Remove Red Tape

Noise and nuisance

These regulations aim to limit the impacts from noise, other nuisances such as litter and dog fouling; and reduce the effects of noise from roads, railways and airports. In some cases the regulations include provisions to issue fixed penalty notices, and require authorities to conduct reasonable investigations.

You can find all 25 regulations that relate to noise and nuisance below to the left.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

For example parts of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are largely unused, perhaps you think they can be scrapped.

120 comments on “Noise and nuisance”

1. A Wilson on October 8, 2012 at 12:25 pm said:

   Litter, dog fouling and fly tipping blight almost every corner of Britain. Council’s across the country recieve thousands of complaints from members of the public every year on the issues. The Council needs the powers to deal with the issues. Any watering down of these powers would be ridiculous!!!!!! Council’s need more powers to deal with the unscruplious idividuals not less. There is no burden applied onto businesses from dog fouling legislation and whilst litter control orders do require businesses to act responsibly and clean up after themselves reponsible businesses have nothing to fear.

   Reply ↓
2. Jay Sherry on September 13, 2012 at 11:30 am said:

   Agreeing with other commenters on this issue, I agree that noise pollution regulations should, at the very least, reamin the same, not curtailed. My two main concerns in this area include noise pollution emanating from vehicles without an appropriate muffler/silencer. Mopeds, scooters and some motorcycles seem to be at the root of this problem. I agree with other commenters that measuring decibel levels from all motor vehicles should be a part of the MOT inspection process, and defining a clear decibel level that would be acceptable for those vehicles. Citations should be issued (PCNs) to those who are not in compliance; perhaps a £500 penalty would be an incentive to comply. Secondly, sirens from emergency vehicles is another problem. These are simply overused. After the emergnecy services changed their sirens to “American” ones, many drivers of these vehicles leave them blaring whilst driving, without any need for them (i.e. there are no pedestrians, cyclists or vehicles in the area to warrant their use, and their lack of use would not compromise safety). In other countries, and congested metropolitan areas, drivers of such vehicles use them at brief intervals to alert others of their presence, yet still can manoevre around hazards safely en route to the emergency without blaring them continuously. In addition, the decibel level of UK sirens seems to be higher than other jurisdictions. If one does not already exist, a regulation (or a revision of a current one) needs to outline a decreased decibel level (but not too low as to compromise safety), and the location of the speakers on the vehicle itself (preferably on the front bumper of the vehicle, as to minimise noise pollution (this is done in the US)).Comment Tags: Road noise sirens

   Reply ↓
3. C. McLeod on June 25, 2012 at 12:14 pm said:

   By all means simplify the law by consolidating the numerous regulations and amendments, but on no account weaken it or abolish offences!
   When I worked for an environmental agency that carried out surveys of people’s opinions about the environment, consistently the most important environmental concerns highlighted were litter & dog-fouling. They may sound trivial by comparison with global environmental problems, but they really can blight whole neighbourhoods, and councils should be enabled to use whatever means are necessary to identify and prosecute offenders.Comment Tags: dog-fouling; enforcement, litter

   Reply ↓
4. Nicola Read on May 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm said:

   Before agreeing to sale of National Rail disused railways to private companies consider the implications of local communities and residents be given the option to contest any planning permission to change disused railways to heritage railways. The factors that need to be considered are Enviornmental, Noise, Vibration and Diesel Pollution effects on new communities now adjacent to disused lines.Comment Tags: Disused Railway, heritage, noise nuisance, pollution, Railways

   Reply ↓
   • Eric Davis on July 3, 2012 at 12:31 pm said:

     The Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part III, Statutory Nuisances and Clean Air subsection (3) and (7A) provides exemption for railways to comply with the Environmental Protection Act control legislation if they are ‘used as a museum or other place of cultural, scientific or historical interest’ and prevents the control of airborne pollution for ‘smoke emitted from a railway locomotive steam engine’. As such I agree with Nicola Read’s reply comment that the neighbors of land in close proximity to heritage railways must be given protection to avoid being exposed to quality of life and health impacts as a direct result of the un-regulated activities of enthusiast’s activities on heritage and leisure lines that have been introduced into pre-existing residential areas as a result of rail closures and service lines ceasing public transport activities. These changes could not in most cases have been predictable by the public and the introduction of this environmental disturbance and impact on the local population can be dramatic. In the current climate of railways being exempted from the environmental legislation, coupled with the ‘Permitted Developments’ rights that are granted to such rail operators, there is no route for the public to modify the activities of these operations to resolve the matters to tolerable levels. The Local Councils have no ability to investigate or place any form of restraint order, as they have to acknowledge the current loophole that the rail operator has in the form of this current exemption clauses within the Act.Comment Tags: exemption, heritage, Pullution, railway
5. michael godbehere on May 2, 2012 at 10:08 am said:

   I think a noise pollution element should be introduced into the MOT test and it should be the same level for all vehicles wether car, motorbike or HGV. Motorbike noise is far louder than car noise and causes great disturbance on small country lanes. You can here a motobike several miles away while you only here a car a few hundread meters away, motobikes should have to have more noise deadening material on the engine and exhaust.Comment Tags: motorbike noise

   Reply ↓
   • paul davis on August 28, 2012 at 8:16 am said:

     I agree, motorbikes are incredibly noisy, every nice evening in summer is almost ruined by it in my garden
6. Roy Harris on April 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm said:

   fixed penalties should be set nationally by ministers. At present those for litter etc can be set locally at between £50 and £80. Some LAs have increased the levels so they are out of proportion with the magistrates sentencing guidelinbes and police issued fixed penalties. Police FPNs for litter are £50 whereas a council one may be £80, the same as for theft and more than throwing stones at trains.Comment Tags: fixed penalty levels

   Reply ↓
7. MARION GIGLIO on March 23, 2012 at 1:39 pm said:

   the ruling i believe was made because the house of lords thought that ice cream was not a perishable product.
   With the ice cream machines being lfor a liquid mix and has to be used within the day then it is now a perishable product which would be the same for fruit and veg mobilers etc which was the concern years and years ago.
   We now have to take into consideration that people do not congrigate in the streets and have double glazing to add to our problems so we do have to make ourselves heard to make our living. these days.YES ICE CREAM IS A PERISHABLE FOOD AND WE DO NEED TO SELL BEFORE THE DAY IS ENDED AND WE NEED THE EXTRA HOUR AT NIGHT TO SELL THE LAST DROP OF LIQUID ICE CREAMComment Tags: CHIMES REGULATIONS NEED TO BE CHANGED

   Reply ↓
8. Laura Cooke on March 12, 2012 at 1:26 pm said:

   Stricter legislation should be put in place and more enforcing on the streets should be done in the way of littering/dog fouling. There should be a zero tolerance policy on litter and dog fouling especially. It is unhygienic, unsanitary and down right lazy. Community watch schemes should be put in place for littering where repeat offenders can be recorded (photo’s, vehicle registrations) and these people to be prosecuted and forced to do community service – picking up litter/dog faeces.

   Reply ↓
9. Mrs LMC on March 6, 2012 at 9:25 pm said:

   As an environmental health officer with 25 years of experience of working in all aspect of environmental health with an emphasis on nuisance I am constantly amazed that Section 79 and 80 of the EPA provide the only effective route to remedy a series of local harms accross a range of disciplines. These provisions need to be retained and effective enforcement enhanced to protect the basics of public health.Comment Tags: enforcement, Health, nuisance

   Reply ↓
10. chris gillham on February 23, 2012 at 8:23 pm said:

    We desperately need much more legislation to counter the ever increasing noise intrusion in our lives, particularly from road traffic and air traffic. Why should the airlines that ruin people’s lives under their flightpaths not compensate those people? They are massively externalising their costs – consider that someone living in west London might reasonably value the intrusion of a single plane at 1p (i.e. be prepared to pay 1p for every flight that could be avoided by such a payment); consider then that such a flight could well affect 2million people. £20,000 is then the noise externalisation of the flight, suggesting that a typical flight should be exacting perhaps £100 per passenger just to pay for the noise. Why should this externalisation be allowed?

    Reply ↓
11. Angela Pingram on February 21, 2012 at 2:29 pm said:

    Regulations must clearly specify minimum standards and enforce them. Severe penalties must be applied for non-compliance. They must specify best practice to encourage improvement. Perhaps with the offer to earn the right of reduced tax or self-regulation for a short period if company can prove the application of best practice.
    Make it clear on this site which pieces of legislation are no longer used and why.
    Self-regulation would result in a reduction in compliance and must not be implemented.
    Do you think anyone is listening to us?Comment Tags: self-regulation

    Reply ↓
12. Nickie Barnard on February 7, 2012 at 11:55 pm said:

    For starters make the regulations attached to this site reader-friendly.

    Primary impact from road noise locally stems from motor vehicles with inadequate exhaust mufflers, drivers playing radios with excessive volume and malfunctioning vehicle alarms. These may seem trifling but without police intervention they simply proliferate. The local high street becomes a drag racing course on Sundays with motorcyclists popping wheelies and setting off store alarms. Maybe regulations exist but no-one enforces.

    Voluntary codes will NOT work. Along with death and taxes the other thing in life that can be guararteed is that a large number of people will weasel out of clearing up their own mess. And when they can see others who are more affluent and powerful getting away with it then implementation becomes infinitely more difficult. What is needed is not LESS regulation but better IMPLEMENTATION.

    How? ZERO TOLERANCE. And don’t ham-string the people implementing it with reams of butreaucracy.
    Clear rules – clear directions as to what constitutes contravention – clear penalties.

    Reply ↓
13. Mr MJR on January 5, 2012 at 11:56 am said:

    I cannot believe any government serious about protecting the environment would even consider scrapping environmental legislation. I work as an EHO and can tell you from personal experience that 90% of companies do the bare minimum to comply with the current legislation (somewhat understandably in the current climate). If deregulation occurred to be replaced with some sort of self regulation/voluntary code I can assure you that pollution from business would increase exponentially. This in turn would be detrimental to public health and the environment – not exactly green. I can understand the desire to reduce regulatory burden on companies in the current climes but the cost to the public and the environment would be too high. And can i also point out that as an EHO working in the pollution sector I use the Control of Pollution Act 1974 on a daily basis so while its ok to say parts of it are largely unused, the majority of it is used and is extremely valuable, therefore perhaps and amendment to the act maybe in order but this would need to be done with great care and in depth consultation which would cost the taxpayer money which could be better used therefore – leave well enough alone.

    Reply ↓