A study of complaints about noise from domestic premises

Journal

ofSoundand

A STUDY

Vibration

OF

(1988) 127(2), 319-330

COMPLAINTS DOMESTIC

ABOUT

NOISE

FROM

PREMISES

W. A. UTLEY AND I. B.

BULLER

Department of the Environment, Building Research Establishment, Garston, Watford WD2 7JR, England (Received 29 February 1988, and in revised form 20 June 1988)

Neighbourhood noise has been found to be the most widespread source of noise disturbance after road traffic. Complaints to Environmental Health Officers about noise from domestic premises have increased by 791% over the 10 years to 1985. Data about these complaints have been used to investigate neighbour noise disturbance. Environmental Health Officers have returned 2128 data sheets dealing with complaints about 2624 noise sources. Two thirds of these sources were either amplified music or barking dogs. The data have been analyzed to determine where the noise sources are situated and the time of day when disturbance occurs. Regional differences as well as type of dwelling and occupancy have also been investigated. The large increase in complaints about domestic noise has been considered in the light of this investigation; this suggests that while the increase may have arisen in part from changing attitudes to noise and an increased awareness of action available to abate nuisance, the major reason for the increase is a growth in the incidence and/or level of noise. Proposals are made for further work aimed at developing methods for reducing disturbance.

1. INTRODUCTION

A number of surveys have shown that neighbourhood noise-that is, noise from neighbours and other people, children and animals-is the most widespread source of noise disturbance after road traffic. A national survey in 1972 [l] showed that 16% were bothered by noise from animals, 14% by noise from children and 8% from noise from people, compared to 23% and 13% bothered by noise from road traffic and aircraft. A 1976 survey in Darlington [2] showed that 15% of residents were bothered by noise from people and children and 9% by noise from animals and birds, compared to 21% bothered by road traffic noise. That survey also found that 12% were bothered by noise from neighbours. The most recent data obtained by BRE [3] indicates that the proportion of people bothered by road traffic noise has decreased to the extent that noise from neighbours and other people nearby is now the most widespread source of noise disturbance in the home. Unfortunately, because of differences in the form of the questions it is not possible to establish whether there has been any trend in the level of neighbourhood noise disturbance. For the present paper another source of information has been used to provide trend data. Each year local authorities provide data about noise complaints to the Institution of Environmental Health Officers (IEHO) who publish overall figures annually in their Environmental Health Report. Over recent years the number of complaints about noise from domestic premises has shown a sharp increase, from 80 complaints per million persons in 1971 to 1276 complaints per million in 1985. Despite the evidence of the relative importance of neighbourhood noise as a source of disturbance and the growth in noise complaints very little research has been undertaken 319 0022-460X/88/230319+

12 $03.00/O

Q 1988 Academic

Press Limited

320

W. A.

UTLEY

AND

1. B. BULLER

on this noise source. Because of the lack of published information it is difficult, if not impossible, to judge between the various reasons which have been put forward to explain the increase in complaints. The only recent studies which are relevant are concerned with disturbance caused by noise transmitted through party walls and floors [4,5]. A major factor inhibiting research could well have been the scattered nature of the noise sources and the difficulty of identifying in advance the positions of the members of the population who are disturbed. In the study reported here this problem has been overcome by using the presence of noise complaints to identify the disturbed population. It is accepted that there are limitations in this approach and therefore this study forms part of wider investigation into disturbance caused by neighbourhood noise. One of the main aims of the current study is to provide the data required to interpret the large increase in complaints. This paper describes the results of an analysis of over 2000 complaints which have been made to Environmental Health Officers about noise from domestic premises. The major sources of complaint have been identified and any differences in the pattern of complaints arising from the type of dwelling, the region of the country and the type of area have been determined. The possible reasons for the large increase in complaints are discussed in the light of the detailed complaint data reported here. Noise sources which may cause disturbance but which may be less likely to produce complaints are considered. Further research is proposed which would provide the necessary information to enable a strategy for reducing disturbance to be produced.

2. DATA COLLECTION

Environmental Health Officers (EHO) investigate noise complaints from residents in order to determine whether action to control noise is required under Section 58 of the Control of Pollution Act (COPA). Complaints may also go to the Housing Department of a local authority or to the police but many of these complaints are passed on to EHOs to investigate. In the past no standard data sheet was used by EHOs when investigating noise complaints and information considered essential for research was not always recorded. It was decided therefore to design a standard data sheet which could be completed by EHOs when investigating a complaint and which could, by providing a carbonless copy, be used for their own records as well as providing information to be forwarded to BRE. In preparing the data sheet a number of EHOs were consulted about its form and content. Although all aspects are covered data sheets would not be fully completed for each complaint. For example, although the data sheet had a space for noise measurements to be recorded it was expected that such data would be included in only a few cases. In one extreme example, sheets returned by one local authority contained only details about the noise source. A set of guidance notes was also produced to assist completion of the data sheets and to try to ensure that a consistent approach was adopted when providing certain data. Voluntary assistance with the study was sought through a letter in Environmental Health, the journal of the IEHO and publicity in BRE’s News of Construction Research and the Institute of Acoustics Bulletin.

3. SAMPLE

DISTRIBUTION

A total of 78 local authorities initially volunteered to assist with the study although some of these subsequently withdrew. Eventually 2128 completed data sheets were

COMPLAINTS

ABOUT

DOMESTIC

PREMISES

321

NOISE

submitted by 47 authorities over a two year period from mid-1984 to mid-1986. The distribution of these authorities over the country is shown in Figure 1. Most areas of the country are represented in the final sample with a majority of data sheets coming from local authorities in areas of high population density such as the Midlands (719) and the South East (431). By contrast, there were relatively few data sheets from authorities situated in areas with low population density such as East Anglia (34) and the South West (35). It became clear during the course of the study that some local authorities were not able to take part because they did not investigate complaints about noise from domestic premises. Since some authorities who originally asked for data sheets subsequently indicated that they no longer investigated domestic noise complaints, it would appear that the number of local authorities adopting this policy is on the increase. The method of collecting data employed in this study could have introduced bias into the sample at a number of stages. These are the self-selection of those local authorities providing the data, the selection of complaints for which data sheets were completed, and the selection of information to be included on the data sheet. It is considered that the number of local authorities involved and their distribution over the country would mean that it is unlikely that the process of self-selection would have led to bias in the sample of complaints. It is possible that some sources of complaints may be underrepresented if EHOs are less likely to investigate complaints about such noise sources. However, there is no evidence that this type of selection occurs on a general basis. It is not considered that the omission of certain information on some data sheets would affect the main conclusions of this research which generally concern information present on greater than 75% of the data sheets.

0

Figure 1. Distribution of local authorities London Boroughs; W, District Councils.

who returned

data sheets.

100 km

I

*, Metropolitan

District

Councils

and

322

W. A. LJTLEY AND 1. B. BULLER 4. RESULTS

The most important information on the data sheet was the description of the noise source which caused the complaint. In some cases more than one source was mentioned and the 2128 data sheets produced a total of 2624 noise sources as shown in Table 1. The relative frequency of the various sources and in particular the dominance of two sources, music and dogs could not have been predicted from existing data. A subdivision of those sources classified as music shows that record player/hi-fi (28%), amplified music (27%) and music (17%) were the most frequent source descriptions. Parties were mentioned on 88 occasions (10% of the music category). The domestic activities category included references to “general activity”, “comings and goings” or simply “noisy neighbours”. Those data sheets which provided information in the section dealing with source position indicated a difference between the two major sources of complaints (see Table 2). For barking dogs the source was twice as likely to be outside the neighbour’s dwelling as it was to be inside but for complaints about music the source was situated inside the dwelling in 93% of cases. Overall, 67% of sources were situated inside a neighbour’s dwelling while a further 6% occurred both inside and outside. The times of day at which noise was heard showed some variation between the different sources as shown in Table 3. Music is heard most commonly during the evening and very TABLE 1

Types of noise source Total mentions

Type of source Music Dogs Domestic activities Voices DIY Car repairs Other animals Domestic appliances Other sources

Percentage

895 856 243 146 125 73 34 27 225

of all noises 34 33 9 6 5 3 1 1 9

2

TABLE

Position of noise source Domestic activities

Car repairs

Other animals

Domestic appliances

Voices

DIY

180 3 10 0

129 8 7 0

93 10 5 8

4 42 7 14

6 23 2 0

25 2 0 0

179 23 10 0

1628 569 148 37

9

0

1

7

4

0

0

5

27

0

9

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

12

862

748

193

145

123

71

32

27

220

2421

Music

Dogs

Inside Outside Both Garage shed Outside and garage Insideoutside and garage

803 26 29 3

209 432 78 11

1

Totals

Other

COMPLAINTS

ABOUT

DOMESTIC

PREMISES

3

TABLE

Percentage of complainants who hear noises at difirent Car

Domestic Time

of day Music Dogs

activities

Voices

323

NOISE

bIY repairs

times

Other animals

Domestic appliances

Overall percentage 17 48 48 48 35

06.00-09.00 09.00-18.00 18.00-22.00 22.00-24.00 24.00-06.00

6 34 48 57 40

30 70 43 36 27

14 28 54 70 53

10 39 51 62 42

7 44 60 40 30

18 67 51 20 15

77 43 33 13 60

44 48 59 52 30

Number of sources

695

609

118

130

117

55

30

27

_

rarely (in common with several other sources) early in the morning. Barking dogs are most likely to be heard during the day but are also heard by a significant number of complainants in all the time periods. Noise from other animals mostly occurs in the morning and this no doubt reflects the behaviour of the cockerels, ducks and geese which are included in this source category. The pattern of occurrence is very similar when the noise is heard at the weekend. The fact that more people are at home during the day at weekends is reflected by a slight increase in the proportion of sources such as DIY and car repairs which are heard at that time. One of the few large changes is the increase of 12% in the proportion hearing music in the night time period. It was expected that the type of dwelling might be a factor in determining which sources of noise led to complaints. The major source of complaint from those living in detached houses was barking dogs (see Table 4). Among the less common sources, external sources such as other animals and car repairs occurred more frequently than the average for all dwellings while there were virtually no complaints about internal sources such as domestic activities and voices. The relative frequencies of sources leading to complaint in semidetached and terraced houses were similar to the overall figures given in Table 1. For those living in flats internal sources were more important, particularly amplified music, TABLE

4

Percentage of sources causing complaint in diflerent types of dwelling

Music Dogs Detached Semi and end terrace Mid-terrace Purpose-built flat Converted flat

Domestic activities

Voices

-

DIY

Car repairs

Other animals


7

8

4

4 2

2 1

15

53

34 35

34 33

5 6

4 9

6 4

54

13

7

9

5


45

9

17

9

3

Number of sources

822

614

121

136

113

Percentage overall

34

33

9

6

5


Other

Number of dwellings

2

11

131

1 1

9 10

859 520

10

562

Domestic appliances


2

5

10

58

56

33

26

209

2130

3

1

1

9

324

W.

A. UTLEY

AND

1. B. BULLER

while external sources occurred less frequently than for other types of dwelling. Overall, the data indicated that there were more complaints from people in flats (23% of total) and less from people in detached houses (8% of total), than would be predicted from the relative proportion of each type of dwelling in the country (12% and 15% respectively). There seemed to be little difference in the relative frequency of the various sources between owner-occupiers and local authority tenants when differences in the pattern of dwelling types had been taken into account. When the noise complaint data were separated on a regional basis it was found that there were some marked differences in the relative importance of different sources. This was in part due to the fact that the proportion of different dwelling types varied between regions. However, when only semi-detached and terraced houses were considered the regional differences were still present as shown in Table 5.

TABLE

5

Percentage of complaints about each type of source in diflerent regions (semi-detached and terraced houses) Region Source Music Dogs Domestic activity Voices DIY Car repairs Other animals Domestic appliance Other Number

in each region

NE

NW

24 51 8 4 3 3 1 6

23 50 3 2 6 3 2 1 9

219

129

Midlands

E. Anglia

SE

SW‘

42 35 2 3 5 4 1 2 7

14 29 21 21 14

34 39 3 2 4 3 3 2 9

54 33 4 8

400

14

258

24

more important in the NE and NW as a It appears that barking dogs are relatively source of noise complaint than they are elsewhere. When EHOs were asked to say whether the disturbance was considered by them to be a nuisance the data sheets showed a further difference between the two major sources of complaint. For complaints about music 61% of cases were considered to be a nuisance. However, only about a quarter of complaints about barking dogs were considered to be a nuisance, which is not dissimilar to the situation with most of the other sources. It is worth noting that overall the EHO was willing to make a judgement on nuisance for only 37% of the complaints. In part this was due to the transitory nature of this type of source (in 25% of cases EHOs commented that they had not witnessed the source themselves). The data sheet asked the EHO to rate the type, appearance and noisiness of the area in which the complainant lived, since it was felt that this could have a bearing on the incidence of complaints. Overall, EHOs rated the area’s appearance as good or very good in 76% of cases. The rating varied only slightly for the different sources, with complaints about dogs, DIY and car repairs a little more likely to come from areas rated good or very good and complaints about music slightly more likely to come from poor or very poor areas.

COMPLAINTS

ABOUT

DOMESTIC

PREMISES

NOISE

32.5

Somewhat larger differences were found when the area was rated for noisiness. 43% of complaints about music came from areas rated noisy or very noisy compared to an overall figure of 33%. In fact 80% of all complaints in very noisy areas were about music. In contrast, only 13% of complaints about car repairs and 22% of complaints about DIY came from areas rated as noisy or very noisy.

5. DISCUSSION 5.1.

TRENDS

IN

COMPLAINTS

The increase in complaints to EHOs about noise from domestic premises is shown in Figure 2. The trend in complaints about industrial-commercial noise is also shown for comparison. The data are based on returns by local authorities to the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, and are normalized to take account of the fact that not all local authorities put in returns in any one year. In fact the unnormalized data show much the same trend, as can be seen from Table 6.

Figure 2. Complaints and commercial.

to Environmental

Health Officers about noise. O-O,

Domestic;

c? - - - 0, industrial

The most obvious explanation for the increase in noise complaints is that there has been a corresponding increase in the level and/or incidence of the noise sources which cause complaint. Other explanations which have been proposed include an increased awareness of the problem of noise and of procedures for reducing noise disturbance, the implementation of Part III of the Control of Pollution Act and poorer sound insulation in new houses and flats. The fact that the number of nuisances has gone up in proportion to the number of complaints would appear to rule out the possibility that the increase is due to a greater number of vexatious complaints. Although the enactment of Part III of COPA in 1976 might have had some short-term effect on the figures, it is difficult to see why it should have resulted in such a long term increase. There is a general feeling that people are now more aware of the problem of noise and of the possibility of taking action to abate the nuisance, and during the course of this study a number of articles on the problem of neighbour noise have been published in the national press. However, no objective data appears to have been published showing the level of this increased awareness. Moreover,

41.1 2.8

0.9

15 638 335 12 243 5 028 339

7741 175 6261 3179 58

Number of complaints 6325 Complaints per million 165 Number of sources 4793 Number of nuisances 2669 Abatement, notices issued 88 Percentage of sources considered a nuisance 55.6 Percentage of sources for which an abatement notice is issued 1.8 50.8

1977

Year

1976

about noise from domestic premises

1975

Complaints

3.2

49.2

17 980 420 15 150 7 452 484

1978

5.9

55.6

24 472 586 18 579 10 344 1 100

1979

5.3

55.5

31076 712 18 047 10011 951

1980

reported to the Institution

TABLE 6

6.3

59.0

30 289 764 19 295 11383 1215

1981

50.8 6.2

4.5

41988 1016 27 285 13 848 1695

198314

1984/5

6.4

45.1

48 645 1244 33 736 15 231 2 156

Health O$icers

48.8

33 014 794 23 951 11690 1073

1982

of Environmental

8.9

49.9

56 414 1276 35 636 17 780 3 156

1985/6

COMPLAINTS

ABOUT

DOMESTIC

PREMISES

NOISE

327

if an increase in awareness of noise is responsible it is difficult to see why complaints about industrial and commercial noise have not increased at a similar rate. A survey carried out by BRE [6] showed that the sound insulation performance of traditional brick party walls was not as high as it had been, and that many walls built in the 1970s failed to achieve the level of insulation specified in the Building Regulations. The noise complaints data sheets contained some information on the age of the dwelling. When the data from semi-detached and terraced houses were analyzed there appeared to be little evidence that those sources such as music which were predominantly internal were more likely to lead to complaint in post-1960 (the most modern age classification) houses. While the factors discussed above may have had some effect on the number of complaints it is difficult to accept that they could, on their own, have resulted in such a large and continuing increase. It would seem therefore that there must also have been an increase in the incidence and/or the level of the noise itself. It is quite easy to accept this conclusion in regard to one of the major sources of complaint, music. Record and tape playing equipment has increased considerably in its power output over the past lo-15 years, while a fall in real costs and an increase in living standards has increased availability to the stage where it is not uncommon to find more than one set of equipment per household. Moreover, some may consider that the current sound levels in discotheques and at pop concerts are the appropriate levels at which to listen to pop music and therefore seek to emulate such conditions in their own home. It is less easy to see why the problem of barking dogs should also have increased, since there has been no great increase in dog ownership and it is unlikely that dogs are barking more loudly now than they did ten years ago. Because a third of all noise complaints are about barking dogs there must have been some increase in complaints about this source, and in fact there is some evidence that the increase has been broadly in line with the increase in complaints about amplified music. This evidence is based on the proportion of complaints which are considered to be a nuisance. Table 6 shows very little change in the percentage of complaints which were confirmed as nuisances, but the complaint data show a large difference between dogs (25% considered a nuisance) and music (61%). This means that any change in the relative frequency of these two sources would quickly lead to a change in the overall proportion of complaints which are confirmed as nuisances. This, of course, is on the assumption that the proportion of complaints about these sources which are considered to be nuisances has remained constant. The results of a survey which were reported briefly in the national press [7] point to a possible reason for an increased incidence of barking dogs. This survey showed that many dog owners are now quite young (a third in the age group 16-24) rather than being retired. It is possible therefore that more dogs are now being left unattended during the day, and often outside. The data reported here shows that the most common time period when this noise is heard is during the day. The number of complaints about other sources is too small to assess whether the number of complaints about them has increased in line with the increase for the two most important sources. However, the increase in DIY activity and in car ownership may well have led to an increased incidence of disturbing noise. 5.2.

SOURCES

WHICH

CAUSE

DISTURBANCE

Although data about complaints clearly have some relevance to noise disturbance it is possible that some sources of disturbance may be under-represented. This may arise because those who are disturbed do not feel that a complaint would lead to a reduction in the noise, perhaps because the behaviour of the neighbour is not abnormal in any way. An example of such a noise source could be a lawn mower, which could cause disturbance

328

W. A.

UTLEY

AND I. B. BULLER

whenever it is used but would only provoke a complaint when it is used at what is considered an unacceptable time. It is useful to compare the complaint data with data from a study of noise from neighbours [4]. The sample covered semi-detached and terraced houses built in the 1970s which were largely (72%) local authority owned. Table 7 shows the percentage of respondents who hear and are bothered by different noises. TABLE 7

Noises heard inside houses [4] From neighbours

through walls r

Source Record player Raised voices/shouts People on stairs Conversation TV Doors Children Plumbing Radio

Hear (%)

Bothered (%)

16 15 15 16 25 13 12

5 4 4 4 3 3 2

Children Traffic People Cars Dogs/cats Motorcycles Lorries

8 7

2 1

Sample size

Source

From outside h i-&r (%) 51 30 14 26 9 6 4

\ Bothered (%) 11 7 7 4 4 3 1

917

The major sources of bother heard through the party wall are electronically produced sounds, vocal sounds and impact or activity sounds (people on stairs and banging doors). While the first of these is also an important source of complaint, accounting for about one third of all complaints, the other two types of sound produce relatively few complaints. In the case of voices only about one sixth of the number of complaints caused by amplified music. The noises from outside include street noises as well as noise from neighbours’ property and thus are not strictly comparable with the complaint data. However, these data appear to support the conclusion from this study that barking dogs are more important as an external noise problem than an internal one. It is clear that noise produced by children, although hardly ever the reason for a noise complaint, does disturb a large number of people, particularly when the children are outside. 5.3. FURTHER

WORK

While this study of complaints about domestic noise has provided useful detail about the sources which cause complaints all the information required to propose solutions is not yet available. Clearly, it would be beneficial if future studies concentrated on the two major sources of complaint. With regard to amplified music there are several aspects of the problem which could usefully be investigated. For example, it would be useful to know what proportion of complaints arise in situations where the sound insulation provided by the party wall or floor is well below accepted standards. It has already been pointed out that the availability of more powerful equipment could have led to increased source levels. However, it should also be noted that modern equipment may have led to a significant change in the source noise spectrum, with relatively higher levels at low frequencies. This effect should be investigated since it may have implications for the shape of the curve used to rate sound

COMPLAINTS

ABOUT

DOMESTIC

PREMISES

NOISE

329

insulation performance. A third aspect which could usefully be investigated is the attitude of the noise producer, in order to determine the reasons for listening at such high noise levels. It would also be of interest to know what impact, if any, advertisements for hi-fi equipment which promote its ability to produce high sound levels, have on noise levels. In the case of noise from dogs it would be useful to investigate whether there are any relationships between the tendency to bark and the way in which the dog is trained and treated. This would allow owners to be encouraged to treat their animals in such a way that the noise nuisance would be minimized. In addition to the two major sources of complaint, noise from general domestic activity including voices would seem to warrant further investigation since it appears to cause almost as much disturbance although a much lower level of complaint. It has been suggested that people have less social contact with their neighbours and are less concerned with their neighbours well-being. In this context it is interesting to note that for the noise complaints reported here only 64% of complainants had spoken to their neighbour about the noise.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The problem of identifying situations where disturbance is caused by neighbour noise has been overcome by collecting data about complaints made to Environmental Health Officers. An analysis of data concerned with complaints about 2624 noise sources has led to the following conclusions. (1) There are two major sources of complaint which together account for two thirds of all noise complaints. These are amplified music and barking dogs. (2) Amplified music is most likely to be heard in the evening between 6 o’clock and midnight and the source is situated inside the neighbours dwelling in most cases. This is the dominant source of noise complaint in flats and in noisy areas. EHOs were much more likely to consider noise of this nature to be a nuisance than noise from other sources. (3) Noise from dogs is most likely to be heard during the day and in over two thirds of cases comes from outside. Dogs are the dominant source of noise complaint for detached houses and much less important than amplified music in flats. Half of all the complaints in NW and NE England were about noise from barking dogs. (4) While a number of factors could have been involved in the increase in domestic noise complaints received by EHOs it seems likely that there has been an increase in the incidence and level of noise. The growth in the number of complaints from the two major sources has been similar. (5) Data from a study of party walls in houses indicates that noise from general domestic activities and vocal sounds may bother as many residents as amplified music and barking dogs, although it causes fewer complaints. (6) There is a need to monitor noise in order to quantify the problem and identify techniques for reducing disturbance from neighbour noise and hence the number of complaints.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank all those Environmental Health Officers who completed data sheets. The work described has been carried out as part of the research programme of the Building Research Establishment of the Department of the Environment and this paper is published by permission of the Director.

330

W.

A. UTLEY

AND

1. B. BULLER

REFERENCES 1. F. D. SANDO and V. BABY 1975 Social Trends 5,64-69. Road traffic noise and the environment. 2. V. R. JUPP and J.S. SUTTON 1976 Noise in Darlington. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic. 3. W. A. UTLEY and E. C. KEIGHLEY 1988. Proceedings ofthe 5 th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Community response to neighbourhood noise. 4. F. J. LANGDON, I.B. BULLER and W. E. SCHOLES 1981 Journal ofSound and Vibration 79, 205-228. Noise from neighbours and the sound insulation of party walls in houses. 5. F. J.LANGDON, 1.B. BULLER and W. E. SCHOLES 1983 JournalofSound and Vibration 88, 243-270. Noise from neighbours and the sound insulation of party walls and floors in flats. 6. W. A. UTLEY and R. S.ALPHEY 1974Applied Acoustics 7,183-192. A survey of sound insulation between dwellings in modern building constructions. 7. The Independent, 3 November 1986, page 1. Report on survey by Gallup.