& (2) CO/1673/2016 |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
____________________
STOKE POGES PARISH COUNCIL SOUTH BUCKINGHAMSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION SOUTH BUCKINGHAMSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL SLOUGH SIKH EDUCATION TRUST LIMITED |
Defendants |
____________________
for Stoke Poges Parish Council
Juan Lopez (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) for South Bucks District Council
Stephen Whale (instructed by Government Legal Dept.) for the First Defendant
James Maurici QC (instructed by Government Legal Dept.) for the Second Defendant
Hearing date: 12 July 2016
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
David Elvin QC :
Introduction
The context of the noise issue
"123. Planning policies and decisions should aim to:
- avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts27 on health and quality of life as a result of new development;
- mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts27 on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;
- recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and
- identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason..."
Footnote 27 refers to "See Explanatory Note to the Noise Policy Statement for England."
"2.9 Noise management is a complex issue and at times requires complex solutions. Unlike air quality, there are currently no European or national noise limits which have to be met, although there can be specific local limits for specific developments. Furthermore, sound only becomes noise (often defined as "unwanted sound") when it exists in the wrong place or at the wrong time such that it causes or contributes to some harmful or otherwise unwanted effect, like annoyance or sleep disturbance. Unlike many other pollutants, noise pollution depends not just on the physical aspects of the sound itself, but also the human reaction to it. Consequently, the NPSE provides a clear description of desired outcome from the noise management of a particular situation."
"This British Standard provides guidance for the control of noise in and around buildings. It is applicable to the design of new buildings, or refurbished buildings undergoing a change of use, but does not provide guidance on assessing the effects of changes in the external noise levels to occupants of an existing building."
The Inspector's Report
"2.1 Pioneer House is a freestanding two/three storey modern building erected in the early 1990s for Class B1 office use. It occupies an irregular piece of land extending to some 4 Ha. The site includes areas of hard surface car parking to the front of the building and further spaces laid out at the north western corner of the site. There is additionally a large hard surfaced area extending in an arc at the rear of the building; it was originally laid out for parking purposes but is regularly used by the school (currently occupying part of the building) as a hard surfaced outdoor play area. An open grassed field, extending across much of the southern extent of the appeal site, is also used by the school for outdoor play. The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
2.2 The premises are served from two access points on Hollybush Hill to the north. There are residential properties adjoining the north western boundary, and part of the eastern and western boundaries of the site. A school operated by the Plymouth Brethren, occupying what was the original Victorian village primary school, is located at the south western corner of Pioneer House. I was told the Brethren school currently accommodates 98 pupils but the building has capacity for 200.
2.3 Hollybush Hill is primarily a residential street, linking Bells Hill (Gerrards Cross Road) to the west with Framewood Road to the east. The site is bound by School Lane to its west and south and by Hockley Lane and Hockley Lane properties to the east. The Stoke Poges village centre is located on Bells Hill. Industrial areas referred to in evidence are situated on Bells Hill and Framewood Road."
"4.1 The proposal is for a Sikh faith-based secondary school to accommodate 840 pupils and 70 members of staff by 2018. The school will cater for cohorts aged 11-18 years and is to include a sixth form for 240 students. At present the school is occupied by 90 pupils in 4 classes. The intention is to create a multi-cultural school based on Sikh principles. Under the admissions policy, the Academy will admit 50% pupils from Sikh backgrounds and 50% of other or no faiths. In the event that fewer than 50% of other or no faiths apply, the remaining places will be allocated to those of the Sikh faith.
4.2 The school timetable indicates that the school day starts when the pupils begin to arrive at 07:30 hours and extends to 16:45. As there is not provision on site for indoor sporting activities, the school will need to look at local sports provision from Year 3 of operation onwards. It is said that much of the school's sporting provision will be provided off-site. Currently, there are two options locally being considered but none has been selected and there are no arrangements in place. There is to be no weekend sporting or other activities at the site, save for an open event to be held annually on school premises at a weekend."
"12.3.3 The consultants further agreed that the impact of noise on residents arises not from any internal activities but from use of the car park to the south side of the building for external school activities. These range from informal outdoor activities during break and lunch periods as well as organised sports. During the summer months the latter would take place (as it does now) on the field to the south. [6.3.1]
12.3.4 The term time schedule confirms the arrival time between 07:30 and 08:00, though residents claim that that pupils can arrive as early as 07:10. The schedule includes a 20 minute morning break period when 600 pupils can be expected to be in the playground area (sixth formers are expected to use internal common rooms). A staggered lunch period of between 12:50 and 13:30 could see up to 400 pupils outdoors. Up to 100 pupils are expected to take part in outdoor activities during the enrichment period between 15:45 and 16:45. Each class in years 7-11 would also undertake up to one period of PE per week, comprising a combination of internal and external lessons but no more than 30 pupils would be outdoors in any one period. Main sports lessons and sports for sixth formers would take place off site. No weekend activities are expected to take place, save for the single annual event. [4.2, 11.1.5]"
"12.3.6 To assess what impact the school and its operations would have on the neighbours at School Lane and Hockley Lane, the starting point must be an objective assessment of the predicted noise levels against the range of guidance referred to by the main parties. [6.3.5]"
"12.3.7 It was agreed that, with windows closed and the school external areas in use, noise levels within adjacent affected dwellings would achieve the recommended internal noise levels described in Table 4 of BS8233:2014. [6.3.1]"
"12.3.8 SBDC's noise consultant could not point to any guidance to support his use of the 5 and 10dBA noise reduction factors for partially open windows nor the 0-5dBA for patio doors. The BS and WHO guidelines recommend a factor of -15dBA. The appellant's reduction of 13dBA is to be preferred. With the school operating at full capacity, on the appellant's figures, the recommended internal noise levels would be exceeded by 4-9dBA on a 1 hour average or 3dBA using a 16 hour average. [6.3.11, 6.3.15, 7.3.3]
12.3.9 Developments operating in day time working hours should not be expected to conform to night time guidelines, even in known instances of shift workers residing nearby. On the other hand, given the nature of the noise from pupils playing outdoors, the 16 hour period is not appropriate because the character of the noise from the school, which is and will be different from the normal diurnal fluctuations in external noise used in the guidelines, which goes on to suggest 1 hour as an example. [6.3.9, 7.3.4, 8.3.5, 9.8.2]
12.3.10 With these factors in mind, residents most likely to be affected by the school could experience close to a doubling of the recommended internal noise levels1. It was agreed that the LAmax levels arising from playground noise would remain approximately the same with the pupil number rising to the expected 840. However, as confirmed by the term time schedule, the frequency of such events would increase. [6.3.1, 6.3.18, 9.6.8]."
"The consultants agreed that +10 dB is the equivalent of doubling noise levels".
"12.3.11 Externally, on the appellant's figures, residents are predicted to experience noise levels of 51dBLAeq16 hour and 57dBLAeq1 hour, which exceed the external guidelines ranges of 50-55dBLAeqT. The WHO guidance even goes as far as recommending levels no higher than 50dBLAeq and 55dBLAeq in outdoor living areas to protect the majority of people from being 'moderately' or 'seriously' annoyed. While the BS guidance accepts that the values are not achievable in all circumstances, it also goes on to state that the value of 55dBA is regarded as acceptable in noisier environments. Stoke Poges contains pockets of busy areas, even two business parks; but the environment around School Lane and Hockley Lane cannot be described as noisy. The residents refer to it as tranquil and semirural. Ambient noise levels generally reflect those characterisations, and where the 55dBA and above would be out of place. [6.3.14, 7.3.5, 8.3.2, 8.3.4, 9.6.1, 9.8.1, 9.12.1]
12.3.12 From the evidence of people who actually live close to the school, the noise from just 90 pupils is bordering on the 'seriously' annoying. Residents describe the noise levels as noticeable and disruptive now. Whether that is the case or opposition to the Academy has generated these responses is difficult to say, given the paucity of complaints to the Council prior to March 2014. However, the objective analysis also shows that the levels are on the fringes of acceptability or below it. Either way, the empirical evidence of those living close to the school cannot be ignored. [6.3.3, 6.3.4, 7.3.6, 9.2.8, 9.2.9, 9.6.2-9.6.4, 9.6.6, 9.6.7, 9.8.2, 9.10.4, 9.11.5, 9.10.6]
12.3.13 Schools are often located in residential areas. But in the case of the appeal site the proximity of neighbouring properties to areas of the school where much of the outdoor activities would take place (with as many as 400-600 pupils concentrated in those areas) gives exceptional cause for concern. [6.3.2]
12.3.14 Neighbours describe how they are currently unable to use their gardens or live normal lives in their homes when even small groups of pupils play outdoors, even though the measured LAeq1hour level is 47dBA and below the recommended for outdoors. Their homes are close to the play areas concerned, and the way they use their homes is affected during periods that pupils are outdoors, often up to four hours during the school day. The character and range of noises experienced are intrusive and disruptive. That situation occurs with just 90 pupils attending the school. As the Academy reaches full capacity the numbers of pupils using the play areas would increase. Although not all 840 pupils would be outdoors at any given time, the frequency of the current LAmax levels would increase, and add to the current adverse impacts experienced by residents. [7.3.6, 8.3.8, 9.2.8, 9.2.9, 9.6.2-9.6.4, 9.6.6, 9.6.7, 9.8.2, 9.10.4, 9.11.5, 9.10.6]"
"12.3.17 Fully occupied offices would bring with it the movement of cars entering and leaving the premises 7 days a week. The Academy would similarly generate noise from cars and coaches entering, manoeuvring and leaving the site, albeit during weekdays only. The fact that the premises would be used for 39 weeks of the year does not diminish the magnitude of the impacts experienced by local residents during those 39 weeks. There would be a perceivable change in the acoustic character of the area, residents would avoid using their gardens during the day (as outdoor activities are likely to spread over much of the school day) and are highly likely to materially change the way they use their homes. In other words, they would be exposed to levels crossing the significant observed adverse effects category. [6.3.6, 6.3.8, 6.3.16, 8.3.8]"
"12.3.19 The significant adverse impact on the neighbours' quality of life that would occur needs to be balanced against three factors: benefits of the school, the Government's commitment to state-funded schools and the presumption in favour of such facilities applied in the NPPF. The number of homes affected is small. As recognised in the NPPG, decisions must be made taking account of the economic and social benefit of the activity causing the noise, but it is undesirable for exposure above significant observed adverse effects levels to be caused. The appeal proposal falls into the undesirable category for the reasons explained. It would make the homes affected unsatisfactory places to live in. [6.3.19, 7.3.6, 8.3.10]"
"13.1.1 In terms of its impact on highways and transport, I have concluded that the proposal for prior approval would be acceptable. The evidence of the most up to date and reliable traffic surveys, the predicted trip generation, likely modal split and junction assessments demonstrate that the residual impact of the proposal would not lead to severe conditions. The evidence of contamination risks on the site also do not point to a rejection of the scheme. However, the analysis of existing and predicted noise levels, alongside residents' experience of the school, leads me to conclude that their living conditions would be materially harmed as the school develops to its full complement. The mitigation measures put forward would do little to alter that position. On the balance of considerations, the appeal should be rejected for the severity of impact on local residents from noise generated by the school."
The Decision Letter
"7. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR5.1 and IR12.1.2-12.1.3) that, in considering this appeal, they are both restricted to consideration of those matters related to the acceptability of a prior approval scheme under Class T(1)(b) of the GPDO, namely: (i) transport and highways impacts; (ii) noise impacts; and (iii) contamination risks on the site. Furthermore, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR12.1.4 that, because this appeal does not involve an application for planning permission, section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 is not engaged so that the appeal scheme is not required to be determined in accordance with the development plan.
8. The Secretary of State has also had regard to BS 8233:2014: Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings; and to the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise."
i) the earlier noise conditions were unenforceable;ii) the issue particularly concerned impact on local residents for the reasons described at IR12.3.3-12.3.4 (above);
iii) "the starting point for assessing the impact on those neighbours has to be an objective assessment of the predicted noise levels against published guidance" (see IR12.3.6 above); and
iv) the impact of the proposals on internal space where windows etc were closed was acceptable as set out at IR12.3.7.
"14. However the Secretary of State notes that the thresholds in the relevant guidance are guideline values only and that there are no European or National noise limits which have to be met. In addition the BS8233 guidance allows a 5dBA relaxation (Note 7, paragraph 7.7.2 of BS8233) such that the internal target levels may be relaxed by 5dBA and reasonable internal conditions still achieved. This relaxation means that the predicted noise levels would meet the criteria for dining rooms and be only marginally above the BS8233 criteria of 'moderate' annoyance for living rooms and (daytime resting) in bedrooms, if the 9dB increase were to be applied.
15. The Secretary of State notes that the noise statement of common ground agreed that 8dBA would be the appropriate increase of noise for 600 pupils (IR6.3.13). The Inspector noted that not all pupils will be outside at any one time (IR12.3.14) and in the report considers a maximum number of 600 pupils when assessing external noise levels, during the 20 minute morning break (IR12.3.4). The Secretary of State considers that the likelihood of 840 pupils being outside at any one time would not be usual and that the more accurate maximum is 600 pupils. The Secretary of State therefore considers that the 8dBA increase is to be applied, which further lowers the levels of internal noise experienced to only marginally above the BS8233 criteria of 'moderate annoyance'.
16. The Secretary of State has also taken into account the inspector's analysis that the 1 hour period for assessing noise is appropriate because of the character of the noise from the school (IR12.3.9). Whilst the Secretary of State accepts that it was appropriate to adopt the one hour period, it does highlight that the higher noise levels will only be present for limited periods throughout the day, during periods of increased activity. This was indicated at the inquiry to be limited to early in the morning, mid-morning Break, and lunch-time, with only the morning-break period expected to result in the maximum 600 pupils being outside (IR 12.3.4).
17. The Secretary of State also notes that these occurrences would only occur during the 39 weeks of term-time and would not be present for the remaining 13 weeks of the year.
18. The Secretary of State considers it important to recognise that ambient noise levels can fluctuate over a short space of time for a number of reasons unrelated to children's play.
19. For these reasons the Secretary of State therefore gives only limited weight to the impact of internal noise on local residents."
"20. Turning to external noise levels (IR12.3.11), the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, having regard to the fact that ambient noise levels generally reflect the tranquil and semi-rural nature of the area, noise levels of 55dBA and above could potentially be out of place. However the Secretary of State considers it important to note that these are guideline values only. Additionally, as set out at paragraph 15 above, the Secretary of State considers that the 8dBA increase is an appropriate increase of noise given the number of pupils that would be outside at any one period of the day. The Secretary of State notes that the current external noise levels are 47dBA (IR12.3.14) and that, when combined with an 8dBA increase would mean the maximum external noise levels would be 55dBA. The Secretary of State notes that the WHO guidance, at paragraph 4.3.1, provides that external noise should not exceed 55 dBA to prevent serious annoyance. The Secretary of State therefore considers that the external noise levels would remain within the relevant guidelines for noise limits, to which he attaches substantial weight.
21. The Secretary of State has taken account both of the Inspector's comments at IR12.3.12-12.3.14 about the impact of the noise on the lives of those in the neighbouring properties and of the representations submitted in response to his letter of 9 April 2015, he gives substantial weight to the impact of such an increase.
22. However for the reasons set out above, including those at paragraphs 15 and 16 above, the Secretary of State does not consider that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the noise levels predicted to be generated by the appeal scheme would diminish the occupants' living conditions so as to expose them to seriously annoying levels of noise giving rise to significant observed adverse impacts to health and quality of life.
23. The Secretary of State notes and agrees with the Inspector's conclusions at 12.5.2 that some levels of attenuation would be provided by the noise management strategy to which he gives limited weight. The Secretary of State has not considered the acoustic fencing as part of this assessment given that no certainty can be given that the necessary planning consent would be obtained.
24. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR12.3.17) that, although the appeal scheme would generate noise from cars and coaches for a shorter period of the year than would fully occupied offices, this does not diminish the magnitude of the impacts experienced by local residents during that period of 39 weeks. Nevertheless, on the basis of the objective evidence presented to him, he does not agree that this could be expected to be sufficient to lead residents to materially change the way they use their homes.
25. Following from his conclusions in the previous paragraphs, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector's conclusions as he disagrees with her conclusion that the appeal proposal would cause exposure to noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life."
"31. In relation to noise impacts, the Secretary of State concludes that predicted external levels of noise would be acceptable with regard to the relevant guidelines for the reasons set out at above.
32. The Secretary of State notes that the internal noise levels relate to moderate annoyance rather than serious annoyance. The Secretary of State therefore considers that, given that the levels of noise are at the margins of those recommended guidelines, the internal noise levels would not give rise to significant adverse impacts to health and quality of life. The Secretary of State therefore considers the levels of internal noise to be acceptable.
33. The Secretary of State has taken account of the fact that the residents' experience of the school has led them, and the Inspector, to conclude, that their living conditions would be materially harmed as the school develops to its full potential, but he does not consider that the predicted measurements when considered alongside the relevant guidelines support those conclusions. Overall, therefore, he considers that the appeal proposals satisfy the requirements for granting prior approval."
"34. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State hereby allows your client's appeal and grants prior approval for permitted development under Part 3, Class T of the GPDO, for the change of use of existing office space (Class B1) into a state funded school (Class D1) at Pioneer House, Hollybush Hill, Stoke Poges, South Buckinghamshire, SL2 4QP, in accordance with application Ref: 13/01947/KNOT, dated 18 November 2013…"
Applicable legal principles
"60 Plainly an application for judicial review is not a forum for resolving issues between the parties on technical matters such as the assessment of existing levels of noise in the community or the noise that would be emitted from [the proposed development] when in use, and the means by which that noise should be controlled. These are matters of judgment for the local planning authority."
"I have considerable sympathy with Mr Taylor's general point, and his comments on the individual points I have mentioned. Given the time and expense on technical noise evidence, which attempted to follow the guidance in PPG 24 and other official advice, it is unsatisfactory that at the end of the day it is not clear how the conclusions of the Secretaries of State relate to that guidance or to the technical evidence based on it.
Mr Taylor's difficulty however, is to convert this into a point of law, or to show that it would have affected the ultimate decision. It is clear that as a matter of law, the Secretaries of State and the Inspector were entitled to reach their own conclusions on the noise issue, even though that might conflict with the technical evidence before them. It seems to me highly desirable, as a matter of policy and practice, that the Inspector and the Secretaries of State should follow the framework established by the technical guidance and evidence. But I know of no principle of law which says that they are bound by that approach. This point was forcibly expressed by Forbes J in Westminster Renslade Ltd -v- Secretary of State [1983] 48 P&CR 255, 263…
… Of course, that does not absolve the decision maker from the obligation to state the reasoning adequately, and in so doing to indicate how he or she has had regard to the relevant policy guidance (see e.g. Gransden -v- Secretary of State [1987] 54 P&CR 86.). Points of the kind on which Mr Taylor relies could be relevant to such a challenge if they led to the basis of the overall decision being materially uncertain."
"I hope I am not over-simplifying unduly by suggesting that the central issue in this case is whether the decision of the Secretary of State leaves room for genuine as opposed to forensic doubt as to what he has decided and why. This is an issue to be resolved as the parties agree on a straightforward down-to-earth reading of his decision letter without excessive legalism or exegetical sophistication."
"35. The test posed in all of those cases (which I would endorse) is whether the Secretary of State had sufficient material before him on which he was reasonably able to make a judgment on the issue of visual impact."
"The scope of WHO's effort to derive guidelines for community noise is to consolidate actual scientific knowledge on the health impacts of community noise and to provide guidance to environmental health authorities and professionals trying to protect people from the harmful effects of noise in non-industrial environments. … At a WHO/EURO Task Force Meeting in Düsseldorf, Germany, in 1992, the health criteria and guideline values were revised and it was agreed upon updated guidelines in consensus. The essentials of the deliberations of the Task Force were published by Stockholm University and Karolinska Institute in 1995. In a recent Expert Task Force Meeting convened in April 1999 in London, United Kingdom, the Guidelines for Community Noise were extended to provide global coverage and applicability, and the issues of noise assessment and control were addressed in more detail. This document is the outcome of the consensus deliberations of the WHO Expert Task Force."
The Grounds of Challenge
i) The First Defendant failed properly to interpret and apply the noise guidance to which he referred (WHO and BS8233) and as such he failed to take into account material considerations;ii) The First Defendant failed to apply properly paragraph 123 of the NPPF in light of the PPG;
iii) The First Defendant acted irrationally in disagreeing with the conclusions of the Inspector in relation to the technical noise evidence; and
iv) The First Defendant failed to give adequate reasons for his decision such that it is not possible to know whether the First Defendant applied policy and guidance properly in reaching his decision and thus caused the Claimant substantial prejudice.
Ground 1 – misinterpretation of guidance
i) The application of a threshold guideline of "moderate annoyance" by reference to BS 8233 when the BS did not contain such a guideline;ii) The failure to note that the key impact value in the WHO, reflected in the BS, was 35 dB for internal living areas;
iii) The allowance of "up to 5 dB" permitted by Note 7 to para. 7.7.2 and Table 4 of the BS neither changed the threshold nor meant that the threshold value of 35 dB LAeq should be ignored when what was proposed amounted to an increase of 8 dB, almost a doubling of noise levels (given the logarithmic scale applicable to LAeq noise assessment);
iv) The 50 and 55 dB guidelines in the WHO are not thresholds of acceptability for external noise;
v) The DL did not consider the character of the noise nor the implications of the change in noise levels of +8 or +9 dB for the acoustic character of the area (and thus its implications for local residents in their homes), in contrast to IR 12.3.13-12.3.14, 12.3.17 and 12.3.19. This should have been considered in the context of the PPG and NPSE;
vi) The DL's conclusion that the noise levels "would remain within the relevant guidelines" (DL 20) was thus based on a misinterpretation of the guidelines.
Time index for assessment
"In cases where local conditions do not follow a typical diurnal pattern, for example on a road serving a port with high levels of traffic at certain times of the night, an appropriate alternative period, e.g. 1 hour, may be used, but the level should be selected to ensure consistency with the levels recommended in Table 4."
The Inspector accepted the use of the 1 hour period at IR 12.3.9.
The WHO Guidance
"The WHO guideline values in Table 4.1 are organized according to specific environments. When multiple adverse health effects are identified for a given environment, the guideline values are set at the level of the lowest adverse health effect (the critical health effect). An adverse health effect of noise refers to any temporary or long-term deterioration in physical, psychological or social functioning that is associated with noise exposure. The guideline values represent the sound pressure levels that affect the most exposed receiver in the listed environment. …
The different critical health effects are relevant to specific environments, and guideline values for community noise are proposed for each environment."
"To protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed during the daytime, the sound pressure level on balconies, terraces and outdoor living areas should not exceed 55 dB LAeq for a steady, continuous noise. To protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed during the daytime, the outdoor sound pressure level should not exceed 50 dB LAeq. These values are based on annoyance studies, but most countries in Europe have adopted 40 dB LAeq as the maximum allowable level for new developments (Gottlob 1995). Indeed, the lower value should be considered the maximum allowable sound pressure level for all new developments whenever feasible."
"It is usually possible to express the relationship between noise levels and speech intelligibility in a single diagram, based on the following assumptions and empirical observations, and for speaker-to-listener distance of about 1 m:
a. Speech in relaxed conversation is 100% intelligible in background noise levels of about 35 dBA, and can be understood fairly well in background levels of 45 dBA.
b. Speech with more vocal effort can be understood when the background sound pressure level is about 65 dBA.
…
Speech signal perception is of paramount importance, for example, in classrooms or conference rooms. To ensure any speech communication, the signal-to-noise relationship should exceed zero dB. But when listening to complicated messages (at school, listening to foreign languages, telephone conversation) the signal-to-noise ratio should be at least 15 dB. With a voice level of 50 dBA (at 1 m distance this corresponds on average to a casual voice level in both women and men), the background level should not exceed 35 dBA. This means that in classrooms, for example, one should strive for as low background levels as possible. This is particularly true when listeners with impaired hearing are involved, for example, in homes for the elderly."
"In the following, guideline values are summarized with regard to specific environments and effects. For each environment and situation, the guideline values take into consideration the identified health effects and are set, based on the lowest levels of noise that affect health (critical health effect). Guideline values typically correspond to the lowest effect level for general populations, such as those for indoor speech intelligibility. By contrast, guideline values for annoyance have been set at 50 or 55 dBA, representing daytime levels below which a majority of the adult population will be protected from becoming moderately or seriously annoyed, respectively."
"The annoyance response to noise is affected by several factors, including the equivalent sound pressure level and the highest sound pressure level of the noise, the number of such events, and the time of day. ...
Annoyance to community noise varies with the type of activity producing the noise. Speech communication, relaxation, listening to radio and TV are all examples of noise-producing activities. During the daytime, few people are seriously annoyed by activities with LAeq levels below 55 dB; or moderately annoyed with LAeq levels below 50 dB."
"When listening to complicated messages (at school, foreign languages, telephone conversation) the signal-to-noise ratio should be at least 15 dB with a voice level of 50 dB(A). This sound level corresponds on average to a casual voice level in both women and men at 1 m distance. Consequently, for clear speech perception the background noise level should not exceed 35 dB(A). In classrooms or conference rooms, where speech perception is of paramount importance, or for sensitive groups, background noise levels should be as low as possible."
And -
"The capacity of a noise to induce annoyance depends upon its physical characteristics, including the sound pressure level, spectral characteristics and variations of these properties with time. During daytime, few people are highly annoyed at LAeq levels below 55 dB(A), and few are moderately annoyed at LAeq levels below 50 dB(A)."
BS8233:2014 guidance
"Where development is considered necessary or desirable, despite external noise levels above WHO guidelines, the internal target levels may be relaxed by up to 5 dB and reasonable internal conditions still achieved."
"For traditional external areas that are used for amenity space, such as gardens and patios, it is desirable that the external noise level does not exceed 50 dB LAeq,T, with an upper guideline value of 55 dB LAeq,T which would be acceptable in noisier environments. However, it is also recognized that these guideline values are not achievable in all circumstances where development might be desirable. In higher noise areas, such as city centres or urban areas adjoining the strategic transport network, a compromise between elevated noise levels and other factors, such as the convenience of living in these locations or making efficient use of land resources to ensure development needs can be met, might be warranted. In such a situation, development should be designed to achieve the lowest practicable levels in these external amenity spaces, but should not be prohibited."
Consideration of Ground 1
"The BS expressly allows for relaxing internal target levels by up to 5dBA where development is considered desirable. The changes to the GPDO to allow school use underline the importance and desirability of such development."
"During the daytime, few people are seriously annoyed by activities with LAeq levels below 55 dB; or moderately annoyed with LAeq levels below 50 dB."
Ground 2 – failure to apply para. 123 NPPF properly
Grounds 3 and 4 – irrationality and reasons
Conclusions
Note 1 This is the equivalent continuous sound level - the sound level of a notionally steady sound having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified measurement period (T). It is “A-weighted” which measures decibels on a sound level meter incorporating a frequency weighting which differentiates between sounds of different frequency (pitch) in a similar way to the human ear. Mr William’s Skeleton usefully reproduced a glossary of noise terminology from the now cancelled PPG24. [Back]