Report on Beeley Wood Works, Abbey Stainless Steel
Report of the Director Of Environment and Regulatory Services Environmental Protection Service to West and North Planning & Highways Area Board 23 September 2008
1.0 Purpose Of Report
1.1. To inform and update members of West and North Planning & Highways Board on Environmental Protection Service’s (EPS) response to a petition received from local residents regarding hammering noise from the forge activities undertaken by the Abbey Stainless Steel at their new premises; Beeley Woods Works.
1.2. To report and interpret the outcome of noise monitoring undertaken in connection with the forging operations.
1.3. To comment on subsequent complaints received by EPS regarding public address system (‘Tanoy’) announcements causing disturbance to some local residents.
1.4. To make recommendations to the Board in respect of; i) further investigations to be undertaken; ii) liaison with existing clients; iii) the continued consultative role to planning officers in respect of further development proposed at the Works site.
2.0 Background – Forge Noise
2.1 On 31 July 2007, EPS received a complaint relating to noise from forging activities at Beeley Woods Works, Beeley Wood Lane. A total of 21 complainants contacted EPS between 31 July and 04 December 2007.
2.2 Complaints initially centred on exhaust noise from forge hammer compression systems. This was resolved with the cooperation of the Abbey Group, via the installation of baffles to the discharge points in August 2007, together with a switch from diesel to electric compressors.
2.3 Subsequent investigations, together with complainant’s logs, highlighted forge hammer noise as the significant continuing nuisance issue. A single client complained of vibration due to forging activities.
2.4 On 09 October 2007, a petition was received by DEL. A total of 180 signatories expressed concern about forging noise in a petition to EPS, requesting action to reduce the level of noise. The petition was subsequently addressed to Development Control under a covering letter, which attributed the concerns of the petitioners to the issue of “uncontrolled development”.[1]
2.5 Following visits to witness nuisance inside client’s properties, on 21 November 2007 EPS determined the forging noise as a Statutory Nuisance (Part III of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990).
2.6 EPS have determined there is no likely basis for significant vibration from forging activities being experienced at any of the residential properties in question, due to distance and local topography. EPS consider Statutory Nuisance would not be determined in this respect.
2.7 On 30 November 2007, a noise survey of the impacts of the forging activities on nearby residential properties was completed by Hepworth Acoustics Ltd on behalf of the Abbey Group, as advised by EPS.
The survey assessed forging noise levels in relation to background noise levels, in accordance with British Standard BS4142:1997; “Method for Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas”.[2]
The outcome was that forge noise levels were elevated above background by 9-14 decibels (dB),[3] and that ‘complaints were likely’, according to the Standard’s assessment method. The report identifies the roof structure as the acoustic weak point and recommends improvement works to reduce noise breakout to acceptable levels.
2.8 On 03 January 2008, EPS served Notice under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to abate the noise nuisance (see section 2.5, above). The Notice made reference to improvement works, in line with the recommendations of the Hepworth report, together with other structural and operational provisions. The Notice required that structural improvement works be completed by 01 March 2008.[4]
2.9 All scheduled improvement works and operational changes were instigated in line with the above Notice, within the required timescale. These include; structural roof improvements; deferred start time for forging activities (after 07:00); installation of speed doors to forge & dispatch areas; maintaining a ‘doors closed’ policy during forging works.
2.10 Subsequent to the completion of improvement works, complaints received by EPS have greatly reduced, and EPS have generally received positive feedback from residents. EPS have received further complaint from 2 of the original 21 complainants alleging continuing nuisance from forging noise.
These complaints have centred on occasional ‘brighter toned’ impact noise, which is viewed as more intrusive, and early morning noise allegedly associated with breaches of the ‘doors closed’ policy.
2.11 EPS have undertaken subsequent monitoring visits to assess compliance with notice requirements, subjective environmental noise levels, and to assess forging noise in relation to background noise levels, in accordance with BS4142.
2.12 The Abbey Group has commissioned a further noise survey, undertaken by Blue Tree Acoustics, on 07 August 2008.
3.0 Investigations & Reporting – Post Improvement Works
3.1 On 10 March 2008, EPS received written confirmation of acoustic attenuation works, in compliance with the Abatement Notice.
3.2 EPS made 4 subjective assessments of forging noise levels between March and May 2008. On each occasion noise levels were judged to be significantly reduced following the improvement works, and not representative of a Statutory Nuisance.
No breaches of operational guidelines have been witnessed, and forge doors have always been observed to be closed during forging operations.
3.3 EPS have also undertaken noise monitoring, to assess the impacts of forging noise on neighbouring properties, following completion of improvement works at the Beeley Woods works. The monitoring has been undertaken at locations on Middlewood Road and Stockarth Lane, on 23 July and 22 August 2008.
The results are presented in full in Appendix 5. To summarise, average noise levels during forging are only marginally elevated in comparison to average noise levels without forging. When the noise specific to forging is corrected, to take account of the intrusive, non-continuous banging feature, it is rated as exceeding background noise levels.
However, this exceedance is less than 5dB, and assessed as being of ‘marginal significance’.
3.4 The noise survey undertaken by Blue Tree Acoustics on 07 August 2008 derives a lower noise level specific to forging noise than that undertaken by EPS. However, the assessment again places noise from forging activity as being in the ‘marginal significance’ category when assessed according to BS4142.
The report states that the noise levels have been reduced by a minimum of 9dB, and that the improvement works undertaken constitute ‘best practicable means’. The report recognises that measurement of noise levels was compromised by the current road works, but suggests that under more typical conditions, the assessment values would be likely to be reduced.
3.5 A site visit by EPS on 29 August 2008 confirmed the roof and other acoustic attenuation works to be in compliance with the requirements of the Notice served.
Observations made during the visit indicated that internal acoustic ‘insulation’ has resulted in noise breakout via the dispatch area being negligible, irrespective of the doors being open or closed.
4.0 Current Position – Forge Noise
4.1 Noise monitoring surveys indicate that forge noise has been attenuated by recent improvement works. Assessment levels of ‘marginal significance’ are in line with subjective assessments of the current forge noise.
There has been a small elevation of average noise levels. The impact noise of the forge hammers contributes to the intrusive quality of the industrial noise. On occasions, due to combinations of material and process used, the impact noise has a more intrusive quality.
On the whole, EPS are of the opinion that noise levels attributable to the operations of the Abbey Group at their Beeley Woods Works do not constitute a Statutory Nuisance.
4.2 EPS are of the opinion that the improvement works recently undertaken would be likely to be interpreted as constituting ‘best practicable means’ (BPM), if presented as a defence against any alleged breach of the abatement notice in place.
BPM is interpreted in court, and a magistrate would consider whether the means employed to prevent or counteract the effects of nuisance were the best practicable, given local conditions, technical knowledge and financial implications.
4.3 It is recognised that the satisfactory performance of the improvement works is dependent upon continued compliance with operational requirements, in particular the ‘doors closed’ policy.
EPS is satisfied that the Abbey Group have sufficient equipment and procedures to meet these requirements. EPS will continue the current constructive dialogue with the Group, with a view to maintaining these standards.
4.4 EPS recognise the importance of including and informing its clients with respect to service provision and response to customer complaints. EPS have informed all clients of progress and subsequent actions relating to the forge noise issue, issuing regular client newsletters, in addition to maintaining contacts with individual clients.
Most recently, meetings between local residents, the Abbey Group, and EPS have been productive, and relations between the business and local community have benefited. Some residents have recently taken up an invitation to visit the premises.
It is understood this has also contributed to improved relations. EPS seek to continue to foster these positive interactions between the parties concerned.
5.0 Background – Tanoy Noise
5.1 On 14 January 2008, EPS received a complaint from one of the existing Abbey Stainless complainants, relating three short, unintelligible Tanoy announcements, made around 05:00 the preceding Saturday.
5.2 Between January and August 2008 a number of other similar Tanoy noise events were reported by this, and one other existing client. Reported incidents occurred over 13 dates in total. The events mainly occurred around 5:00am on occasional Saturdays. The clients believed the noise to originate from the Abbey Group’s works.
5.3 EPS have sought to establish the source of the Tanoy noise. The pattern of Tanoy noise events suggested that announcements via a remotely operated security system were a likely source of the disturbance.
Initial investigations involved queries to Abbey Group’s management, their contractor Camwatch Ltd, and the adjacent Union Carbide site’s demolition contractors (as the nearest neighbours likely to have similar security provisions). These investigations proved inconclusive.
5.4 EPS conducted a 3 hour monitoring exercise from 04:15 hours on Saturday 26 July 2008. Unfortunately, this exercise proved unproductive. Further direct monitoring was not deemed viable, due to the infrequency of the events, and uncertainty over the source of the noise.
5.5 In response to continued complaints from local residents, the Abbey Group initiated the installation of recording equipment linked to their CCTV surveillance equipment. The objective is to resolve the uncertainty over Camwatch Ltd’s equipment being the source of the Tanoy noise nuisance.
Any Tanoy events subsequently notified to the Abbey Group by local residents could be replayed via CCTV recordings; the microphone’s proximity to the Camwatch speaker would make it clearly apparent if it were the source of the mystery announcements.
6.0 Current Position – Tanoy Noise
6.1 No further Tanoy announcements have been reported either to EPS or to the Abbey Group since 08 August 2008. Direct appeals to existing complainants have not yielded any response. Consequently, no announcements have been captured by surveillance equipment.
6.2 EPS has investigated other nearby potential sources of early morning Tanoy announcements. No other nearby businesses open and operating at the times in question have a Tanoy system likely to be the source of the complaints.
One other industrial site nearby has security provisions capable of such announcements, but their contractor’s records indicate no remote security announcements have been made from the site this year.
7.0 Proposals
7.1 Following the consideration of this report by the Board, local residents will be issued with a further update, summarising the report’s conclusions. Any queries will be addressed either individually, or via a further meeting, as appropriate.
7.2 Any further reports of nuisance Tanoy announcements will be investigated as previously detailed.
7.3 Any subsequent issues representing a significant change in existing circumstances in respect of forge noise will be investigated fully.
7.4 EPS will advise Development Control Officers in their role as consultee, in respect of the current application reference 08/04278/FUL for ‘extensions to industrial building to form new ring mill and workshop’.
Such advice will seek to ensure that the proposed development does not compromise the performance of noise attenuation measures already in place, or result in any increase in existing noise levels.
EPS advice will seek to secure associated structural and operational improvements which will contribute to a reduction in overall noise levels attributable to the operations of the Abbey Group at their Beeley Woods Works premises.
8.0 Equal Opportunities
8.1 There are no specific equal opportunity implications arising from this report.
9.0 Financial Implications
9.1 There are no specific financial implications arising from this report.
10.0 Environmental & Sustainablity Implications
10.1 Environmental and sustainability implications are contained in the body of the report.
11.0 Recommendations
11.1 It is recommended that the Area Board note the actions proposed, which are in accordance with the policies and service standards of the Environmental Protection Service.
Nick Chaplin
Environmental Protection Manager
Environmental Protection Manager
Author:
Neal Pates
Environmental Protection Officer
15 September 2008
[1] See Appendix 1: Petition & Covering Letter; Forge Noise (Sep/Oct 2007).
[2] See Appendix 2: Overview of BS4142:1997; “Method for Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas”.
[3] See Appendix 3: Overview of Noise Units & Indices.
[4] See Appendix 4: Noise Abatement Notice (Jan 2008).
Downloads
Overview of BS4142:1997; “Method for Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas" (28.5 KB)