View report page

19
In other respects aircraft noise at points further away from the Airport, they felt, could only be
minimised by controls over the operation of the aircraft, a matter which is beyond the jurisdiction
of the City Council.
Subsequently, in November, 1966, an international conference on the reduction of noise and
disturbance caused by civil aircraft was held at Lancaster House, London, when specific suggestions
were made for future action which might be taken by those responsible for, or concerned with,
the control of disturbances from aircraft noise. It was recognised, however, that it would be for
Governments and other authorities concerned to decide what action they should take thereon,
either domestically or internationally. The principal suggestions made included:—
(1) Immediate action to introduce a system of noise certification of aircraft.
(2) Research on aircraft noise to be urgently pursued.
(3) In the field of the control of land use near airports there should be a full and continuing
exchange of information about action being taken nationally to apply land use controls.
(4) Further research and study in regard to noise reduction by the use of operating techniques.
(5) Perceived Noise Level in decibels is the best available predictor of the subjective attributes
of "noisiness", but the International Organisation for Standardisation should proceed to
specify modifications which should be used for the purposes of noise certification of
aircraft.
(6) The need for comparable procedures to be used in social surveys carried out by different
countries.
(7) Further research in the matter of the insulation of buildings against aircraft noise by countries
whose airports cause serious disturbances to local residents.
(8) Airport authorities and airport operators should be encouraged to pursue all possible
measures to reduce the noise made by aircraft "running-up" engines on the ground.
Training
The serious view of the noise problem taken by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is
evidenced by Circular 22/67 issued on 18th May, 1967, referring to noise related to industrial
processes. This Circular mentions many aspects of the problem and stresses the need for the
establishment of short part-time courses at approved technical institutes for the specialised training
of Local Authority officers who have to deal with noise problems, notably public health inspectors.
This suggestion has been acted upon and by the end of 1968 eleven of the Department's public
health inspectors had attended such a course and it is proposed that eventually all the inspectorial
staff will do so.
Conclusion—As the law stands at present in respect of excessive noise other than that controllable
by the Bye-laws, no offence is committed until the person responsible for the noise has received
notice from the Local Authority that this noise is a nuisance and he has failed to take all practicable
steps to abate it.
If the noise problem is to be adequately tackled there is need for the powers of Local Authorities
to be strengthened and it is suggested that any person causing excessive noise should be guilty
of an offence. Where the appointed officer is satisfied that by reason of the intensity, duration or
nature of a noise that nuisance exists, he should be empowered to lay information before a Court of
Summary Jurisdiction, calling upon such witnesses and/or evidence of fact as he can produce to
support his information. Notice of intent so to do could forthwith be given verbally to the person
causing the nuisance by act or default, and this could be confirmed in writing within 48 hours.
Such procedure would involve no departure from precedent and practice as, for example, under the
Clean Air Act 1956 which, subject to the provisions of the Act, makes the emission of dark smoke
from the chimney of any building an offence. Section 30 of this Act lays a duty upon an authorised
officer of the Local Authority, when he is of the opinion that an offence under the Act has been
committed, to notify the alleged offender "as soon as may be" and provides that "if his notification
is not in writing (he) shall within 48 hours after he became aware of the offence confirm the
notification in writing". It is important that in any new legislation, penalties in respect of noise
nuisance should be greatly increased so as to provide an adequate deterrent in all cases, and
particularly where financial considerations may have a powerful effect as, for example, on large
building sites where the use of equipment to suppress noise may not only be costly but also reduce
efficiency to some extent.