Report re Noise Nuisance

REPORT OF THE CULTURE ECONOMY AND SUSTAINABILITY SCRUTINY AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT BOARD

 

CABINET 13TH FEBRUARY 2008

 

 

1.                  Purpose of Report

 

To summarize the recommendations of the Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Board and the various responses received to the recommendations.

 

2.                  Responses to Scrutiny Board Recommendations

 

Responses to the Board’s recommendations, as set out in Section 13 of the report, have been received from:

 

·          Environmental and Regulatory Services

·          Development Services

·          Licensing

·          Sheffield Hallam University

·          The Director of Public Health

 

The various responses by Council Directorates and partners are set out as follows:

 

 

Recommendation 13.1

 

Whilst the Board recognised the merits of providing an extended hours service, to address incidence of noise nuisance, it is considered that the cost associated with such provision, in terms of human and financial resources, are disproportionate to the benefits of providing a 24 hour service.

 

It is recommended that the feasibility of providing a limited extended hours service at peak times when incidents of noise nuisance were likely to occur is investigated. Such peak times might be identified following liaison with the appropriate partner organisation (for example, the Universities or South Yorkshire Police, Tenants and Residents Associations (TARAs), community forums and other representative groups) to accurately identify specific times and places and make interventions more effective. The results of the study should be reported to the Scrutiny and Policy Development Board.

 

 

 

 

Management Response

 

At present there is no budget to provide a reactive out of hours service. As detailed in the evidence submitted to the board, such extended hours reactive services increase demand and therefore costs. Without significant investment (e.g. large teams), given that any one job can take more than an hour, and due to the nature of demand at peak hours, customers can be left in a queue of people all waiting for their problem to be dealt with. On busy nights, some may not even receive contact before the services closes at (for example) 3am despite the increased investment, therefore customer satisfaction may not increase. Noise in the street which is a major concern of many residents would not be tackled by an out of hours noise service as street noise and associated rowdiness requires a police response. Given that most of the domestic noise problems occur at the hours when the police are facing their highest demand, support from the police for an out of hours team for door knocks and direct night time interventions on noise problems is likely to be limited other than in the most extreme cases.

 

As such, any out of hours service is more likely to become an evidence gathering exercise which is unable to actually stop the problem on the night. In effect that is what we have at present in a low cost form, through the use of our tape machines, which we install into people's homes where they become our 'ears' to witness noise. These are left for extended periods and are therefore very efficient in terms of capturing any problems that arise. Having an out of hours team may in some cases reduce the time between initial notification of a problem through to abatement, however at significant cost. Even with an out of hours service, we would be reliant on the existing tape machines for very irregular noise problems or ones of short duration where the noise would normally have stopped before anyone could visit. 

 

As such without an increased cash limit to the Environment and Regulatory Services budget we do not propose to do further work on this issue.

 

The 101 service has provided an invaluable new resource for people to report noise problems and ensure that there is follow up. Operators are able to advise on process and where appropriate direct to police action. 

 

Response of Sheffield Hallam University

 

“SHU is committed to the continued beneficial joint working which is already ongoing to produce the report suggested in this recommendation.”

 

Recommendation 13.2

 

In relation to the Licensing Act 2003, which provides for the views of local people to be taken into account when an application is made for a licence to sell alcohol, provide regulated entertainment or late night refreshment it is recommended:

 

To make information available, both in printed form and on the Council’s internet pages, which clearly sets out that it is possible for an individual living in the vicinity of a premises or an organisation, such as a residents’ association to (a) make representations in relation to a licence application or (b) review a premises licence; and to explain the grounds for representations of review (for example, the prevention of public nuisance) and how to apply for a review.

 

 

Management Response

 

Because of the prescribed timescales it is difficult to send out information to area panels etc. There is a prescribed 28 day objection period, so if we sent lists out once a month the applications received at the beginning of the month would leave no time for objections to be made. Circulating information every week or fortnight could impact on resources and budget. Although the answer to the next query may resolve this issue as well.

 

Recommendation 13.3

 

Licensing should move quickly toward implementing a comprehensive website, similar to the ‘Planning on Line’ in order that the public can track and comment upon applications and find out how to complain and call for a review of a licence.  

 

Management Response

 

Preparations / discussions are well advanced with Liberata and the Council's web team about installing a licensing register supplied by FLARE the providers of our licensing database. The initial register will be quite basic, however this will be added to and improved as the project progresses. It is planned to have the basic register available by the 29th February 2008. Information regarding reviews will be upgraded immediately and we are looking at this area in more detail with other services / departments as well.

 

Recommendation 13.4

 

To make efforts to improve the procedures for the display of notices relating of licence applications, so that surrounding properties were made aware of the proposed application for a licence and replicating best practice exemplified by the Council’s Planning Service.

 

Management Response

 

We can encourage applicants to use a larger public notice, however, the Secretary of State has prescribed by regulation the size, colour and font to be used on public notices. So we would have no powers to enforce the use of larger notices.

 

 

Recommendation 13.5

 

The Board heard evidence of the success of DAT machines in collecting evidence of noise nuisance but noted that there is a potential waiting list of up to 3 weeks for DAT machines on which complainants in domestic situations could record evidence of noise nuisance and the source of the noise because of the high demand for such machines or because DAT machines were being repaired or recalibrated.

 

It is recommended that (1) additional DAT machines be purchased to improve the speed and capacity at which Environmental Protection Service is able to collect evidence and that the optimum number of machines is determined, following discussions with those Officers and (2) appropriate and, where necessary, additional human resources are deployed to analyse evidence.

 

Management Response

 

At present we have no budget available for additional equipment or staff resources. Once a decision on the Environmental and Regulatory Services budget for 2008 /09 is agreed, we will review the cost and benefits of this recommendation and report back on whether it will be possible to deliver this recommendation from April 2008.

 

Recommendation 13.6

 

That Environmental Protection Service (ERS) Officers should be represented, wherever possible, on partnership bodies relating to safer neighbourhoods, such as Neighbourhood Action Groups or the Safer Neighbourhoods Board.

 

Management Response

It is our intention that each Safer Neighbourhood Area/Neighbourhood Action Group will have a named representative and attendance from Environment and Regulatory Services by the end of 2007.  In each case, this will be an officer with sufficient seniority to commit resources.

 

Recommendation 13.7

 

That Sheffield Homes and the other housing providers in the City be requested to review their policies relating to sensitive lettings in so far as these relate to noise.

 

Recommendation 13.8

 

The Board recognised that there is the balance to be struck between the development of a vibrant City Centre and accommodating residential use.

 

The impact upon City Centre living of extended licensed hours for entertainment premises and those licensed for the sale of alcohol is also noted, together with the associated change in character of the City Centre.

The Board also acknowledged the impact of houses in multiple occupation and the extent to which noise nuisance was an element of anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods.

 

It is recommended that the impacts associated with the changing character of the City Centre be carefully monitored, with particular attention to noise levels and in reference to the City Centre Living Strategy.

 

Management Response

 

Agreed that some form of monitoring would be beneficial on the changing character of the city centre. Comprehensive noise monitoring over time would however carry significant resource issues that may need to be considered within the service planning process. We would recommend that once the 08/09 budget setting process is agreed for ERS we will offer a short cost and benefits paper on this issue for the board to consider. 

 

Recommendation 13.9

 

Appropriate human and other appropriate resources are made available, to maintain the quality of life for people living in the City Centre and surrounding areas, so as to sustain and encourage occupancy of dwellings in the City Centre.

 

Management Response (Development Services)

 

Question as to how the further 'appropriate human and other resources' would be funded. There seems to be a possible suggestion that the pubs/clubs etc pay for it, but that will need to be carefully managed/accounted for. Possibly using a Business Improvement District approach

 

Recommendation 13.10

 

That the relevant policies within the Preferred Options of the City Policies document of the Sheffield Development Framework are supported and, if adopted, their impact is monitored, including those relating to design and environment and development and land use, including: PC1 (Conditions on development), PS9 (Controlled Nighttime Opening Zones) and PR7 (Noise).

 

Recommendation 13.11

 

That an approach is taken to the monitoring of complaints of noise nuisance, which can evidence how such information is used to inform future service planning and delivery.

 

Management Response

 

An envirocrime report for members including information on noise will be produced shortly to cover the first 6 months of the year and afterwards quarterly.

 

Recommendation 13.12

It is recommended that the lead agency in dealing with noise nuisance is defined and communicated clearly to the public.

 

Management Response

 

We will work with partners to produce new guidance for residents on this issue early in the new year.

 

Responses of Sheffield Hallam University on recommendations relating to the City Centre

 

“[ Recommendations 13.8 to 13.12] Specifically relate to city centre living where significant numbers of our students live and where we can be instrumental in providing existing and establish new information in relation to their experience of living in the city centre in relation to noise nuisance and other quality of life issues.

 

Sheffield Hallam University will continue to involve students, students union and private landlords in the delivery of the initiatives.

 

Sheffield Hallam University understands that since the scrutiny exercise took place, that Environmental regulation services has charted information regarding complaints by geographical location, which will be very helpful in setting priorities, target groups and how to tackle different types of activities causing noise nuisance.

 

To ensure success, the plans and activities which grow out of this initiative need to be supported through the Local Authority policies and practices.  At present the Sheffield First Partnership, local area agreement for successful neighbourhoods (refresh and review document 2006) has a brief mention of noise nuisance and this initiative would benefit from greater clarity and support through these key objectives.”

 

Recommendation 13.13

 

To request the City’s Director of Public Health to provide information in relation to effects of noise nuisance on health in Sheffield.

 

Response of the Director of Public Health

 

A letter has been received from the Director of Public Health, as an initial response to the Board’s recommendation, particularly concerning the feasibility of undertaking such an investigation (See Appendix 1).

 

Recommendation 13.14

That further research is undertaken into the policies and practice of other local authorities with regard to the management of noise.

 

Management Response

 

As part of a service review of regulatory services within DEL, we are identifying best practice in all aspects of the service and will report back on these findings in respect of noise within the feasibility response to 13.1.

 

3.         Recommendation

 

Cabinet is asked to consider the response to the Scrutiny and Policy Development Board’s recommendations.