Consultation outcome

Noise action plans: summary of responses and government response

Updated 2 July 2019

1. Background

1) On 4 October 2018 Defra published a public consultation seeking views on draft Noise Action Plans prepared in line with the requirements of the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as amended, which transpose the Environmental Noise Directive in England. This document provides a summary of the responses to that consultation and the government’s response to the key issues raised.

2) The Environmental Noise Directive (Directive 2002/49/EC) (END) requires, on a five year cycle, the production of strategic noise maps, the presentation of information to the public, the preparation of Action Plans based on the results of the noise mapping, and consultation with the public on the contents of these Action Plans.

3) The draft revised Action Plans, which cover large urban areas (agglomerations¹), roads and railways, are designed to manage environmental noise and its effects, including noise reduction if necessary, and preserve existing areas of quiet. A suite of Noise Action Plans was previously adopted following the second round of strategic noise mapping. These Action Plans included details of the process for identifying Important Areas (noise ‘hotspots’) and the approach for identifying and managing quiet areas in agglomerations.

4) The third round of noise mapping was completed during 2017. The approach proposed for the draft Action Plans was broadly a continuation of the policies set out in the previous Action Plans, with no substantial changes proposed to the way Important Areas are identified and managed, and no changes proposed to the process for identifying Quiet Areas.

5) The consultation asked six questions:

• Question 1: Important Areas are the areas where the population is exposed to the highest levels of noise from road and railway sources. What are your views on the proposed approach for identifying Important Areas?
• Question 2: In your view, how might this approach to Important Areas be improved?
• Question 3: The Roads and Railway Action Plans include summaries of the range of approaches which can currently be taken to manage road and railway noise effectively (see section 6 of the Roads and Railways Plans). In your view, how might these summaries be improved?
• Question 4: If you consider that important aspects have been omitted, could you explain what these are and why you feel they are important?
• Question 5: Are there any further comments you wish to make on the roads and railway or agglomeration Plans?
• Question 6: Do you have any initial views on opportunities which EU exit may present to better address the country’s needs for managing environmental noise?

6) The consultation applied to England only and was open for 6 weeks, closing on 15 November 2018.

7) Further details of the consultation may be found at: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/communications/https-consult-defra-gov-uk-environmentalnoise/

2. Summary of consultation responses and government response

8) The consultation received 30 responses:

• 6 from members of the public and community groups
• 15 from local and public authorities
• 6 from other interested organisations, including the UK Noise Association, Institute of Acoustics, Rockwool, SASIG and the British Standards Institute
• 3 respondents who wished to remain anonymous.

More than one response was received from the same organisation or body in two cases.

9) Where the same points have been raised by respondents under more than one question, we have in some cases responded only under the question where that comment was most prevalent.

3. Section 1 – Important Areas

3.1 Question 1: Important Areas are the areas where the population is exposed to the highest levels of noise from road and railway sources. What are your views on the proposed approach for identifying Important Areas?

10) The consultation outlines the methods that Defra has used to identify Important Areas for investigation and, where appropriate, further mitigation treatment by the relevant local authorities and transport authorities. As established in the previous round of mapping and action planning, Important Areas have been identified in large urban areas or along major transport routes representing the 1% of the population affected by the highest noise levels from roads or railways, according to the results of the strategic noise mapping. While the consultation did not propose significant changes to the way Important Areas are identified or managed, the Round 3 mapping process has identified new Important Areas, a dataset of which is published alongside the Action Plans.

Summary of responses to Question 1

11) The proposed approach to identifying Important Areas was broadly supported by 18 out of 23 respondents who expressed a view.

12) A number of respondents felt that prioritising the 1% of the population affected by the highest noise levels was not sufficiently ambitious, with one respondent suggesting that the top 10% or 15% would be more appropriate. Another respondent, however, acknowledged the need for ‘a balance to be struck between noise management and wider environmental, social and economic considerations, including cost effectiveness’.

13) One respondent to this question felt that absolute values should be used to identify all those affected by noise above certain levels, in line with the World Health Organisation (WHO) approach. However, two others proposed a more qualitative approach, suggesting that noise sensitive buildings including schools and hospitals should be prioritised; or that exposure to noise away from the home – in public places, workplaces, parks and streets – should be given more consideration.

14) One respondent noted that night time noise levels have not been taken into account as part of the process of identifying Important Areas. The same respondent also questioned the choice of cut-off levels below which noise is not considered as problematic.

15) Several respondents called for greater use of actual monitored data in the mapping process, as opposed to the modelled data currently used. It was noted by some respondents that the modelled approach may not in some cases sufficiently take account of existing mitigation measures or topographical features which naturally mitigate noise.

Government response

16) We have carefully analysed all consultation responses and reached the conclusions below.

17) We have retained the proposed approach to identifying Important Areas by focusing on the 1% of the population affected by the highest levels of road and railway noise, as we feel this allows for authorities to prioritise effectively within time and budgetary constraints. We have also retained the approach of focusing on exposure to noise outside residential properties.

18) We do not consider that the widespread use of absolute values to identify excessive noise levels is appropriate, as reactions to noise are time and source dependent. We recognise that people living outside of formally identified Important Areas, or when away from their homes, may still be at risk from high noise levels, and consideration should be given to prioritising other areas where appropriate. Such decisions are best made at a local level. Paragraph 8.8 of both the Draft Noise Action Plan for Roads and the Draft Noise Action Plan for Railways note that there may be situations where the relevant authority considers that an additional location, not identified through this process, should be added to the list of Important Areas. In this case, the process allows for the authorities to identify them as such. We have amended the Action Plans to make this more explicit.

19) We intend to consider whether the metrics currently used to identify Important Areas could be improved in future. This will would include consideration of any potential for night noise and the impacts of exposure to lower noise levels to be taken into account more effectively.

20) Noise mapping for the purpose of informing these Action Plans was undertaken using computer modelling techniques, based on information such as traffic flow data and vehicle type data. As a result, the mapping data, while meeting the objective of providing reasonable information on the populations exposed to the highest levels of noise, may not present an exact picture of the current situation on the ground. However, Local Authorities may supplement this approach by using additional information in their investigations.

3.2 Question 2: In your view, how might this approach to Important Areas be improved?

Summary of responses to Question 2

21) Some respondents again expressed the view that prioritising the 1% of the population who are affected by the highest noise levels was not sufficiently ambitious, with suggestions for additional measures for the top 5% or 10%. One respondent suggested extending the number of Important Areas to cover all those where a significant adverse impact may be occurring, with the process continuing until all those exposed are investigated to see what measures can be applied to avoid significant effects.

22) However, the approach of targeting the 1% worst affected was supported by one respondent, who acknowledged that committing to mitigate the effects of noise on a larger group would be unmanageable for the relevant authorities within budgetary constraints.

23) The practice of designating a number of Important Areas along a single stretch of road was questioned by one respondent, who felt that some re-examination should be made to determine whether a larger Important Area would be more appropriate, especially where road and traffic conditions and stand-off distances are not significantly different.

Government response

24) As outlined previously, we believe that maintaining a focus on the top 1% of the population most severely affected by noise provides a reasonable approach to prioritisation. This does not preclude the relevant authorities from tackling other areas where significant noise concerns have been identified locally.

25) While the mapping exercise may have identified as Important Areas discrete areas along the same stretch of road, we recognise that the effects of noise will be felt more widely and that it may therefore be appropriate for authorities to take a wider approach to investigating and, where appropriate, mitigating the problem at local level. We have amended the Noise Action Plan for roads to reflect this.

4. Section 2 - Action Plans for Roads, Railways and Agglomerations (large urban areas)

26) The draft Noise Action Plans set out the process for identifying Important Areas and describe the process that will be followed to determine what further measures, if any, might be taken to assist the management of road and rail noise in those areas, in order to assist with the implementation of the government’s policy on noise.

4.1 Question 3: The Roads and Railway Action Plans include summaries of the range of approaches which can currently be taken to manage road and railway noise effectively (see section 6 of the Roads and Railways Plans). In your view, how might these summaries be improved?

Summary of responses to Question 3

27) One respondent suggested that research should be commissioned into the effects of vibration on the human body.

28) Two respondents called for more emphasis within the Action Plans on reducing noise at source rather than mitigating it. One suggested that the range of measures set out in the Action Plans would benefit from being presented as hierarchies, with control at source at the top of the hierarchy as the most effective way of managing noise and its impacts, followed by planning controls, then mitigation between noise and receptor (such as barriers), followed by mitigation at receptor (such as insulation). This response indicated that façade insulation should be a last resort for mitigating noise, and compensation should be removed from this list as it is not a measure which reduces noise or mitigates its impacts, and should therefore not be relied upon. One respondent stated that the summary of approaches should identify government action to control noise such as, quieter tyre technology and encouragement of electric vehicle take-up.

29) Several respondents noted that not all measures will be appropriate, and that some may in fact have adverse or unintended knock-on effects, either aesthetic or practical. Others might be unfeasible or of limited effectiveness. One respondent called for more information to be included on the considerations, constraints and trade-offs associated with measures, in order to improve understanding of the considerations which need to be taken into account when planning interventions.

30) It was noted that numerous measures to control noise at source cited in the Action Plans – such as vehicle standards and train Technical Specification for Interoperability – are currently controlled at national or EU level, and are therefore beyond the powers of local authorities and other relevant authorities to influence.

31) Another area cited for additional attention by respondents was land use planning. One respondent called for the inclusion of a specific sub-section on land use planning in the Noise Action Plan for roads.

32) There were several calls for greater accountability on the part of the relevant authorities, with greater clarity over what actions will be delivered by which party; clear delivery timetables and sanctions or compensatory measures for failing to deliver.

33) Respondents cited additional sources of noise – such as wheel squeal on railways (noted under Question 2), and manhole covers in running lanes within roads – which have not been addressed in the current methodology. Potential mitigating practices – such as speed limits or additional night-time speed limits – and technologies – such as top of rail (TOR) track treatment by friction modifiers – were also suggested.

34) One respondent suggested that the Action Plans could be improved by providing case studies outlining successful interventions, including cost benefit analysis and the results of measures.

Government response

35) The effects of vibration have not been considered for the purposes of the current noise mapping and action planning exercise. END stipulates assessment of A-weighted sound pressure levels and our Action Plans are based on this information.

36) We believe that the Action Plans do give prominence to the importance of reducing noise at source, with all other measures following this. At specific locations a control hierarchy could be advantageous, but this would vary from location to location depending on, for example, traffic mix and flow, local terrain and building layout. A range of measures already exist to control vehicle noise at source, including mandatory EU noise emission standards which apply to all new road vehicles², which will progressively reduce the sound level limits of new vehicles; and a requirement for silencers and exhaust systems to be maintained in good condition³. Nevertheless, we have amended the text to further clarify that managing noise at source should always be considered as a first step in the noise management process.

37) We note that mitigation measures may not always be appropriate or possible. This eventuality is one of the outcomes and actions outlined in the road and rail Action Plans⁴. We have amended the text of the Action Plans to reflect comments on the trade-offs and considerations which must be balanced by the relevant authorities.

38) The suite of current approaches to noise management in the Action Plans for road and railways are intended to be an indicative cross section of approaches, not an exhaustive list. Not all of the approaches referred to are intended to be seen as the responsibility of local authorities. The Action Plans take account of ongoing EU and national initiatives to promote cleaner and quieter transport – for example, in July 2018 the Office for Low Emission Vehicles published its Road to Zero strategy, which includes ongoing support for electric vehicle infrastructure in the UK. Other actions are appropriate at a local level.

39) We acknowledge the importance of sensitive land use planning. The Action Plan for roads makes extensive reference to using the planning system to manage noise effectively. The National Planning Policy Framework states that ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by… preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of… noise pollution’. We have nevertheless amended the Action Plan for roads to strengthen reference to the importance of the planning system to control noise.

40) The roles and responsibilities of the various authorities are clearly set out in the Action Plans. It is not appropriate to stipulate timetables, costs and priorities at a national level – it is for the relevant local and transport authorities to consider this.

41) The potential actions outlined in the Action Plans are intended to be indicative rather than exhaustive. With regard to roads, it is best practice to site manholes outside of running lanes, but manholes built and maintained to the standards set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges minimise excess noise. On the railways, curve squeal at specific locations with curves of small radius can potentially be reduced by the use of rail lubrication and rail-head friction modifiers, and the Noise Action Plan for Railways has been amended to include this point. Train speed has been taken into account in producing the noise maps, but a reduction in speed may not be an effective noise-control technique unless the train moves a lot more slowly.

42) We note the suggestion that case studies would be helpful, and will consider including relevant examples in future documents.

4.2 Question 4: If you consider that important aspects have been omitted, could you explain what these are and why you feel they are important?

Summary of responses to Question 4

43) Numerous respondents suggested that there should be additional emphasis on addressing noise issues by reducing or restricting road and rail traffic or limiting the noise emitted by encouraging quieter vehicles. Suggestions of areas for further consideration included encouraging active travel (walking and cycling) and public transport; access restrictions in towns; speed limits; stipulating quieter tyre technology and electric vehicles; electrification of the railways, and restriction on freight train operating hours or train speed restrictions. One respondent suggested there should be some mention of the role of the police in enforcement (for example of non-compliant exhaust systems fitted to high-powered motorcycles or performance cars and in enforcement of road vehicle speeds).

44) Respondents also highlighted the benefits of aligning noise management measures with air quality policy. One respondent suggested that the Action Plans should provide more information on how to focus actions which provide the greatest cross-issue benefits in dealing with noise and air quality issues in tandem. Further respondents noted the dual benefits of reducing speed limits for both air quality and noise management purposes.

45) One respondent questioned the assumptions made about local authorities’ nominations of Quiet Areas – specifically asking why they should be restricted to nominating a small number of areas, and why the areas involved have to be designated Local Green Spaces. The respondent also suggested that the definition should be broadened to allow for ‘tranquil, non-green spaces of the type which are likely to exist in agglomerations’.

46) The same respondent suggested that the concept of soundscape is not sufficiently emphasised in the approach to Quiet Areas, and that a consideration of soundscape implies a more people centric approach than that set out in the Action Plan.

47) One respondent requested guidance on ideal noise levels to which original noise levels should be reduced in mitigation work, noting that ‘proposing mitigation measures that may reduce the noise exposure of a property from > 75dB to 70dB would still leave it as a property that would require further intervention in the future.’

Government response

48) While noise is an inevitable consequence of a mature and vibrant society, we agree that an emphasis on reducing noise at source is appropriate, particularly where measures provide benefits to society on more than one level. Work is under way or being considered in many of these areas – for example, the government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy outlines £1.2 billion investment in order to double levels of cycling by 2025. This investment forms part of the £3.5 billion committed to transport and air quality, and government will be encouraging local authorities to increase investment in cycling and walking infrastructure to 15% of total transport infrastructure spending.

49) On enforcement, DfT has commissioned research into enforcement measures and technologies with the potential to combat excessive noise from road vehicles. Subject to funding approval, Highways England will be participating in a Conference of European Road Directors project to look further into tyre noise, due to start in summer 2019. The government is committed to electrification of railways where it delivers benefits and value for money, but will also take advantage of new technologies such as bi-mode trains with potential to make improvements without as much disruptive engineering work. We have amended the Action Plans to give greater prominence to a range of options for intervention.

50) In some cases, however, interventions may have unwanted effects – for instance, speed limits may have the effect of reducing noise in some areas, but limits on faster roads may result in drivers opting to re-route along more densely populated local roads. While increasing the use of electric cars may help on local roads, on high speed roads the predominant source of noise is tyres, so the move from petrol/diesel engines is unlikely to change noise significantly on the Strategic Road Network. Government supports rail freight growth because of its environmental and societal benefits. For example, each tonne of freight transported by rail reduces carbon emissions by 76 percent compared to HGVs, and reduces congestion on the roads.

51) We recognise the potential health benefits of addressing noise reduction and air quality improvement in tandem. Actions being taken forward in the government’s Clean Air Strategy and local authority air quality plans can have the associated benefit of reducing noise from vehicles. However, in some cases lower speed travel can result in higher pollution levels as the emissions treatment system cannot meet a sufficient temperature to operate. Decisions are therefore better taken at a local level.

52) We acknowledge that there is no need for the Action Plan for agglomerations to specify that local authorities should nominate only a small number of spaces as Quiet Areas, provided the nominated Areas meet the criteria set out in Annex A to the Plan. We have amended the Noise Action Plan for agglomerations accordingly. Quiet Area nominations can be made for designated Metropolitan Open Land, in addition to Local Green Spaces. This point is already noted in the Action Plan.

53) The concept of soundscape is referred to in the Action Plan for agglomerations as a potentially helpful approach. We consider that decisions on whether and how to use this approach are best taken at local level.

54) Current legislation does not stipulate the levels to which noise should be reduced through mitigation measures. It is for the relevant authorities to agree an appropriate course of action at a local level.

4.3 Question 5: Are there any further comments you wish to make on the road, railway or agglomeration Plans?

Summary of responses to Question 5

55) Several respondents again called for increased accountability and transparency on the part of the relevant authorities, including sanctions or compensatory measures if improvements are not delivered. One respondent suggested that the relevant authority should have a responsibility to publish its plans for each area by a set deadline. There were further suggestions that timescales should be set for proposed mitigation measures. However, numerous respondents noted the pressures on local authority budgets, and suggested dedicated resources are needed for improvement work to be taken forward. There were calls for Defra to act as an independent adjudicator on the viability of mitigation work, including cost benefit analysis.

56) One respondent suggested that the use of Community Protection Notices, in appropriate circumstances, pursuant to the provisions of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, could be mentioned in the Action Plans in relation to the management of noise from industrial sources.

57) Another respondent suggested a mandatory requirement for the proposer of a Quiet Area to enter into dialogue with parties responsible for nearby noise.

58) One response observed that in deferring to DfT’s Aviation Strategy, this consultation could be supporting an unsustainable increase in flights over London.

59) A respondent noted that many actions are dependent on national decision making and beyond the powers of local authorities. The introduction of low noise road surfaces is noted as one of the local actions which can be taken, although this is likely to be best implemented through Local Transport Plans, and for best effect on larger stretches of road than covered by individual Important Areas.

60) A respondent questioned the building standards embodied in BS8233, which resulted in some cases in dwellings with high exposure to noise.

Government response

61) Prioritisation and scheduling of noise management measures is a decision for the relevant authorities within the local context. It would not be appropriate to set specific deadlines for publishing noise management plans or implementing noise management measures centrally; nor would it be appropriate for Defra to decide on the viability of local noise management actions.

62) The Noise Action Plan for Agglomerations lists the three main regimes used to manage noise from industry:

• development control through land use planning
• control through the Environmental Permitting Regulation process
• control through the use of Statutory Nuisance legislation

While the use of Community Protection Notices may be effective in achieving a temporary resolution, the three regimes cited are better suited to achieving a permanent noise management solution. We have therefore not amended the Action Plan to reflect this point (see number 57 above).

63) We believe that the current process for proposing Quiet Areas, as outlined in the action Plan for Agglomerations, allows sufficient opportunity for engagement between all relevant parties. The criteria for identifying Quiet Areas make clear that applicants are expected to have undertaken meaningful engagement / consultation with local groups and communities. We have extended this to make clear that such consultations should extend to relevant authorities with responsibilities for managing noise. The process aims to preserve existing quiet or relatively quiet areas rather than aiming to reduce or eliminate noise from areas currently affected by noise.

64) DfT’s Green Paper Aviation 2050 – the future of UK aviation was published in December 2018, with a consultation running to June 2019, and publication of a final aviation strategy planned for later in 2019. The Strategy focuses on developing a partnership for sustainable growth which meets rising passenger demand, balanced with action to reduce environmental and community impacts. The government is supporting the industry to deliver airspace modernisation and has also established a new Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise but the strategy stresses that efforts to reduce and manage noise impacts must continue.

65) Effective noise management is dependent upon a range of activities at both national and local level. We have amended the Action Plan for Roads to mention the opportunity of using Local Transport Plans to tackle noise.

66) Building standards are beyond the scope of this consultation.

5. Section 3 – Long term strategy for environmental noise management

5.1 Question 6: As explained in the Long Term Strategy sections of the Roads and Railways Plans, the government plans to engage separately with stakeholders on long-term priorities for noise management in England and options for addressing them. Do you have any initial views on opportunities which EU exit may present to better address the country’s needs for managing environmental noise?

67) The government recognises the importance of ensuring that noise is managed effectively, and following publication of the 25 Year Environment Plan in January 2018, plans to engage separately with stakeholders on long-term priorities for noise management in England and options for addressing them. The opportunities presented by EU exit will be a key part of these considerations going forward. The government will work closely with stakeholders to ensure that our future approach to managing environmental noise in England best addresses the country’s needs.

Summary of responses to Question 6

68) This question was met with a mixture of responses. Some respondents noted that leaving the EU could allow more opportunities for the government to put in place an effective policy on noise reduction. Numerous others, however, felt that sufficient opportunity is available to manage noise effectively within the current EU context, and that EU exit could actually weaken the UK’s response to noise. One respondent expressed concern that damage to the economy following EU exit could lead to scrapping of existing noise protection. Other respondents questioned the lack of prominence given to noise in existing environmental strategies, including the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan, and the lack of emphasis on the effects of noise on biodiversity.

69) One respondent suggested that the responsibility for approach of Quiet Areas should in future be devolved to local government level.

70) A respondent noted that the WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, updated in October 2018, set standards for noise management which go beyond current guidelines.

Government response

71) We welcome the positive engagement with this question from respondents. The government is committed to maintaining strong environmental controls after EU exit, including in relation to noise management. The government’s 25 Year Environment Plan, which recognises noise as a significant issue, is intended to be a living document with further iterations outlining future approaches following EU exit. As part of that process we will be engaging closely with stakeholders to discuss how we can effectively manage noise in ways which best address the country’s needs. Our Action Plans are based on A-weighted sound pressure levels, which focus on the effects of noise on humans. This is something which may be reconsidered in future approaches to noise management.

72) We will consider how best to develop policy in relation to preservation of quiet and tranquil areas following EU exit.

73) The government welcomes the WHO’s focus on the important issue of noise management and is currently considering the revised Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region and their implications for future policy. We are giving careful consideration to the supporting evidence base and other relevant recent research with a view to producing any necessary updates to relevant UK noise pollution guidelines.

6. Other responses

74) In addition to answering the consultation questions, respondents raised a number of wider points. These were outside the direct scope of the questions and related to noise management policy and procedures more generally. These points, and the government’s response, are summarised below.

6.1 Factual amendments

75) One respondent noted that point 6.16 of the Action Plan for railways states that promoters must offer secondary glazing when the scheme comprises altered works. The Regulations state that the promoter has a power, rather than a duty to offer noise insulation.

Government response

76) We would like to thank the respondent for highlighting a factual inaccuracy. This has been corrected in the final version of the Action Plan.

6.2 General comments

Noise Action Plan Support Tool

77) One respondent noted that since the dedicated Noise Action Plan Support Tool (NAPST) was discontinued in 2016, the information flow between local authorities, District Councils, and relevant transport authorities about their actions on noise has been interrupted, making it more difficult to make information readily available to the public. Another noted that accessing datasets has been more difficult since NAPST was discontinued.

Government response

78) At the time the Round 2 Action Plans were published, NAPST was intended to be used to facilitate communication on Important Areas between Defra and the relevant noise making and noise receiving authority or authorities. In practice, however, only a very small number of authorities used it for this purpose. Since then, as part of Defra’s Open Data initiative, the datasets identifying the Important Areas have been made available online. This made the NAPST largely redundant and it was closed in March 2016.

79) We believe that the Action Plans state sufficiently clearly that:

• DfT, the railway industry and relevant highway authority should liaise with the relevant local authorities as appropriate about progress in addressing Important Areas and the outcomes achieved. This liaison should cover information about the proposed schedule of investigation, and implementation of possible actions, and
• DfT, the railway industry and the relevant highway authority should, at the appropriate time, liaise with those members of the public who are likely to be most affected by any proposed new noise management proposal.

Aviation

80) One respondent’s reply focused on aviation noise and airport noise action planning. While some of this response is outside the scope of the current consultation, we have considered this contribution.

81) The respondent asked for Defra to elaborate on how it will assess nominated Quiet Areas against the criteria outlined in Annex A of the Noise Action Plan for Agglomerations.

82) The respondent also noted the omission of a figure referenced in the Action Plan for Agglomerations outlining the steps Defra will take in the process of assessing Quiet Area applications.

83) The respondent also raised the question of whether Quiet Areas are viable near airports, if future airspace change could mean that the area is overflown at a later date. They expressed the opinion that airport Noise Action Plans should define clear objectives and targets, and procedures for monitoring performance against those objectives and making that information public, with the prospect of enforcement where plans are not being met.

Government response

84) We consider that within the Action Plan for Agglomerations, “Annex A: Identification of Environmental Noise Directive Quiet Areas: criteria” provides sufficient information to allow a structured but flexible approach to designating Quiet Areas.

85) We thank the respondent for highlighting the omission of Figure 1 in the draft Action Plan for agglomerations. This has now been amended.

86) We agree that aviation noise is an issue which needs careful consideration in developing and assessing applications for Quiet Area status. The process for identifying Quiet Areas requires current and planned aircraft noise in the area to be taken into account. Civil Aviation Authority airspace change policy states that Quiet Areas should be considered when thinking about airspace change.

87) In drafting their Noise Action plans, airport operators are required to identify problems and situations which need to be improved, and set out any noise reduction measures already in force and any projects in preparation as well as the actions which they intend to take in the next five years. Defra and DfT jointly review the submitted Action Plans to check that these requirements are met. If an Action Plan fails to meet the requirements, Part 6 of the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 (as amended) allows for the Secretary of State to amend or reject the plan, in the latter case notifying the airport of why the plan was not adopted and setting a date by which a revised plan must be resubmitted.

Mapping quiet areas

88) One respondent suggested that Quiet Areas should be mapped to highlight areas at risk from noise creep or gaps in provision of Quiet Areas near where significant numbers of people are exposed to high levels of noise.

Government response

89) To date, no applications to create formally designated Quiet Areas have been submitted in England. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has produced a Tranquillity Map showing quiet places in England more generally.

7. Conclusion and next steps

90) We would like to thank respondents for their comments on the draft Noise Action Plans. We have implemented a number of textual changes based on the responses to the consultation and are publishing the final Action Plans, which apply to England only, alongside this document. Summaries of the Action Plans were reported to the European Commission in January 2019 in line with the reporting timetable specified in the Environmental Noise Directive. The Action Plans are published on the Gov.uk website and will be implemented following the process described. Data derived from the Round 3 noise mapping has also been published alongside the Action Plans. In line with the terms of the Environmental Noise Directive and the Regulations, the Action Plans will be valid for a five year period from the date of their adoption. The Action Plans shall be reviewed, and revised if necessary, when a major development occurs affecting the existing noise situation, and at least every five years after the date of their approval. To comply with the Regulations Defra will also keep the identification of Quiet Areas under review and make revisions where considered appropriate.

91) On 23 June 2016, the EU referendum took place and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. The outcome of these negotiations will determine what arrangements apply in relation to EU legislation in future once the UK has left the EU.

8. List of respondents

Members of the public and community groups (x6)

8.1 Local/public authorities:

• Adur and Worthing Council
• Blaby District Council
• Borough of Eastleigh
• Borough of Havering (London)
• Borough of Redcar and Cleveland
• Borough of Southwark (London)
• Eastleigh District Council
• Kirklees District Council
• Manchester City Council
• Peterborough City Council
• Shropshire District Council
• Thurrock Council
• Westminster City Council
• West Sussex County Council

8.2 Transport authorities

• TfL/GLA

8.3 Other interested organisations

• British Standards Institution
• Institute of Acoustics
• Rockwool UK
• Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group
• UK Noise Association

Three respondents wished to remain anonymous.

1. An agglomeration is an urban area with a population in excess of 100,000 persons and a population density equal to or greater than 500 people per km2 ↩

2. EU Regulation No 540/2014 ↩

3. Regulation 54, Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 ↩

4. Section 8.15 of the Draft Noise Action plan: Roads and Section 8.16 of the Draft Noise Action Plan: Railways ↩