Noise and nuisance


This cross-cutting theme is now closed for comments.

You can read comments made since the start of the Red Tape Challenge in April 2011 below.

You can also still submit comments to the Red Tape Challenge inbox by clicking here.

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.

Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006

SI transposing the EU Environmental Noise Directive into English Regulation

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Environmental Noise (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

Amendment of Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Environmental Noise (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2009

Amendment of Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Environmental Noise (England) (Amendment) Regulations  2010

Amendment of Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Street Litter Control Notices (England)(Amendment) Order 2007

Amends legislation to allow litter control notices to be served on premises used wholly or partly for the sale of food or drink for consumption on the premises

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No4) (England) Order 2007

Commencement Order for parent Act

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No 2, Transitional Provisions and Savings) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2006

Commencement Order for parent Act

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No 2, Transitional Provisions and Savings) (England and Wales) Order 2005

Commencement Order for parent Act

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No 3) (England) Order 2006

Commencement Order for parent Act

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No 4) Order 2006

Commencement Order for parent Act

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No.1 Transitional and Savings Provisions) (England) Order 2006

Commencement Order for parent Act

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No.2) (England) Order 2006

Commencement Order for parent Act

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Environmental Offences (Use of Fixed Penalty Receipts) Regulations 2006

Sets out circumstances when functions of an authority are “qualifying functions” for the purposes of which it may use its fixed penalty receipts – REVOKED BY SUBSEQUENT REGULATION

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Dog Fouling (Fixed Penalty) (England) Order 2002

Set rate for level of fixed penalty fine for dog fouling – REVOKED BY SUBSEQUENT REGULATION

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Litter (Fixed Penalty) (England) Order 2002

Set rate for level of fixed penalty fine for littering – REVOKED BY SUBSEQUENT REGULATION

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

The Litter (Fixed Penalty Notices) Order 1991 and the Dog Fouling (Fixed Penalties) Order 1996 (Revocation) (England) Order 2005

Revokes Orders prescribing the form of the fixed penalty notices

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc) Regulations 2006

Provides offences and penalties for any dog control orders made under parent Act.

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Environmental Offences (Fixed Penalties)(Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2006

Sets rates for level of fixed penalty fines for a range of offences including littering

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Environmental Offences (Use of Fixed Penalty Receipts) Regulations 2007

Sets out circumstances when functions of an authority are “qualifying functions” for the purposes of which it may use its fixed penalty receipts

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Dog Control (Procedures) Regulations 2006

Explains the procedure under which dog control orders must be made.

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Controls on Dogs (Non-application to Designated Land) Order 2009

This order designates land that dog control orders cannot be made; and revokes and replaces the Controls of Dogs (Non-application of Designated Land) Order 2006.

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Environmental Noise (Identification of Noise Sources) (England) Regulations 2007

These Regulations identify the Noise Sources that needed to be mapped for the First Round of Mapping.

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Environmental Protection Act 1990 sections 79 and 80

Place a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to investigates complaints regarding potential nuisances (noise, dust, odours etc.) and issue an abatement notice when they are satisfied that a nuisance exists or likely to occur or recur.

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 sections 101 and 102

Add insects and artificial light (with some exceptions) to the list of potential sources of nuisance (as listed in Environment Protection Act 1990)

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

Control of Pollution Act 1974 sections 63 to 67

Giver local authorities the power to, and set out how to, implement Noise Abatement Zones in which noise is closely controlled.

 UK regulation

Read More… (opens in a new window)

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

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

121 responses to Noise and nuisance

  • Ken Patrick said on September 21, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    It is time to do something about the noise levels from motorcycles. The blatant/misuse of track only ‘cans’ and big bore exhausts on cars is getting way out of hand. Sundays where I live are accompanied by the all-day chorus of screaming motorcycle exhausts, boom of big bore exhausts and the boom chukka boom of the max’d out bass of a cars ICE system.

    Comment Tags: Car, ICE, Motorcycle, noise, Nusiance

  • Nick Marks said on September 21, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    On a purely legal basis, looking at the Regulations under consideration, they fall into two categories: EU Regulations and UK Regulations. Given that the EU Regulations are part of the responsibility of the UK government to implement as part of its responsibilities as a member state, it would appear that we could not opt out of EU regulations (even if we wanted to) without leaving the EU. I believe that many of the UK regulations also derive from this source.

    With respect to noise, removing the duty of a local authority to investigate under S79 & 80 would be unpopular with the public given the levels of domestic noise complaints. As for S101 & 2 which introduced insects and light as statutory nuisance issues, this was done following public pressure as there was no previous remedy in law for these nuisances.

    Comment Tags: noise

  • Liam Meanwell said on September 19, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    I would give the powers to deal with noise complaints back to the police instead of a local council. The council aren’t much help at 2 in the morning when you are being kept up and my council (Waverley borough council) haven’t followed up on any out-of-hours complaints.

    Comment Tags: council, noise, police

  • Kyle Marriott said on September 19, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Clear measurement based legislative definition regarding limits, rather than the current subjective definition.

    Tighter controls over property development near to pre-existing venues to prevent long established businesses being forced to close through no fault of their own.

    Currently many venues in and around the north west have been put into difficult situations due to new build flats cropping up within a few hundred metres of their doors, seemingly built with absolutely no regard for sound proofing or prevention of noise bleed.

    Also I second the comments regarding a specific qualification being required for noise abatement officials to operate. I myself have dealt with officers on multiple occasions who do not even have a meter on their person, and refused to work with my staff’s own on-site metering equipment to reach a happy medium that would allow the event to continue whilst minimising disturbance to locals.

  • Mike Sealey said on September 19, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    I have lost significant work because of noise abatement orders imposed upon music venues, through complaints from residents who moved in AFTER the premises began operating as a live music venue.

    Would I be offered the same sympathy if I moved in next door to Gatwick airport and complained of noise?

    I believe noise abatement orders should be more transparrent. I believe the complainer must publicly state the disturbance, allowing the cause of the problem to offer a solution. I also believe that in the case of music or entertainment venues, anyone who wishes to make a complaint should only be allowed to do so if they have been living in the area for longer than the cause of the disturbance has been operating. Finally, anyone who wishes to work on behalf of the council should have a qualification recognised among industry professionals. I have dealt with an employee of the council working in Environmental Health who was not aware of the existance of multiple scales of weighting on audio-measurements. Such school-boy errors are not acceptable for someone who has the power to shut down businesses.

  • June Rovai said on August 9, 2011 at 9:22 am

    Legislation on noise nuisance could be simplified but at the same time made more stringetn and easier to enforce. We constantly hear what is being done to alleviate/deal with noise nuisance in social housing but nothing is heard about trying to improve the life of those in privately owned property who suffer from constant noise nuisance from neighbours. Enforcement appears to be almost impossible especially when there is often a lack of will on the part of local Environmental Health Officers.

Bookmark and Share