Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Green Paper on future noise policy` (97/C 215/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the European Commission's 'Green Paper on future noise policy` (COM(96) 540 final);

having regard to its decision of 8 March 1996, under the fourth paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to deliver an opinion on this subject and to entrust Commission 5 (Land-use planning, environment, energy) with its preparation;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 436/96 rev.) adopted by Commission 5 on 6 February 1997 (rapporteur: Lord Tope),

adopted the following opinion at its 17th plenary session on 12 and 13 March 1997 (meeting of 13 March).

1. Introduction

1.1. The green paper seeks to develop a noise abatement programme following the review of the Fifth Action Programme (COM(95) 647 final) (). It also aims to stimulate discussion on the future approach to noise policy.

1.2. The COR welcomes the green paper, and endorses both its approach and its substance. Many of the detailed proposals are supported. The COR shares the view that environmental noise is a pollutant of concern to a significant and growing proportion of the Union's population.

1.3. The COR particularly welcomes the emphasis placed on the need for a shared responsibility between all levels of government, and for a partnership approach in working towards a common goal. The COR agrees that the local impact of noise means that finding solutions is essentially a local responsibility, but that some of the answers need national and Community involvement.

1.4. The COR accepts, as suggested, that local flexibility in dealing with noise problems will continue to be important. The acceptability of a particular noise depends not only on its absolute level, but often on its relationship with ambient noise levels. While non-acoustic factors, such as the economic ties between a local community and the source as well as that community's general expectations may also play a part, proper weight needs to be given to the quality of the local environment, and the health of the local population.

1.5. The COR also believes that noise controls cannot always be dealt with in isolation from other environmental and health impacts. Care is necessary to avoid solutions that deal with one pollutant but generate other adverse impacts.

2. The environmental impact of noise

2.1. The green paper identifies noise as primarily an urban problem, while recognizing it can also be a source of annoyance in rural areas. The COR accepts that urban areas have particular problems. However, the generally quieter backgrounds in rural areas make any new noise source more readily identifiable and objectionable. The COR views with concern the apparent continuing loss of tranquil areas, and believes that one object of future policy should be to prevent more such areas from disappearing. The COR also believes that the impact of noise on sensitive ecosystems needs to be considered, particularly in areas that have been specially designated for nature conservation.

2.2. The green paper refers to the range of health effects that can be caused by noise below the levels that induce hearing loss. The COR welcomes the detailed and comprehensive WHO report ('Community noise`) and believes that full recognition should be taken of its conclusions and recommendations in developing the noise abatement programme.

2.3. As stated in the green paper, it is already clear that many people in the Union are already exposed to noise levels in excess of those considered acceptable. The green paper also identifies the trends that are likely to increase the number affected. The COR endorses the view that without an effective programme, problems with environmental noise will increase. The COR also believes that the expected growth in road and air traffic is likely to offset any technological improvements producing quieter vehicles and aircraft.

2.4. The green paper indicates that some noises are perceived as being less annoying or more acceptable than others. The COR accepts that this is so, but urges caution in setting standards on this basis. Public sentiment can change, sometimes quickly. An example would be tolerance shown currently to rail traffic as against road noise. Substantial programmes of railway construction could affect attitudes, particularly in densely populated areas. Similarly increased night-time railway freight movements could also cause a change of attitudes.

2.5. The green paper makes no mention of helicopter noise as distinct from aircraft. The COR notes the view that noise guidelines for aeroplanes are not appropriate for helicopters. Certified noise levels may be particularly misleading as a guide to actual noise impact, because emissions are more dependent on the manoeuvre being undertaken. Helicopters may also operate for prolonged periods in close proximity to dwellings, and the growth in such traffic is likely to cause further problems.

3. Existing policies

3.1. Chapter 3 of the green paper sets out the existing policy instruments with an assessment of the impact of current legislation.

3.2. In respect of road transport, further controls in respect of noise produced by new motor vehicles have been implemented recently, and in respect of two- and three-wheelers are imminent. The green paper itself highlights a number of shortcomings with this approach:

- relaxed limits in early years;

- a slow replacement of older noisier vehicles;

- growth in road traffic;

- growth in the importance of tyre noise;

- a test procedure that does not represent real driving conditions;

- lack of a post-sale inspection/enforcement regime.

3.3. The COR endorses this analysis and concludes that noise controls in respect of new vehicles play a useful part, but that additional measures are necessary to deal with the other problems identified. In addition, individual driving habits should not be overlooked in connection with traffic noise.

3.4. The green paper cites the use of post-sale vehicle noise inspections in Japan and Australia. While the resource implications of such a regime need to be considered, the apparent success of this approach in New South Wales merits detailed study.

3.5. In respect of rail transport, the COR notes the current lack of controls at the European Community level with some concern. The lack of common noise emission standards may well cause distortions of the single market. Differing emission standards in Member States is also difficult to justify and is inconsistent with a common programme now under discussion.

3.6. In respect of air transport, the green paper identifies the progress made in setting European and international noise controls for individual aircraft. However, the green paper also highlights problems due to the continuing substantial growth in air traffic, as well as the increasing size of individual aircraft. The green paper acknowledges that these factors could well mean that the overall noise emissions rise after 2002. The COR believes that this is an important issue, particularly for those communities living in the vicinity of airports. It points out, in this context, that adequate noise abatement in the vicinity of airports can be ensured under independent land-use planning by regional and local authorities where they have legal responsibility for this.

3.7. In respect of construction plant, etc., the green paper refers to the six specific directives and the 'machinery` directive. The green paper highlights the fact that only a small range of noisy outdoor equipment is covered, with some Member States adopting separate national measures. The COR believes there is indeed scope to rationalize the use of specific directives and endorses the move to a new framework directive. The COR believes that any new controls should be sufficiently flexible to deal with the development of new plant, as well as noisy outdoor machinery more associated with leisure or domestic use. The COR also believes that the possible risk of displacement of noise pollution as a consequence of workplace controls needs to be considered when such controls are being formulated or revised, along with other environmental impacts. A shortcoming of the green paper is its failure to address the issue of noisy equipment in apartment blocks, restaurants and shops of various kinds. The most important examples here are ventilation fans and cold-storage equipment. Noise from these causes considerable problems in towns, and these should be examined.

3.8. The green paper does not, however, address the issues relating to noise caused by the use of some construction plant (e.g. concrete breakers or pile drivers) as against the noise emitted from the machinery itself. Additionally a number of the problems identified in 3.2 above also relate to construction plant. For some plant it is common to find covers and other noise controls to be removed particularly to avoid overheating. The COR believes that the testing arrangements need to be sufficiently robust to ensure that all such plant can be operated with the noise controls in place under all expected operating conditions. The COR also believes that other policy instruments should be considered in the same way as for vehicles to ensure that the expected improvements are achieved and maintained.

3.9. The green paper also does not address problems of construction noise arising from operations carried out during anti-social hours. Such noise can cause significant nuisance particularly in urban areas. While the controls necessary may be more appropriately imposed locally, this point underlines the fact that construction noise cannot be dealt with simply by imposing emission limits on specific types of machinery.

3.10. The green paper identifies the current lack of Community legislation in respect of industrial noise, and highlights the relevance of the proposed directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC). The COR welcomes the proposed introduction of the IPPC scheme and its relevance to noise control. The COR, however, recognizes that the proper operation of permit based schemes will require adequate resources for the appropriate regulatory body.

3.11. With respect to emission standards etc., the green paper identifies the thresholds and standards used by OECD, WHO and by the Fifth Environmental Action Programme. As stated above the COR believes the WHO guideline values merit an important place in any discussion on standards. The COR also believes that identifying thresholds for daytime (and night time) LA eq is useful, but does not go far enough. Annoyance and nuisance are also caused by perceived increases above background noise levels. Lower absolute levels may therefore give rise to more problems at night and in quieter locations. An increase of 10dB(A) above the background - which represents a perceived doubling of noise levels - will often be significant. Additionally, sudden noises, particularly at night-time, have the ability to cause nuisance and sleep disturbance which may not be fully reflected in a standard based on LA eq. The COR therefore believes that standards based on LA max at such times as proposed by WHO are particularly important.

3.12. In respect of noise quality criteria, the green paper highlights the near universal adoption of LA eq. for the measurement of road, rail and residential use. As noted in the green paper, the methods used to assess noise exposure need to be harmonized.

3.13. The green paper identifies the growing importance of infrastructure measures such as the use of low-noise porous road surfaces. In view of the growing contribution of tyre noise to the overall levels generated by road vehicles, the COR sees this as an essential area for further development.

3.14. The green paper notes the limited use for economic instruments so far. As discussed above, the COR believes there is indeed a wider role for such measures, to encourage the early take-up of quieter vehicles and plant, and for their subsequent proper maintenance and use.

3.15. The green paper also comments on operational procedures, Community support for research and information and education. The COR accepts the conclusions reached in the green paper.

3.16. The green paper does not deal with noise from sporting and other leisure pursuits. These are a growing source of environmental noise in some areas and large outdoor events can cause substantial nuisance. The green paper also does not address domestic noise, which can form a significant part of the public's overall concern about noise issues. The acceptability of noise from such sources will be affected by many factors, including social and cultural values. Therefore, the necessity for action will need to be judged at the local level. An approach based on health effects must take into account the impact of noise from these sources. Additionally, the COR believes that any approach based on health-effects must deal with internal noise standards in premises (such as discos) where there is a real possibility of hearing damage occurring.

4. A new framework for EC noise policy

4.1. In chapter 4 the green paper outlines the future European Community role. The emphasis on shared responsibility has been referred to in 1.3 above. The need for an overall abatement programme is emphasized, as is the need to coordinate the dispersed responsibilities of the Commission and the Council in respect of noise. The lack of reliable and comparable data with which to monitor progress, and the lack of sufficient integration at all levels is recognized. The green paper identifies the key Community role in action to reduce noise from different sources. The COR endorses this view and supports developing other policy instruments as well as legislation on emission limits. The COR also welcomes the Community encouraging exchange of experience in noise abatement between Member States and local authorities.

4.2. The green paper proposes a framework for noise exposure assessment, and emphasizes the need for better, more comparable data. The green paper suggests various measures that could be included in a directive proposal:

- The establishment of a common EC noise exposure index.

The COR accepts the suggestion of using A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level [LA eq in dB(A)] as the main index. However, where appropriate, as referred to above, the use of LA max is relevant in some cases, particularly for night-time noise. Consideration should also be given to the use of increases above the background (LA 90) where appropriate. The COR considers that no one index is likely to be sufficient to deal with all aspects of noise control. Whatever standards are adopted the COR believes that there must be common measurement procedures, and common standards for noise meters and their calibration.

- Provisions for the development and use of harmonized prediction and measurement methods etc.

The COR supports this proposal.

- Assessment of environmental noise exposure and provision of public information.

The COR supports the use of noise-mapping in principle but have some concerns over its purpose and potential limitations. Depending on the value used (e.g. LA 90, LA 50) and the time period, the noise contours are subject to considerable change. The effects of localized screening means that there will be significant variations within short distances. The placing of such monitors and the timing of the monitoring will affect the results obtained. The COR believes that noise mapping has a role to play in assessing trends in background levels, as well as in the overall noise climate. The COR believes that noise mapping has particular relevance where significant point sources need to be monitored.

The COR also believes that computer modelling has a useful role in assessing noise from a number of specific sources.

4.3. The green paper outlines action on the different sources and makes proposals. In respect of road noise the COR's views are:

- More differentiation in annual vehicle and fuel taxes.

The COR is interested in developing such proposals, but stresses the need to ensure that such taxes do not unduly penalize those with low incomes or those living in rural and peripheral areas where transport costs are higher and public transport often infrequent.

- A technical revision of the test procedure.

The COR supports this proposal.

- Amending Community legislation on roadworthiness to include noise testing.

The COR supports this proposal, but stresses the need for adequate resources to be available to the regulatory bodies. The COR believes that local authorities are well placed to assume this role.

- Actions to promote the use of low noise surfacing.

The COR supports these proposals.

4.4. In respect of railway noise, the green paper argues that increased noise abatement efforts are required if the expansion of traffic is to gain wider acceptance. The COR supports this view, and underlines the importance of an increased role for rail in achieving a range of environmental benefits. The COR supports the proposed measures in respect of both high speed rail and freight. The COR believes that particular emphasis must be put on research in terms of reducing noise emissions from rail. The possible alternatives to using metal wheels on metal rails need to be fully considered.

4.5. In respect of aircraft noise, the green paper proposes the issuing of a consultation paper on working towards more stringent emission standards, as well as developing a common framework for land use rules. The Commission also plans to make a proposal on airport charges. The COR supports these measures, but questions whether by themselves they can address noise problems caused by the continued growth in air traffic. The particular issue of helicopter noise has been made in 2.5 above. The COR believes that such a framework needs some flexibility to take account of local needs, provided this does not undermine the overall approach.

4.6. In respect of outdoor machinery, the Commission intends to propose a framework directive, covering not only construction plant, but also garden equipment used on specific vehicles. This directive will include labelling by manufacturers. The COR supports this approach and reiterates the point made above on ensuring any such guarantees are effective in terms of all expected operating conditions. As with all labelling arrangements, the information must be clear and intelligible and enable purchasers to make informed choices. As indicated above the COR believes that economic instruments also have a role to play in ensuring the early use of quieter machinery. While the green paper indicates that the new framework directive would be more flexible and cover a wider range of outdoor equipment, it is not clear what in practice this might include. Noise from house and car alarms can be a significant source of nuisance, particularly in urban areas. It is possible to control such nuisance by imposing a requirement for cut-out devices to operate once the alarm has been sounding for an allowed period. This could be imposed on a Union-wide basis in terms of new sales of such equipment, and the COR believes the ability to include such sources within the ambit of the proposed framework directive merits further attention.

4.7. The green paper outlines ways of promoting exchanges of experience. The Commission intends preparing a guide on the implementation of the Fifth Environmental Action Programme including noise abatement. This guide will be prepared in conjunction with Member States and local authority associations. The COR welcomes these proposals and believes that local and regional authorities have an important role to play in developing such initiatives.

4.8. The green paper does not address the issue of the responsibility to be borne by network operators (roads, railways and airports) in preventing noise transmission. The COR believes that transport network operators share responsibility with manufacturers of transport equipment for measures to prevent noise transmission and the costs arising from them.

5. Conclusion

5.1. The green paper identifies the need for a new framework for a Community noise policy, and the importance of noise as a form of environmental pollution that affects many people. The COR believes that the new framework, to be successful, must cover all relevant aspects of the Commission's work. Where different directives dealing with specific aspects of noise continue to be necessary, these need to be consistent with the overall policy aims. The COR believes the green paper provides a good opportunity to develop a more positive and coherent approach.

5.2. The green paper recognizes the complexity of noise issue, and the important roles of Member States and local authorities as well as the Community's involvement.

5.3. The COR welcomes the green paper and wishes to take an active role in the future development of the Community's noise policy.

The green paper includes a number of proposals which would have resource implications for local and regional authorities. These must be taken into consideration in the development of any future EU policy on noise.

Brussels, 13 March 1997.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA

() OJ No C 140, 11. 5. 1996, p. 5.