Evaluation of Processes that Can Reduce Impact of Noise on Housing Occupants - Term Paper Example

Introduction Exposure to environmental noise causes poor mental and physical health as explained by the World Health Organization (1998). Furthermore, it is a source of annoyance and negative reactions from the community. Noise also minimises good quality sleep. Job (1988) came up with an annoyance scale to illustrate the level of annoyance that noise produces among members of the community. He confirmed the relationship between these latter issues. The WHO (1980) explains that sleep restores the mind and body. Anything that comes in the way will cause a number of negative effects. Burns (1973) affirmed this viewpoint. He believed that an individual’s performance in their workplace is reduced drastically because they have an inability to concentrate. Consequently, such persons develop psychological stress which is manifested by frequent outbursts and dissatisfaction. The Department of Environment (1994) explain how sleep disturbances are mainly felt at night rather than during the day. Porter et al (2000) demonstrated the relationship between awakenings and noise from aircrafts. Berglund et al (2000) deduced that frequent use of sleeping pills and higher mental hospital admissions could originate from high levels of noise. Research by Meister and Donatelle (2000) explained how people who are exposed to aircraft noise have higher chances of heart disease and other physical health conditions. Potential sources of environmental noise as a housing hazard A survey conducted by the Greater London Authority highlighted the following sources of environmental noise; Road traffic Trains Industrial operations Aircraft noise Constructions and demolitions Noisy neighbours Clubs and pubs The Dutch Environmental Consultants (2007) did a survey in Europe and found that 50% of European residents are subjected to noise from the transport sector. The group provided links between traffic noise and residents’ health. Over 200,000 cases of heart diseases are as a result of exposure to transport noise and a quarter of these cases result in death. (The Dutch Environmental Consultants, 2007) There is also a lot of money spent on health services due to transport noise. It reached the tune of 40 Billion euros per year. (The Dutch Environmental Consultants, 2007) HUD (2004) realised that the type of construction equipment adversely affect the level of annoyance felt by nearby residents; some equipments and appliances were too noisy. At the same time, it is also possible to cause noise through the type of techniques used in design of buildings. Neighbours get affected by noise from their counterparts when construction material used for the house has low acoustic designs. MORI (2003) found that approximately thirty percent of all residents in London consider noise emitted by their neighbours a nuisance. Furthermore, houses with poor designs cause problems to all members of the neighbourhood even when activities conducted cause moderate noise. Such residents are affected by simple movements. (MORI, 2003) GLA (2004) conducted a survey and established that two percent of London occupants are affected by noise emanating from pubs and other entertainment venues. This could probably be because these entertainment spots thrive at night when residents need their sleep. HUD (2004) realised that a certain portion of resident in London were also affected by noise from industrial premises especially when those buildings were continuously operating. (Miedema & Vos, 1998) However certain factors also come into play when considering annoyance levels. Certain individuals may be able to excuse noise from industrial premises if they derive some sort of economic benefits from it. (GLA, 2004) Evaluation of options to minimise noise impact Decent homes Standard The House of Commons (2004) came up with a strategy to ensure that all houses are made decent by the year 2010. Special attention will be given to households with children in order to minimise childhood poverty. Decent homes were defined by the group as any home that provides residents with adequate protection from external weather conditions, one that can be easily repaired, one that fulfils statutory requirements and one that has modern facilities. The House of Commons (2004) affirmed that houses meeting the decent homes criteria will be less disturbed by noise compared to others. Decent homes have adequate insulation from external noise and will therefore protect residents. However, there is a need to protect residents from noise transfer across homes within the same building. ODPM (2004) believe that improvements in this area can be made by introducing internal insulations between homes located in the same flat. They propose that a different definition of decent homes should be adopted to incorporate the latter view. The new housing standard could be implemented after 2010 which is the target for the current decent housing standards. Decent homes will go a long way in ensuring that residents are protected against health implications from poor housing designs. (Murphy, 2004) In relation to this finding, building costs should include the health implications of external noise. The Government (2004) responded to proposals suggested above by affirming that very little can be done now. A housing standard has already been set with a target for 2010. It respected the suggestions but was quick to add that introduction of new standards at that point was not feasible. New standards would hinder implementation of the current standard and cause confusion amongst the population. Improving How Noise Nuisance is tackled in social rented sectors through tenancy agreement and Management Practice This is a more reactive approach to noise management. Tenants and Land owners could sign agreements that regulate noise emitted within the premises. This approach could minimise internal noise levels within a certain flat/building. (MORI, 2000) Property owners could come up with responsibilities and roles for tenants. Filature to comply to the regulations should result in strategic actions like; verbal warnings written warnings warnings from housing officers statutory action eviction However, care should be taken when implementing these actions because punishment should be proportional to the crime. Neighbours who continuously ignore warnings and exceed noise limits are the ones who should be subjected to adverse actions. It is actually advisable to implement these punishments following the same order as listed in the bulleted points above. (Greater London Authority, 2004) In certain cases, the above strategy may not work; for example, when noise has not been caused by one specific individual. Sometimes, it is necessary to take a proactive approach. Residents from a certain area could come up with benchmarks which must not be exceeded. They could also use the idea of noise curfews where no member of the community is allowed to make noise beyond certain times of the night. The Regulatory reform order (2002) and use of grant aid to improve noise insulation The Regulatory Reform Order (2002) allows members of the population to access grants for use in repair and maintenance of buildings. The grants could be extended to noise insulations since the issue has already been included in the Decent homes Standard. Such a concept is relatively new but can be easily be adapted. Previously, these grants have been used for various issues such as; -Security -Energy improvements -Health payments These uses show that the scheme is flexible and can be used for any tangible social benefit such noise insulation. Elderly persons are an especially vulnerable group. Most of them cannot handle high levels of noise. Therefore, there is a need to create a scheme that will deal with their issues specifically. Actually, most homes are well on their way towards achievement of this objective. Some of them have utilised services offered by housing agents such as Home Improvement Authority. This kind of loan has many advantages to the beneficiaries: minimal risks no interest efficient administration (Greater London Authority, 2004) The loan can be used to conduct house improvements which could include noise insulations. However, the responsibility of deciding what issues will be addressed by the loan fall on local authorities. The Homes could include these changes in their proposals and then wait for approval from the local authorities. (Murphy, 2004) Protecting Housing from Noisy entertainment A select committee (2003) suggested that the best way to deal with noise from entertainment centres is by dispersion. If all entertainment venues are concentrated in one area, then chances are that they will become synonymous with antisocial behaviour. The Committee realised that if all the venues were evenly distributed within town centres, then less noise would be registered. Such a proposal is contrary to what had been put forward by planning policy report (1996). The latter asserted that city centres should be divided into zones depending on use. Roberts et al (2002) also held a similar view; entertainment venues and local area designs should be related to the society under consideration. The Select Committee came up with different reports on the issue. They interviewed a number of local residents and found that noise from entertainment venues was one of the biggest problems facing those communities. Case studies conducted by the same group also showed that in Charter Quay and Kingston, there were fewer cases of noise complaints. These town centres had dispersed there entertainment venues consequently bringing about positive results. (Select committee, 2003) Housing allocation policies Landlords and property owners need to ensure that they consider use and clientele involved before starting their building projects. When building a flat, rooms serving the same purpose could be aligned, for example bedrooms placed in one direction and living rooms in another. Housing organisations could start differentiating clients based on type. For example, the elderly could live near each other while teenagers could also be concentrated in another area. Dissimilar groups have different noise generating capabilities and it is quite likely that one group could affect the other negatively. (Murphy, 2004) However, a survey conducted in London, Liverpool and Birmingham found that most housing organisations were not implementing this. They claimed that their services were available to any party interested. This shows that more will need to be done by housing authorities in order to make the plan a reality. (Greater London Authority, 2004) Conclusion Noise causes detrimental effects to members of the community. It causes annoyance, ruins physical health, causes psychological problems and deprives residents’ quality sleep. (Murphy, 2004) Housing designs and plans can be altered to solve this problem. Decent homes could be one alternative. The current proposal suggests that homes should be insulated from external noise but this is still not enough. Internal noise insulations should also be incorporated into the plan. (The House of Commons, 2004) Another alternative is through tenancy agreements. Landlords could assign responsibilities to tenants; failure to comply could lead to actions. However, a more proactive response is through the use of community meetings where various suggestions can be made. The regulatory reform order (2002) could also be adjusted to include noise insulation issues. Previously, grants have been given to solve diverse issues and the same can be said for noise. However, the responsibility is placed upon housing authorities who decide which issues will take precedence. Therefore, local authorities should prioritise noise insulation during approval. Residents need to be protected from noisy entertainment areas by dispersion of entertainment centres. The practice has already been adopted in Kingston and yielded positive results. (Select committee, 2003) Other areas in the UK should also adopt this strategy. Lastly, housing organisations could also pay attention to the nature of their clients. They could ensure that similar groups are lumped together. This will go along way in protecting vulnerable groups such as the elderly. A paradigm shift should occur; housing organisations should not just focus on temporary gains but should put the health of their tenants first. (Greater London Authority, 2004) Reference: Berglund, B. & Lindvall, T. (1995): Community Noise, Archives of the Centre for Sensory Research. Volume 2, Issue 1 Committee on the Problem of Noise (1963): Noise, Final Report, HMSO Dutch Environmental Consultants (2007): Traffic noise reductions in Europe: health effects, social costs and technical and policy options to reduce road and rail traffic noise, retrieved from http://www.transportenvironment.org/ , accessed on 3rd March 2008 Government Response to the ODPM (2004): Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee’s Report on Decent Homes’ Cm 6266, Presented to Parliament by the Deputy Prime Minister and the First Secretary of State by Command of her Majesty, The Statutory Office Greater London Authority (2004): Sounder City – The Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy, AS report by the GLA House of Commons ODPM (2004): Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee: Decent Homes, No. 5, HC 46-1 Job, R. (1996): Environmental International, Journal of international environment, pp. 93-104, Vol. 1, Issue 22 Job, R. (1988): journal of Acoustical Society of America, Issue 83, Vol. 3, pp 991-1001 Miedema, H. & Vos, H. (1998): Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Issue 104, Vol. 6. pp. 3432-3445 Meistere, E. & Donatelle, R. (2000): Journal of Environmental Health, Issue 63, Vol. 4, pp 9-15 MORI State of London (2000): Quantitative Survey, a report for GLA Murphy, R. (2004): Antisocial Housing, a report by the UK Noise Association Office of the Deputy [Prime Minister (2000): The Building Regulations: Amendment of the Building Regulations to allow Robust Standard Details to be used as an alternative to pre-completion testing, a report for ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Housing, Planning, Local Government and Regions Committee (2003): The evening economy and urban renaissance, the stationary Office Report Office of the secretary, HUD (2004): Compatible land uses at air fields, retrieved from http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/24cfr51.101.pdf, accessed on 4th March 2008 Porter et al (2000): Research and Development Report, Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions report World Health Organisation (1980): Noise, Environmental Health Criteria report World Health Organisation (1996): Constitution and Bylaws of WHO, WHO report Read More