidance does not go on to define the OELs numerically. Noise criteria relating to the effects of transport noise on new residential developments and other developments are prescribed numerically for different time periods but the levels are not defined as LOAELs or SOAELs. However it is stated that anything above these levels will not be permitted within SBC. These criteria are reproduced in Appendix A.

3.2.11 The noise criteria specified for traffic noise affecting new residential (and other) receptors is referenced as LAeq,1hr for both daytime and night time periods in sensitive rooms. It should be noted that BS 8233 cites LAeq,16hr reference periods for the daytime period and LAeq,8hr periods for night time. It could be considered that the Swale BC criteria are therefore more onerous than the British Standard.

3.2.12 Worcester City Council (WCC) clearly document their threshold criteria for different noise sources and receptors within the Worcestershire Regulatory Services publication “Noise Control Technical Guidance – Development Control”10

3.2.13 Lichfield District Council (LDC) appears to have corroborated closely with Birmingham City Council as their publication bears close resemblance to the BCC document and shares guideline OEL criteria11.

3.2.14 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) - The noise and vibration supplementary planning document (SPD)12 has completed its first consultation phase (07/03/14). This document includes the following descriptions with regard to the OEL terminology:

o NOEL – Inaudibility

o LOAEL – The guideline values for community noise in specific environments as set out in Table 1 of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise 1999 and in Tables 5 and 6 of British Standards BS8233 1999 - Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of Practicec

o SOAEL – Variable values set somewhere above LOAEL dependent on the type of noise source, the receptor, the time of day, etc.

• London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) have stated that they will not be changing their criteria requirements despite the current guidance document referencing PPG24. In presentations to the IOA conferences held in London and Birmingham in June and October 20127, it was confirmed that LBH would continue using its supplementary planning document (SPD) on noise for guidance in relation to planning adopted in 2006 as it had been through a lengthy consultation process including key stakeholders such as BAA and takes account of local circumstances including the presence of Heathrow. Although not

c It should be noted that the guidance document referenced by TWBC is now superseded by BS8233: 2014: ‘Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings.’ EVIDENCE AND USAGE OF LOAEL, SOAEL ETC. October 2014 FINAL REPORT

47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 6


specifically identified as LOAELs within this document, it was discussed that these existing criteria are the target values for new developments affected by transport noise.

3.3 Educational documents and peer presentations

3.3.1 Despite their decision not to update locally based technical guidance for developers, the London Borough of Hillingdon have been significantly involved in the dissemination to peers and practitioners about the national policy change. They led a presentation to the Local Authorities Noise Action Forum on 28th November 201213, specifically in relation to planning for aircraft noise. This is a priority issue in the Hillingdon area due to the location of Heathrow and the continuing pressure to develop the transport hub.

3.3.2 The presentation looked in detail at assigning noise levels to LOAEL and SOAEL for internal and external noise. Internal noise criteria were proposed based upon “good” and “reasonable” standard of BS8233 and the World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999, as shown in the following excerpt:


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 7


3.3.3 The presentation goes on to identify appropriate procedures for determining the appropriateness of residential development plans:


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 8


3.4 Terminology in practice

3.4.1 An internet search was undertaken to identify noise consultant’s reports, available in the public domain, to consider how professionals are presenting noise assessments since the introduction of the NPPF. The detail of noise assessments submitted since the overhaul of the planning framework is perhaps the most significant source of reference to the OELs as it is these documents which will be potentially scrutinised by the legal profession during the planning process, as demonstrated by the Thames Tideway Tunnel project discussed below, which has progressed to planning inquiry. In extreme cases these will form the basis of case law and precedent going forwards. More details regarding challenges to the interpretation of the policy are included in section 3.5.

3.4.2 An example was provided in July 2012, shortly after the NPPF was finalised. A report14 by an acoustic consultant concerning a development within Ryedale District Council introduces the NOEL, LOAEL and SOAEL thresholds as directly related to the BS4142 rating system of -10dB, +5dB and +10dB respectively, when compared to the measured background noise level. It is reported that this approach was determined in consultation with the Local Authority.

3.4.3 Somewhat confusingly, the report also states that it has been undertaken in accordance with the NPPF, and PPG24. In fact the PPG24 noise exposure categories are not determined and perhaps this is an early demonstration of confusion amongst acoustic professionals and EHOs of how to assess the suitability of a development following the introduction of NPPF.

3.4.4 Other examples of noise assessment reports which discuss the appropriate assessment criteria include:

• An expression of interest documentation from GLH/Brookbanks to Stratford on Avon District Council from March 2013 provides an example of a current major development which is apparently not clear how noise should be assessed following the withdrawal of PPG24. The master plan outline15 for 5000 new dwellings at Lighthorne Heath new garden village states within the technical note submitted to Warwickshire CC for Noise that “…despite the withdrawal of PPG24 current thinking across most EHOs is to continue to support the PPG24 Noise exposure categories during transitional stages”.

• A further acoustic consultant’s report16 to Derbyshire County Council – goes through identifying LOAEL etc. and consultation with the EHO requires using WHO 1999 criteria. However the report does not go on to quantify the LOAEL and SOAEL from the WHO levels.

• The proof of evidence provided by Sam Williams for the Bristol Rapid Transit project17 mentions LOAELs etc. but doesn’t quantify them other than to say they correspond to WHO guidelines. It should be noted that this proof was dated just a month following the withdrawal of PPG24 and the introduction of NPPF on 27th March 2012.

3.4.5 The following sections provide three recent large projects where reference to the OEL terminology is made.

HS2

3.4.6 The Environmental Statement for the High Speed 2 (HS2) project is vast, and the scope of this report prevents a full analysis of the noise chapters, however, a brief indicator of the methodologies interpreted to reflect the NPPF without deviating from the definite requirements of the EIA follows.


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 9


3.4.7 The assessment methodology is set out in the Technical Appendix SV-001-000 Annex A18 and

takes on board both the requirements of the EIA directive and NPSE. The EIA Directive requires the identification of likely significant effects and a description of the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy significant adverse effects. Identification of significant effects is a key requirement under the EIA directive. Significant effects drive the need to consider mitigation and are material considerations which should be brought to the attention of the decision makers in the Environmental Statement (ES). Determining whether an effect is significant requires that a range of factors are identified and considered.

3.4.8 In defining significant adverse effects for the HS2 project, reference is made to the precedence set by previous major projects (including HS1 and Forth Replacement Crossing), plus HS2 project specific reviews by the HS2 Acoustic Review Group and the Planning Forum Sub Group – Acoustics.

3.4.9 The HS2 assessment methodology (as set out in Appendix SV-001-000 Annex A) identified adverse effects between the LOAEL and the SOAEL, as a basis for considering mitigation measures to reduce community exposure.

3.4.10 The methodology applied for identifying significant effects at residential properties makes the distinction between effects at individual receptors and communities and takes into account if levels are above the SOAEL or LOAEL. The annex states that ‘any individual receptor (either a single property or within a community) which is forecast to experience levels above the SOAEL is identified as experiencing a significant adverse effect. Where the noise or vibration level due to the scheme is greater than the LOAEL but below the SOAEL then ‘a number of adversely effected dwellings may be considered to be significant when considered collectively on a community basis taking account of local context’ even though the SOAEL is not exceeded.’

3.4.11 For HS2, the decision on community significance takes into account the factors listed above, but also uses professional judgement. This is perhaps where the flexibility of NPSE is well illustrated. As NPSE indicates that “the noise level is likely to vary depending on the noise source, the receptor and the time of day/day of the week”, larger applications, which pass through a number of different planning authority boundaries are not bound to a single effect level, and the noise criteria can be selected to suit the locale.

3.4.12 For ground borne noise, the values used for HS2 are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1 HS2, Ground borne noise – construction and operation - Residential receptors

Impact classification Ground borne sound level dB LpASmax (measured indoors, near the centre of any dwelling room on the ground floor)

Negligible <35

Low 35-39

Medium 40-44

High 45-49

Very High >49

3.4.13 In terms of airborne construction noise, appendix SV-001-000 Annex A defines the SOAEL as: ‘Noise outside dwellings from the Proposed Scheme at the facade: 75 dB (LpAeq,12hr) during the day; 65 dB (LpAeq,1hr) during the evening; or 55 dB (LpAeq,1hr) during the night, or above the existing ambient if this is higher.’

LOAEL

SOAEL


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 10


3.4.14 The definition of the daytime SOAEL references the ‘C’ category of the BS5228 ABC

construction noise assessment methodology, and refers to a level of 75 dB as being widely used (including HS1, the Forth Replacement Crossing and Thames Tideway Tunnel).

3.4.15 The definition of the night time SOAEL references the interim target of 55 dB LPAeq,8hr in the WHO Night noise guidelines for Europe, and the ‘C’ category in the BS5228 ABC method.

3.4.16 The definition of the evening SOAEL is based on a level 10 dB below the daytime SOAEL, which is identified as being consistent with the BS5228 ABC method and the guidance in Advisory Leaflet 72 – Noise control on building sites19. For properties where ambient levels already exceed the category C values the SOAEL was set as equal to the existing ambient.

3.4.17 The LOAEL was set as 65, 55 and, 45 dB LPAeq,T at the facade for the day, evening and night respectively for properties falling into category A, and 70, 60 and, 50 dB LPAeq,T at the façade for the day, evening and night respectively for properties falling into category B. It was considered unclear what the LOAEL would be for properties falling into category C or above.

3.4.18 With regard to noise from stationary systems i.e. fixed plant type noise, Appendix SV-001-000 Annex E sets out the following impact classification criteria.

Table 2 HS2 assessment of noise from stationary systems

Impact classification Rating level – background level

No impact <-10 dB

Negligible ≥ -10 dB and < 0dB

Minor ≥0 dB and <5dB

Moderate ≥5dB and <10 dB

Major ≥10dB

3.4.19 NOEL, LOAEL and SOAEL are not identified. Though a preferred design target of a rating level of -5 dB below background is specified, with an upper limit of +5 dB above background. It could therefore be assumed that these correspond to the LOAEL and SOAEL respectively. It is acknowledged that where existing background levels are low i.e. below 30 dB LA90,T, the assessment method may need to be adapted to take account of the absolute level and character of both the existing noise and the noise from the stationary system.

3.4.20 The assessment of operational noise from the railway identifies OELs as set out in Table 3

Table 3 HS2 OELs for operational railway noise

Effect Level and period Noise Level Basis guidance

SOAEL night time 55 dB, LpAeq,8hr WHO Night Noise guidelines for Europe interim target

80 to 85 dB LpAFmax at the facade

LOAEL daytime 50 dB LPAeq,16hr free-field WHO Guidelines for Community Annoyance

LOAEL night time 40 dB LPAeq,8hr free-field WHO Night noise guidelines for Europe


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 11


3.4.21 For communities, not individual properties, a significant adverse effect may be identified at

levels between the LOAEL and the SOAEL depending on a range of factors, in particular the change in noise levels from the existing ambient due to the operation of HS2 as detailed below. Note these are applied to both operational train and road traffic movements.

Table 4 HS2 impact classifications

Long term impact classification

Short term impact classification

Sound level change dB LPAeq,T (positive or negative) T = 16hr day or 8hr night

Negligible Negligible ≥0dB and <1 dB

Minor ≥ 1 dB and < 3 dB

Minor Moderate ≥3dB and <5 dB

Moderate Major

≥5dB and <10 dB

Major ≥10dB

3.4.22 The SMR20 states that the impact classification criteria are based on the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)21.

3.4.23 It should also be noted that the HS2 Environmental Statement does not use the OEL terminology explicitly in the assessment of noise impacts on non-residential receptors, but does extend the OEL concept to the assessment of vibration affecting residential properties.

3.4.24 A significant development to the HS2 proposal is the response to the ES by campaign group ‘51M’. 51M is a group of 19 local authorities that has joined together in a national campaign to actively challenge the HS2 rail project. They have published a legal response to the ES highlighting a number of alleged flaws in the assessment, including a detailed discussion regarding OELs.22 Interestingly, the group includes Lichfield DC but not Birmingham CC despite the fact they have set identical local guidance for the application of OELs.

3.4.25 The ES and discussion surrounding the noise impact assessment is also referenced during open discussion in the High Speed Rail Committee meeting of 8th July 201423. At this meeting Mr Rupert Thornely-Taylor representing the IOA was able to inform the committee in some detail the selection process and applicability of the selected LOAEL and SOAEL values presented in the ES, and reaffirm to the committee that all the levels were reviewed by the Acoustic Review Group.

3.4.26 Since the deposit of the Phase One Hybrid Bill to Parliament, a number of ‘Information Papers’24 have been produced by HS2 which seek to clarify the noise criteria selected. These documents are freely available from the HS2 website and are intended to provide “…a non-technical, accessible and user-friendly guide to our policies and strategies, which define the deposited hybrid Bill and Environmental Statement documentation…” Papers E20, E21, E22 and E23 specifically report on the OEL threshold criteria defined by the project in terms of airborne and ground borne noise, and vibration, during operational and construction phases. The Information Papers will be the guiding documents for the implementation of policy right through to the completion of the project.

Bank Station Over Site Development

3.4.27 A further significant development is Bank Station Over Site Development, for which the ES reports the OELs defined for the project. In terms of operational plant noise the ES states that at


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 12


the request of The City of London Corporation (TCLC) EHOs, the sensitivity of offices, and other non-residential receptors, is considered to be equivalent to residential properties, during the daytime period.

3.4.28 Table 5 sets out the assessment of significance of plant noise used for this project.

Table 5 Bank Station assessment of plant noise

Rating level – Background Noise Level dB(A) Effect/Significance

<-10 Negligible/Not significant

-10 to +5 Minor/Not significant

+5 to +10 Moderate/Significant

>+10 Major/Significant

3.4.29 Based on the guidance in BS4142:1997 the LOAEL for the project is defined as a ‘Rating Level minus Background level of 0 dB’, and the SOAEL as ‘+10 dB’, for all receptors. However it is noted that TCLC requirements of a ‘Rating level 10 dB below the Background noise level’ are considerably below the LOAEL defined from BS4142. Compliance with the TCLC requirement would ensure no adverse or significant adverse effects occur.

Thames Tideway Tunnel

3.4.30 The application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Thames Tideway Tunnel project was submitted to the Infrastructure Planning Commission in February 2013. An ES was included as part of this submission. A review of the ES has not provided any quantification of the LOAEL or SOAEL levels that have been used as part of the ES.

3.4.31 However, during the course of the DCO hearing in September 2013, several noise related documentsd were submitted which included some quantification of LOAEL and SOAEL as set out in Table 6 below. It is interesting to note that this project again extended the concept to the assessment of vibration.

Table 6 Thames Tideway Tunnel SOAEL values

Time period SOAEL Reference source

Construction noise daytime 75 dB LAeq BS 5228 and AL72 Construction noise nighttime 55 dB Lnight,outside WHO NNG and NPPG Ground borne vibration daytime VDV of 0.8 m/s1.75 HS2 Environmental

Statement Ground borne vibration nighttime 0.4 m/s1.75 Ground borne noise nighttime 45 dB LASmax

3.4.32 The defined SOAEL and LOAEL values apply to construction noise and vibration only.

d APP11 Noise and Disturbance, APP182 Legal agreement for securing noise mitigation and compensation policies EVIDENCE AND USAGE OF LOAEL, SOAEL ETC. October 2014 FINAL REPORT

47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 13


Appeal of Planning Inspectorate Decision

3.4.33 The City of Westminster appealed against an upheld planning decision concerning an application for the development of a Sainsbury’s store in West London.25 The appeal was, amongst other matters, related to preserving amenity for existing residents during servicing the store. Significant discussion within the Inspector’s report and the subsequent judicial review focus on the technical approach to aggregating noise level data to determine the ambient noise levels which varied between the Council and the defendant, the assessment levels used, and their relationship with the LOAEL and SOAEL for the area.

3.4.34 Specific values for the LOAEL and SOAEL were not quantified at Appeal or during Judicial Review, and the initial noise impact assessment informing the applications had been completed before the introduction of the NPPF. Rather, a more subjective six-level scale of acceptability from ‘unnoticeable’ to ‘completely unacceptable’ was assumed by the Inspector and upheld by the Judge. This approach balances the need for maintaining acceptable living conditions, but acknowledged that city centre noise levels may (and indeed did) already exceed the levels defined by the WHO upon which without structured guidance, locally defined LOAELs and SOAELs are heavily weighted.

3.5 Professional bodies and publications

3.5.1 The Institute of Acoustics’ (IOA) professional journal, ‘Acoustics Bulletin’ has included many items referring to the NPPF, NPSE and the OEL terminology in the last 2 years. Of particular note is an article in the December 2012 issue entitled ‘The National Planning Policy Framework: What happens to noise policy-decision-making in a vacuum?’26. The piece reports upon two one-day conferences held by the IOA in London in June 2012 and Birmingham in October 2012 to members. Speakers included Stephen Turner of Defra who introduced the OEL classes found in the NPSE and went on to discuss how the NPPF represents a flexible and sustainable approach to noise assessment, “…which takes account of context for which a large amount of supporting information exists.”

3.5.2 The conference went on to discuss existing guidance available including BS8233, BS4142, and the WHO guidelines amongst others, but no direct conclusions were drawn as to how to apply the OEL definitions to each of these documents and standards.

3.5.3 In summing up, Graham Parry of ACCON concluded that there was a ‘…clear and relatively urgent need for technical guidance and the main question was whether this should come from a professional body such as the IOA or from Government.’

3.5.4 In the same issue, a technical contribution by ARM Acoustics provides an in depth article on the changes brought about by the NPPF. They identify that “The local authorities now charged with the responsibility of interpreting and implementing these policies as they apply to local circumstances and conditions, are not in an entirely envious position.” Consideration of the test of significance of a noise impact is given in relation to SOAEL, with the reminder that SOAEL is “…not just about health effects but is about quality of life as well as health effects.”

3.5.5 The IOA has held healthy debate on the new approach to planning and noise, and this is considered likely to continue as members continue to indicate that they would prefer to compile a set of more standardised national guidance for practitioners to encourage a consistent approach.


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 14


3.5.6 The Association of Noise Consultants (ANC) also held an autumn conference in Birmingham in

November 2012. Discussions concerning the NPPF were held with three speakers from Local Authorities including Croydon, Birmingham and Walsall Councils. The inconsistencies between Local Planning Authorities was discussed for instance that some Authorities require 50 dB(A) for gardens and outdoor space, while others require 55 dB(A), and the need for up to date Local Plans to be issued were highlighted. The appropriate level for SOAEL was discussed and how noise impact might be observed, without causing significant health effects, for some source types. It was also suggested that WHO guidelines might be the starting point for LOAEL.

3.5.7 It is understood from the March 2014 ANC meeting that the ANC is collaborating with the IOA and CIEH to establish a working group on NPPF and draft guidance is anticipated within the next six months.

3.5.8 Members of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) are at the forefront of interpreting noise assessments submitted with planning applications and it was expected that there would be much evidence of clarifying noise policy requirements, specifically the NOEL, LOAEL and SOAEL elements, since the introduction of NPPG. Indeed, a number of presentations have been held for Local Authorities for both planners and EHOs.

3.5.9 A CIEH sub-group of the London Region Pollution Study Group (LRPSG), the London Authorities Noise Action Forum (LANAF) were presented to by Graham Parry of ACCON in July 201227. This is an example of technical specialists from the IOA attempting to lead non-specialists in the best approach to implementing the new policy. The presentation is based upon the more detailed IOA conference proceedings referenced above, with a more informative rather than discussion based approach.

3.5.10 At the same meeting, a presentation by Stephen Turner of Defra entitled “Noise elements in the NPPF”28 discusses the new policy and relevance to EHOs. Within this presentation the acknowledgement of a need for further research on the health implications of noise in terms of “severe adverse effect”, whilst continuing to discuss the flexibility that not defining SOAELs gives within the new policy framework.

3.5.11 Most recently at the CIEH Winter Forum in Oxford in February 2014 Collette Clark and Stephen Turner of Defra presented “Bothered by Noise?”29 to delegates, including clarification on the definitions of NOEL, LOAEL and SOAEL and their appropriate usage. Slides are available on CIEH website.

3.5.12 Forthcoming events for CIEH members and non-members include a noise conference entitled “Managing noise for better health” to be held on 2nd June 201430. There will be presentations over 6 dates nationally entitled “Planning for Environmental Protection”. Although specific LOAEL/SOAEL terminology isn’t mentioned within fliers for these events, the presentations focus on NPPF and NPSE, and as such it is considered likely that discussion will be raised.

3.5.13 The CIEH publication, ‘EHNews Online’ published this piece31 in November 2012, written by Chris Hurst EHO of Richmond Council. It encourages prompt action by members of the CIEH to address the new policy requirements or face negative outcomes while waiting for national guidance to be provided, and is available in full from the Noise Nuisance Association.32

3.5.14 The ‘Noise Bulletin’ is a monthly newsletter by Environmental Management Publishing and is a source of current information for noise practitioners relating to court proceedings, legislation and guidance changes. Publications for around 6 months prior to the NPPF being finalised through


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 15


to the current time have been reviewed for content relating to OELs. Of the 27 editions reviewed, 23 had direct references to OELs and the changes to UK planning policy in one or more articles.

3.5.15 The Royal Institute of Town Planners (RITP) website surprisingly provides no specific mention of OELs on the website since draft comments on Noise Action Plans were provided in 2009. There has been no environmental assessment guidance update since 2010. This indicates the planning profession is very much reliant on Environmental Health services to interpret and implement local noise policy.


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 16


4 DISCUSSION

4.1.1 In the majority of cases identified, there is prevalence for describing threshold criteria with reference to the WHO community noise guidelines and the BS 8233 1999. However, even these standards describe ranges of criteria, for example, depending on whether ‘good’ or ‘reasonable’ design specifications are selected.

4.1.2 A revised version of BS 8233 has recently been issued33, and of those Local Authorities having prescribed levels, many now reference the superseded version of this standard. However, this is perhaps the strength of the new framework which allows locally based guidance to be regularly updated to take into account updated reference data, more easily than might be the case for national planning guidance. Many policies also reference BS4142, 1997 which is currently in the process of re-drafting, with a more significant overhaul in the methodology of the assessment.

4.1.3 The Local Authority documents reviewed in this report have also generally not utilised the extended WHO guidance found in the Night Noise Guidance (NNG)34, which discusses criteria in terms of NOEL and LOAEL. Unlike the WHO guidelines on community noise (1999) the 2009 guidance provide an Lnight, outside in dB(A) which describes an annual noise level during the period most people would be attempting to sleep. This concept emanates from the noise mapping Europe initiative required by Directive 2002/49/EC otherwise referred to as the Environmental Noise Directive (END)35 in terms of traffic noise affecting communities. The interim target for night time noise is some 15 dB above the LOAEL value of 40 dB identified.

4.1.4 However, there is little guidance on how to proceed when the prevailing ambient noise levels already exceed those identified as being desired by the WHO guidance. As in the case appealed by the City of Westminster, the biggest strength of the OEL approach to noise assessment is demonstrated, provided that an effectively pragmatic approach can be derived, and that all interested parties can agree a non-specific threshold being applied.

4.1.5 Despite this ambiguity in application of the NNG, the interim targets for night time noise in Europe are being acknowledged and presented by noise consultants in technical reports, as identified for example in the appraisal of the HS2 environmental statement.

4.1.6 Significant discussion about the subject has been found in terms of conferences, papers and presentations from professional associations, (CIEH, IOA, ANC).

4.1.7 In summary, the amount of reference material documenting the usage of the OELs is vast and growing. A full survey of all the English local authorities would be required to understand comprehensively the extent to which LAs have picked up on the OEL terminology in planning policy, as not all documents are publically available. A number of examples of levels which have been assigned are included in this report, although the basis for selection of these levels appears to include a limited number of sources.

4.1.8 Given the currency of many of the projects referenced, and the development of further Local Authority and other guidance on these matters, it is recommended that a further review of progress be undertaken in 6 months to identify changes and progress over this time.


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 17


5 REFERENCES

1 National Planning Policy Framework, UK Government, 2012

2 Noise Policy Statement for England, Defra, 2010.

3 Explanatory Note of the NPSE, Defra, 2010.

4 ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’, World Health Organisation, 1999.

5 British Standard: 8233: ‘Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings – code of practice’, BSI, 1999.

6 British Standard 4142: ‘Method for Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas’ BSI, 1997.

7 ‘Planning Consultation Guidance No1 Noise and Vibration’ (draft), Birmingham City Council, 2013.

8 http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/web/PUB207284

9 http://archive.swale.gov.uk/assets/Environmental-Protection-Team/Noise-and-Vibration-Planning-Guidance-Document-Swale-BC-2013.pdf

10 http://www.worcsregservices.gov.uk/pdf/noise%20technical%20guidance%20v%201.%202.%204.pdf

11 http://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/downloads/file/3468/environmental_health_technical_guidance_noise and vibration

12 http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/46060/PP_SPD_Noise-Vibration-Consultation-Draft-Jan-2014.pdf

13 http://www.cieh.org/assets/0/72/998/1022/1046/1086/5ba28738-4338-4e52-b558-237ce3e916e8.pdf

14 http://democracy.ryedale.gov.uk/documents/s11291/4%20Additional%20Information.pdf

15 https://www.stratford.gov.uk/files/seealsodocs/148169/GLH%20Tomorrow's%20Garden%20Village%20-%20Vision.pdf

16 http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/planningdocuments/CW6-1213-137/sup-Noise%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf

17 http://www.persona.uk.com/ashton/Applicant_PoE/OA-11-1.pdf

18 London-West Midlands Environmental Statement Volume 5 Technical Appendices – Methodology, assumptions and assessment (route-wide) (SV-001-000) Sound, noise and vibration, November 2013.

19 Department of the Environment (1976), Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72 (1976), Noise control on Building Sites, HMSO, first published 1968, Third edition 1976.

20 HS2 London- West Midlands Environmental Statement, Volume 5, Technical Appendices, Scope and methodology report (CT-001-000/1), November 2013

21 Highways Agency, 2011, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3 Environmental Assessment Techniques, Part 7 Noise and Vibration document HD213/11.


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 18

http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/web/PUB207284

http://archive.swale.gov.uk/assets/Environmental-Protection-Team/Noise-and-Vibration-Planning-Guidance-Document-Swale-BC-2013.pdf

http://archive.swale.gov.uk/assets/Environmental-Protection-Team/Noise-and-Vibration-Planning-Guidance-Document-Swale-BC-2013.pdf

http://www.worcsregservices.gov.uk/pdf/noise%20technical%20guidance%20v%201.%202.%204.pdf

http://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/downloads/file/3468/environmental_health_technical_guidance_noise%20and%20vibration

http://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/downloads/file/3468/environmental_health_technical_guidance_noise%20and%20vibration

http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/46060/PP_SPD_Noise-Vibration-Consultation-Draft-Jan-2014.pdf

http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/46060/PP_SPD_Noise-Vibration-Consultation-Draft-Jan-2014.pdf

http://www.cieh.org/assets/0/72/998/1022/1046/1086/5ba28738-4338-4e52-b558-237ce3e916e8.pdf

http://democracy.ryedale.gov.uk/documents/s11291/4%20Additional%20Information.pdf

https://www.stratford.gov.uk/files/seealsodocs/148169/GLH%20Tomorrow's%20Garden%20Village%20-%20Vision.pdf

https://www.stratford.gov.uk/files/seealsodocs/148169/GLH%20Tomorrow's%20Garden%20Village%20-%20Vision.pdf

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/planningdocuments/CW6-1213-137/sup-Noise%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/planningdocuments/CW6-1213-137/sup-Noise%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf

http://www.persona.uk.com/ashton/Applicant_PoE/OA-11-1.pdf


22 http://www.51m.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Legal-advice-Noise-1.pdf

23 http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2/oral-evidence/080714-AM-Uncorrected-Transcript.pdf

24 http://www.hs2.org.uk/news-resources/information-papers

25 http://www.39essex.com/docs/general/co_16393_2013_westminster_v__sainsburys.pdf

26 IOA Acoustics Bulletin, Vol37 No6 (p9, 10 & 12), November/December 2012.

27 http://www.cieh.org/assets/0/72/998/1022/1046/1086/9dc953d4-c6d8-4a9a-963c-c266b22d0c80.pdf

28 http://www.cieh.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=42814

29 http://www.cieh.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=51596

30 http://www.cieh.org/events.html

31 http://www.ehn-online.com/news/article.aspx?id=7924&terms=NPPF

32 http://noisenuisance.org/2012/07/25/national-planning-policy-framework-noise-policy-statement-for-england/

33 BS 8233: 2014: ‘Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings, BSI, 2014.

34 World Health Organisation (2009) Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. WHO Regional Office for Europe. ISBN 978 92 890 4173 7.

35 Directive 2002/49/EC, European Parliament, 2002.


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 19

http://www.51m.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Legal-advice-Noise-1.pdf

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2/oral-evidence/080714-AM-Uncorrected-Transcript.pdf

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2/oral-evidence/080714-AM-Uncorrected-Transcript.pdf

http://www.hs2.org.uk/news-resources/information-papers

http://www.39essex.com/docs/general/co_16393_2013_westminster_v__sainsburys.pdf

http://www.cieh.org/assets/0/72/998/1022/1046/1086/9dc953d4-c6d8-4a9a-963c-c266b22d0c80.pdf

http://www.cieh.org/assets/0/72/998/1022/1046/1086/9dc953d4-c6d8-4a9a-963c-c266b22d0c80.pdf

http://www.cieh.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=42814

http://www.cieh.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=51596

http://www.cieh.org/events.html

http://www.ehn-online.com/news/article.aspx?id=7924&terms=NPPF

http://noisenuisance.org/2012/07/25/national-planning-policy-framework-noise-policy-statement-for-england/

http://noisenuisance.org/2012/07/25/national-planning-policy-framework-noise-policy-statement-for-england/


APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF LOCAL AUTHORITY GUIDANCE CRITERIA

Birmingham City Council:


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 20


Crawley Borough Council:


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 21


Lichfield Borough Council:


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 22


Worcestershire Regulatory Services:


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 23


Swale Borough Council:


47067932.NN14-05. R1/03 24

Documents

Evidence and Usage of LOAEL, SOAEL etc. - GOV.UKrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=13334... · significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur. 1.1.5 The EN