However, the regulation of air conditioner noise requires a balance between minimising noise impacts and allowing people the comfort of using air conditioners during hot nights. During the early stakeholder consultation process, local government officers queried whether the current regulations were appropriate during periods of extreme heat. In some high-density buildings, for example, the only way for residents to maintain reasonable comfort levels is to use an air conditioner. In response to this feedback, EPA considered the following changes: Option 2A (i): Exemptions during Heat Health Alert periods – the regulations would provide an exemption to allow residents to use air conditioners on days when a Heat Health Alert has been declared by the Chief State Health Officer. Option 2A (ii): Reduce the prohibited hours for the use of air conditioners – the prohibited hours for air conditioners would be reduced, either generally or in specified areas (e.g. in mixed-use zones). Option 2A (iii): Combined approach: reduced prohibited hours and exemptions during Heat Health Alert periods – a combination of Option 2A (i) and Option 2A (iii). assessing the costs and benefits of the options, EPA proposes Option 2A (iii), the combined approach. Recommended approach After assessing the costs and benefits of the options, Option 2A (iii), the combined approach is proposed. The new regulations proposed would amend the prohibited hours for air conditioners to one hour later (see table below) and provide exemptions to prohibited hours during Heat Health Alerts. This would allow people to use their air conditioners for one hour more year-round, and during Heat Health Alerts, at any time. EPA considers the net benefits from this option would be larger than the other two options. The ability to operate air conditioners during times of extreme heat significantly improves occupant comfort and can even reduce health risks (i.e. due to heat stress). While an air conditioner may be audible in an adjacent dwelling, the intensity of the sound will often be significantly less than that of other noise sources, and the characteristic sound (a low hum) is not considered to be as annoying. Whilst air conditioner noise is currently one of the most complained about noise sources, there is a trend toward increasingly quiet electrical appliances. Option 2B: Amending concrete pour provisions
new regulations would prescribe the same items, prohibited times and exemptions, as outlined in section 2.2.2 above. Local government and police would continue to use the regulations to determine what is considered unreasonable residential noise and issue directions under the EP Act and regulations. Under this option, EPA would take the opportunity to make some minor editorial amendments to update the drafting. These amendments would have no substantive impacts. Assessment of options The benefits and costs associated with Option 1 are outlined in Table 9 below. Table 9 Costs and benefits of Option 1: Remake the current regulations Benefits In some situations, noise that is “unreasonable” as defined by the current regulations may not be considered unreasonable if the principles contained in the EP Act were used to assess the situation. This impinges on people’s rights by constraining how they use certain items at certain times of the day, which may impose financial and non-financial costs Inflexibility in addressing residential noise issues when these issues could be addressed on a case-by-case basis Specifying the items and times at which they cannot be used to clarify what is meant by ‘unreasonable’ means that the regulations/definition can become outdated as circumstances change (e.g. ‘new’ sources of noise emerge) Prescribed items and prohibited hours may be out of step with current community expectations and tolerances to noise Inefficiencies or inequities may because some noisy items are prescribed in the regulations while other equally (or more) noisy sources may not be There would be a well understood tool for managing unreasonable night-time noise Police and local government officers would retain the ability to apply the regulations where the PH&W Act is not appropriate Police and local government officers would have clear guidance available to them as to what constitutes unreasonable noise that covers many of the most commonly encountered enforcement issues Police and local government officers would not have to rely on the subjective definitions of unreasonable noise contained in the EP Act or the equally subjective nuisance provisions of the PH&W Act Avoid time consuming, more inconsistent and potentially less effective enforcement activity Aligns with feedback from police and local government officers that the regulations are widely used Will help address the forecasted increase in the residential noise problem due to reduced tolerance and an increase in medium/high density living
Compared to the situation the current regulations, residents with neighbouring premises undergoing construction may experience more noise annoyance for 3 months of the year between 5am – 7am on weekdays. Given concrete pouring for residential construction does not occur for extended periods the extra noise annoyance may be limited in duration. There is a likelihood that it may trigger other construction work to start which could generate noise and create more noise annoyance. There is also a risk of the definition of ‘trucks dispensing concrete’ being exploited to include other noise generation trucks and creating more noise annoyance for residents. Impact for industry Construction involving concrete pouring at residential premises could occur 2 hours earlier for 3 months of the year. This may increase the flexibility of the residential construction industry, which may reduce costs and improve productivity. Impact for government Local government may receive more noise complaints, given that there may be more noise annoyance. However it would be quicker to explain to a complainant that concrete pouring noise is not considered unreasonable under the proposed new regulations than having to attend and investigate the alleged source of the complaint under the current regulations. There is also a risk of the definition of ‘trucks dispensing concrete’ being exploited to include other noise generating trucks and creating more noise annoyance for residents and noise complaints for local government. The costs and benefits of the option are presented in Table 16. Table 16 Costs and benefits of Option 2B (i): Reduce prohibited hours for concrete pouring Costs Benefits Community: Increased potential for noise annoyance and impacts to health from disturbing sleep although likely to be limited in duration as because concrete pours for residential construction does not occur for extended periods. Industry: Increased cost to industry to pay for operations in non-standard working hours which would be compared to the benefits of starting earlier. Industry: Increased burden on personnel to start earlier in summer. State government: Need to communicate changes to the regulations. Community: May trigger construction work to start which could generate noise and create more noise annoyance government and community: Risk of the definition of ‘trucks dispensing concrete’ being Industry: Access to more optimal concrete pour conditions with resulting benefits in of structural integrity of the concrete pour Local government: Reduced cost to respond to noise complaints because no requirement to investigate noise complaints about concrete pours from 5am Monday to Friday Community: Stronger, less compromised concrete Industry: Greater flexibility to operate in summer months Industry: Increased productivity – more projects could be undertaken due to the reduced prohibited hours in summer months.
Contribute to a reduction in unreasonable residential noise To determine if the proposed changes to the current regulations delivered on the expected benefits To identify future regulatory improvements to further reduce the impacts of residential noise Measure community experience of noise via the Outcomes Social Research surveys Biennial Biennial reviews of residential noise complaints with local government and police. EPA will engage with police and local government officers (e.g. via workshops, interviews, surveys, and case studies) to gather quantitative and qualitative information such as: the number, location (both geographically and by type of dwelling) and nature of residential noise complaints received the number and timing of complaints about residential and the item complained about (particularly air conditioner noise) police and local government officers’ experiences enforcing the regulations police and local government officers suggested changes to the proposed new regulations. how the regulations have improved outcomes. Biennial – after the results of the Outcomes Social Research are available so that the community’s experience is also considered in the review Given the minor change proposed in making new regulations, EPA considers that the proposed evaluation strategy is proportionate because it: only requires minor changes to the way current data about residential noise is collected and focuses on its understanding data trends addresses key information gaps.
The Environment Protection (Residential Regulations 2008 are revoked. 5 Definitions In these Regulations— Chief Health Officer has the same meaning as in section 3(1) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008; earthmoving machinery means powered plant used to excavate, load, transport or spread earth, overburden, rubble, spoil, aggregate or similar material, but does not include— to compact earth, overburden, rubble, spoil, aggregate or similar material; or tractor or industrial lift truck or a vehicle designed to be used primarily as a means of transport on public roads; fringe residential subdivision means any relevant land— a growth area or an urban growth zone under any planning scheme; or is undeveloped land identified for future urban development, other than land within Metropolitan Melbourne that is not covered by a metropolitan fringe planning scheme (within the meaning of section 46AA of the Planning and Environment Act 1987); growth area has the same meaning as in section 3(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; heat health alert means an alert issued by the Chief Health Officer under the heat health alert system operated by the Department of Health and Human Services;