8 Noise and Vibration - northamptonshire.gov.uk · Chapter 8 – Noise and Vibration 8-1 ......

Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Text and Figures

Northamptonshire County Council

Chapter 8 – Noise and Vibration 8-1

8 Noise and Vibration

8.1 Introduction This Chapter assesses the effect of the Proposed Scheme on noise and vibration. In particular it 8.1.1

considers the potential effects of:

noise and vibration on sensitive receptors as a result of site preparation, earthworks and construction phase activities (including construction traffic); and

noise and vibration on sensitive receptors as a result of traffic noise and vibration arising during the operational phase of the Proposed Scheme.

This Chapter is necessarily technical in nature and contains terminology relating to noise and 8.1.2vibration. The terminology used in this Chapter is defined and explained in Appendix 8.1.

This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) is not intended to be read as a stand-alone 8.1.3assessment and reference should be made to the Front End of this ES (Chapters 1 – 6), as well as Chapter 19 - Cumulative Effects.

8.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance

Legislative Framework The applicable legislative framework is summarised as follows: 8.2.1

The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (UK Government, 1974) (Ref. 8-1), which was introduced to cover a wide range of environmental pollution including noise. Parts of the Act have been superseded by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (see below);

The Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (UK Government, 1990) (Ref. 8-2), which amongst many other things empowers the local authority to issue a Noise Abatement Notice where it is satisfied of the existence of a noise nuisance; and

The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (NIR) (Ref. 8-3), a regulatory document which provides for noise insulation to be offered in respect of residential properties affected by noise from new or altered roads in specified circumstances.

Planning Policy Planning policy at the national and local level and its relevance to environmental design and 8.2.2

assessment is discussed in (Chapter 6 – Environmental Planning Policy Context). A summary of the Proposed Scheme’s compliance with legislation and planning policy has been included in Table 8.16.

National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref. 8-4) was published on 27 March 2012 and is 8.2.3a key part of the reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, to protect the environment and to promote sustainable growth. There is an overarching presumption in favour of sustainable development that should be the basis of every plan and every decision.

The NPPF consolidates and replaces all of the previous Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and 8.2.4Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) that relate to noise and vibration, within a single document.

Paragraph 123 is relevant to this assessment and is repeated as follows: 8.2.5




“Planning policies and decisions should aim to:

avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts27 on health and quality of life as a result of new development;

mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts27 on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;

recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established;28 and

identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.”

Reference numbers 27 and 28 point respectively to the Explanatory Note to the Noise Policy Statement 8.2.6for England (NPSE) (Ref. 8-5) and the provisions of the EPA and other relevant law.

No objective noise criteria have been proposed by the Government as a direct replacement for those 8.2.7outlined in ‘Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise’ (PPG 24).

The recently published Planning Practice Guidance (see below) does not include any numeric 8.2.8guidelines but provides some qualitative indication of what the observed effect levels of the Noise Policy Statement for England (see below) might represent in terms of “the likely average response.”

Noise Policy Statement for England

The NPSE (Ref. 8-5) was published in March 2010 by the Department for Environment Food and Rural 8.2.9Affairs (DEFRA) and is the overarching statement of noise policy for England. It applies to all forms of noise other than occupational noise, setting out the long-term vision of Government noise policy, which is to:

“Promote good health and a good quality of life through the effective management of noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development.”

That vision is supported by the following aims which are reflected in the aims for planning policies 8.2.10and decisions in paragraph 123 of the NPPF (see above):

“Through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development:

avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life;

mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life; and

where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life.”

The Explanatory Note to the NPSE introduces three concepts to the assessment of noise in this 8.2.11country:

NOEL – No Observed Effect Level – This is the level below which no effect can be detected and below which there is no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to noise.

LOAEL – Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level – This is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected.

SOAEL – Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level – This is the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur.




None of these three levels are defined numerically in the NPSE and for the SOAEL the NPSE makes 8.2.12it clear that the noise level is likely to vary depending upon the noise source, the receptor and the time of day/day of the week, etc. The need for more research to investigate what may represent a SOAEL for noise is acknowledged and the NPSE asserts that not stating specific SOAEL levels provides policy flexibility in the period until there is further evidence and guidance.

Planning Practice Guidance

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Ref. 8-6) under the NPPF has been published by the 8.2.13Government as a web based resource at http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/noise/. This includes specific guidance on noise although, like the NPPF and NPSE the PPG does not provide any quantitative advice. It seeks to illustrate a range of effect levels in terms of examples of outcomes (see Appendix 8.2 for details).

Local Plan

The Proposed Scheme spans two local authority areas, Daventry District Council (DDC) and South 8.2.14Northamptonshire Council (SNC).

DDC’s Local Plan (adopted 1997, Saved Policies 28 September 2007) contains the following policies 8.2.15relevant to noise and vibration effects:

Local Plan Policy RC2.

SNC’s Local Plan (adopted 1997, Saved Policies 28 September 2007) contains the following policies 8.2.16relevant to noise and vibration effects:

Local Plan Policy G3; and

Local Plan Policy EV25.

Guidance Further guidance is set out in British Standards and guidance documents. 8.2.17

The following document is relevant to baseline noise measurements: 8.2.18

ISO 1996-2:2007 ‘Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise – Part 2: Determination of environmental noise levels’ (ISO 1996) (Ref. 8-7);

The following documents are appropriate for use in the prediction and assessment of construction 8.2.19noise and vibration:

British Standard 5228: 2009 ‘Code of practice for noise control on construction and open sites Part 1: Noise and Part 2: Vibration (BS5228-1 & -2: 2009+A1: 2014) (Ref. 8-8).

The following documents are appropriate for use in the prediction and assessment of operational 8.2.20noise and vibration:

Department of Transport/Welsh Office (1988) ‘Calculation of Road Traffic Noise’ (CRTN) (Ref. 8-9);

Transport Research Laboratory (2000) ‘Converting the UK traffic noise index LA10,18h to EU noise indices for noise mapping’ (TRL 2000) (Ref. 8-10); and

The Highways Agency, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly and the Department for Regional Development Northern Ireland (November 2011) ‘The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges [HD213/11]’ (DMRB) (Ref. 8-11).

Further information on the above British and International Standards and guidance documents is 8.2.21contained in Appendix 8.2.




8.3 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

Scope of the Assessment An Environmental Scoping Report was submitted to Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) in April 8.3.1

2014. This section provides an update on the scope of the assessment and re-iterates the evidence base for insignificant effects.

Insignificant Effects

The Scoping Report identified operational vibration as a potentially significant effect. Since release of 8.3.2the Scoping Report, the route layout has been agreed and it shows that the closest point between the proposed new carriageway and a sensitive property is 85 metres. Given the significant distance, ground-borne vibration from the operation of the new route is expected to be below 0.3 mm/s Peak Particle Velocity at all sensitive receptors and thus has been scoped out of the assessment. Similarly, DMRB states that airborne vibration should be considered for any receptor located within 40 metres of any proposed new route or realignment. Airborne traffic-induced vibration is therefore also scoped out of this assessment.

The effects scoped out of the ES now include: 8.3.3

Disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors as a result of vibration from traffic generated by the operation of the Proposed Scheme.

Potentially Significant Effects

From review of the activities and processes associated with the Proposed Scheme, as shown in 8.3.4Chapter 4 – Description of the Proposed Scheme, the following effects have been identified as potentially significant and are therefore considered within this Chapter:

Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Phase

Disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors from noise; and

Disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors as a result of vibration.

Operational Phase

Disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors as a result of noise from traffic generated by the operation of the Proposed Scheme.

Extent of the Study Area It is anticipated that effects from the Proposed Scheme would result from the introduction of new 8.3.5

noise sources (e.g. the new road and associated junctions/ roundabouts), the realignment of existing noise sources (e.g. short sections of existing roads realigned to join the proposed junctions/roundabouts), and any significant changes in flows along existing local road traffic routes resulting from the Proposed Scheme.

The start point of the study area has been defined as the southern end of the proposed route design, 8.3.6i.e. at the south-eastern junction with the A45, just west of Junction 16 of the M1. The finish point of the study area has been defined as the western end of the proposed route, i.e. at the point of intersection with the A45.

The study area has been based on these start and finish points and the region within 1km from: 8.3.7




The existing A45 route that is proposed to be bypassed; and

The proposed new route.

There are no significant changes in vehicle flows outside of this area to warrant extension of the 8.3.8study area beyond the above defined region. The study area is shown on Figure 8.1.

Consultation Undertaken to Date Table 8.1 provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken in support of the preparation 8.3.9

of this Chapter.

Table 8.1 – Summary of Consultation Undertaken to Date

Body/organisation (personnel at body/organisation)

Date of consultation Key outcomes of discussions

Daventry District Council (Ian Collings)

Issued 19 September 2013

Responded 3 October 2013

Consultation letter and outline study area plan Identified noisy activities within the area. Request for assessment to consider outlying properties in addition to the villages. No complaints received regarding the proposed route layout. Conditions to mitigate construction noise and vibration likely to be imposed. Assessment should consider possibility of mitigation as part of Noise Insulation Regulations 1975. Baseline noise survey methods to be submitted and agreed.

South Northamptonshire Council (John Penny)

Forwarded by DDC on 4 October 2013

Responded 8 October 2013

Consultation letter and outline study area plan Identified noisy activities within the area. Request that the assessment include all of the residential dwellings within Upper Heyford and dwellings at the northern part of Nether Heyford. One complaint received in 2013, not related to road traffic noise or vibration. Assessment should consider the guidance within BS 7445:1991, BS 5228:2008, WHO: 1999, WHO:2009, BS 8233:1999, BS 6472:2008, Town and Country Planning Regulations 1990, Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 and CRTN, where applicable. Baseline noise survey methods to be submitted and agreed.

Daventry District Council (Karen Pell)

Issued 26 November 2013

Responded 28 November 2013



Noise survey methodology issued Ensure noise monitoring locations are free-field Request to undertake manned only surveys to fully ensure measurements only undertaken in suitable meteorological conditions. Monitoring locations agreed, reserving the right to add more if desired. Agreed methodology in principle. Requested to avoid measuring only during peak periods. Further details regarding methodology issued. Acknowledged receipt of additional methodology

South Northamptonshire Council (John Penny)



Noise survey methodology issued Satisfied with proposed noise survey methodology.

Daventry District Council Responded 2 Satisfied with the noise monitoring locations and the methodology proposed.




Body/organisation (personnel at body/organisation)

Date of consultation Key outcomes of discussions

(Ian Collings) December 2013 Requested long-term monitoring at locations C, D, J for the existing A45 & some in the area of the proposed route.

As regards the request for long-term unattended noise monitoring to be undertaken at Location D 8.3.10

and Location J, no secure locations could be found at these locations and thus attended measurements had to be undertaken.

A copy of the correspondence is provided in Appendix 2.4. 8.3.11

Method of Baseline Data Collation

Desk Study

A desk study was undertaken in order to determine the locations for baseline noise monitoring. 8.3.12Satellite images covering the study area were reviewed in the context of the scheme extent and the requirements to control construction noise as per BS 5228 and control operational noise as per DMRB.

The review determined that there were no significant vibration generative processes on site to 8.3.13require measurement of baseline vibration levels.

Site Visits

An environmental noise survey of the current prevailing ambient noise levels was undertaken over 8.3.14the course of several site visits, partly in 2013 and more extensively in 2014. The survey comprised a combination of attended and non-attended measurements.

A site plan showing the noise monitoring locations is shown in Figure 8.2. 8.3.15

The noise measurements were made with the intention of determining: 8.3.16

a) Prevailing road traffic noise levels at key receptor locations for the purposes of noise model calibration; and

b) Baseline conditions at key receptors for the purpose of establishing suitable construction noise limits.

The measurements were undertaken in accordance with the procedures outlined in Appendix 8.3. 8.3.17

Relevant details for each measurement position are summarised in Table 8.2. 8.3.18

Table 8.2 – Noise Survey Details

Ref. Location Reason (ref. para.8.3.16)

Dates

Attended (A) / Unattended (U)

Description of Environmental Noise Climate

A

Located to the rear of 2 Main Road, Upper Heyford, north of the A45 and south of the proposed new route and the M1

A 1st to 3rd May 2014 U Dominated by road traffic noise, mostly from M1 and partially from existing A45

B

Located to the front of 2 Main Road, Upper Heyford, alongside the A45 and south of the proposed new route and the M1

a & b 27th to 29th November 2013 U Dominated by road traffic

noise from existing A45

C Located on the intervening ground between the truck stop and the A45, near to Flore Holiday Inn Hotel and

A 31st March to 1st April 2014 U Dominated by road traffic





Ref. Location Reason (ref. para.8.3.16)

Dates Attended (A) / Unattended (U)

Description of Environmental Noise Climate

Hollandstone Farm

D Located on High Street, Flore, alongside the existing A45 A 28th November 2013 A Dominated by road traffic


E Located within the rear garden of 16 The Crescent, Flore, south of the proposed new route and the M1

a & b 27th to 29th November 2013 U Dominated by road traffic

noise from M1

F Located in the field next to 1 & 2 Oxhouse Farm, north of the M1 a & b 27th to 29th November

2013 U Dominated by road traffic noise from M1

G Located in the field to the west of Hobhill Farm, south of the proposed new route and the M1

a & b 6th to 8th May 2014 U Dominated by road traffic noise from M1

H Located in the field to the north of Hill House Farm, Flore, south of the proposed new route

a & b 31st March to 2nd April 2014 U

Dominated by road traffic noise from existing A45 and A5

I Located outside the entrance to Flore Hill Farm near to the A45, between Flore and Weedon Bec

A 31st March to 2nd April 2014 U Dominated by road traffic


J Located on High Street, Weedon Bec, alongside existing A45 a & b 6th May 2014 A Dominated by road traffic


K Located to the west of Dodmoor House, adjacent to the reservoir, west of the A5

a & b 28th November 2013 A

Dominated by road traffic noise from existing A45 and A5, except during train passes when train noise dominates

L

Located north of Grange Farm and Globe Farm near to the proposed new route and it’s junction with the A45

a & b 15th May to 16th May 2014 U Dominated by road traffic


M Located near to the closest house within Dodford, north of the proposed route

a & b 15th May to 16th May 2014 U

Most dominant noise source was distant M1 road traffic. A45 traffic noise not audible. Birdcall noticeable along with occasional rail noise.

Assessment Modelling In this section, the methods used to predict noise and vibration are set out for each aspect of the 8.3.19

study requiring consideration.

Further guidance on specific information supporting each assessment is provided in Appendix 8.2. 8.3.20

Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Noise and Vibration

Calculations have been undertaken at key locations along the route in accordance with BS 5228-1 8.3.21and -2, assuming a typical composition of activity and working areas.

Operational Noise Predictions

A three-dimensional computer aided noise model has been developed covering the study area and 8.3.22calculations have been undertaken in accordance with CRTN and DMRB for daytime noise (LA10,18hr). The results have been used to estimate the night-time noise (Lnight,outside) using Method 3 of the TRL 2000 document.




The model incorporates all buildings within the study area using address data from the year 2013. 8.3.23

The measured environmental noise levels have been used to ‘calibrate’ the noise model using the 8.3.24vehicle flows supplied for the year 2014.

The predictions have been based on an opening year of 2017 (also referenced as the baseline year 8.3.25in the assessment methodology of DMRB) and have also considered future road traffic activity in 2032, +15 years after the opening year.

The effect of road traffic noise as a result of the Proposed Scheme has been assessed following the 8.3.26Detailed Assessment method of DMRB.

The DMRB Detailed Assessment method describes the following process: 8.3.27

Define a Scheme Study Area;

Identify local noise-sensitive receptors within the Study Area;

Predict the daytime (LA10,18hr) noise levels for the year of opening (2017) and the future assessment year (2032), with and without the Proposed Scheme;

Predict the night-time (Lnight,outside) noise levels for the year of opening (2017) without the Proposed Scheme and a future assessment year (2032) with the Proposed Scheme;

Undertake the following three comparisons:

Do-Minimum scenario in the baseline year (2017) against Do-Minimum scenario in the future assessment year (2032) [long-term residual change];

Do-Minimum scenario in the baseline year (2017) against Do-Something scenario in the baseline year (2017) [short-term change]; and

Do-Minimum scenario in the baseline year (2017) against Do-Something scenario in the future assessment year (2032) [long-term change].

For night-time noise, consider only the effects in the long-term.

Use the results of the comparison exercise to group the number of dwellings and number of other sensitive receptors across the Study Area within the noise band categories identified in DMRB for both the short-term and the long-term;

Identify any changes in excess of 1 dB in the short-term or 3 dB in the long-term and where these increases result in the level of noise being equal to or exceeding 58 dB LA10,18hr, consider mitigation.

Consider the requirements of the Noise Insulation Regulations and determine mitigation where noise level increases exceed 68 dB LA10,18hr as a result of the Proposed Scheme;

Undertake a noise nuisance assessment, considering both noise level increases and decreases that are predicted to arise as a result of the Proposed Scheme (Do-Something) and that are predicted to prevail in the absence of the Proposed Scheme (Do-Minimum); and

Categorise the percentage change in noise nuisance level into bands of <10%, 10% to <20%, 20% to <30%, 30% to <40 % and => 40%.

Calculations have been undertaken in accordance with CRTN. 8.3.28

DMRB suggests that changes in road traffic for the Do-Minimum scenario would be gradual over 8.3.29time, and as such, this assessment adopts the ‘steady state’ nuisance assessment method presented in the DMRB. The percentage of people bothered ‘very much or quite a lot’ by road traffic noise has been identified for receptors within the Study Area for both the 2017 and 2032 Do-Minimum scenarios. The difference between the two figures has been identified as the change in percentage of people bothered.

For the Do-Something scenario, the highest level of bother over the short-term and long-term has 8.3.30




been evaluated. For the short-term, comparison has been made between the baseline ‘steady state’ nuisance level and the change in noise nuisance as a result of the abrupt noise level variation associated with the opening of the scheme, e.g. 2017 Do-Minimum versus 2017 Do-Something, and the change in noise nuisance from the baseline ‘steady-state’ nuisance level has been calculated using the DMRB formula. For the long-term changes, the assessment has compared the ‘steady state’ nuisance assessment method for the 2017 Do-Minimum and 2032 Do-Something scenarios.

Significance Criteria The assessment of potential effects as a result of the Proposed Scheme has taken into account the 8.3.31

site preparation, earthworks and construction phases as well as the operational phase. The significance level attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the Proposed Scheme and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment to change, as well as a number of other factors that are outlined in more detail in Chapter 2 – Approach to EIA. The sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment is assessed on a scale of high, medium and low. Impact magnitude or change is assessed in terms of negligible, low, medium and high.

The four tier scale of impact magnitude or change is a deviation from the standard impact change 8.3.32scales used in this ES and has been utilised to align with the ranges common with noise and vibration assessment, including those within DMRB.

Typically, an Environmental Impact Assessment considers the change in impact as a result of a 8.3.33scheme or development. This assessment considers both impact change and impact magnitude; impact magnitude being considered where it is necessary to instead evaluate the effect that an absolute noise or vibration level has on a receptor.

Sensitivity of Receptor

In accordance with DMRB, sensitive receptors to be considered in the assessment of site 8.3.34preparation, earthworks and construction effects in addition to operational effects from the Proposed Scheme are presented in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3 – Sensitive Receptors

Description Sensitive Receptors in Accordance with DMRB

Receptors where people or operations are particularly susceptible to noise

Residential, schools, hospitals, community facilities, designated areas (e.g.* Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), National Parks, Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), Site of Special Scientific Importance (SSSI), Scheduled Monuments (SM)) and Public Rights of Way (PRoW)

For the purposes of this assessment all sensitive receptors are considered to be of high sensitivity. 8.3.35

Impact Magnitude

The impact magnitude criteria are expected to differ between the site preparation, earthworks and 8.3.36construction phases and the operational phase of the Proposed Scheme, to reflect individual noise sources and associated guidance and assessment criteria. The criteria adopted for each potential impact area are detailed in Appendix 8.2 and summarised below in Tables 8.4 and 8.5.

Where an impact magnitude is outlined, the impact can either be one of positive magnitude, where 8.3.37the level or change is beneficial, or one of negative magnitude, where there is an adverse level or change.




Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Phases

Table 8.4 – Impact Magnitude for Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Noise and Vibration

Potential Effect Assessment Criteria / Limit

Impact Magnitude

Negligible Low Medium High

Increase in ambient noise due to site preparation, earthworks and construction (fixed and mobile plant on site).

Category A, B or C LAeq,T limit* for preparation, earthworks and construction noise emissions over the working day (ABC Method)

Ambient noise**< 65 dB: 65 dB Limit

Ambient noise** = 65 dB: 70 dB Limit

Ambient noise** > 65 dB: 75 dB Limit

Where limit defined by previaling ambient noise level is exceeded

Increase in road traffic noise due to site preparation, earthworks and construction vehicles

Change in daytime (LA10, 18hr) road traffic noise levels (increase or decrease)

< 1 dB 1 dB to 2.9 dB 3 dB to 4.9 dB 5 dB +

Generation of vibration levels due to site preparation, earthworks and construction (fixed and mobile plant on site).

Construction vibration level (PPV***) < 0.3 mm/s 0.3 mm/s to

0.9 mm/s 1 mm/s to 9 mm/s 10 mm/s +

* ABC Method (BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014, Annex E) sets limits based on the level of prevailing ambient noise at the receptor, when rounded to the nearest 5 dB

** Ambient noise level when rounded to the nearest 5 dB.

*** Peak Particle Velocity

Operational Noise

Table 8.5 – Impact Magnitude for Operational Noise

Potential Effect Assessmen

t Criteria/ Limit

Impact Magnitude

Negligible Low Medium High

Short-term change in road traffic noise levels on the local network due to additional, development-related traffic

Change in daytime (LA10, 18hr) road traffic noise levels (increase or decrease).

Significant adverse effect where LA10,18hr > 58 dB and Impact


Long-term change in road traffic noise levels on the local network due to additional, development-related traffic

Change in daytime (LA10, 18hr) and night-time (Lnight,outside) road traffic noise levels (increase or decrease)

Significant adverse effect where LA10,18hr > 58 dB or Lnight,outside > 55 dB.


Effect Significance

The following terms have been used to define the significance of the effects identified and relate to 8.3.38sensitive receptors of high sensitivity only:

Major effect: where impact changes are predicted to be high. The Proposed Scheme could be expected to have a very significant effect (either positive or negative) with respect to noise or vibration

Moderate effect: where impact changes are predicted to be medium. The Proposed Scheme




could be expected to have a noticeable effect (either positive or negative) with respect to noise or vibration;

Minor effect: where impact changes are predicted to be low. The Proposed Scheme could be expected to result in a small, barely noticeable effect (either positive or negative) with respect to noise or vibration; and

Negligible: where a negligible impact change is predicted. No discernible effect is expected as a result of the Proposed Scheme with respect to noise or vibration.

Effect Duration The duration of an effect as detailed in Chapter 2 – Approach to EIA is considered to be short-term 8.3.39

where the activity potentially exists for up to 1 year, medium-term where the activity potentially exists for between 1 and 10 years and long-term where the activity potentially exists for greater than 10 years.

For the operational phase and in accordance with DMRB, the effect is considered to be long-term 8.3.40where the activity potentially exists for up to 15 years following the Scheme opening year.

Requirements for Mitigation For noise and vibration impacts during the site preparation, earthworks and construction phases, 8.3.41

where the effect significance is identified to be moderate or greater, consideration has been given to appropriate mitigation measures.

DMRB states that: 8.3.42

“In terms of permanent impacts, a change of 1 dB(A) in the short-term (e.g. when a project is opened) is the smallest that is considered perceptible. In the long-term, a 3 dB(A) change is considered perceptible. Such increases in noise should be mitigated if possible.”

Given that response to noise also relates to the absolute level of noise, it is considered unnecessary 8.3.43to implement mitigation when absolute noise levels are very low.

Research into the percentage of people bothered by traffic noise (i.e. those who say they are “very 8.3.44much” or “quite a lot” bothered by noise on a four point scale, which includes “not much” and “not at all” as alternatives) is summarised in DMRB. For steady state conditions (i.e. not immediately following a change in conditions), a level of 58 dB LA10,18hr is representative of conditions where only 10% of people would be bothered “very much” or “quite a lot” by noise. This indicates that 90% of people exposed to road traffic noise levels of 58 dB LA10,18hr would be respond that they would be bothered “not much” or “not at all”.

On this basis, the assessment has had regard to mitigation of noise effects during operation of the 8.3.45Proposed Scheme, where the effect significance is identified to be minor or greater and the absolute level following the change is 58 dB LA10,18hr or more.

DMRB also states that: 8.3.46

“Reducing the noise and vibration impact from a road is just one of the factors to be considered in design, and conflicts can exist. Consideration should be given to cases where such conflict may exist, e.g. an acoustic barrier may introduce unacceptable visual intrusion or safety implications. In addition, any mitigation measures should perform to an acceptable level in traffic, road safety, economic and other environmental terms.”

Consideration of the efficacy in respect of the above guidance is to be given to ensure the proposed 8.3.47design solutions do not place unnecessary adverse constraints on the scheme design.

In addition, the requirements of the Noise Insulation Regulations have been observed, whereby 8.3.48mitigation is to be considered for any dwelling or other building used for residential purposes




undergoing a change of 1 dB(A) or more in the short-term where the noise exposure is equal to or greater than 68 dB LA10,18hr.

Assessment of Residual Effect Significance The residual effect significance has been assessed using the methodology detailed above for each 8.3.49

effect, but taking into consideration the recommended mitigation measures.

8.4 Sensitive Receptors In total there are 1861 sensitive receptors within the Study Area. 8.4.1

The following are a selection of representative sensitive receptors, with associated reference 8.4.2numbers that will be used throughout this Chapter:

1. Dwellings within Upper Heyford, including:

a) Main Road;

2. Dwellings off Manor Park in Nether Heyford;

3. Hollandstone Farm and Flore Holiday Inn hotel, to the south of the M1;

4. Oxhouse Farm, to the north of the M1;

5. Brockhall Park, to the north of the M1;

6. Dwellings within Flore Village, including:

a) The Crescent;

b) Hobhill Farm;

c) Hadland House Farm; and

d) Hillside Road;

7. Flore Primary school and nursery;

8. Flore Hill Farm;

9. Dwellings within Weedon Bec, including:

a) Houses off High Street;

b) Houses immediately south of the A45 / A5 junction;

c) Houses immediately north of the A45 / A5 junction;

d) Dwellings off Bridge Street;

e) Dwellings off Harmans Way;

10. Hotels in Weedon Bec, including the:

a) Premier Inn; and

b) The Heart of England Hotel;

11. Weedon Bec Primary School;

12. Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI;

13. Grand Union Canal;

14. Dodmoor House, to the west of the A5 and north of the A45;

15. Dwellings within Dodford;

16. Grange Farm and Globe Farm, Dodford;




17. Flore URC Church;

18. All Saints Church, Flore; and

19. Weedon Bec URC Church.

8.5 Baseline Conditions Environmental noise survey data were obtained during each site visit as outlined in Table 8.2 and as 8.5.1

presented in Appendix 8.3.

Noise Survey Results

The representative LA10,18hr, daytime LAeq,T and Lnight,outside (where applicable) noise levels measured at 8.5.2each location are summarised in Table 8.6 and are to be used to calibrate the noise model and set construction noise limits.

Table 8.6 – Noise Survey Results

Noise Monitoring Location Reference (see Table 8.2 for location details)

Daytime Night-time

LA10,18hr (dB) LAeq,16hr (dB) Lnight,outside (dB)

A 64 63 59

B 72 68 63

C 75 71 66

D 72 69 -

E 58 56 55

F 60 58 57

G 51 51 45

H 51 54 47

I 79 76 70

J 67 65 -

K 49 50 -

L 51 48 48

M 50 48 49

The measured LAeq,8hr night-time noise levels are taken as representative of the annual average 8.5.3Lnight,outside noise levels.

For the attended short-term measurement locations (D, J and K), the presented LAeq,T is the 3-hour 8.5.4average. For all other measurements the presented LAeq,T is the full 12-hour average between 07:00 and 19:00 hours.

Noise Limits for Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Phase

Following the adopted ABC method in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014, Table 8.7 outlines the assumed 8.5.5noise limits at each measurement location for the site preparation, earthworks and construction phase. Only those locations where measurements have been taken for the purposes of defining a limit are presented.




Table 8.7 – Noise Limits for Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Phase

Noise Monitoring Location Reference

(see Table 8.2 for location details) ABC Category Noise Limit, LAeq,T (dB)

A B 70

E A 65

F A 65

G A 65

H A 65

J B 70

K A 65

L A 65

M A 65

Existing Daytime Road Traffic Noise Levels across Study Area

The environmental noise survey data, in conjunction with the supplied AAWT road traffic data for 8.5.62014, have been used to predict the existing noise exposure across the Study Area.

Figure 8.3 shows the predicted 2014 LA10,18hr noise levels across the proposed Study Area. 8.5.7

To assist in the model calibration, the following measures have been applied: 8.5.8

The acoustic absorption of the intervening ground between the modelled roads and the receiver locations has been set at G = 1.0; and

Following observations made during the site visits, the speed of the road section passing Location I within the model has been set at 81 km/h (50 mph).

By comparing the measured noise levels (as shown in Table 8.6) and predicted noise levels (as 8.5.9shown in Figure 8.3), the noise model can be validated for use in future scenario predictions.

The initial results indicated that, with the exception of Location G and Location K, the predictions are 8.5.10within 3 dB of the measurements, which is regarded as a negligible to low variation.

At Location G, the predictions differ by +5 dB compared to the measurements. It is considered that 8.5.11the environmental noise measurements were an underestimate of the typical prevailing conditions. This, coupled with the significant distance between the location and the M1 (>500 metres) is regarded as the dominant factor in the observed discrepancy.

At Location K, the predictions differ by +6 dB compared to the measurements. The road traffic activity 8.5.12along the unclassified road passing Dodmoor House during the measurements was significantly lower than the supplied road traffic flows. This is regarded as the most likely reason for the observed discrepancy.

Future Baseline The opening year of the Proposed Scheme is intended to be 2017. 8.5.13

For the assessment, the predictions utilise road traffic data for two future baseline scenarios: 8.5.14

2017 Do-Minimum, i.e. the Baseline without the Proposed Scheme; and

2032 Do-Minimum, i.e. the Future Baseline accounting for natural growth (excluding cumulative development).




Changes in road traffic noise between the 2017 Do-Minimum and the 2032 Do-Minimum range 8.5.15between decreases of 0.5 dB to increases of 3.1 dB across the Study Area, depending on the receptor.

8.6 Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Phases Design Solutions and Assumptions

The assessment of the potential effects from the site preparation, earthworks and construction 8.6.1phases is based on the design solutions and assumptions as presented in Chapter 4 – Description of the Proposed Scheme, Chapter 7 – Traffic and Transportation, and on the Figures 4.1 to 4.29.

Appendix 8.2 contains details of all assumptions made within the calculations and a summary of the 8.6.2key assumptions provided below.

Assumptions Regarding On-Site Noise

The assessment has assumed the following: 8.6.3

a ‘worst case’ situation, whereby plant items are assumed to operate at the closest point between the works and the assessed receptor;

during piling activity it is assumed that the continuous flight auger method is adopted;

it is assumed that the route would be used as a haul road during this phase; and

it is assumed that any intensive works connecting the new route with the existing carriageway are no more than 1 year in duration.

Assumptions Regarding Noise from Heavy Vehicles on Existing Road Network

Construction traffic has been assumed to access the Site via the major traffic routes, adopting the 8.6.4following directions for access:

Access from the east will be from the M1 / A45.

Access will be permitted for construction traffic from both north and south on the A5. There will be no right or left turns permitted from the A5, other than the use of the A45 west at Weedon Crossroads. Access to the site will generally be directly from the A5 at the proposed roundabout location.

Access from the west will be on the A45. Construction traffic from this direction will be permitted through Weedon Village on the A45 up to the A5.

It has been assumed that no construction vehicles will be permitted through Flore village on the A45 8.6.5or allowed to use Brockhall Road.

Assumptions Regarding Vibration

The exposure of any vibration intensive activities at any one receptor is assumed to be over no more 8.6.6than a few days at a time, i.e. very short-term.

Disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors from noise

It is anticipated that the site preparation, earthworks and construction activities that have the greatest 8.6.7potential to generate noise will be:

Earthworks during site preparation to provide the necessary levels for the Proposed Scheme (including landscaping requirements); and

Construction of the Proposed Scheme, including construction of the new route roads and junctions




with the existing A45 and A5, construction of the associated crossings and bridges (including piling activity) and all landscaping works.

Noise from Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction: On-site Noise

The predicted façade noise level over a 10-hour day (LAeq,10hr) for the closest receptor during the 8.6.8excavation, earthworks and construction activities (excluding vehicles on the existing road network) is presented in Table 8.8. Also presented is the adopted noise limit, selected on account of the proximity of the receptor location to the nearest environmental noise survey location and the prevailing acoustic conditions at the receptor.

Table 8.8 – Predicted Site Noise Levels for the Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Phases

Receptor Ref. Receptor Name Predicted Noise Level, LAeq,10hr (dB)

Noise Limit, LAeq,10hr (dB)

Excess (dB) Excavation and

Earthworks Highest Construction and Landscaping

1a Main Road, Upper Heyford 66 69 70 -1

3 Hollandstone Farm and Flore Holiday Inn hotel 56 59 70 -11

4 Oxhouse Farm 55 57 65 -8

6a The Crescent 57 59 65 -6

6b Hobhill Farm 55 57 65 -8

8 Flore Hill Farm 48 52 65 -13

9a High Street, Weedon Bec 54 56 70 -14

14 Dodmoor House 54 56 65 -9

15 Dwellings within Dodford 47 48 65 -17

16 Grange Farm and Globe Farm, Dodford

49 50 70 -20

Noise generated on Site from site preparation, earthworks and construction activities is expected to 8.6.9be compliant with the adopted criterion for all assessed receptors. The magnitude of impact according to the criteria in Table 8.4 is negligible to low at all receptors.

Noise from Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction: Heavy Vehicles on Existing Road Network

Inevitably there will be an increase in heavy vehicles on the surrounding road network during all 8.6.10stages of site preparation, earthworks and construction.

The effect of these additional heavy vehicles on noise-sensitive receptors alongside the existing road 8.6.11network has been determined using the prediction method set out in CRTN, as required by DMRB, based on a peak level of activity, estimated to generate up to 100 vehicles per day. The 2014 baseline ‘without development’ flows have been used to remove any natural increase in local vehicular activity, thus ensuring the predictions are representative of a worst case change.

Appendix 8.2 contains further details of all assumptions made within the calculations. 8.6.12

The traffic data for the considered routes as supplied by NCC is presented in Table 8.9 alongside the 8.6.13results of the assessment.




Table 8.9 – Predicted Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Phase Traffic Noise Changes

Road Receptor

Forecast 2017 Without Construction Heavy

Vehicles

Forecast 2017 With Construction Noise

Change (dB) AAWT %HGV AAWT %HGV

High Street, Weedon Bec

9a 19732 7.4 100 19832 7.9 +0.1

A5, south of A45 junction 9b 10356 6.1 100 10456 7.0 +0.3

A5, north of A45 junction 9c 7259 8.0 100 7359 9.2 +0.3

It can be seen that the temporary increase in construction traffic along the proposed access routes is 8.6.14expected to result in an increase in road traffic noise of +0.3 dB or less which according to the criteria in Table 8.4 is a negligible impact magnitude.

Effect of Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Phase: Noise Summary

Taking into account both on-site noise from site plant and off-site noise from construction vehicles 8.6.15the sensitivity of receptors 1 to 19 is high and the impact magnitude prior to mitigation is low negative to negligible.

Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, medium-term effect on receptors 1 to 19 of minor 8.6.16negative to negligible significance as a result of noise during the site preparation, earthworks and construction phase prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.

Mitigation

To ensure that best practice is adopted throughout the works, the principal contractor(s) appointed by 8.6.17the applicant will be charged with developing and implementing a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

The CEMP will be developed in liaison with the Environmental Health Departments of DDC and SNC 8.6.18and will be issued for the approval of both Local Authorities (and any other relevant bodies) prior to commencement of the works. The CEMP will be a contractual document outlining the following:

Environmental management responsibilities and activities;

Monitoring and auditing processes;

Complaints response procedures; and

Community and stakeholder liaison processes.

The CEMP will outline the different procedures to be undertaken in order to complete the various 8.6.19works. Individual trade contracts will incorporate requirements for environmental control, based on good working practice, such as careful programming, resource conservation, adhering to health and safety legislation and quality procedures. In this way, all those involved with the site preparation, earthworks and construction phases, including trade contractors and Site management, will be committed to adopt the agreed best practice and environmentally sound methods.

The principal contractor and trade contractors will at all times apply the principle of Best Practicable 8.6.20Means as defined in Section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act (Ref. 8-1) and as agreed with DDC and SNC.

In any case, the following good practice measures are recommended to be employed to mitigate any 8.6.21negative noise effects:




The contractor will comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (Ref. 8-1) (with particular reference to Part III), the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Ref. 8-2), the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 (Ref. 8-12), the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 (Ref. 8-13) and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (Ref. 8-14);

All plant and equipment to be used for the works will be properly maintained, silenced where appropriate, and operated to prevent excessive noise and switched-off when not in use and where practicable;

Where piling is required, the continuous flight auger method will be adopted throughout the Proposed Scheme;

The contractor will erect and maintain throughout the site preparation, earthworks and construction period, localised solid hoardings around noisy working areas to assist in the screening of noise and dust generation from low-level sources;

Plant will be certified to meet relevant current EU legislation and should be no noisier than would be expected based on the noise levels contained in annex C and annex D of BS 5288-1: 2009 +A1:2014;

All trade contractors will be made familiar with current noise legislation and the guidance contained in BS 5288-1: 2009 +A1:2014 which will form a prerequisite of their appointment;

Deviation from approved method statements will be permitted only with prior approval from the principal contractor and other relevant parties. This will be facilitated by formal review before any deviation is undertaken; and

Noise complaints or any excess of the applicable action levels will be reported to the principal contractor and immediately investigated, with written records of the complaint, its investigation and any consequent actions being kept and made available for inspection by the Local Authorities if requested.

Residual effect

The sensitivity of all receptors remains high and the impact magnitude following the implementation 8.6.22of mitigation measures is considered to be negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, short-medium-term residual effect on receptors 1 to 19 of negligible significance as a result of noise during the site preparation, earthworks and construction phase.

Disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors as a result of vibration

Piling will be utilised during the construction of the proposed bridges, culverts and crossings, where it 8.6.23is proposed to use the continuous flight augured method.

BS 5228-2:2009 +A1:2014 states that: 8.6.24

“The levels of vibration associated with continuous flight auger injected piling and pressed-in piling are minimal, as the processes do not involve rapid acceleration or deceleration of tools in contact with the ground but rely to a large extent on steady motions. Continuous vibrations at a low level could be expected from the prime movers.”

The minimum distance between any bridge, culvert or crossing is approximately 55 metres (as 8.6.25shown on Figure 4.1), between the properties on Main Road, Upper Heyford (receptor 1a) and the Upper Heyford Farm Bridge. Given the proposed piling method coupled with this separation distance, the vibration impact magnitude from piling is expected to be less than 0.9mm/s PPV and therefore the impact magnitude would be low or negligible.

A vibratory compactor will be used during the construction of the proposed new route and during the 8.6.26construction of the junctions with the existing road network.

Calculations have been undertaken at the nearest receptor to proposed vibratory compaction works 8.6.27in accordance with the relevant propagation algorithm as set out annex E of BS 5228-2: 2009




+A1:2014.


The predicted PPV level at the closest receptors to vibratory compaction works is presented in Table 8.6.298.10.

Table 8.10 – Predicted Site Vibration Levels for the Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Phase

Receptor Ref. Receptor Name Works Area Distance (m) PPV (mm/s)

1a Main Road, Upper Heyford (front) Existing A45 10 15

1a Main Road, Upper Heyford New route 55 2

3 Hollandstone Farm and Flore Holiday Inn hotel New route 150* 1

6a The Crescent New route 140* 1

* Predictions shown for distance of 110 metres, which is the limit of the prediction method; levels at 8.6.30receptor likely to be lower.

The vibration assessment undertaken and described above has been based on a single worst case 8.6.31activity, which is known to generate high levels of vibration. For other site preparation, earthworks and construction activities such as excavation works and heavy vehicle movements, perceptible vibration levels could arise for a short-time during intensive activity, but would be expected to be of a far lower level and less than 0.3mm/s.

All other receptors would be expected to experience vibration levels of less than 0.3mm/s from site 8.6.32preparation, earthworks and construction activity.

The sensitivity of the receptors is high and the impact magnitude, prior to mitigation, is high for 8.6.33receptor 1a and low for all other receptors.

Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, short-term effect on receptor 1a of major 8.6.34negative significance and minor negative significance at all other receptors prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.

Mitigation

Wherever possible, those activities which by their very nature can impart notable levels of vibration 8.6.35into the ground (e.g. vibratory compaction) should be substituted with alternatives which generate less vibration.

The assessment calculations represent worst case situations, adopting the largest type of equipment 8.6.36available for the assessed works. Through the use of equipment imparting lower amplitude of vibration from the drum of the compactor, lower vibration levels would be generated, potentially resulting in actual vibration levels approximately half of the level predicted.

Furthermore, in order to control the effects of vibration, it is recommended that vibration monitoring is 8.6.37undertaken during the use of vibratory compactors, where these works are in close proximity (<15m) to sensitive receptors. This should be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations outlined in BS 5228-2:2009 +A1:2014 and other applicable standards, including BS ISO 4866:2010 Mechanical vibration and shock. Vibration of fixed structures. Guidelines for the measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on structures (Ref. 8-15).

The results of such monitoring would be used to ensure that the vibration levels comply with the 8.6.38requirements of BS 7385-2: 1993 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings. Guide to damage levels from ground-borne vibration (Ref. 8-16) (which considers the potential for building damage) and BS 6472-1:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings (Ref. 8-17) (to comply with the recommendations for human comfort).




Residual effect

It is expected that with careful monitoring and selection of equipment, vibration can be controlled to 8.6.39medium impact magnitude or lower at receptor 1a (Main Road, Upper Heyford during works to existing A45).

The sensitivity of the receptors is high and therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, short-8.6.40term residual effect on receptor 1a of moderate negative significance and of minor negative to negligible significance at all other receptors following the implementation of mitigation measures.

Operational Phase Design Solutions and Assumptions

The assessment of the potential effects from the operational phase is based on the design solutions 8.6.41and assumptions as presented in Chapter 4 – Description of the Proposed Scheme, Appendix 7.1 – Transport Chapter Calculations and on Figures 4.1 to 4.29.

The predictions assume the Proposed Scheme will consist of a low-noise surface system across the 8.6.42entire length of the proposed new route, providing a surface correction of -3.5 dB(A).


The traffic data estimates an approximate three-fold increase in short-term changes in traffic flows on 8.6.44Bridge Street in Weedon Bec, which is significantly disproportionate to the remainder of the road links. Additionally, along Harmans Way in Weedon Bec a substantial increase in Heavy Goods Vehicles is shown in the data set. The use of these data has resulted in the analysis showing a daytime increase of more than 1 dB in the short-term and 3 dB in the long-term and also showing more than a 3 dB increase in the long-term at night-time. The sensitive properties along these routes are excluded in the subsequent receptor count analysis and mitigation to reduce noise at these locations has not been considered due to the potential unreliability of the supplied data for these road links. Figures 8.3 to 8.13 indicate the area of these road links.

Many routes are forecast to be subject to vehicle movements below the lower threshold of reliability 8.6.45for the CRTN calculations for all scenarios. Where this is the case, these links have been excluded from all predictions and at receptors along these routes the effects of the Proposed Scheme can generally be regarded as insignificant. Where the numbers of vehicles for routes are above the lower threshold in some scenarios but below the threshold in other scenarios, the scenarios that are forecast to be below 1000 vehicles have been capped at this threshold in order that predictions can be undertaken and effects at these receptors can be evaluated. In some cases this will under-estimate the effect and in some cases this will over-estimate the effect. For routes where these under-estimates and over-estimates are likely, a summary of the actual likely effect is provided.

Disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors as a result of noise from traffic generated by the operation of the Proposed Scheme

Noise Level Changes

The following figures represent the following scenarios: 8.6.46

Figure 8.4: 2017 Do-Minimum LA10,18hr;

Figure 8.5: 2017 Do-Minimum Lnight

Figure 8.6: 2017 Do-Something LA10,18hr;

Figure 8.7: 2032 Do-Minimum LA10,18hr;

Figure 8.8: 2032 Do-Something LA10,18hr; and

Figure 8.9: 2032 Do-Something Lnight,outside.




A database of the results from the noise model has been created. The short-term and long-term 8.6.47changes have been evaluated and the results have been summarised separately for dwellings and other sensitive receptors of which there are 1836 dwellings and 8 other sensitive receptors after the exclusion of receptors on Bridge Street and Harmans Way.

The noise map grids have been arithmetically subtracted to produce the short-term and long-term 8.6.48results, as defined in 8.3.27.

The following figures provide the comparisons stated: 8.6.49

Figure 8.10: Long-term residual change LA10,18hr (as per i of 8.3.27);

Figure 8.11: Short-term change LA10,18hr (as per ii of 8.3.27);

Figure 8.12: Long-term change LA10,18hr (as per iii of 8.3.27); and

Figure 8.13: Long-term change Lnight,outside (as per iii of 8.3.27).

The short-term noise level changes for sensitive receptors in the Study Area are summarised in 8.6.50Table 8.11.

Table 8.11 – Short-term Traffic Noise Level Changes

Daytime

Change in Noise Level (dB) Number of Dwellings Number of Other Sensitive

Receptors

Increase in Noise Level, LA10,18hr

0.1 to 0.9 494 1

1.0 to 2.9 61 0

3.0 to 4.9 1 0

5.0 + 0 1

No Change 0 176 0

Decrease in Noise Level, LA10,18hr

0.1 to 0.9 898 6

1.0 to 2.9 173 0

3.0 to 4.9 26 0

5.0 + 7 0

In the short-term, 85% of dwellings within the Study Area are predicted to undergo daytime noise 8.6.51level changes that would be imperceptible. A further 11% of dwellings are predicted to experience a noticeable benefit in respect of noise level change as a result of the Proposed Scheme. With the exception of the Grand Union Canal, all non-dwelling sensitive receptors are predicted to undergo daytime noise level changes that would be imperceptible. The short-term changes predicted at the Grand Union Canal are predicted to be in excess of +5 dB at the closest points to the new route.

The long-term noise level changes for sensitive receptors in the Study Area are summarised in 8.6.52Table 8.12. The night-time results show only those properties predicted to be exposed to an Lnight,outside level exceeding 55 dB in either the Do-Minimum or Do-Something scenario.




Table 8.12 – Long-term Traffic Noise Level Changes

Daytime Night-time

Change in Noise Level (dB) Number of Dwellings Number of Other Sensitive Receptors

Number of Dwellings

Increase in Noise Level, LA10,18hr

0.1 to 2.9 908 2 24

3.0 to 4.9 4 0 0

5.0 to 9.9 0 1 0

10.0 + 0 0 0

No Change 0 169 1 5

Decrease in Noise Level,

LA10,18hr

0.1 to 2.9 722 4 7

3.0 to 4.9 22 0 3

5.0 to 9.9 11 0 4

10.0 + 0 0 0

In the long-term, with the exception of the Grand Union Canal all dwellings and non-dwelling 8.6.53sensitive receptors within the Study Area are predicted to undergo daytime and night-time noise level changes that would either be imperceptible or perceptible and beneficial. For the Grand Union Canal, the long-term change in noise is predicted to be in excess of +5 dB at the closest points to the new route.

The sensitivity of all the receptors is high. 8.6.54

There is expected to be a direct, temporary, short-term effect of negligible significance during the 8.6.55daytime for 1575 receptors. There is also expected to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect of negligible significance during the daytime for 1806 receptors and a direct, permanent, long-term effect of negligible significance during the night-time for 12 receptors.

The negative impact magnitude ranges from high to low in the short-term and medium to low in the 8.6.56long-term. There is expected to be a direct, temporary, short-term effect of minor negative significance for 61 receptors, moderate negative significance for 1 receptor and major negative significance for 1 receptor. Additionally, there is expected to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect during the daytime of minor negative significance for 4 receptors and moderate negative significance for 1 receptor.

The positive impact magnitude ranges from high to low in the short term and medium to low in the 8.6.57long term. Therefore, there is expected to be a direct, temporary, short-term effect of minor positive significance for 173 receptors, moderate positive significance for 26 receptors and major positive significance for 7 receptors. Additionally, there is expected to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect during the daytime of minor positive significance for 22 receptors and moderate positive significance for 11 receptors. There is expected to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect during the night-time of minor positive significance for 3 receptors and moderate positive significance for 4 receptors.




There are a number of receptors that undergo both positive and negligible effects. Those that have 8.6.58been identified as being subject to negative effects require further consideration to identify targeted mitigation. This process to identify mitigation is described in the Requirements for Mitigation section. This involves considering only receptors where negative noise impact changes are identified and the absolute level exceeds a threshold whereby 10% or more would be bothered very much or quite a lot by traffic noise. Additionally, as part of the NIR, where this absolute level is very high and a potentially noticeable negative impact change is predicted, mitigation must also be considered.

As outlined in the mitigation section, from all the assessed receptors, dwellings off The Crescent, 8.6.59Flore (Receptor 6a), dwellings to the north of the A45 and A5 junction (Receptor 9c) and the Grand union canal (Receptor 13) are the only receptors identified as falling within this category.

For any receptor outside the Study Area, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect of 8.6.60negligible significance.

Result Confidence

Where the numbers of vehicles for routes are above the lower threshold in some scenarios but below 8.6.61the threshold in other scenarios, the adoption of a fixed threshold for vehicle movements of 1000 (for the scenarios where the flow is below the threshold) in an 18hr period has resulted in some inherent under- and over-estimates in the likely changes in road traffic noise as a result of the Proposed Scheme.

By considering purely the change in noise level as a consequence of traffic flow change, with the 8.6.62exception of Church Street (between Bridge Street and the A5) and Spring Lane (between Nether Lane and The Avenue), the effect on all routes where this cap has been applied has resulted in no change to the impact change category and thus the results tables and effect significance presented in this assessment remain unaffected.

For Church Street (between Bridge Street and South Street) the result of adopting the fixed threshold 8.6.63is likely to have under-estimated the positive change in the short-term by approximately 1.5 dB with no effect in the long-term. This is likely to have resulted in the number of sensitive receptors within the medium impact magnitude category (1.0 to 2.9 dB) being under-estimated by 32 dwellings, with the results in the low category (3.0 to 4.9 dB) being over-estimated by the same amount.

For Church Street (between South Street and the A5) the result of adopting the fixed threshold is 8.6.64likely to have under-estimated the positive change in the short-term by approximately 1.0 dB with no effect in the long-term. This is likely to have resulted in the number of sensitive receptors within the medium impact category (1.0 to 2.9 dB) being under-estimated by 30 dwellings and one church (Weedon Bec Church), with the results in the low category (3.0 to 4.9 dB) being over-estimated by the same amount.

For Spring Lane (between Nether Lane and The Avenue) the result of adopting the fixed threshold is 8.6.65likely to have under-estimated the positive change in the short-term by approximately 1.4 dB with no effect in the long-term. This is likely to have resulted in the number of sensitive receptors within the low impact category (1.0 to 2.9 dB) being under-estimated by 2 dwellings, with the results in the negligible category (0.1 to 0.9 dB) being over-estimated by the same amount.

On the basis of the above analysis, the assessment can be regarded as a worst case situation. 8.6.66

Changes in Noise Nuisance

In both the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios the percentage change of people bothered 8.6.67has been reported within Table 8.13. These results include the adopted fixed 1000 vehicle per 18hr cap where applicable.




Table 8.13 – Changes in Traffic Nuisance

Change in Nuisance Level Do-Minimum

Number of Dwellings

Do-Something

Number of Dwellings

Increase in Nuisance Level

< 10% 242 64

10% < 20% 0 466

20% < 30% 0 105

30% < 40% 0 1

> 40% 0 0

No Change 0% 1610 1078

Decrease in Nuisance Level

< 10% 1 137

10% < 20% 0 2

20% < 30% 0 0

30% < 40% 0 0

> 40% 0 0

It can be seen that greater changes in noise nuisance are expected for the Do-Something scenario, 8.6.68than the Do-Minimum scenario. This reflects the minimal residual change in traffic noise due to natural growth in comparison to the changes that would take place if the scheme was built.

Within DMRB, an abrupt change of 1 dB results in a change in noise nuisance of 21% but a change 8.6.69of the same magnitude which is gradual over time results in a nuisance change of only 1% to 3%, depending on the starting and finishing levels.

Given that most of the adverse effects as a result of the scheme are predicted to be in the short-term, 8.6.70it is unsurprising that a significant number of receptors are predicted to result in an increase in nuisance and that 106 of the adversely affected receptors fall within the 20% to 30% and 30% to 40% bands.

Mitigation

Mitigation is to be applied in accordance with the Requirements for Mitigation section. 8.6.71

The Noise Insulation Regulations require the provision of sound insulation measures or a grant in lieu 8.6.72of any measures for any dwelling or other building used for residential purposes exposed to 68 dB LA10,18hr or more that undergoes a short-term change of 1 dB or more in road traffic noise.

From the preliminary analysis, 5 of the dwellings to the immediate north of the existing A45 and A5 8.6.73junction (receptor 9c) are the only receptors predicted to exceed the threshold of the Noise Insulation Regulations as a consequence of the Proposed Scheme, thus triggering a requirement for provision of improved sound insulation or a grant in lieu of any measures. Alternatively, mitigation works to the section of the existing A5 alongside these receptors to ensure the Proposed Scheme does not result in an excess of this threshold should be considered.

The cause of the excess is attributed to the increase in vehicle movements using the A5 north of the 8.6.74A45 as a result of the Proposed Scheme, most likely to access to the new bypass.




All other properties that are predicted to be subject to noise level changes in excess of 1 dB in the 8.6.75short-term are expected to be exposed to levels below 68 dB LA10,18hr.

In order to identify where to apply mitigation for the Proposed Scheme as a whole, the daytime 8.6.76results have been filtered to examine only those receptors that are predicted to be exposed to 58 dB LA10,18hr or more (below which only 10% of people would be bothered quite a lot or very much by road traffic noise).

Table 8.14 shows the number of properties predicted to undergo a change in noise level that are 8.6.77also predicted to be exposed to a daytime noise level in excess of 58 dB LA10,18hr (short-term or long-term). The properties along Bridge Street and Harman Street have been excluded from this subsequent analysis.

Table 8.14 – Traffic Noise Level Increases

Daytime Night-time

Change in Noise Level (dB) Number of Dwellings Number of Other Sensitive Receptors

Number of Dwellings

Short-term Increase in Noise Level,

LA10,18hr

0.1 to 0.9 81 1

N/A 1.0 to 2.9 18 0

3.0 to 4.9 0 0

5.0 + 0 1

Long-term Increase in Noise Level, LA10,18hr

0.1 to 2.9 128 2 24

3.0 to 4.9 0 0 0

5.0 to 9.9 0 1 0

10.0 + 0 0 0

Due to all dwellings being exposed to imperceptible changes in night-time noise, mitigation of night-8.6.78time noise effects are considered unnecessary.

Mitigation is to be considered for the 19 short-term receptors (dwellings to the north of the A45 / A5 8.6.79junction, dwellings off The Crescent, Flore and the Grand Union Canal) and the one long-term receptor (the Grand Union Canal) identified as having an effect of minor negative significance or greater.

With the exception of the Grand Union Canal (receptor 13), all receptors requiring mitigation are 8.6.80residential.

Table 8.15 shows receptors at which mitigation is required and the associated noise level change 8.6.81prior to mitigation.

Table 8.15 – Receptors Requiring Mitigation

Receptor Name Receptor Reference Number of receptors within group

Short-term Increase in LA10,18hr

Long-term Increase in LA10,18hr

Dwellings off The

Crescent, Flore 6a 4 1.0 dB to 1.1 dB

< 3.0 dB

Negligible Significance




Receptor Name Receptor Reference Number of receptors within group

Short-term Increase in LA10,18hr

Long-term Increase in LA10,18hr

Dwellings to the north of the A45 / A5 junction

9c

14

(5 of which require mitigation as part of

NIR)

1.2 dB to 2.2 dB

< 3.0 dB

Negligible 8.6.82Significance

Grand Union Canal 13 1 2.4 dB to 7.1 dB 3.0 dB to 7.6 dB

Given that the predicted increases at the dwellings off The Crescent, Flore (receptor 6a) are likely to 8.6.83

be only very marginally above the threshold of perceptibility in the short-term, the long-term changes are likely to be imperceptible and the absolute noise levels are below 58 dB LA10,18hr, the cost of incorporating mitigation to reduce noise levels to below 1 dB in the short-term is regarded as outweighing the minimal benefit that would result. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed for these dwellings.

The 5 properties highlighted at receptor 9c reflect the properties which qualify for sound insulation 8.6.84provisions or a grant in lieu of the effects due to the noise changes and the absolute noise levels predicted, in accordance with NIR.

The following indicative mitigation measure is proposed to reduce the noise level changes at the 8.6.85other receptors:

Erect a 2 metre high (relative to the carriageway surface) noise barrier on the north and south edges of the route (no further than 2.5 metres from the route edge) between the A5 junction and the new roundabout with the A45 at the end of the proposed route.

A noise barrier constructed along this route section would reduce noise levels at the Grand Union 8.6.86Canal (receptor 13) by up to 4 dB. Consequently, the change in daytime noise level over the long-term is expected to be reduced to between 1 dB and 4 dB, representing a negligible to low impact magnitude. Whilst the upper end of these changes are still above the threshold of perceptibility post-mitigation, the analysis does not fully explain the noise climate at the canal, where exposure to rail noise also exists.

This mitigation shown on Figure 8.14 is indicative. The precise extent and location of the noise 8.6.87barrier would need to be determined at detailed design stage, optimised to ensure that the noise level increases are minimised.

The 5 properties to the north of the existing A5 / A45 junction (receptor 9c) qualify for a sound 8.6.88insulation provisions or a grant in lieu of the effects due to the noise changes and the absolute noise levels predicted. An allowance for treatment or a grant should therefore be set aside as a means of complying with the NIR requirements. Alternatively, if the existing road surface is re-surfaced with a low-noise type system that isn’t a thin surfacing system along the entire route section between the A5 and the junction with the new route, a reduction of up to 3.5 dB would be expected, which would diminish the change in noise at receptors along this route to less than 1 dB, thus removing the statutory requirement for sound insulation measures or a grant to be provided. If a low-noise surface is adopted, this would have a positive outcome on the road traffic noise effects at the Grand Union Canal also. Additionally, the noise level change at all of the receptors at location 9c should be reduced sufficiently.

The mitigation measures presented above are not affected by the adopted fixed cap of 1000 vehicles 8.6.89per 18hr that has been applied to some scenarios for some roads.




Residual Effect

The sensitivity of receptor 9c (dwellings to the north of the A5 / A45 junction) is high and the 8.6.90magnitude of change, following mitigation, is expected to be negligible. The sensitivity of receptor 6a (dwellings off The Crescent, Flore) is high and the magnitude of change, following mitigation, is expected to be low. The sensitivity of receptor 13 (Grand Union Canal) is high and the magnitude of change, following mitigation, is expected to be low to negligible.

There is likely to be a direct, temporary, short-term residual effect on receptor 9c (dwellings to the 8.6.91north of the A5 / A45 junction) of negligible significance or less, and a direct, temporary, short-term and permanent, long-term residual effect on receptor 13 (Grand Union Canal) of negligible to minor negative significance or less following the implementation of mitigation measures.

For all other receptors, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual effect of 8.6.92negligible to major positive significance following the implementation of mitigation measures.

8.7 Limitations and Assumptions There are various assumptions and limitations to this assessment which have been discussed in the 8.7.1

relevant sections above and in Appendix 8.2.

Construction Noise The BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 calculation methods allow accurate noise levels to be determined for 8.7.2

various construction activities. However, the value of any such predictions is necessarily limited by the number of assumptions that have to be made regarding the number and type of plant to be utilised, their location and detailed operating arrangements. Some of this information would be clarified as the scheme design progresses and later when resources are mobilised, but other information (such as exactly where the plant operates and for how long) would remain uncertain, even after works have commenced.

The information that is available at this stage is considered sufficient to perform a generic noise 8.7.3assessment of the site preparation, earthworks and construction phases, focussing on key activities, with the aim of identifying the impact magnitude of any temporary noise that might arise at the nearest sensitive receptors.

Construction Vibration It is known that, by its very nature, use of a vibratory compactor can impart notable vibration energy 8.7.4

into the ground.

The vibration propagation algorithm set out in annex E of BS 5228-2: 2009 +A1:2014 allows the 8.7.5probability of the predicted vibration level being exceeded to be determined. This assessment has been undertaken based on the assumption that there is a 5% probability of the predicted peak particle velocity vibration level being exceeded (and a 95% probability that it is not).

Effect of Noise from Road Traffic The predictions incorporate the 18-hour AAWT vehicle flow and the proportion of heavy vehicles 8.7.6

along with the use of the assumptions as outlined in Appendix 8.2.

The traffic data have been supplied via the Saturn system from Northamptonshire County Council. 8.7.7

The traffic data estimates an approximate three-fold increase in short-term changes in traffic flows on 8.7.8Bridge Street in Weedon Bec, which is significantly disproportionate to the remainder of the road links. Additionally, along Harmans Way in Weedon Bec a substantial increase in Heavy Goods




Vehicles is shown in the data set. The use of these data has resulted in the analysis showing a daytime increase of more than 1 dB in the short-term and 3 dB in the long-term and also showing more than a 3 dB increase in the long-term at night-time. The sensitive properties along these routes are excluded in the subsequent receptor count analysis and mitigation to reduce noise at these locations has not been considered due to the potential unreliability of the supplied data for these road links. Figures 8.3 to 8.13 indicate the area of these road links.

Many routes are forecast to be subject to vehicle movements below the lower threshold of reliability 8.7.9for the CRTN calculations for all scenarios. Where this is the case, these links have been excluded from all predictions and at receptors along these routes the effects of the Proposed Scheme can generally be regarded as insignificant. Where the numbers of vehicles for routes are above the lower threshold in some scenarios but below the threshold in other scenarios, the scenarios that are forecast to be below 1000 vehicles have been capped at this threshold in order that predictions can be undertaken and effects at these receptors can be evaluated. In some cases this will under-estimate the effect and in some cases this will over-estimate the effect. For routes where these under-estimates and over-estimates are likely, a summary of the actual likely effect is provided.

8.8 Summary This Chapter assesses the potential noise and vibration effects that could arise as a result of the 8.8.1

Proposed Scheme during the site preparation, earthworks and construction phase and the operational phase. In particular it considers the potential effects of:

noise and vibration on sensitive receptors as a result of site preparation, earthworks and construction phase activities (including construction traffic); and

noise and vibration on sensitive receptors as a result of traffic noise and vibration arising during the operational phase of the Proposed Scheme.

Noise from on-site works is dominated from construction activity. However, at all receptors there is 8.8.2likely to be a direct, temporary, short- to medium-term residual effect of negligible significance as a result of noise during the site preparation, earthworks and construction phase following the implementation of best practice mitigation measures.

Vibration from piling is expected to be mitigated by design. However, vibration generated during 8.8.3vibro-compaction of road surfacing has the potential to cause a major significant effect at the dwellings within Upper Heyford (receptor 1a) without mitigation. It has, therefore, been proposed to consider low-vibration generative equipment in combination with site monitoring to ensure the guideline threshold limits are not exceeded. Following the implementation of these mitigation measures there is likely to be a direct, temporary, short-term residual effect on receptor 1a of moderate negative significance. All other receptors are predicted to be subject to a minor negative to negligible significance following the implementation of mitigation measures.

During the operation of the Proposed Development, noise from road traffic has been predicted to be 8.8.4of direct, temporary, short-term and direct, permanent, long-term negligible significance for most receptors. Furthermore, some receptors are predicted to experience direct, permanent, long-term moderate to major positive significance following completion of the Proposed Development.

For some receptors, however, the change in noise and the level of the noise is sufficient to warrant 8.8.5consideration of mitigation measures.

These are: 8.8.6

Receptor 6a (dwellings off The Crescent, Flore);

Receptor 9c (dwellings between the A45 / A5 junction and the junction of the proposed new route and the A5); and




Receptor 13 (The Grand Union Canal).

Given that the predicted increases at the dwellings off The Crescent, Flore (receptor 6a) are likely to 8.8.7be only very marginally above the threshold of perceptibility in the short-term, the long-term changes are likely to be imperceptible and the absolute noise levels are below 68 dB LA10,18hr, the cost of incorporating mitigation to reduce noise levels to below 1 dB in the short-term is regarded as outweighing the minimal benefit that would result. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed for these dwellings.

For the dwellings between the A45 / A5 junction and the junction of the proposed new route and the 8.8.8A5, the use of the existing A5 route to/from the proposed new route is the contributory factor, where noise levels are predicted to increase by a small but sufficient margin and to a sufficient level to warrant a requirement to provide sound insulation measures or a grant in lieu to 5 of the identified properties, in accordance with the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975. Additionally, mitigation measures have also been proposed for all of the 14 properties in this location.

For The Grand Union Canal, noise from the proposed new route is predicted to cause an increase in 8.8.9noise in the short-term by a magnitude of low to high negative impact change and in the long-term by a magnitude of low to medium negative impact change. A noise barrier along the proposed new route has been proposed to mitigate noise levels.

Following the implementation of these mitigation measures, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, 8.8.10short-term residual effect on receptor 9c (dwellings to the north of the A5 / A45 junction) of negligible significance, a direct, temporary, short-term residual effect on receptor 6a (dwellings off The Crescent, Flore) of minor negative significance or less and a direct, temporary, short-term and permanent, long-term residual effect on receptor 13 (Grand Union Canal) of negligible to minor negative significance.

The change in nuisance has been evaluated in accordance with DMRB. Although it has no bearing 8.8.11on the determination of effect significance or the provision of mitigation measures, the assessment has shown that greater changes in noise nuisance are expected for the Do-Something scenario, than the Do-Minimum scenario. This is because the scheme opening would cause a relatively abrupt noise level change to some receptors. It is stated in DMRB that an abrupt change of 1 dB results in a change in noise nuisance of 21% but a change of the same magnitude which is gradual over time results in a nuisance change of only 1% to 3%, depending on the starting and finishing levels. Given that most of the adverse effects as a result of the scheme are predicted to be in the short-term, it is unsurprising that a significant number of receptors are predicted to result in an increase in nuisance and that 106 of the adversely affected receptors fall within the 20% to 30% and 30% to 40% bands.



8-30 Chapter 8 – Noise and Vibration

Table 8.16: Summary of Effects Table for Noise and Vibration

Description of Significant Effects

Receptor Significance of Effects Summary of Mitigation / Enhancement Measures

Significance of Effects Relevant Policy

Relevant Legislation

(Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible)

Positive / Negative

(P / T) D/I) ST / MT / LT


Positive / Negative


Site Preparation, Earthworks and Construction Phase

Disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors from noise

Ref. 1 to 19 Minor to Negligible

Negative T D ST to MT

CEMP

Best Practice Measures

Hoarding / screens

Equipment noise enclosures

Negligible N/A T D ST to MT

None Control of Pollution Act 1974, Part III

Disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors as a result of vibration

Ref. 1a Ref. 2 to 19

Major Minor

Negative Negative

T T

D D

ST ST

Equipment selection

Vibration monitoring

Moderate Minor to Negligible

Negative Negative

T T

D D

ST ST

None Control of Pollution Act 1974, Part III

Operation Phase

Disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors as a result of noise from traffic generated by the operation of the Proposed Scheme

1575 receptors 1806 receptors during daytime 12 receptors during night-time

Negligble Negligble Negligble

N/A N/A N/A

T P P

D D D

ST LT LT

Erect a 2 metre high (relative to the carriageway surface) noise barrier on the north and south edges of the route (no further than 2.5 metres from the carriageway edge) between the A5 junction and the new roundabout with the A45 at the

Negligible to Major for all receptors except Ref. 13, 9c and 6a Negligible to Minor for Ref. 13 and 6a

Positive Negative

P P

D D

LT LT

None The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975

61 receptors 1 receptor

Minor Moderate

Negative Negative

T T

D D

ST ST



8-31 Chapter 8 – Noise and Vibration

Description of Significant Effects

Receptor Significance of Effects Summary of Mitigation / Enhancement Measures

Significance of Effects Relevant Policy

Relevant Legislation


Positive / Negative



Positive / Negative


1 receptor Major Negative T D ST western end of the proposed route.

On the existing route section between the A45 / A5 junction and the junction with the Proposed Scheme and the A5, either: a) provide sound insulation treatment or a grant in lieu, in accordance with the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975, or b) install a low-noise surface on the existing route.

4 receptors during daytime 1 receptor during daytime

Minor Moderate

Negative Negative

P P

D D

LT LT

173 receptors 26 receptors 7 receptors

Minor Moderate Major

Positive Positive Positive

T T T

D D D

ST ST ST

22 receptors during daytime 11 receptors during daytime

Minor Moderate

Positive Positive

P P

D D

LT LT

3 receptors during night-time 4 receptors during night-time

Minor Moderate

Positive Positive

P P

D D

LT LT

Key to table:

P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term

N/A = Not Applicable


8-32


Chapter 8 – Noise and Vibration

8.9 References Ref 8.1 HM Government (1974), Control of Pollution Act. London: HMSO

Ref 8.2 HM Government. (1990). Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended). London: HMSO

Ref 8.3 HM Government. (1975). The Noise Insulation Regulations. London: HMSO

Ref 8.4 National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2012

Ref 8.5 Noise Policy Statement for England, Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2010

Ref 8.6 Planning Practice Guidance – Noise, Department for Communities & Local Government (DCLG), 2014

Ref 8.7 ISO 1996-2 ‘Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise – Part 2: Determination of environmental noise levels’ (2007), ISO, Switzerland

Ref 8.8 BS 5228 Parts 1 and 2 – Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites (2009+A1 2014), London, BSI

Ref 8.9 Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), Department of Transport/Welsh Office (1988)

Ref 8.10 Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) Converting the UK traffic noise index LA10,18h to EU noise indices for noise mapping, TRL, 2000

Ref 8.11 Department for Transport, Highways Agency. (1993 and subsequent amendments). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11 ‘Environmental Assessment’; Section 3 ‘Environmental Assessment Techniques’, Part 7, HD 213/11. London: HMSO

Ref 8.12 Control of Noise at Work Regulations (2005), HM Government, London: HMSO

Ref 8.13 Control of Vibration at Work Regulations (2005), HM Government, London: HMSO

Ref 8.14 Health and Safety at Work Act (1974). HM Government. London: HMSO

Ref 8.15 BS ISO 4866 ‘Mechanical vibration and shock. Vibration of fixed structures. Guidelines for the measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on structures’ (2010), London, BSI

Ref 8.16 BS 7385-2 ‘Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings. Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration’ (1993), London, BSI

Ref 8.17 BS 6472-1 ‘Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Vibration sources other than blasting’ (2008), London, BSI

8 Noise and Vibration - northamptonshire.gov.uk · Chapter 8 – Noise and Vibration 8-1 ......

Documents

Transcript of 8 Noise and Vibration - northamptonshire.gov.uk · Chapter 8 – Noise and Vibration 8-1 ......