OVER 30 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL ACOUSTICS CONSULTANCY

This guidance document was published jointly by Association of Noise Consultants (ANC), the Institute of Acoustics (IOA) and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) in May 2017.  The foreword of the document states:

​

"This Professional Practice Guidance on Planning and Noise (ProPG) has been produced to provide practitioners with guidance on a recommended approach to the management of noise within the planning system in England."

 

"The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages improved standards of design. The CIEH, IOA and the ANC have worked together to produce this guidance which encourages better acoustic design for new residential development and aims to protect people from the harmful effects of noise."

​

"Good acoustic design is about more than the numbers. It is a holistic design process that creates places that are both comfortable and attractive to live in, where acoustics is considered integral to the living environment."

​

"Good acoustic design can involve, for example, careful site layouts and better orientation of rooms within dwellings.  Good acoustic design does not mean “gold plating” or significantly increasing costs. This guidance seeks to encourage and promote design outcomes that are proportionate and reasonable in the particular circumstances of each development site.”

​

To these ends, Chapter 2 the document sets out a recommended approach for new residential development, which includes two sequential stages in the overall approach, which are:

​

• Stage 1 - an initial noise risk assessment of the proposed development site; and
   

• Stage 2 - the systematic consideration of four key elements in the site layout and design process.

​

The noise risk assessment of Stage 1 is to “provide an indication of the likely risk of adverse effects from noise were no subsequent mitigation to be included as part of the development proposal.  It should indicate whether the proposed site is considered to pose a negligible, low, medium or high risk from a noise perspective.  The document provides guidance on this assessment in graphical form in Figure 1.

​

The four elements of Stage 2 (which should be undertaken in parallel) are:

​

• Element 1 – demonstrating a “Good Acoustic Design Process”;
   

• Element 2 – observing internal “Noise Level Guidelines”;
   

• Element 3 – undertaking an “External Amenity Area Noise Assessment”; and
   

• Element 4 – consideration of “Other Relevant Issues”.

​

In this context the document states:

​

“2.5      The approach is underpinned by the preparation and delivery of an “Acoustic Design Statement” (ADS). An ADS for a site assessed as high risk should be more detailed than for a site assessed as low risk.  An ADS should not be necessary for a site assessed as negligible risk."

​

“2.6      Having followed this approach to its end, it is envisaged that noise practitioners will then have a choice of one of four possible recommendations to present to the decision maker.  In simple terms the choice of recommendation is as follows: grant without conditions, grant with conditions, “avoid” or “prevent” (see Section 3).”

​

(Section 3 provides additional information on the four possible recommendations that are to me made by the noise practitioner to the decision maker.)

​

Paragraph 2.12 of the document states:

​

“2.12    It is important that the assessment of noise risk at a proposed residential development site is not the basis for the eventual recommendation to the decision maker.  The recommended approach is intended to give the developer, the noise practitioner, and the decision maker an early indication of the likely initial suitability of the site for new residential development from a noise perspective and the extent of the acoustic issues that would be faced.  Thus, a site considered to be high risk will be recognised as presenting more acoustic challenges than a site considered as low risk.  A site considered as negligible risk is likely to be acceptable from a noise perspective and need not normally be delayed on noise grounds.  A potentially problematical site will be flagged at the earliest possible stage, with an increasing risk indicating the increasing importance of good acoustic design.”

​

Paragraph 2.33 of the document states:

​

“2.33    It should be noted that the acoustic performance of the building envelope will be reduced in the event windows are opened for ventilation or cooling purposes, typically reducing the insulation to no more than 10 to 15 dB(A).  Most residents value the ability to open windows at will, for a variety of reasons, and LPAs should therefore normally request that designers principally aim, through the use of good acoustic design, to achieve the internal noise level guidelines in noise-sensitive rooms with windows open.  Where internal noise levels are assessed with windows closed the justification for this should be included in the ADS.”

​

Section 3 sets out four possible recommendations that noise practitioners should make to decision makers, which are:

​

  A.  Planning consent may be granted without any need for noise conditions;

  B.  Planning consent may be granted subject to the inclusion of suitable noise conditions;

  C.  Planning consent should be refused on noise grounds in order to avoid significant adverse effects (“avoid”); or

  D.  Planning consent should be refused on noise grounds in order to prevent unacceptable adverse effects (“prevent”).

​

A summary of the overall ProPG approach is illustrated in Figure 4 of the document.

​

Section 4 of the document deals with the provision of specialist assistance.

​

Appendix A of the ProPG is entitled “Dealing with Noise Events” provides additional information on the consideration of individual noise events such as those arising from transportation sources at night, where sleep disturbance may be an issue.