Introduction
Noise nuisance is a particularly contentious issue in that the ways in which it affects people’s lives, whilst not up for debate, are wide ranging and so much is open to interpretation.
However, there is a wealth of case studies and tools and powers that help practitioners move progressively towards a solution.
In this blog, we will discuss how we can decide if a noise complaint constitutes as noise nuisance and highlight the different challenges faced by practitioners when dealing with these cases.
What is noise nuisance?
There is no definition in statute of exactly what noise nuisance is, however, to be considered a ‘nuisance’, the overriding requirement is the detriment to the reporters/victim’s quality of life. The key question is, exactly how is this noise having an impact on their daily life?
The lack of a refined definition can be seen in a negative and positive way. What this does though, is allow for a somewhat case by case basis when considering managing the reported incidents.
What should we consider when deciding if a noise complaint constitutes as nuisance?
Below are some things to consider when deciding if a noise complaint would be classed as a nuisance and therefore anti-social behaviour.
The noise must interrupt the individual’s enjoyment of living in their accommodation. For example, it may prevent them from sleeping, reading or spending some time relaxing.
The louder the noise, the more likely it is to be considered a nuisance.
The greater the duration, the more likely it is to be considered a nuisance.
The more frequent the noise, the more likely it is to be a nuisance.
Noise can be at any time of the day or night and not only in defined times of daylight through to nighttime. Generally speaking, with the exception of night workers, where the opposite may be true, nighttime noise has the potential to impact on the wider population of the area in question.
If the noise, for example, is particularly irritating in terms of pitch or resonance, the more likely it is to be considered a nuisance.
If a victim lives in a particularly quiet (for example, rural area) the more of a potential impact that noise will have.
Some people have a heightened sensitivity to noise, and this may well create an issue if the victim is reporting an impact on their health based on this hypersensitivity to the noise in question.
If the victim has vulnerabilities, then many types of anti-social behaviour will potentially create a greater impact for them. If they are elderly and live on their own, for example, the impact of the noise is likely to be greater on them than a person without these vulnerabilities.
As practitioners, we all want our communities to be able to live their lives in relative freedom and confidence, not being impacted or having to experience any kind of anti-social behaviour. The sad fact is that, with thousands of reports of ASB last year, many do.
A significant number of the reports received by local authorities and police includes noise related incidents, some are reported as entirely a noise issue whilst others have noise woven within them, for example, a domestic argument next door, music may be playing loudly, a pet dog may also be barking incessantly. All this adding to the harassment, alarm or distress felt by the victim who may not be able to stand it any longer.
The impact on the victims of prolonged noise issues cannot be underestimated and can often grossly affect their daily lives in a variety of ways including sleeping, being able to work, to look after their children and can cause a variety of mental and physical conditions.
What challenges may practitioners face?
Whilst wanting to achieve the best outcomes for our victims and the community, we also have to ensure that we are using our tools and powers to the best of their legal capability and relevance.
Below are some of the common challenges faced by practitioners when dealing with noise nuisance cases.
It may be that initially the evidence gathering part of the investigation is passed to the victim in the form of diary sheets, where they complete the details of the noise occurrences, the impact on them and the times, dates and duration of the noise.
This in itself, can be laborious for the victim who may well have many other things to do in their daily lives and now has to record the incidents as they happen. Nonetheless, they are a method of demonstrating the need for further investigation.
This may be enough to substantiate the use of initial warning letters to try and nullify the issue at source as soon as possible.
Though it is nonetheless troubling to the victim, we may get reports where the noise is not constant or regular at all. It may be that it comes and goes, different times of the day and night, different days and so on. This represents a difficulty in quantifying the evidence of the impact using devices. In some cases, local councils will permit the recording of noise as an accompaniment to diary sheets to further embellish and some would say, perhaps more viably demonstrate the impact potential on the victim and if particularly loud or disruptive, the wider community.
In some cases, the noise reported is of a domestic appliance nature, so a washing machine or a television being perceived to be very loud in a neighbouring property. This, although reported as unacceptable by the victim, is in all probability nothing that the enforcement officer or practitioner can do anything legally about and would be classed as general living noise.
If it is acceptable to the victim, then a polite call to the property where the noise is emanating from may be possible, particularly when the domestic noises are occurring late at night or in the early hours, but this may of course enflame the situation.
Whilst some local authorities can use evidence from attending council officers, it is usually the case that a trained and qualified noise abatement officer will attend and gather evidence using approved equipment in the vicinity of the reported noise nuisance.
However, this is often done after a period of letter dropping to residents including the residents in the property alleged to be making the noise. This then potentially alerts them to the presence of monitoring equipment and to the originator of the complaint. This raises the possibility of no noise being gathered during the next few weeks and also of repercussions being suffered by the victim, being blamed for bringing the complaint in the first place.
Initially brought in as an environmental tool, the use of community protection warnings and notices would seem to fit very well in terms of tools in noise cases.
Of course, this is a serious measure, and this would be as part of the recognised stepped approach when investigating any complaint of ASB and we would recommend attempting to use other means of resolution. Initially the unacceptable and warning letters should be issued to try and quell the issue and if these fail, then this further qualifies the consideration of more powerful tools in that it shows a consistent course of conduct and refusal to stop acting in an anti-social manner.
Real life case study example
The problem
Two properties in a very isolated hamlet in the East midlands.
One property had a small holding with some sheep in an adjoining field. The property had a bungalow and a number of outbuildings in the grounds which encircled the home. They also had paddocks and ran a horse-riding school which was also being impacted as riders and horses were being frightened by the dogs. They had a small dog.
The neighbouring property had a number of small outbuildings, a large house and several caravans in the extensive grounds which bordered the bungalow next door on several sides. It had a large gate that bordered the highway where a sharp bend often caused traffic to slow down considerably to allow for any oncoming traffic. The area is very beautiful and is often used by hikers and ramblers enjoying the picturesque scenery. It also has several farming families which account for the large amount of arable land and very sparce population.
Reports started being made to the police of persistent noise nuisance, coming from dogs (animal nuisance) and from inconsiderate use of machinery, one of the inhabitants of the property with caravans working on them often during the night.
This was disturbing the victims sleep (they were recovering from cancer treatment at home) and they initially tried to resolve the issue by talking to the neighbour who initially complied with their requests but after a short while reverted to their anti-social behaviour.
After several weeks enduring this and now having to additionally deal with six dog relentlessly barking day and night, they rang and emailed the police and council for help.
I rang and spoke with the victim and made arrangements to visit them with my ASB local authority counterpart, we took our own notes and received notes and records that the victim had made themselves. This included video footage where there was a good standard of evidence demonstrating the high level both of machinery noise and dogs barking often very late at night and very early in the morning. It was clear that the main protagonist was the neighbouring property.
Actions taken
We attempted to do a joint visit and although there was clearly someone in, they would not answer the door to knocking so a letter was delivered by hand (and recorded whilst doing so) requesting contact.
Several days passed with no response and all through this time, calls were still being made by the victim who’s health was by now being grossly affected by the ongoing incidents. In one call, the neighbours dogs (all very large dogs including several Alsatians) had escaped from their pound and entered the victims grounds, killing several sheep and biting her pet dog. In another incident the dogs had ran out into the road causing a passing combine harvester to swerve and hit a tree.
We maintained contact with the victim and also did a joint visit to the landlord of the offending property, taking copies of photographs and recordings made by the victim to demonstrate the impact the noise was having. The landlord agreed to visit their tenants and we sent a warning letter, but this only seemed to make the behaviour worse, the dogs barking now went on almost without a break in the day and now the victim reported she felt as if she was having a mental health breakdown and had gone to her GP.
After a further week of incidents and there being no accordance with the warning letter, another joint visit was conducted both to the victim and the offending property where we issued a CPN warning letter to one of the residents, who by now was also being dealt with for several environmental issues as well as the Dangerous Dog Act.
Unfortunately, the behaviour carried on and was accompanied by fly tipping and vehicles from the same property being left out on the highway on the sharp bend causing a hazard to all other road users.
Because of this a decision was made to issue a CPN full notice which was done in person, the reasons for the full notice were explained to the recipient.
However, the behaviour still persisted, the CPN was breached on two separate occasions and so a decision was made to report the offender for the breaches and this went to Magistrates Court where all matters, including the fly tipping, the CPN breaches and the dangerous dogs offences were dealt with simultaneously resulting in a fine, a ban on keeping animals and a further fine for fly tipping.
The offender and her partner moved from the area shortly after the prosecution.
Conclusion
The case study above is just one of many. It exemplifies that noise nuisance can often involve other elements of anti-social behaviour alongside it.
As populations increase and with the advent of more established communities it is obviously possible that reports of noise disturbance will increase, it is equally true that with the right approach, community cohesion and resource, those problems may be effectively targeted and reduced, helping individual victims and communities to carry on with their daily lives.