Noise from Pubs & Clubs - Phase II - Department for...

NOISE FROM PUBS AND CLUBS (PHASE II)

FINAL REPORT

MAY 2006

Contract No. NANR 163

NOISE FROM PUBS AND CLUBS (PHASE II)

FINAL REPORT

MAY 2006

Contract No. NANR 163

Document Control

Version Issued Date Document Reference Status

Version 2.0 Final Report 11 May 06 Noise from Pubs and Clubs Final Report.doc

Final

DefraNoise from Pubs and Clubs (Phase II)

Contract No. NANR 163Final Report

CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

2 INTRODUCTION 7

3 LEGISLATION 9

4 PHASE ONE 14

5 LABORATORY TESTING 16

6 FIELD TRIALS 35

7 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT 44

8 ASSESSMENT LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTING 45

9 CONCLUSIONS 49

10 RECOMMENDATIONS 51

APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC AND STATISTICAL TERMS 53

APPENDIX B – BRIEFING AND ORDER OF PRESENTATION 56

APPENDIX C - QUESTIONNAIRES 59

APPENDIX D – NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA FROM LABORATORY TESTS 76

APPENDIX E – DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FROM LAB TESTING 100

APPENDIX F – RESULTS FROM TEST QUESTIONNAIRE, LAB TESTING 107

APPENDIX G - FIELD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EHPS 114

APPENDIX H - DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF FIELD TEST DATA 116

APPENDIX I – COMMENTS FROM FIELD TEST QUESTIONNAIRES 124

APPENDIX J – BRIEFING DOCUMENTS FROM FIELD TRIALS 126

1Final ReportCS/015497/Doc 007 version 2.0

Acronyms & Abbreviations

CSL Capita Symonds LtdBRE Building Research Establishment LtdDefra Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EHP Environmental Health PractitionerFPN Fixed Penalty NoticeDPS Designated Premises Supervisor


Drawing List

List of FiguresFigure No.

Title Page No.

1 Test houses used for laboratory testing 16

2 Typical bedroom in test house 17

3 LAeq and LCeq indicators for tests with structure-borne transmission 24

4 LAeq and LCeq indicators for tests with airborne transmission 24

5 Responses on acceptability of the overall noise level by test condition 26

6 Acceptability ratings in the laboratory for Absolute LAeq 31

7 Acceptability ratings in the laboratory by LA90 minus LA90 (no music) 33

8 Scatter plot of field assessments of acceptability as a one-off event (inside ratings)

43

9 Scatter plot of field data of acceptability as a one-off event vs. LA90 minus LA90 (no music)

43

List of TablesTable No. Title Page No.1 Median tests on noise test levels 27

2 Kruskal-Wallis test on differences between rooms 28

3 Spearman’s rho coefficients for acceptability of level of sound and noise metrics

29

4 Semantic descriptor and associated value of acceptability 34

5 Summary of Field Trial Venues 35

6 Acceptability ratings of entertainment noise by EHPs judged as one-off and regular events

39

7 Spearman’s rho coefficients for acceptability of level of sound and measures of sound, for entertainment noise judged as a one-off event

40

8 Spearman’s rho coefficients for acceptability of level of sound and measures of sound, for entertainment noise judged as a regular event

41

9 Summary of performance of each noise metric, lab and field tests 45


Noise from Pubs and Clubs (Phase II)

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Bringing licensed premises within the scope of the Noise Act 1996 is intended to add to and

complement existing powers. It will provide a relatively easy to use mechanism that can be fully

implemented in response to a complaint on the night that any problem arises. The aim is to fill any gap

in existing legislation and reduce the time to provide effective enforcement. Such a measure is required

to help counter the potential for increased noise disturbance due to the liberalisation of the licensing

regime brought about by implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 in late 2005.

1.2 Changes to the licensing laws in 2005 mean that licensed premises can be open later and for longer

hours. Any such changes need to be supported by enforcement powers so that anti-social behaviour,

where it occurs, is not tolerated. Extending the provisions of the Noise Act 1996 from dwellings to

other premises was also one of the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee. The new

powers are intended to provide a rapid reaction to problems when they first arise with the penalties

aimed at discouraging further repetition of the problem.

1.3 Amendments to the Noise Act 1996 mean it is no longer adoptive and local authorities no longer have

to respond to all complaints between 11pm and 7am every night. Instead local authorities now have the

discretion to provide a response to complaints by targeting particular sources of noise or types of

complaint, seasons of the year or nights of the week and any period between 11pm and 7am as they

deem appropriate to local circumstances.

1.4 From October 2006, extending the provisions of the Noise Act 1996 will include licensed premises,

including temporary licenses. This will enable a local authority to serve warning notices where they

suspect that noise from licensed premises exceeds the specified permitted noise levels. If after a short

warning period the noise continues to exceed the permitted levels, the Council will be able use their

discretion to decide whether to prosecute in the Magistrates court, where fines of up to £5000 may be

levied, or to serve fixed penalty notices of £500. The new powers also mean that the revenue from the

fixed penalty notices will be retained by the local authorities to help fund the service, rather than passed

directly to the Treasury, as is the current situation.

1.5 Fixed penalty notices for night noise from licensed premises will be a useful, additional tool for dealing

quickly with temporary non-persistent noise problems that, whilst disturbing to nearby residents in the

short term, are not of sufficiently negative impact to warrant the use of statutory nuisance under the

Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the powers to close licensed premises temporarily under the

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. This measure will give local authorities an extra option to take a

phased enforcement approach to dealing with night noise from licensed premises, and tailor

enforcement to the severity and impact of a noise disturbance.

1.6 The Noise Act 1996 uses a noise protocol for calculating the accepted level. It is an offence to cause a

night noise above the permitted level once a warning has been issued. The current noise protocol was

developed for domestic night noise. Noise from licensed premises may be of a different nature, so a



different noise protocol might be more appropriate. This project informs the development of an

appropriate noise measurement protocol for licensed premises and Defra will be consulting on the

protocol in summer 2006, before the measure is implemented.

1.7 At present, the Noise Act 1996 only applies to noise from dwellings and there are concerns that its

existing noise level measurement protocol and criteria might not be well suited to entertainment noise

from licensed premises. Consequently, Defra commissioned Capita Symonds Ltd and BRE to jointly

study methods and criteria for assessment of entertainment noise from licensed premises.

1.8 This study comprised extensive laboratory testing of the correlation of 18 variations of 9 different noise

measurement methodologies and criteria, with the subjective response of a representative group of

ordinary members of the public; field testing of the practicability of EHPs using these methodologies

and criteria for the assessment of entertainment noise from licensed premises. The laboratory

experiments deliberately constrain some independent and confounding variables in order to test the

parameters of interest to the experiment. The conclusions should always be viewed with the

understanding that controlled experimental testing cannot, by its nature, model all combinations of

variables that exist in the field.

1.9 Whilst the primary objective of the study has been to identify which of the methodologies and criteria

tested were best suited for assessment of entertainment noise from pubs and clubs late at night, of equal

importance is the requirement that they are practicable for EHPs to enforce and are fair and realistic for

licensees to comply with.

1.10 The outcomes of the study have been as follows:

A. The majority of the members of the public reported the ability to tolerate a modest degree of

intrusive audible entertainment noise in their home late at night for a “one-off” occurrence (i.e.

occurring at intervals of less than six months), and that the onset of audibility of the entertainment

noise did not equate to a threshold of acceptability for intrusive entertainment noise.

B. The majority of EHPs also reported that a modest degree of intrusive entertainment noise from a

“one-off” occurrence was acceptable, and that the onset of audibility of the entertainment noise did

not equate to a threshold of acceptability for intrusive entertainment noise in such circumstances.

EHPs also reported that a lesser degree of intrusive entertainment noise was acceptable for more

regular occurrences (i.e. once a week), and that for either scenario the onset of audibility of the

entertainment noise did not equate to a threshold for enforcement action for intrusive entertainment

noise in such circumstances.

C. The results of the laboratory testing identified several methodologies and criteria, which gave

reasonably good correlation with subjective response.

D. The noise metric that provided the best overall prediction of subjective ratings of all the

entertainment noise types tested by ordinary members of the public was the Absolute LAeq.



E. However, during the field testing it was apparent that the “highest performers” from the laboratory

testing all had clear disadvantages in use under real world conditions, so there is no clear best

option for recommendation which combines optimum correlation with subjective response with

ease and rapidity of use. The following options are considered the best of the available options, in

descending order of correlation with subjective response, each raising different issues regarding

practicability of use by EHPs.

Absolute LAeq – That is an LAeq,5min noise level value set at a single action level. However an

intrusive entertainment noise criteria based on Absolute LAeq, would be difficult to use

where the existing ambient noise level without the entertainment noise was close to, equal

to or above the action level. Therefore, we would recommend an action level Absolute LAeq,

with an additional subjective requirement that the entertainment noise itself has a clearly

audible (to an otologically normal listener) contribution to the overall noise e.g. the

songs/tracks would be recognisable to a listener familiar with the music and any words

intelligible. In terms of an action level, a table in this report is provided showing various

levels of entertainment noise used in the laboratory testing and the responses of test

subject’s. In the context of this study’s objective to determine criteria that represents a

clearly unacceptable situation, the noise levels at which test subjects felt the noise was

“just unacceptable” for a one off event within a habitable room with windows closed was

at 34 dB LAeq,5 minute. The range for the first two scores of unacceptability was LAeq,5 minute 34

to 37 dB. Analysis of data from the 2000/2001 National Noise Incidence Study (NNIS)

indicates that with windows closed, only a small percentage of the UK population (5.5%)

are estimated to have internal ambient noise levels above LAeq,8 hour 34 dB and just 2.1%

above LAeq,8 hour 37 dB.

LA90 – LA90 (no music) – That is the difference between the LA90,5 min noise level with the

intrusive entertainment noise and the equivalent LA90,5 min with no intrusive entertainment

noise. This allows consideration of the background level, but requires a measurement

without intrusive entertainment noise that may not be possible on the night of a complaint.

This in itself may be problem enough to make the metric unusable for “one-off” events or

as a quick response to a problem.

LAeq – LA99.95 or existing Noise Act methodology (LAeq – LA99.8). These metrics include some

consideration of the underlying noise level at the same time as any offending noise level is

measured, without requiring a separate “no music” measurement to be made. The former is

slightly more effective in prediction of subjective response than the latter, but not

substantially so, and using the latter has logistical advantages. The performance of both

these noise metrics was less good than the previous two options, but they also avoid the

practical disadvantages highlighted above.



2 INTRODUCTION

Existing Scope and Specification

2.1 The original purpose of this project was to scrutinise 9 different methods for assessing the impact of

entertainment noise from pubs and clubs at night and to develop an appropriate rating method to

complement the application of the provisions of the Noise Act 1996 to licensed premises. In the course

of the study the number of variations of different assessment methods scrutinised increased to 19.

2.2 This study only relates to entertainment noise including amplified music, singing and speech and

“beam back” of sports TV broadcasts sourced from inside and within the curtilage of pub and club type

licensed premises.

2.3 This project focussed on the assessment of noise from infrequent and one-off entertainment activities

operating between 2300 and 0700 hours, with a view towards determining which methods are best

suited to gauging the impact of such noise on persons trying to sleep or trying to get to sleep.

2.4 Any methodology developed will be mindful of the alternative legislation already available for use by

EHPs e.g. The Licensing Act 2003, Anti-social Behaviour Act 1998 as amended, and the statutory

nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

2.5 The original scope to this study identified that whilst the preferred outcome of this project was a single

methodology and criterion, this might not be practicable in all situations and it was possible that a

matrix of methodologies and criteria would cover a wider range of circumstances more effectively than

a single methodology and criterion.

Project Objectives

2.6 The primary objective is to provide a set of criteria and methodologies best suited for assessment of

entertainment noise from pubs and clubs at night, to complement the application of the provisions of

the Noise Act 1996 to licensed premises.

2.7 However, of equal importance to the primary objective is the requirement that any final recommended

criteria and methodologies are practicable for EHPs to enforce and are fair and realistic for licensees to

comply with.

2.8 Any recommended methodology must clearly establish and minimise the uncertainties with noise

measuring; by quantifying the method, clearly identifying the assessment process, provide guidelines

on the utilisation of equipment and highlight the applicability of the method to appropriate

circumstances.

2.9 It would also be ideal if the final recommended methodology and criteria were able to settle or at the

very least establish the limits of the long on-going subjective versus objective assessment of the music

noise debate, and streamline the enforcement procedures available to EHPs.



Laboratory and Field testing

2.10 To achieve the project objectives, entertainment noise was assessed in laboratory tests at the Building

Research Establishment during January 2006 with a total of 60 experimental subjects, selected from a

cross section of the public. The tests were undertaken in houses rather than listening rooms, partly

because it enabled testing of noise sources from within the building and from outside the building, and

also because it created a more realistic environment for subjects. The laboratory test methodology and

assessment is detailed within section 5.

2.11 The primary objective of the field tests was to assess the practicability of using the assessment methods

identified in the lab-testing phase as having the best correlation with subjective response to

entertainment noise, in real world conditions. The field tests aimed to cover variables such as urban

and rural environments with a good geographical spread within the UK, with significantly different

background noise climates. Furthermore, the venues were selected such that they included locations

where the music was a recognised noise problem, borderline and was considered to provide acceptable

noise levels. The field trials were undertaken at 10 venues around the UK and these provided a good

range of venues (pubs, clubs and town halls), locations (urban, towns and rural) and types of music. At

each venue there were at least 2 EHPs that completed the questionnaires regarding their perception of

the noise both inside and immediately outside each selected residential location. The field test

methodology is detailed within section 6.

2.12 A glossary of acoustic and statistical terms that have been used within this report are shown in

Appendix A.



3 LEGISLATION

3.1 This contract represents Phase II of the project to define measurement methods and criteria to support

the implementation of section 84 and Schedule 1 of the Clean Neighbourhoods Act 2005 which apply

the provisions of the Noise Act 1996 to licensed premises. Phase 1 of the project is discussed in the

next section of this report.

3.2 This report seeks to satisfy the contract requirement to provide a set of criteria and methodologies for

assessment of entertainment noise from pubs and clubs to complement the application of the provisions

of the Noise Act 1996 to licensed premises. Currently the Noise Act only applies to noise from

domestic premises between 23:00 and 07:00 hrs and the existing noise level measurement protocol was

developed with domestic noise sources in mind. Given the potential difference in noise sources and

intensity of noise from licensed premises compared to domestic premises it was thought that the

existing Noise Act noise level measurement protocol may not match particularly well with the

subjective impact of noise from licensed premises. Consequently, this research contract was let to test

the correlation of the subjective response to noise from licensed premises against a range of noise level

measurement criteria and methodologies (including the existing Noise Act measurement protocol). This

was completed under laboratory and field conditions in order to determine a set of practicable

measures, which could be applied to noise from licensed premises.

3.3 The current Noise Act 1996 measurement methodology is not intended to provide a universal fine

tuned benchmark of the acceptability of noise from domestic premises or for the assessment of

statutory nuisance (see sections 7 and 8 of defra circular NN/31/03/2004). Instead the current Noise Act

1996 measurement methodology and criteria are aimed at providing a robust and sustainable threshold,

which if exceeded indicates a significant unacceptable noise problem. It is also possible that noises that

are not a Noise Act 1996 offence may nevertheless be prejudicial to health or a nuisance and so be a

statutory nuisance. This study intends to continue this approach such that the final methodologies and

criteria recommended represent a degree of intrusive noise which is clearly unacceptable in most

circumstances and is not intended to represent a threshold of acceptability in all circumstances.

3.4 In commenting on the new powers in the April 2006 edition of Environmental Health Practitioner, the

defra Local Environment Minister Ben Bradshaw made the point that existing powers were not being

replaced or supplanted by the new powers and the new powers were merely extending the range of

enforcement options available to local authorities. He also made the following comments in regard to

the extension of the Noise Act 1996 to licensed premises in particular:

“Changes to the the licensing laws in 2005 mean that licensed premises can be open later and

for longer hours. Any such changes need to be supported by enforcement powers so that anti-

social behaviour, where it occurs, is not tolerated.”, and;

“Currently, noise can be addressed through statutory nuisance under the Environmental

Protection Act, and, for night noise from domestic dwellings between the hours of 2300 and

0700, under the Noise Act 1996; this provides for noise levels to be set and it is an offence for 10

Final ReportCS/015497/Doc 007 version 2.0


the occupier of a domestic dwelling to exceed these once he has been warned. However, from

October 2006 the night-noise provisions of the Noise Act 1996 will be extended to include

licensed premises, including temporary licenses. This means that once the person responsible

for licensed premises has been warned about excessive noise, it will be an offence, punishable

by a fine of up to £5,000 or a fixed penalty of £500, to exceed the set noise level.”, and:

“Section 82 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 makes it an offence for

a person committing a Noise Act offence to fail to give his name or address when asked do so,

or to give a false or inaccurate response. There is a fine on summary conviction for this

offence of up to £1000.”

3.5 It could be argued that existing legislation is adequate to deal with noise from licensed premises. The

short answer to this argument is yes in most circumstances, but there is a small gap regarding noise

from licensed premises when there is clearly a problem but which occurs infrequently and for relatively

short periods. In order to illustrate this gap it is necessary to understand the range of powers already

available to deal with noise from licensed premises and their advantages and disadvantages.

3.6 Statutory Nuisance: Environmental Protection Act 1990 – This allows a Local Authority to serve an

abatement notice where noise emitted from premises constitutes a statutory nuisance and prosecute the

recipient and /or seize noise making equipment if the nuisance continues after the expiry of the time for

compliance given on the notice. These powers can be used for “one-off” type noise problems that arise

late at night (See East Northamptonshire District Council -v- Brian Fossett [1994] Env LR 388), and

can be used against both private and public nuisance (see below). The ability to prove nuisance using

subjective descriptors can be useful in dealing with subtly intrusive low level noise that is difficult to

measure or distinguish from extraneous noise levels, but which becomes a problem due to its regular

occurrence and or extended occurrence at noise sensitive times. However, it can time to enforce an

abatement notice, particularly if the recipient exercises their right to appeal the notice and/or contests

any prosecution for non-compliance.

3.7 Licensing Act 2003 – Where noise from licensed premises is causing a “public nuisance” a Local

Authority can call for the review of a premises license, and if public nuisance is proven they can

condition, constrain or revoke a license. The potential neutering or loss of a premises license is a

significant deterrent with serious commercial consequences. However, in the context of noise from

licensed premises this process relies on the noise causing a “public nuisance” which has a specific legal

meaning as articulated in the case of Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd. (1957) 2 QB 169. The

issue in this case was whether quarrying activities that affected the neighbourhood was a private

nuisance affecting some of the residents only (which would have been actionable at civil/common law

by the individuals affected), but not a public nuisance affecting all Her Majesty's subjects living in the

area. In his judgment Romer LJ. concluded “that any nuisance is 'public' which materially affects the

reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects. The sphere of the 11



nuisance may be described generally as 'the neighbourhood'; but the question whether the local

community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons to constitute a class of the

public is a question of fact in every case. It is not necessary, in my judgment, to prove that every

member of the class has been injuriously affected; it is sufficient to show that a representative cross-

section of the class has been so affected for an injunction to issue." Denning LJ. agreed "that a public

nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would

not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it,

but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the community at large." All of which suggests that

noise from licensed premises which adversely affects only one household is unlikely to be a public

nuisance actionable under the Licensing Act 2003 review powers (although statutory nuisance powers

would apply). Additionally the license review process is as yet largely untested and is likely to be a

relatively complex process involving extensive paperwork, committee and appeal hearings and take

several weeks if not months to complete.

3.8 The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003/Licensing Act 2003 – This allows a local authority (Anti-Social

Behaviour Act) or the Police (the Licensing Act), although in practice this will almost certainly be a

joint exercise between a local authority and the Police rather than action by one agency only, to shut for

24 hours a licensed premises which is emitting noise sufficient to constitute a public nuisance. Again

the issue of public nuisance comes into play and the remedy requires intensive enforcement resource

and is only likely to be justified in the context the Human Rights Act 1998 in cases of severe wide

spread public nuisance.

3.9 Consequently, there is a need for a methodology for dealing with noise from licensed premises that is

easily implemented, efficient and quick whilst remaining workable for EHPs and sits well within a

phased and proportionate approach to enforcement, as required by the Human Rights Act 1998 in

regard to the rights of both the noise victim and the noise maker i.e. it’s quick, effective and not too

onerous.

3.10 The extension of the Noise Act 1996 to cover licensed premises is intended to fill any gap in the

existing legislation whereby the enforcement of an Abatement Notice for statutory nuisance or the

calling in a license for review can be complex and involve weeks, even months of processing and any

resolution of the problem can be further delayed by appeals or elaborate legal manoeuvres.

Additionally, the provisions of the Anti-social behaviour legislation to empower the Police and Local

Authorities to immediately close licensed premises causing significant public nuisance will be overly

draconian and dis-proportionate to the harm caused for most entertainment noise problems, which

whilst significant for the sufferer tend to be transient and affect relatively few persons.

3.11 The application of the Noise Act 1996 procedures to licensed premises provides a rapid and relatively

easily implemented enforcement option, which fits comfortably in a phased proportionate hierarchy of

increasingly stringent enforcement actions that can be implemented in succession; or at the relevant


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Denning%2C_Baron_Denning


point in the hierarchy of enforcement actions depending on how serious the noise problem is and /or

how laissez faire the attitude of the noise maker.

3.12 A hypothetical example of how the new power could be used and how it complements existing powers

is as follows:

3.13 A local authority receives a complaint of excessive noise from a licensed premise after 23:00 hrs.

3.14 Appropriately authorised local authority staff visit the complainant and determine that the noise is an

offence under the Noise Act 1996, it is also a statutory nuisance and is likely to be causing disturbance

to a number of different households.

3.15 The local authority staff issues a warning notice explaining that the noise from the licensed premises is

exceeding the Noise Act 1996 limits.

3.16 Although statutory nuisance is being caused, the local authority staff decide to defer serving an

abatement notice under the new powers to do so under the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act

2005, in order to allow the person holding the premises license or the designated premises supervisor

(DPS) or in absence of the DPS, the person who appears to be in charge of the premises the reasonable

but not extended time stated on the warning notice to resolve the problem. If there is evidence of the

statutory nuisance having occurred intermittently but infrequently in the past or that the statutory

nuisance is likely to recur in future the local authority could also decide to serve an abatement notice at

the same time as issuing the Noise Act warning notice.

3.17 If after service of the warning notice the problem is resolved, the case can be closed.

3.18 However, if after expiry of the reasonable but not extended time period for compliance on the warning

notice the noise is not reduced to less than the Noise Act limits for licensed premises, the local

authority can either decide to prosecute the recipient of the warning notice in the Magistrates Court at a

later date or to serve a fixed penalty notice (FPN) for £500 on the person holding the premises license

or the designated premises supervisor (DPS) or in the absence of the DPS, the person who appears to be

in charge of the premises at the time of the offence as a means of discharging their liability for

prosecution.

3.19 If after service of the FPN the noise problem is quickly resolved and does not recur before 07:00 hrs on

the same day as the FPN is served the matter can be closed.

3.20 However, if after service of the FPN the noise continues or recurs soon afterwards in a manner that is a

statutory nuisance and or another Night Noise Act offence, the local authority can:

A. enter the premises and seize noise making equipment.

and/or



B. serve an abatement notice (or enforce any previously served abatement notice).

and/or

C. prosecute under the Noise Act 1996 or serve a new FPN if a new Noise Act offence is committed.

and/or

D. set in place steps to review the premises license.



4 PHASE ONE

4.1 As previously discussed, this study is phase 2 of the overall project. Phase 1 was entitled “Noise from

Pubs and Clubs – Phase 1: NANR 92” and completed in November 2005. The full final report can be

viewed at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/research/pubs-clubs-phase1/pubsclubs-

phase1.pdf . Phase 1 of the project can be summarised as a detailed literature review of research into

noise from pubs and clubs and current custom and practice in assessing such noise across England and

Wales. Phase 1 of the project did not recommend or comparatively assess the value of the methods or

criteria for assessing noise from pubs and clubs that it identified, but it did make recommendations as

to further “validation” of various methods and criteria for assessing noise from pubs and clubs.

4.2 An outcome from phase 1 of the project was to develop a table of candidate methodologies and criteria

for assessment of noise from pubs and clubs for further testing and comparative assessment to

determine their effectiveness for assessing noise from pubs and clubs. This table is reproduced below:

Name Parameter Type

IoA working group annex LAeq vs. LA90 plus L10 vs. L90 in 40-160 Hz 1/3 octave bands

Relative

BS 4142/Noise Act 1996 LAeq vs. background (L A90, L A99, etc.) Relative

Noise Rating curve 1/3 octave (Leq, L10 or Lmax) vs. NR curve Absolute

Absolute LAeq LAeq Absolute

DIN 45680/Moorhouse 10-160 Hz 1/3 octave Leq vs. reference curve Absolute

Inaudibility Subjective Relative

4.3 In this study the list of candidate methodologies and criteria for assessment of noise from pubs and

clubs was significantly expanded to a total of 18 variations on 9 separate methods. These

methodologies are detailed within section 5 of the report.

4.4 Phase 1 of the project commented that:

“The only sensible way to develop an optimal rating method is by constructing tests in which listeners

are exposed to pub and club noise and are asked to subjectively rate the noise in some way (annoyance,

loudness or audibility, for example). An audio recording of the noise can then be analysed for the kinds

of physical features identified above. If a computer is used to do this, a large number of objective rating

schemes (and variants of them) can be compared. The result of each objective rating scheme can then

be compared to the subjective responses. The extent to which a particular rating scheme matches the

subjective responses can be quantified with statistical methods and the best rating scheme identified.”

This has formed the basis for the laboratory and field research carried out in this study.

4.5 Phase 1 of the project also provided commentary on the use of laboratory and field testing of different

assessment methods and criteria as follows:15


http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/research/pubs-clubs-phase1/pubsclubs-phase1.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/research/pubs-clubs-phase1/pubsclubs-phase1.pdf


“Laboratory testing produces more reliable judgements from subjects and gives more control over the

sound fields being heard, but inevitably lacks some of the context in which the original sound might be

heard by a particular listener. A proper investigation of the physical features of pub and club noise can

be carried out much more easily in the laboratory, because sounds can be altered to vary one physical

parameter at a time and parameter values can be set precisely. It is also the only way to accurately

quantify the difference in response from a group of listeners exposed to exactly the same sound. (The

variance across subjects gives a valuable indication of the error to be expected when using the final

rating method to predict listener response to noise from a pub.) Finally, it is easier to build confidence

in lab tests because they are more easily refined through pilot tests. Therefore, the main plank of the

validation programme should be based on laboratory tests.”

4.6 Consequently, this study has primarily used laboratory testing to determine the correlation of the

subjective response of a representative sample of the population with the methodologies and criteria

described above; and then used field trials to determine how practical it is to use those criteria to assess

noise from pubs and clubs in the real world.



5 LABORATORY TESTING

Methodology

BRE test Facility

5.1 Laboratory tests were carried out at BRE during January 2006.

5.2 The decision was made to use houses rather than listening rooms. This was partly because it enabled

testing of noise sources from within the building and from outside the building, and also because it

created a more realistic environment for subjects. Two identical houses were used, each of which have

three upstairs bedrooms. One test subject was in each bedroom.

Figure 1 - Test houses used for laboratory testing

5.3 Each test bedroom contained a table and a chair, at which the subjects were instructed to sit, and a bed.

In addition, a noise analyser (Norsonic 121) was used to monitor noise levels in each room for the

duration of each test. The noise analysers continuously recorded a large range of noise indicators,

including LAeq, LCeq and 1/3-octave Leq spectra each 125 ms. These short time interval measurements

then allowed various noise indicators, including statistical indicators to be calculated for each noise

condition.

5.4 The microphone for each noise analyser was positioned in the central area of the room away from the

window and at least 1 m from all reflecting surfaces. Noise measurements were taken in each room of

all noise indices, both with and without the entertainment noise.



Figure 2 - Typical bedroom in test house

Types of Music and Sound System

5.5 The sound system was chosen to be representative of a typical high performance system that would be

installed in a club. The system comprised of full range JBL cabinets supplied by Harman Pro UK, who

have extensive experience at supplying these types of systems in numerous clubs. The equipment

comprised 2 JBL AM6215 full range units, 2 JBL ASB6128 bass units and 2 IT6000 amplifiers.

5.6 Four different noise types were used for the laboratory testing, namely:

A. Noise Type A, Guitar Orientated Rock – this style of music typically operates with peak low

frequency noise levels around the 63 Hz to 125 Hz octave bands, and a developed and extended

frequency spectra with additional peaks at mid to high frequency

B. Noise Type B, Modern Dance Music - "House" and “Drum & Bass” and other modern dance

music types have a reputation for persistent virtually non-stop low frequency bass thump, often

peaking around the 63 Hz octave band, sometimes with significant energy in the 40 Hz and 50 Hz

1/3 octave bands, and then a pronounced and steep drop off in levels at mid to high frequency in

the spectrum.

C. Noise Type C, Non-music entertainment noise - Sport noise is not uncommon in pubs and bars, an

example being a football match being shown on a large TV or video screen. The spectrum of this

type of noise typically has a relatively flat profile with modest peaks in lower frequency octave

bands.

D. Noise Type D, Karaoke - the vocal content (of varying subjective quality) is often emphasised over

the backing music compared to other music types and this sort of entertainment can be played at

relatively high levels. The vocal element tends to be significant and the frequency spectrum of this



type of noise typically has peaks at 63 Hz or 125 Hz octave bands and also in the mid frequency

range of 500 Hz to 2 KHz octave bands.

5.7 Each noise type was presented to the test subjects at five different levels. These were subjectively

described as:

1. inaudible to an average listener,

2. just audible to an average listener,

3. a noise level which is plainly audible i.e. the content of the noise is communicated to the test

subject so they can recognise its type (music or speech etc) but the content is not intelligible;

4. a noise level which is clearly audible i.e. the noise is communicated so that the content is

intelligible to an average person and subjects can make out words and recognise songs/tracks etc;

5. a noise level that an average listener might describe as loud.

5.8 Five of the tests (total of 30 subjects) had the source of the noise in the ground floor of the test houses,

to simulate structure-borne transmission from a noise source within the same building. In another five

tests, the noise sources were outside the test houses, to simulate airborne transmission from a noise

source outside of the building.

Recruitment of test subjects

5.9 Each test could be attended by six subjects – one in each of the six bedrooms of the two houses. In

order to maximise the statistical analysis, a sample of 30 subjects was recruited to experience each

noise stimulus. Having fewer subjects than this would mean working with small-sample statistics, and

while valid, these may not have provided the necessary robustness for this project. Therefore, a total of

10 tests were carried out, with a total of 60 experimental subjects. As discussed, 30 of these

experienced the internal-source transmission scenario, and 30 experienced the external-source

transmission scenario.

5.10 Subjects were recruited from an existing BRE database of people who have previously expressed an

interest in taking part in testing.

5.11 Subjects were selected according to a number of criteria, in order to cover a broad mixture of the

population. The pre-selection questionnaire was designed to obtain information on the age and sex of

volunteers, any level of hearing impairment, and a confirmation of their ability to hear and understand

instructions, and to read and complete questionnaires

5.12 Age: subjects were assigned to three broad age bands: 18-34 years, 35-54 years and 55 years and over.

5.13 Hearing impairment: The objective was to recruit subjects with normal hearing. Therefore, the only

people considered for testing were those with no hearing impairment or with a mild hearing

impairment. Most of the applicants declared no hearing impairment.19



5.14 For each test, then, a balanced group of subjects were selected.

A. One male aged 18-34

B. One female aged 18-34

C. One male aged 35-54

D. One female aged 35-54

E. One male aged 55 or over

F. One female aged 55 or over

5.15 Subjects received a telephone reminder on the day of their test. In addition, a list of available reserves

was held for each age/sex category, so that if a subject dropped out for any reason, substitutes were

available.

5.16 Subjects received a standard information sheet about the tests (this did not include a technical

description of the testing being carried out) before the test, and a more detailed briefing once they

arrived at the BRE site. The on-site briefing notes are shown in Appendix B.

5.17 In order to avoid any confounding effect between the rooms used and the age and sex of subjects,

subjects were allocated to the six test rooms by a prepared plan. Each house and test room, therefore,

had a balance of male and female, and a balance of age groups during the testing.

Questionnaires

5.18 Two questionnaires were used during the testing and these are discussed below:

5.19 The first was a single-page questionnaire that was used at the end of each noise segment, i.e. 20 times

during the testing (4 types of entertainment and at 5 noise levels). This questionnaire is shown in

Appendix B. It includes a series of questions on various aspects of environmental comfort, including

noise. These are necessary so that any confounding effects of other comfort factors can be controlled

for in the analysis. The remaining questions refer to the entertainment noise – have they heard any in

the last few minutes, whether what they heard would affect their activities at home, and an overall

acceptability rating for the noise. This last question is the primary target variable for the analysis.

5.20 The second questionnaire was presented after the noise segments were finished, and asked for some

background information about the subjects, including their general attitudes to noise and entertainment

noise, and some information about their normal exposure to entertainment noise. This questionnaire is

also shown in Appendix C.

5.21 The questionnaires were drafted by BRE and finalised after comments from Defra and from CSL.



Experimental Protocol

5.22 One test per day was carried out on the dates 16-20 January and 23-27 January. The tests in the first

week used internal noise sources i.e. the sound systems in the ground floor of each test house with

transmission of entertainment noise through the floor/ceiling to the test bedrooms above. The tests in

the second week used external noise sources i.e. the sound systems were placed externally and

transmission of entertainment noise was through the façade with closed thermally insulated glazing.

5.23 Testing took place in the late evening. This was to make the tests as psychologically and

physiologically realistic as possible. Previous work has shown differences in responses between

daytime and evening testing, and as the main research questions in this project relate to the impact of

entertainment noise at home during the evening and night, moving the testing into the evening seemed

an obvious and necessary decision.

5.24 The approximate timescale was as follows.

20:30 Latest time for subjects to arrive at BRE

20:30 Subject briefing begins

20:45 Subjects are escorted to the test houses and shown to their rooms.

20:55 Testing begins

5.25 Thereafter, the testing follows a 5-minute cycle for each of 20 noises. In the last 90 seconds of each 5-

minute cycle, subjects complete the Test Questionnaire. The questionnaires are collected just before the

next noise segment begins.

22:35 Noise segments are complete, post-test questionnaire is distributed

22:45 Subjects finish and are escorted back to the main building and car park.

5.26 The experimental schedule was run by one researcher in each house using stopwatches synchronised

with the PC controlling the noise tracks for each test.

5.27 All subjects experienced all noise types at all levels, which equated to a total of 20 segments (4 noise

types x 5 noise levels). Each subject only experienced one transmission scenario (either internal source

or external), as incorporating both scenarios would make testing very onerous for subjects and likely to

prejudice the quality of the responses. The order of presentation for the noise types and levels was

balanced as far as possible. During each test, the segments for each noise type were grouped together,

so subjects would hear all five levels of each noise type before moving to a different one. The order of

levels within each noise type were randomised and balanced throughout the five internal-source tests,

and the five external-source tests. The complete order of presentation is shown in Appendix B.



Local residents

5.28 BRE was keen to ensure that the external-source tests did not produce an unacceptable level of noise at

nearby housing (the nearest dwelling being around 100m from the test houses). During pre-testing, the

noise level was recorded at the site boundary, and for one noise segment, dance music at the highest

level, it was considered that the maximum noise level may cause concern to local residents.

5.29 As a result of the pre-testing the local Environmental Health department was informed of the testing

and the time schedule, in case any problems were reported. A letter was also delivered to all residents

close to the test site, informing them of the testing, and assuring them that all testing would be

completed well before 11pm.

5.30 In the letter, residents were invited to contribute to the research by completing a questionnaire during

the week if they were interested in doing so. Nine residents accepted this invitation, and they were

provided with a diary questionnaire to complete if (and only if) they were aware of noise from the BRE

site during the week. An extract of this questionnaire is shown in Appendix C.

5.31 A member of BRE staff, previously an Environmental Health Officer, monitored noise levels in nearby

roads during the testing.

Results (Noise Measurements)

5.32 During each laboratory test noise levels were recorded continuously in each test room. This enabled

checking for any anomalies in noise levels. The noise analysers continuously recorded a large range of

noise indicators, including LAeq, LCeq and 1/3-octave Leq spectra each 125 ms. These short time interval

measurements then allowed various noise indicators, including statistical indicators to be calculated for

each noise condition.

5.33 Two further test runs were carried out (one for airborne and one for structure-borne transmission) with

no subjects in the test rooms. Data from these tests were used to calculate a number of different noise

indicators.

5.34 Each noise indicator was calculated separately for each room and each noise condition (combination of

airborne/structure-borne transmission, noise type and level). This gave a total of 40 noise conditions for

each of the six rooms.

Calculation of noise levels

5.35 The following noise indicators were calculated for each noise condition and room:

A. Institute of Acoustics Draft Good Practice Guide on the Control of Noise from Pubs and Clubs –

Annex 1: Criteria and Measurement Guides



A-Weighted – difference between LAeq of entertainment noise (logarithmic subtraction of

LAeq with entertainment noise and LAeq without entertainment noise) and LA90 without

entertainment noise

1/3rd Octave – difference between LA10 of entertainment noise (calculated as logarithmic

subtraction of LA10 with entertainment noise and LA10 without entertainment noise) and LA90

without entertainment noise in 1/3rd-octave bands between 40 Hz and 160 Hz. The

maximum value in any of these bands was then used for the analysis

Maximum value of each of the above

B. Noise Act / BS4142

Noise Act methodology: LAeq – LA99.8 with entertainment noise present for both. It should

be noted that this was based on a total 5 minute measurement from which both the LAeq and

LA99.8 measurements were extracted, rather than the 15 minute period allowed in the current

measurement protocol.

BS4142 methodology: LAeq – LA90 with entertainment noise not present for LA90

measurement

C. Noise Rating (NR) Curves

NR based on Octave Band Leq measurements

NR based on Octave Band L10 measurements

NR based on Octave Band L90 measurements

NR based on Octave Band Lmax measurements

D. Absolute LAeq

E. The Moorhouse modification of the DIN 45680 methodology for investigating low frequency noise

Maximum exceedance of 1/3rd-octave band Leq measurements over reference curve in the

range 12.5 Hz to 160 Hz

F. C-Weighted

Absolute LCeq

LCeq – LC99.8 with entertainment noise present for both

LCeq – LC90 with entertainment noise not present for LC90 measurement

G. Comparative L90



LA90 (with entertainment noise) – LA90 (without entertainment noise)

LC90 (with entertainment noise) – LC90 (without entertainment noise)

H. Short temporal averaging (using Leq,125ms measurements to assess the quietest period with

entertainment noise on – e.g. the quietest 125 ms being the L99.95 for a 5-minute measurement)

LAeq – LA99.95

LCeq – LC99.95

I. Inaudibility (assessed directly from responses to questionnaires)

5.36 An Excel spreadsheet was developed for use in both laboratory and field trials to calculate all of the

above 18 noise metrics (excluding inaudibility as this was assessed from the questionnaire responses)

for each noise condition (and for each measurement/assessment in the field trials), to ensure that the

same calculation approach was used in all cases.

Analysis

5.37 Figure 3 and 4 show LAeq and LCeq noise indicators for each noise condition (respectively for the

structure-borne and airborne transmission arrangements). It can be seen that the C-weighted indicator is

less sensitive to noise types C and D (sports event and karaoke), where there is less low-frequency

noise.

Figure 3 - LAeq and LCeq indicators for tests with structure-borne transmission

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Noise Type (A to D) and Nominal Level (1 to 5)

Leq

(dB

)

1 2 3 4 5Noise Type A

1 2 3 4 5Noise Type B

1 2 3 4 5Noise Type C

1 2 3 4 5Noise Type D

L Aeq

L Ceq



Figure 4 - LAeq and LCeq indicators for tests with airborne transmission

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Noise Type (A to D) and Nominal Level (1 to 5)

Leq

(dB

)

1 2 3 4 5Noise Type A

1 2 3 4 5Noise Type B

1 2 3 4 5Noise Type C

1 2 3 4 5Noise Type D

L Aeq

L Ceq

5.38 The background noise levels in the test rooms were in the range 19 to 24 dB LAeq (18 to 23 dB LA90)

5.39 The equivalent C-weighted background levels were in the range 38 to 41 dB LCeq (33 to 39 dB LC90)

5.40 The raw data from noise measurements in each room (each of the 18 noise indicators for each noise

condition) are included in Appendix D to this report.

Results (Questionnaire)

Subjects

5.41 Two subjects dropped out on the day due to illness, and these were replaced by subjects of the correct

age/sex category from the reserve list. A full set of 60 subjects therefore took part in the testing. The

average age across all subjects was just under 45 years and most subjects lived in mainly residential

areas. More than half rated themselves on the sensitive half of the scale in terms of general sensitivity

to noise. It is interesting to note that although all but one subject was recruited as having no hearing

impairment, four subjects rated themselves as having a mild hearing impairment in the test

questionnaire.

5.42 The responses given to the background information questionnaire are given in Appendix E.

Testing

5.43 The distribution of responses was examined, and extreme and outlier responses were identified. Figure

5 shows the box plots for responses on acceptability, for each noise type and level. As a brief key to the 25



box plots, the boxes themselves indicate the bounds of the upper and lower quartiles of the responses,

and the bold line in the middle is the median response. The circle points are outliers, and the star points

are extreme values. Outliers and extreme values were removed from further analysis. In the case of

sound D, one respondent told us that she had completed the first few iterations of the questionnaire

using the scale in reverse, and that explains most of the very high extreme values for the lowest sound

levels.

Figure 5 - Responses on acceptability of the overall noise level by test condition

5.44 If subjects marked that they had heard entertainment noise, they were asked about what impact the

noise would have on their daily activities. The responses to these questions are shown Appendix F,

with responses shown against nominal noise level. It is clear from these charts that entertainment noise

at levels 1, 2 and 3 would not be considered a major disruption by most subjects, but that at level 4, the

disturbance is becoming more obvious.

Analysis

5.45 Non-parametric equivalents of the one-way ANOVA and independent T-test were carried out – tests

used include Kruskal-Wallis and Jonckheere-Terpstra - and these showed no significant differences in

responses for source type (internal versus external) or sound type. The same tests showed a strong



significance in response for noise level, as would be expected. A median test (see Table 1) showed the

responses pooled into three groups - Group 1 (levels 1 and 2), Group 2 (level 3) and Group 3 (levels 4

and 5). This means that levels 1 and 2 were not significantly different to each other, but were

significantly different to 3, 4 and 5. Level 3 was significantly different to 1 and 2, and significantly

different to 4 and 5. Levels 4 and 5 were not significantly different to each other, but were significantly

different to 1, 2 and 3.

Table 1 - Median tests on noise test levels

Frequencies

Test Level

1 2 3 4 5

Q4: Acceptability of the overall noise level

> Median 15 36 102 191 215<= Median 225 204 133 46 21

Test Statistics (b)

Q4: Acceptability of the overall noise

levelN 1188Median 3.00Chi-Square 551.417(a)df 4Asymp. Sig. .000

a 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 110.6.b Grouping Variable: Test Level

Analysis of potentially confounding variables

5.46 The laboratory experiments deliberately constrain some independent and confounding variables in

order to test the parameters of interest to the experiment. In “real life” situations, there will be variables

that could make the conclusions made here from the laboratory tests less relevant, and the conclusions

and recommendations should always be viewed with the understanding that controlled experimental

testing cannot, by its nature, model all combinations of variables that exist in the field.

5.47 Tests were carried out on potential confounding variables to determine if they had an effect on the level

of acceptability of entertainment noise. The variables tested are listed below:

A. Gender

B. Age

C. Test houses

D. Test room



E. Types of location

F. Locations

G. Types of property

H. Whether or not entertainment noise can be heard indoors at home

I. Level of annoyance with entertainment noise heard at home indoors during the evening and night

J. Level of hearing impairment

5.48 Significant differences were only observed in test D on Test room.

5.49 A Kruskal-Wallis test shows that the difference in the level of acceptability of entertainment noise

between the rooms is only just significant, see Table 2. Examination of the ranks suggests that room 4

may be significantly different (sound considered to be less acceptable) to rooms 3 and 6. This seems

likely to be a spurious result rather than a meaningful one.

Table 2 - Kruskal-Wallis test on differences between rooms

Ranks Test Room N Mean RankQ4: Acceptability of the overall noise level

1 189 549.712 195 579.083 180 612.594 193 522.415 190 549.786 190 603.09Total 1137

Test Statistics(a,b)

Q4: Acceptability of the overall noise

levelChi-Square 11.092df 5Asymp. Sig. .050

a Kruskal Wallis Testb Grouping Variable: Test Room

5.50 The data for noise metrics versus acceptability for the four different sound types are shown in Table 3.

The results indicate that the best across-the-board metric was the Absolute LAeq. This metric had the

strongest two correlations for all four noise types. No other metric had such a consistent predictive

performance with subjective response. For the other noise metrics, different ones were strong for

different noise types - e.g. the C-weighted metrics only made a showing for the dance music, IOA A-



weighted (LAeq of the entertainment noise minus LA90 without entertainment noise) for the sports and

karaoke.

Table 3 - Spearman’s rho coefficients for acceptability of level of sound and noise metrics

Spearman's Rho

Metric All Sounds

Sound A (Rock)

Sound B (Dance)

Sound C (Sport)

Sound D (Karaoke)

IOA A-weighted 0.765 0.801 0.779 0.698 0.769IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 0.598 0.724 0.728 0.550 0.657IOA max exceedance 0.621 0.724 0.728 0.632 0.680Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 0.732 0.763 0.757 0.682 0.741BS4142 LAeq-LA90(no music) 0.756 0.800 0.762 0.697 0.750NR Leq 0.735 0.800 0.752 0.648 0.724NR L10 0.776 0.811 0.804 0.698 0.775NR L90 0.529 0.769 0.397 0.468 0.469NR Lmax 0.576 0.633 0.623 0.280 0.739Absolute LAeq 0.781 0.828 0.784 0.720 0.781Moorhouse max exceedance 0.499 0.717 0.761 0.107 0.540LCeq 0.571 0.762 0.774 0.264 0.687LCeq-LC99.8 0.399 0.660 0.766 -0.213 0.493LCeq-LC90(no music) 0.534 0.739 0.766 0.148 0.582LA90-LA90(no music) 0.761 0.815 0.778 0.702 0.754LC90-LC90(no music) 0.610 0.777 0.734 0.430 0.587LAeq-LA99.95 0.745 0.776 0.756 0.699 0.753LCeq-LC99.95 0.397 0.655 0.771 -0.250 0.493

Note: The Noise Act assessment was based on a total 5 minute measurement from which both the LAeq and LA99.8 measurements were extracted, rather than the 15 minute period allowed in the current measurement protocol.

Key for correlation tables: # : largest significant correlation# : 2nd largest significant correlation# : 3rd largest significant correlation

5.51 All of the correlations are significant, and almost all are positive, indicating a strong positive linear

relationship between the level of noise measured (as indicated per metric) and acceptability of the level

of noise. Figure 6 shows this relationship for Absolute LAeq.

5.52 A partial correlation is the correlation between variables that remains after controlling for (e.g.

partialling out) one or more other variables. Partial correlations were carried between Absolute LAeq and

subjective acceptability controlling for the effect of the following variables:

A. Thermal comfort

B. Rating of temperature

C. Air movement

D. Air quality - dryness

E. Air quality - freshness



F. Air quality - odour

G. Air quality overall

H. Noise – from outside of the building

I. Noise – from building systems

J. Noise – from within the building (other than from building systems)

K. Noise overall (everything that can be heard)

L. Comfort (with consideration of environmental factors A. to K.)

5.53 Factors J to L were found to have some effect on the relationship between level of acceptability and

Absolute LAeq.

Correlation without controlled variables 0.770Correlation controlling for noise from within the building 0.674Correlation controlling for noise overall 0.501Correlation controlling for comfort overall 0.598

5.54 The zero-order or uncontrolled correlation indicates that the higher the actual noise is, the less

acceptable people find the level of noise. Comfort overall, noise overall and noises from within the

building all appear in part to moderate this positive linear relationship.

5.55 These results are however, not unexpected. It has been shown that the less comfortable people are, the

less tolerant they are. Comfort takes into account all aspects of the environment, including sound. A

comfort rating would therefore by its nature reflect some of the variation in level of acceptability. This

is also true of the two noise ratings that had an effect. Ratings for noise overall requires respondents to

consider everything that they can hear, which includes the test sounds. The remaining rating focuses on

noises from within the building. In 50% of the tests the source of the sound was from within the

building. In the remaining tests the source of the sound was outside of the building. However, many

subjects said that they did not realise that this was the case and rated the sounds they heard as though

were being generated from within the building.

5.56 The graph below shows a plot of mean acceptability score for each Absolute LAeq value experienced.

The linear regression line through the data explains around 76% of the variance in the data. This graph

can be used to determine appropriate noise targets.



Figure 6 - Acceptability ratings in the laboratory for Absolute LAeq

50.00040.00030.00020.000

Absolute LAEQ

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

Mea

n A

ccep

tabi

lity

Scor

e

R Sq Linear = 0.763

5.57 The second best predictive performance in the laboratory testing was LA90 minus LA90 (no music). For

completeness, the chart below shows the scatter plot of acceptability vs. for the laboratory data. The

variance explained by this regression is much lower than with Absolute LAeq, and it is clear by

inspection that the regression line is a poorer predictor of the acceptability rating.


Absolute LAeq


Figure 7 - Acceptability ratings in the laboratory by LA90 minus LA90 (no music)

30.00020.00010.0000.000

LA90-LA90(no music)

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

Mea

n A

ccep

tabi

lity

Scor

e

R Sq Linear = 0.605

Inaudibility

5.58 One of the suggested noise metrics tested was inaudibility, i.e. an assessment where acceptability is

presumed to be linked with inaudibility.

5.59 The chart below shows the frequencies at each acceptability rating, split by whether or not the subject

reported hearing the entertainment noise. It is clear that in many cases, subjects who were able to hear

the entertainment noise nonetheless considered it to be acceptable.

5.60 This indicates that an assessment method based on inaudibility would significantly underestimate the

acceptability ratings of the people experiencing the noise. The data are further split by noise level, and

this chart is shown in Appendix F.


LA90 – LA90(no music)


Clearlyunaccept

able

987Justunaccept

able

Justacceptabl

e

432Clearlyacceptabl

e


300

200

100

0

Cou

nt

NoYes

Q2: Were you able tohear any entertainment

noise in the last fewminutes?

Conclusions from the laboratory testing

5.61 The noise metric that appears to provide the best prediction of subjective response across the board for

different entertainment noise types is the Absolute LAeq. This noise metric provided consistently high

correlation coefficients when compared with the subjects’ ratings of acceptability.

5.62 According to the regression between subjective acceptability rating and noise level in absolute LAeq, the

table below shows that LAeq levels associated with each value of acceptability. For example, therefore, if

the objective is that the new criterion reflect the level at which householders feel the noise is “just

unacceptable”, the target absolute LAeq,5 minutes should be 34.0 dB.


Clearlyacceptable

Justacceptable

Clearlyunacceptable

Justunacceptable


Table 4 - Semantic descriptor and associated value of acceptability

Semantic descriptor Score Absolute LAeq,5 minutes

Clearly acceptable 1 17.02 20.43 23.84 27.2

Just acceptable 5 30.6Just unacceptable 6 34.0

7 37.48 40.89 44.2

Clearly unacceptable 10 47.5



6 FIELD TRIALS

6.1 The primary objective of the field trials was to assess the practicability of using the assessment

methods identified in the lab-testing phase as having the best correlation with subjective response to

entertainment noise, in real world conditions. The field trials aimed to cover variables such as urban

and rural environments, a good geographical spread within the UK, and significantly different

background noise climates. Furthermore, the venues were selected such that they covered the following

noise issues:

A. Having a recognised noise problem

B. Being borderline

C. Having an acceptable noise climate

6.2 The field trials were undertaken at 10 venues around the UK and a summary of the type of venue, type

of music, locations and perception of the acceptability of the noise is shown in Table 5 below:

Table 5 – Summary of Field Trial Venues

Venue and Location Venue Classification

Perception of Noise from Pub/Club

Type of music

1. London Club Urban Borderline Dance2. Bristol Pub Urban Problem Recorded pop3. Bristol Club Town Borderline Drum & Bass4. Milton Keynes Club Urban Borderline Drum & Bass5. Milton Keynes Pub Urban Acceptable Recorded pop6. North Herts Town Hall Rural Problem Live Band7. Sheffield Club Urban Borderline Dance8. Nottinghamshire Miners Club Rural Acceptable Recorded pop9. Skipton, North Yorkshire Pub Town Borderline Recorded pop10. Skipton, North Yorkshire Pub Rural Problem Live Band

6.3 The locations for the 10 field trials provided a good range of venues (pubs, clubs and town halls),

locations (urban, towns and rural) and types of music.

6.4 The equipment used for the field trials was the same as that used for the laboratory tests and comprised

a Norsonic 121 noise analyser, set to record as a minimum set of measurements the following

parameters and indices:

A. Broadband A and C weighted noise levels as Leq, L1, L10, L90, L99.8, L99.5, and L99 indices over 5

minute, 2 minutes and 1 minute periods

B. Low frequency noise levels in the 1/3 octave bands from 12 Hz to 250 Hz as Leq, L1, L10, L90, L99.8,

L99.5, and L99, indices, over 5 minute, 2 minutes and 1 minute periods

C. Leq 125 millisecond continual time history



6.5 An assessment questionnaire was drafted by CSL with input from BRE, to be used by EHPs. This

questionnaire is shown in Appendix G. The questionnaire requests that the EHPs consider the noise

impact for a “one-off” or infrequent event lasting 2 hours and occurring after 23:00 hrs, e.g. once every

6 months. While it is possible that the context given to EHPs could change their responses somewhat,

it was considered to be necessary to give a context to respond within. The differences between

individuals responses could be exaggerated if they are also assessing on very different imagined

contexts. For the analysis that was carried out, it is likely that the responses would be slightly different

for different scenarios, but it is considered that the differences would not significantly alter the

conclusions.

6.6 At each venue there were at least 2 and in most cases 3 EHPs that completed the questionnaires

regarding their perception of the noise both inside and immediately outside each selected residential

location. Where possible, EHPs from neighbouring Local Authorities were used to provide an opinion

as well as the local EHPs, as existing noise issues at the venue may have affected their judgement of

the noise measurements during the specific assessment periods.

6.7 Background noise measurements were generally taken immediately prior to the music being played at

‘normal’ operational levels within the pub/club. These measurements were taken both directly outside

the residential property and in the worst affected habitable room.

6.8 Where possible, the noise measurements with the music noise being assessed were taken after 2300

hours. However, this was not always possible as some of the pubs closed at 2300 hours. In some cases

it was practical to undertake the noise assessment soon after completion of the background noise

measurements. In these circumstances the EHPs were instructed to assess the music noise as if the

event was after 2300 hours.

6.9 The field trials presented many practical difficulties. The first was arranging access to residential

properties that were affected by music noise. The following methods were used to determine suitable

venues:

A. Using CSL’s existing Environmental Health and Club/Pub contacts (provided 8 out of the 10

venues).

B. Project Website – received visits and provided information regarding the project but provided no

venues for the field trials.

C. Articles in both the weekly EH News and monthly EHP magazines, included the web site address

but provided no venues for the field trials.

D. Environmental Health message board, EHNet (provided 2 venues) and Barbour Index.

6.10 Some venues were offered by Local Authorities and then withdrawn due to imminent service of notices

or prosecutions. Some venues were withdrawn due to staffing difficulties within the Local Authorities

that had offered the venues. Generally, the EHPs that offered the venues were able to provide



colleagues from neighbouring local authorities to provide their opinions on the noise at the residential

properties and to complete the questionnaires.

6.11 At the Sheffield venue, the noise assessment was undertaken within neighbouring offices rather than

residential accommodation. However, this venue was considered to be ideal for the assessment and the

EHPs were requested to assess the noise levels as if the offices were habitable residential rooms.

Methodology

6.12 To ensure consistency at each of the 10 field trials the following methodology was adopted.

6.13 At the majority of the noise measurement locations a 5 minute background noise measurement was

undertaken both inside and outside the selected residential property prior to the start of the music event

at the venue. The external levels were taken 1m from the façade of the same elevation of the residential

property as the room in which the internal measurements were taken. The internal background noise

measurements followed the same methodology as the laboratory tests whereby the windows were

closed and the microphone was located close to the centre of the room and at least 1m away from any

reflecting surfaces. These measurements were taken as close to the time of the music events as

possible. In some cases, such as at Milton Keynes, the background survey was undertaken on a

different evening but at the same time of day as when the music events took place.

6.14 The noise measurements with the entertainment noise present followed the same procedure and were

measured at the same locations as for the background noise measurements.

6.15 Briefing documents were provided to the residents and licensees for each field trial. These documents

detailed the project objectives and provided information regarding the laboratory and field trials. A

further document was given to the participating EHPs, which requested the existing entertainment noise

assessment criterion and enforcement methods used by the Local Authorities that participated in the

trials. These documents are reproduced in Appendix J.

6.16 Prior to any music noise assessments/measurements, the Entertainment Noise Assessment

questionnaires were distributed and discussed with the EHPs. This provided the EHPs with the

opportunity to understand the type of questions that would be asked at the end of each individual

assessment. It was requested that the questionnaires were not completed until the end of the 5 minute

assessment period to take into account any variations in the noise over the 5 minute period.

Furthermore, the noise from questionnaires being completed would have affected the noise levels being

measured at the same time.

6.17 The wording on the questionnaires was explained to the EHPs to ensure that the first page was

completed for one-off events (e.g. once every 6 months) that last for at least 2 hours and occur after

2300 hours. Where the assessment was undertaken before 2300 hours it was requested that the EHPs

assess the music noise as if the event occurred after 2300 hours. The second page of the questionnaire



was also discussed with the EHPs to ensure that the assessment was considered as a regular event

lasting 2 hours and occurring after 2300 hours e.g. once a week.

6.18 On completion of the assessments the tests were repeated if either the source noise levels could be

significantly varied of if there was another habitable room where the assessment could be repeated (this

was a useful exercise when there was direct sound transmission via a party wall or floor from the venue

to the residential receptor, as it was usually relatively easy to move to a room in the dwelling less

affected by the noise from the licensed premises).

6.19 The completed questionnaires and the associated 5 minute noise measurements were then sent for

analysis to BRE. Where possible, 15 minute samples were also taken of noise levels in the test

dwelling, although this was difficult to achieve in practice as it required the full co-operation of the

residents in the late evening period.

Results

6.20 The noise data was entered into the BRE spreadsheet, to ensure that the calculations were made on the

same basis as the data from the laboratory testing.

6.21 A total of 14 EHPs were involved in the assessments, making a total of 75 assessments for 10 venues.

Between 1 and 4 assessments were made at each venue at different locations. Dates of assessment were

between 3/2/06 and 1/4/06. Times of assessments were between 21:57 and 23:45.

Analysis

6.22 A summary of descriptive analyses from the field questionnaires is given in Appendix H. There was

quite a large variation in EHP response to the assessment questions.

6.23 Acceptability is rated by the EHPs on a 10 point scale, where 1 is clearly acceptable, 5 is just

acceptable, 6 is just unacceptable and 10 is clearly unacceptable. Table 6 shows the mean scores for

acceptability of the entertainment noise heard, when judged as a one-off or infrequent event, and when

judged as a regular event. As might be expected, noise levels were more likely to be considered

acceptable when judged as one-off events than when judged as regular events.



Table 6 - Acceptability ratings of entertainment noise by EHPs judged as one-off and regular events.

Venue

How would you rate the current level of entertainment noise overall….

Q5: … for a one-off event?

Q11: … for a regular event?

1. London Club 4.25 5.752. Bristol Pub 4.83 6.003. Bristol Club 2.75 4.754. Milton Keynes Club 2.50 3.385. Milton Keynes Pub 5.63 6.256. North Herts Town Hall 9.50 10.007. Sheffield Club 7.38 8.758. Nottinghamshire Miners Club 3.25 3.889. Skipton, North Yorkshire Pub (town) 4.67 6.6710. Skipton, North Yorkshire Pub (rural) 7.33 9.33

6.24 Table 7 shows the correlation coefficients between the responses on acceptability made by EHPs to

entertainment noise, when considered as a one-off event. The range of coefficients was greater than for

the laboratory testing data, with some metrics giving very weak correlations. Absolute LAeq, was the

strongest predictor of householder response in the laboratory testing, and it provides a fair but not

strong prediction of EHP response in the field. The strongest predictor of EHP response across all

assessments in the field was LA90 minus LA90 (no music).



Table 7. Spearman’s rho coefficients for acceptability of level of sound and measures of sound,

for entertainment noise judged as a one-off event

Metric

How would you rate the current level of entertainment noise overall, for a one-off

event?All

MeasuresInside

measuresOutside

measuresIOA A-weighted 0.511 0.375 0.651IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 0.676 0.813 0.309IOA max exceedance 0.676 0.813 0.309Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 0.110 0.261 -0.195BS4142 LAeq-LA90(no music) 0.518 0.526 0.578NR Leq 0.403 0.304 0.322NR L10 0.531 0.602 0.435NR L90 0.434 0.425 0.365NR Lmax 0.245 -0.057 0.532Absolute LAeq 0.507 0.508 0.491Moorhouse max exceedance 0.547 0.552 0.472LCeq 0.545 0.628 0.520LCeq-LC99.8 0.260 0.166 -0.112LCeq-LC90(no music) 0.732 0.798 0.564LA90-LA90(no music) 0.757 0.833 0.713LC90-LC90(no music) 0.714 0.714 0.621LAeq-LA99.95 0.128 0.302 -0.195LCeq-LC99.95 0.303 0.290 -0.028

Note: The Noise Act assessment was based on a total 5 minute measurement from which both the LAeq and LA99.8 measurements were extracted, rather than the 15 minute period allowed in the current measurement protocol.

Key for correlation tables: # : largest significant correlation# : 2nd largest significant correlation# : 3rd largest significant correlation

6.25 The equivalent table for entertainment noise judged as a regular event is shown below.



Table 8 - Spearman’s rho coefficients for acceptability of level of sound and measures of sound ,

for entertainment noise judged as a regular event

Metric

How would you rate the current level of entertainment noise overall, for a regular

event?All

MeasuresInside

measuresOutside

measuresIOA A-weighted 0.461 0.330 0.561IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 0.604 0.766 0.260IOA max exceedance 0.604 0.766 0.260Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 0.079 0.225 -0.225BS4142 LAeq-LA90(no music) 0.446 0.470 0.460NR Leq 0.399 0.255 0.451NR L10 0.529 0.572 0.530NR L90 0.442 0.422 0.441NR Lmax 0.231 -0.093 0.574Absolute LAeq 0.498 0.461 0.562Moorhouse max exceedance 0.523 0.483 0.543LCeq 0.549 0.628 0.588LCeq-LC99.8 0.274 0.207 -0.109LCeq-LC90(no music) 0.665 0.739 0.477LA90-LA90(no music) 0.679 0.786 0.622LC90-LC90(no music) 0.599 0.639 0.467LAeq-LA99.95 0.092 0.259 -0.225LCeq-LC99.95 0.324 0.329 -0.004Note: The Noise Act assessment was based on a total 5 minute measurement from which both the LAeq and LA99.8 measurements were extracted, rather than the 15 minute period allowed in the current measurement protocol.

6.26 In general, the correlation coefficients between EHP rating of acceptability and noise metrics were

fairly weak. This is probably due to the individual variation in response between the EHPs having a

greater influence on the outcome of the statistical analysis, which is probably partly due to the lower

sample size of EHPs (n=14) in the field tests compared to the larger sample of members of the public

(n=60) used in the laboratory tests. Additionally extraneous noise e.g. road traffic and people in the

street etc. had a much greater confounding impact on the measured noise levels at some of the field test

sites compared to the laboratory tests, where the influence of extraneous noise on the measurements

was minimal.

6.27 It should be noted that LA90 minus LA90 (no music) requires a second measurement, as the metric

requires measurement with and without the presence of the entertainment noise. This makes it a less

practical tool for environmental noise assessment, particularly when dealing with enforcement for one-

off events on the night in question. Missing values (where the LA90 (no music) measurement was not

possible to arrange) may also affect the results for this measure.

6.28 Additional comments provided by EHPs on the questionnaires are shown in Appendix I.



Comparison of laboratory and fieldwork data

6.29 As different noise metrics had the strongest correlations in laboratory compared to field testing, some

comparisons were made between the two sets of data. The strongest correlation in the laboratory testing

was the Absolute LAeq. The figure below shows the fieldwork acceptability ratings (for a one-off event)

plotted against the measured Absolute LAeq during the field tests. The green points are the fieldwork

assessments, and the green line is the regression line through those points. It is clear that there is a great

deal of variation between assessments, and the variance explained by the regression line is fairly low, at

just over 40%. For comparison, the red line is the regression line for the same relationship for the

laboratory data. The regression lines follow a similar trend. Note that this chart only includes those

field assessments made inside a property, as it is only appropriate to compare those ratings with the

laboratory ratings.

Figure 8 - Scatter plot of field assessments of acceptability as a one-off event (inside ratings)

y = 0.2907x - 5.2053R2 = 0.4146

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000

Absolute LAeq

Acc

epta

bilit

y

Acceptability for a one-off event Absolute LAeq Predicted Acceptability Score Linear (Acceptability for a one-off event)

6.30 The correlation between noise metrics and acceptability scores in the field was strongest for LA90 minus

LA90 (no music). The figure below shows the scatter plot and regression line for acceptability ratings

against that metric. The variance explained is better than for Absolute LAeq, but still not strong. The red

line shows the regression line of acceptability vs. LA90 minus LA90 (no music) from the laboratory

testing. It is clear that the regression lines are more similar for laboratory and field testing using this

metric, but at the expense of losing some strength in the predictive power of the laboratory testing. The

variance explained by this regression line is high (at over 80%) but this is at least partly an artefact of

the shape of the data, with a large cluster near the origin of the graph, and a smaller cluster higher up.



Figure 9 - Scatter plot of field data of acceptability as a one-off event vs. LA90 minus LA90 (no

music)

y = 0.4441x + 2.7377R2 = 0.8137

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

-5.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000

LA90 - LA90(no music)

Acc

epta

bilit

y

Acceptability for a one-off event LA90-LA90(no-music) Predicted Acceptability Score Linear (Acceptability for a one-off event)

6.31 The regression lines for laboratory tests and field tests as shown in Figures 8 and 9 are not identical, but

they are fairly similar, at similar levels and with similar gradients.



7 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Website Questionnaires

7.1 An online questionnaire was developed for interested parties to input information to the project. The

questionnaire was designed to allow a variety of people to answer, from members of the general public

to licensed trade professionals and Environmental Health practitioners. Depending on their answers to

the initial screening questions, respondents would take a different route through the possible questions.

7.2 A flow chart for the questionnaire routing, and screenshots of the questions themselves, are shown in

Appendix C.

7.3 The link to the questionnaire was included on the CSL web pages about the project and the articles in

EH News and EHP magazine. To date, only a very small response (4 completions) have been received.

The link was sent out very recently in a BRE e-newsletter, in hopes of attracting more interested

feedback.



8 ASSESSMENT LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTING

8.1 The performance of each of the proposed noise metrics is summarised in the table below. This includes

the correlation coefficients with acceptability ratings of test subjects in the laboratory testing, as well as

judgements on practicality, ease of comprehension and use.

Table 9 – Summary of performance of each noise metric, lab and field tests

Metric

Laboratory Field aspects

Cor

rela

tion

with

ac

cept

abili

ty ra

tings

of

subj

ects

in la

bora

tory

te

stin

g

Prac

tical

ity fo

r use

in th

e fie

ld

Ease

of u

nder

stan

ding

and

us

e

IOA A-weighted 0.765 Medium HighIOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 0.598 Low LowIOA max exceedance 0.621 Low LowNoise Act LAeq-LA99.8 0.732 Medium MediumBS4142 LAeq-LA90(no music) 0.756 Medium MediumNR Leq 0.735 Low MediumNR L10 0.776 Low MediumNR L90 0.529 Low MediumNR Lmax 0.576 Low MediumAbsolute LAeq 0.781 High HighMoorhouse max exceedance 0.499 Low LowLCeq 0.571 High MediumLCeq-LC99.8 0.399 Medium LowLCeq-LC90(no music) 0.534 Low LowLA90-LA90(no music) 0.761 Low MediumLC90-LC90(no music) 0.610 Low LowLAeq-LA99.95 0.745 Medium MediumLCeq-LC99.95 0.397 Medium LowNote: The Noise Act assessment was based on a total 5 minute measurement from which both the LAeq and LA99.8 measurements were extracted, rather than the 15 minute period allowed in the current measurement protocol.

Basis for assessment of noise metrics

8.2 The comparison of assessments between laboratory and field testing is interesting, and it is reassuring

where the assessments of EHPs follow a similar pattern to the assessments of test householders.

However, the primary aim of the research is to test which noise metrics best represents the ratings of

householders, and it is important that the noise metrics recommended in this project are firmly

supported by the controlled laboratory testing, rather than trying to find the best correlation against

EHPs current practice. The metrics are therefore assessed on their correlation with subjective response

to entertainment noise, and on their practicality and ease of comprehension in the field.



8.3 From the laboratory testing, the following order of predictive performance can be seen i.e. the

confidence with which the noise metric can be used to predict the householders’ judgements of

acceptability.

8.4 First category: Predictive performers that provide the best correlations across all noise types.

A. Absolute LAeq, the overall best performer considered across all noise types.

B. LA90 - LA90 (no music), slightly lower correlations but still strong across all noise types.

8.5 Second category: These five metrics provided reasonably strong correlations with acceptability across

the different noise types. They are listed in order of their correlation coefficients across all noise types

tested. For the first two of these metrics, their correlation coefficients across all noise types were higher

than that of LA90 – LA90 (no music), but less consistent.

A. NR L10

B. IOA A-weighted

C. BS4142 LAeq – LA90 (no music)

D. LAeq – LA99.95

E. Noise Act (LAeq – LA99.8)

Each of these 7 predictive performers are discussed in further detail below.

Absolute LAeq

8.6 This metric provided the best correlation with subject response in the laboratory testing, with a

consistently high correlation across the different noise types. It is easy to understand and easy to use.

However, there is a concern about giving a single Absolute LAeq value on its own as an action level, as

in areas with high ambient noise, the action level could be present even without the entertainment

noise. We therefore recommend the addition of a subjective element to the assessment, requiring that

the entertainment noise is “clearly audible” to the assessor, e.g. that the songs/tracks are recognisable or

words intelligible, and that the assessor is (subjectively) convinced that the entertainment noise is a

significant contribution to the Absolute LAeq level. The use of the subjective descriptor of “clearly

audible” is justified by the results of the laboratory testing which indicate that the majority of test

subjects rated the “clearly audible” level 4 entertainment noise level as “just unacceptable” or higher in

the range of acceptability scores. However, it does rely on the apparent relationship between the

audibility of the intrusive entertainment noise and the underlying ambient noise as found in the

laboratory test being linear and equivalent at ambient noise levels equal to or higher than the action

level.



LA90 – LA90 (no music)

8.7 This metric also provided a strong correlation with subject response in the laboratory testing. It is

considered to be reasonably easy to both understand, and to use in the field. However, it does require

two measurements to be made – one with the entertainment noise and one without the entertainment

noise. For the assessment of a regular noise source, this is likely to be acceptable as the background

noise can be measured on a separate night to determine the noise climate without a music event.

However, for one-off events, it presents some problems, as there may not be gaps in the music noise in

which to obtain the “no music” measurement.

NR L10

8.8 This metric provided strong correlations, especially for rock and dance music. It is considered to be

relatively easy to use and understand in the field. However, it has the same issue as Absolute LAeq in

terms of its use in the field, as it is plausible for the ambient noise to reach a single action NR level

with no entertainment noise, so would need to be used with the same subjective assessment. Given that

the predictive performance of Absolute LAeq is higher than that for NR L10 and the additional

requirement of octave-band measurements for NR assessments, there would not appear to be any

benefit in using NR L10 instead of Absolute LAeq.

IOA A-weighted

8.9 As with NR L10, this metric provided strong correlations for all noise types, but poorer results than

Absolute LAeq, and with the same issue of having a single action level. In addition, as for LA90–LA90(no

music), this assessment requires measurements both with and without the entertainment noise present.

Again, there is not considered to be any benefit in recommending IOA A-weighted rather than

Absolute LAeq.

BS4142 LAeq – LA90 (no music)

8.10 This metric provided reasonably strong correlations with the subjective ratings in the laboratory testing.

There would be little reason to recommend this metric rather than LA90 – LA90 (no music), as they both

have the same difficulty in use of requiring a measurement without the music, and the latter had better

correlations with subjective response.

LAeq – LA99.95

8.11 This metric provided reasonably strong correlation with the subjective ratings. It is not considered to be

quite as straightforward to use in the field as some of the metrics above due to noise instrumentation

issues, but not prohibitively difficult. This metric has the advantage that it allows for some assessment

of the general underlying noise level, without requiring a separate visit to measure without music.

While it is not the strongest performer, it may represent a reasonable fall-back position if the caveats

put on some of the stronger performers above are not considered acceptable.



Noise Act LAeq – LA99.8

8.12 The current Noise Act method provides reasonably strong correlations with the subjective ratings.

Although the correlations are lower than the others listed above, they are still considered to be

reasonable. As with the previous noise metric, the Noise Act method allows some assessment of the

general ambient noise level without requiring a second visit. Through the analysis of noise levels from

the laboratory tests, it was apparent that the LA99.8 indicator still significantly over-estimates the

underlying noise level (level in absence of entertainment noise) for most of the music types used in this

study (although this was not such an issue for the sports event noise) which did not contain sufficient

breaks in which to capture the underlying noise level. This could be countered by reinforcing that the

underlying noise level does not have to be measured in the same five minute measurement period over

which the offending noise level is measured, provided it is captured within an overall period of 15

minutes during which the offending noise level is measured, thereby giving a longer period in which a

suitable gap in the entertainment noise can arise and allow a more representative underlying noise level

value to be measured.

8.13 It could be argued that the performance of this metric as a measure of clearly unacceptable intrusive

noise is sound enough that it could be retained, avoiding the effort and expense of a change.

A comment on the C-weighted metrics

8.14 Use of the C-weighted metrics has been advanced by some commentators for use with entertainment

noise with significant low-frequency component. It is true that the C-weighted metrics performed better

for the modern dance music noise type, which contains a higher low-frequency component, than for

other music noise types. However, most of the noise metrics described above, including the A-weighted

metrics, performed better on the dance music noise type than the C-weighted metrics, so their use in

that context is not supported by the experimental findings of this study.

Measurement Methodology

8.15 One of the project objectives states that, "Any recommended methodology must clearly establish and

minimise the uncertainties with noise measuring; by quantifying the method, clearly identifying the

assessment process, provide guidelines on the utilisation of equipment and highlight the applicability of

the method to appropriate circumstances". It is recommended that the noise assessments co-opts the

existing Noise Act protocol as the methods in the study were effectively carried out in the same way

(detailed in section 6.13 for field trials with the exception that the Noise Act assessment was based on a

total 5 minute measurement from which both the LAeq and LA99.8 measurements were extracted, rather

than the 15 minute period allowed in the current measurement protocol) e.g. windows closed in the

worst affected habitable rooms during the assessment, measurements taken at least 1m from

reflecting/absorbent surfaces and determining of the offending level over a 5 minute "sliding" window

in an overall 15 minute measurement period.



9 CONCLUSIONS

9.1 Laboratory testing was carried out to assess the relationship between different noise metrics, and the

subjective ratings of test subjects to entertainment noise.

9.2 In this study the majority of members of the public recruited as laboratory test subjects reported the

ability to tolerate a modest degree of audibly intrusive entertainment noise and that the threshold of

audibility did not equate to a measure of acceptability.

9.3 The laboratory experiments deliberately constrain some independent and confounding variables in

order to test the parameters of interest to the experiment. The conclusions should always be viewed

with the understanding that controlled experimental testing cannot, by its nature, model all

combinations of variables that exist in the field.

9.4 The noise metric that provided the best overall prediction of subjective ratings was the Absolute LAeq.

9.5 Field testing was carried out to test the practicability of the different noise metrics, and record the

assessments made by EHPs to the entertainment noise being measured.

9.6 The “highest performers” in the laboratory testing also have potential downsides in field testing, so

there is no clear best option for recommendation. The following options are considered the best of the

available options for assessing noise from one-off events after 2300 hours.

9.7 Absolute LAeq with a subjective judgement in addition. Absolute LAeq, at a single action level, would be

less relevant in the context where the ambient noise level is at or close to the action level even without

the entertainment noise. Therefore, we would recommend an action level Absolute LAeq, with an

additional subjective requirement that the entertainment noise itself is a clearly audible (songs/tracks

recognisable to a listener familiar with the music or words intelligible) contribution to the overall noise.

In terms of an action level, a table is provided (table 4) showing that the level at which subjects felt the

noise was “just unacceptable” in the context of a one off event in a habitable room with windows

closed was at 34 dB LAeq,5 minute. The range for the first two scores of unacceptability was LAeq,5 minute 34 to

37 dB. Analysis of data from the 2000/2001 National Noise Incidence Study (NNIS) was undertaken to

estimate the proportion of dwellings in the UK where internal ambient noise levels might exceed any

proposed LAeq criterion without any contribution from entertainment noise. This analysis is shown

below and has assumed a 25 dB LAeq reduction by a closed window, and is based on 8-hour (19:00 –

07:00) LAeq façade noise levels at the front elevation of properties.



2000/2001 National Noise Incidence Study (NNIS)

Internal LAeq,8hr (dB) Assumed External LAeq,8hr (dB) % of UK population exceeding level

30 55 13.031 56 11.332 57 8.933 58 7.234 59 5.535 60 3.836 61 2.937 62 2.138 63 1.339 64 0.940 65 0.8

The above table from the 2000/2001 National Noise Incidence Study (NNIS) indicates that only a small

percentage of the UK population (5.5%) are estimated to have internal ambient noise levels above LAeq,8

hour 34 dB and just 2.1% above LAeq,8 hour 37 dB.

9.8 LA90 – LA90 (no music). This allows consideration of the background level, but requires a measurement

without noise on the night of the event and this may not be possible. This in itself may be problem

enough to make the metric unusable for one-off events.

9.9 LAeq – LA99.95 or Noise Act. These metrics include some consideration of the underlying noise level,

without requiring a separate “no music” measurement to be made. The former is slightly more effective

in prediction of subjective response than the latter, but not substantially so, and using the latter has

logistical advantages. The performance of both these noise metrics was less good than the previous two

options, but they also avoid the practical disadvantages of the Absolute LAeq with a subjective

judgement and LA90 – LA90 (no music).



10 RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 The results of the laboratory testing identified several methodologies and criteria, which gave

reasonably good correlation with subjective response. The noise metric that provided the best overall

prediction of subjective ratings of all the entertainment noise types tested by ordinary members of the

public was the Absolute LAeq. However, during the field testing it was apparent that the “highest

performers” from the laboratory testing all had clear disadvantages in use under real world conditions,

so there is no clear best option for recommendation which combines optimum correlation with

subjective response with ease and rapidity of use. The following options are considered the best of the

available options, in descending order of correlation with subjective response, each raising different

issues regarding practicability of use by EHPs.

Absolute LAeq – That is an LAeq,5min noise level value set at a single action level. However an

intrusive entertainment noise criteria based on Absolute LAeq, would be difficult to use

where the existing ambient noise level without the entertainment noise was close to, equal

to or above the action level. Therefore, we would recommend an action level Absolute LAeq,

with an additional subjective requirement that the entertainment noise itself has a clearly

audible (to an otologically normal listener) contribution to the overall noise e.g. the

songs/tracks would be recognisable to a listener familiar with the music and any words

intelligible. In terms of an action level, a table in this report is provided showing various

levels of entertainment noise used in the laboratory testing and the responses of test

subject’s responses. In the context of this study’s objective to determine criteria that

represents a clearly unacceptable situation, the noise levels at which test subjects felt the

noise was “just unacceptable” for a one off event within a habitable room with windows

closed was at 34 dB LAeq,5 minute. The range for the first two scores of unacceptability was

LAeq,5 minute 34 to 37 dB. Analysis of data from the 2000/2001 National Noise Incidence

Study (NNIS) indicates that only a small percentage of the UK population (5.5%) are

estimated to have internal ambient noise levels above LAeq,8 hour 34 dB and just 2.1% above

LAeq,8 hour 37 dB.

LA90 – LA90 (no music) – That is the difference between the LA90,5 min noise level with the

intrusive entertainment noise and the equivalent LA90,5 min with no intrusive entertainment

noise. This allows consideration of the background level, but requires a measurement

without intrusive entertainment noise that may not be possible on the night of a complaint.

This in itself may be problem enough to make the metric unusable for “one-off” events or

as a quick response to a problem.

LAeq – LA99.95 or existing Noise Act methodology (LAeq – LA99.8). These metrics include some

consideration of the underlying noise level at the same time as any offending noise level is

measured, without requiring a separate “no music” measurement to be made. The former is

slightly more effective in prediction of subjective response than the latter, but not



substantially so, and using the latter has logistical advantages. The performance of both

these noise metrics was less good than the previous two options, but they also avoid the

practical disadvantages highlighted above.

10.2 It is recommended that the above options should be trialed in selected regions to ensure that the most

practical option is selected to assess entertainment noise from licensed premises. The field trials have

assisted in selecting the optimum criterion but further tests should be undertaken by EHPs in normal

working conditions to establish the practicality of each option. These trials should consider both rural

and urban environments, which should enable assessments with varying levels of ambient noise levels.

10.3 The field trials also collected noise and questionnaire data for regular music events. The use of

‘inaudibility’ has been debated by professionals for several decades and it is recommended that further

analysis of the field trail data is undertaken, supported by additional laboratory testing to establish

further more detailed methods for assessing noise from regular music events that occur after 2300 hrs.



APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC AND STATISTICAL TERMS

Acoustics - Definitions And Units

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The range of audible sound is from 0dB to 140dB, which is taken to be the threshold of pain. The sound pressure detected by the human ear covers an extremely wide range. The decibel (dB) is used to condense this range into a manageable scale by taking the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure and a reference sound pressure.

The unit of frequency is Hz. 1 Hz is one pressure fluctuation in one second. The frequency response of the ear is usually taken to be about 16Hz (number of oscillations per second) to 18,000Hz. The ear does not respond equally to different frequencies at the same level. It is more sensitive in the mid-frequency range than at the lower and higher frequencies, and because of this, the low and high frequency component of a sound are reduced in importance by applying a weighting (filtering) circuit to the noise measuring instrument. The weighting which is most used and which correlates best with the subjective response to noise is the dB(A) weighting. This electronic filter matches the variation in the frequency sensitivity of the meter to that of the human ear. This is an internationally accepted standard for noise measurements.

The ear can just distinguish a difference in loudness between two noise sources when there is a 3dB(A) difference between them. Also when two sound sources of the same noise level are combined the resultant level is 3dB(A) higher than the single source. When two sounds differ by 10dB(A) one is said to be twice as loud as the other.

A few examples of noise of various levels are given below:

Sound Level, dB(A) Environmental Condition

0 – 10 Threshold of hearing

10 - 20 Broadcasting Studio

20 – 30 Bedroom at night

30 – 40 Library

40 – 50 Living room urban area

50 – 60 Typical Business Offices

60 – 70 Conversation Speech

70 – 80 Average traffic on street corner

80 – 90 Inside bus

100 – 110 Alarm Clock (1m away)

110 – 120 Loud car horn (1m away)

120 – 130 Pneumatic drill (1m away)

130 - 140 Threshold of pain

The subjective response to a noise is dependent not only upon the sound pressure level and its frequency, but also its intermittency. Various statistical indices have been developed to try and correlate annoyances with the noise level and its fluctuations in a changing noise environment. The indices and parameters used in this report are defined below:

LAeq: Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level The A-weighted sound pressure level of a steady sound that has, over a given period, the same energy as the fluctuating sound under investigation. It is in effect the energy average level over the specified measurement period (T) and is the most widely used indicator for environmental noise.

LAN: the A-weighted sound level exceeded for N% of the measurement period. In BS7445 the L A90 is used to define the background noise level, i.e. the noise that would remain once all local noise sources were



removed. The LA10 gives an indication of the upper limit of fluctuating noise and is used in the assessment of road traffic noise.

LAMAX: The maximum ‘A’ weighted noise level recorded during the measurement period.

Statistics used in the Pubs and Clubs Analysis

Parametric versus nonparametric methods

Parametric methods involve assumptions about, or estimation of, population parameters. Most common is the assumption that data follow a normal distribution. Nonparametric methods or so called distribution free methods do not rely on parameter estimation or precise distributional assumptions. Therefore, they can be used with data with of any distribution.

The lab data was not normally distributed therefore nonparametric methods were used in preference to parametric methods.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are those statistical measures, which describe the sample data without drawing inferences about the larger population. Typically these statistics describe the shape and location of the data and importantly indicates if the data follows a normal distribution.

Common Statistical Measures

The Mean, Median, Geometric Mean and Mode are all averages, otherwise known as measures of location or measures of central tendency.

o Mean: The arithmetic mean is the most important and most commonly used of the averages.

o Median: A more appropriate average than the Mean for small data samples, and those samples that include extreme values.

o Quartiles: The three values that split a distribution into four equal portions are known as quartiles. In order of magnitude they are usually denoted as Q1, Q2 and Q3. By definition Q2 is the median as it divides data into two equal portions.

o Geometric Mean: The geometric mean of the is more appropriate measure of skewed data, i.e. data that changes proportionally, than is the arithmetic mean.

o Mode: An average that is more appropriate than the Mean when data sets contain extreme values. The mode of a set if values is defined as that one which occurs with the greatest frequency. If there are no repeated values in a data set, then the mode will not exist.

The Variance, Standard deviation, Range and Inter-quartile Range are all measures of dispersion, otherwise known as measures of spread or measures of variability.

o Variance: The variance is never negative and can only be zero only if all the data values are the same. The variance is based on the arithmetic mean.

o Standard Deviation: The most widely used measure of dispersion in statistics, the standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

o Range: The easiest of the measures of the measures of dispersion to calculate, it is the difference between the smallest and largest values in a set of numerical data.

o Inter-quartile Range: The inter-quartile range is the difference between the quartiles Q3 and Q1.

Skewness and Kurtosis are indicators of the general shape of a distribution.

o Skew: Skewness measures the deviation of the distribution from symmetry, therefore if the distribution is not symmetric about its mean or median it is said to be skewed. Normally distributed data are perfectly symmetrical. A positively skewed distribution will have long thin tail to the right, while a negatively distribution will have a long thin tail to the left.

o Kurtosis: This measures "peakedness" of the distribution. Normally distributed data is said to be mesokurtic. In comparison a distribution that is comparatively flatter is described as platykurtic, while one that is more peaked is described a leptokurtic.



Correlations

Correlation is a measure of the relation between two or more variables. Correlation coefficients can range from -1.00 to +1.00. The value of -1.00 represents a perfect negative correlation while a value of +1.00 represents a perfect positive correlation. A value of 0.00 represents a lack of correlation.

If the correlation coefficient (r) is squared, then the resulting value (r2, the coefficient of determination) will represent the proportion of common variation in the two variables (i.e., the "strength" or "magnitude" of the relationship).

o Pearson Product-Moment Correlation: The most common correlation coefficient, it is a measure of the linear association between two variables. Values of the correlation coefficient indicates the direction of the relationship and its absolute value indicates the strength, with larger absolute values indicating stronger relationships.

o Spearman’s Rho: A nonparametric version of the Pearson correlation coefficient based on ranks of the data rather than the actual values. It is a measure of association between two variables and is used when at least one of the variables is ordinal (ranked) or if interval data does not satisfy the normality assumption.

o Partial Correlation: The correlation between two variables that remains after controlling for (e.g., partialling out) one or more other variables.

Test of comparisons

A statistical test calculates the probability (p) that results are due to chance fluctuations between groups or conditions. If p is low (usually 5% or less), the result is considered to be significant.

The Mann-Whitney U, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, all test whether two independent samples are from the same population.

o Mann Whitney U: A nonparametric test that compares the central tendency of two independent samples i.e. that two sampled populations are equivalent in location. Mann Whitney may be considered the nonparametric equivalent of the independent samples t test.

o Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z: A more general test than the Mann Whitney U, it detects differences in both the locations and the shapes of the distributions.

The Kruskal-Wallis H, Median, and Jonckheere-Terpstra tests, all test whether several independent samples are from the same population.

o Kruskal-Wallis H: A nonparametric alternative to one-way (between-groups) ANOVA. It is used to compare three or more samples, and it tests the null hypothesis that the different samples in the comparison were drawn from the same distribution or from distributions with the same median. Thus, the interpretation of the Kruskall-Wallis test is basically similar to that of the parametric one-way ANOVA, except that it is based on ranks rather than means.

o Median Test: A nonparametric test which is more general but not as powerful as the Kruskal-Wallis H test. The median test detects distributional differences in both location and shape.

o Jonckheere-Terpstra: A nonparametric test, this is used when there is a natural (ascending or descending) ordering of the samples. In such instances the Jonckheere-Terpstra test is more powerful than either the Median or Kruskal-Wallis test.



APPENDIX B – BRIEFING AND ORDER OF PRESENTATION

Subject Briefing

Welcome, and thank you for coming. My name is …. My colleague is …... We’ll be on site throughout the testing.

We sent you some information in the questions and answers that came with your invitation letters, but I want to explain to you in a bit more detail what you’ll be doing this evening.

This work is being done to assess people's reactions to different types of entertainment noise. In particular, the context is that this is entertainment noise while you are in your home, after 11 o’clock at night, and it isn’t entertainment noise that happens every night, but noise that might happen on a one-off or infrequent basis.

In a few minutes, we will walk you across to the test houses. These are quite standard three-bedroomed houses. You will be allocated a room number, and shown to that room. In each room, there is a bed, but we’d ask you not to sit on that. We’d like you to sit on the chair by the table, so that we know where you are in the room. You’ll also notice a couple of bits of equipment in the room – we’re monitoring the environment in the room while you are in there – please avoid touching any of the equipment you see.

During the test, at regular intervals, you will be asked to complete a short questionnaire. A researcher will come into the room each time, and give you a questionnaire, and you should complete this immediately. The researcher will then collect it from you after a short time. As you answer the questionnaire, don’t spend too long answering the questions or thinking about them – just mark your immediate response. You only get about a minute to complete this questionnaire. You’ll get a chance to look through the questionnaire at the end of the briefing, so that you’re a bit more familiar with the questions. During the test, you’re welcome to read a book or any other reading material you’ve brought with you, but please switch off your mobile phones completely, and do not use any personal entertainment equipment or games that make any noise. Remember also that there are other people in the house, so try not to make too much noise!

There is water in the room for you in case you are thirsty – please help yourselves if you need it.

There is a researcher in each house, and they will be on the landing throughout the tests in case any problems arise. You can leave at any time if you feel uncomfortable, but be aware that this invalidates the test for us, so if there’s some reason why you think you might want to leave, we’d rather you didn’t start. If you do need to leave for any reason, though, simply tell the researcher that you wish to leave, and then wait in the room while we call someone to ensure that you're ok and that you can leave the site safely.

We also have a trained First Aider on site at all times. (introduce Paul). If you feel unwell, let us know straight away and a researcher will contact the First Aider for you.

Although there are bathrooms in the test houses, there are no toilets! If you are likely to want to use the toilet within the next couple of hours, I suggest that you do so at the end of this briefing, before we move across to the test houses. We’ll allow some time for that before we go over. At the end of the test, you will be escorted back here, and we can sort out your payments for the test.

Finally, I know that some of you know other people who will be attending tests on other days. It’s important that these people come into the tests with no preconceptions about what they are doing, so please avoid telling them anything about the tests.

Are there any questions on what I’ve told you so far?



We need to get a signed research consent form from you. You should each have received an example of this form with the confirmation letter sent to you.(Research consent forms on clipboards, and pens) (single questionnaire sheet below consent forms on clipboards).

This is the questionnaire that you’ll see at regular intervals through the test. As you fill in the questionnaire, put a cross through the box of the response you choose. If you mark the wrong box, scribble the box in completely, then mark your correct answer. Have a good read through this now, so that you can answer it a little more quickly when you first see it in the tests.



Outside 1 Outside 2 Outside 3 Outside 4 Outside 5 Inside 1 Inside 2 Inside 3 Inside 4 Inside 5A 3 B 2 C 1 D 5 C 4 D 5 A 4 B 3 C 2 A 1A 2 B 1 C 5 D 4 C 3 D 1 A 5 B 4 C 3 A 2A 4 B 3 C 2 D 1 C 5 D 4 A 3 B 2 C 1 A 5A 1 B 5 C 4 D 3 C 2 D 2 A 1 B 5 C 4 A 3A 5 B 4 C 3 D 2 C 1 D 3 A 2 B 1 C 5 A 4B 3 C 4 D 5 A 1 A 2 C 2 D 3 A 4 B 5 D 1B 5 C 1 D 2 A 3 A 4 C 1 D 2 A 3 B 4 D 5B 4 C 5 D 1 A 2 A 3 C 4 D 5 A 1 B 2 D 3B 1 C 2 D 3 A 4 A 5 C 5 D 1 A 2 B 3 D 4B 2 C 3 D 4 A 5 A 1 C 3 D 4 A 5 B 1 D 2D 2 A 3 B 4 C 5 B 1 A 3 B 4 C 5 D 1 C 2D 1 A 2 B 3 C 4 B 5 A 5 B 1 C 2 D 3 C 4D 4 A 5 B 1 C 2 B 3 A 4 B 5 C 1 D 2 C 3D 5 A 1 B 2 C 3 B 4 A 1 B 2 C 3 D 4 C 5D 3 A 4 B 5 C 1 B 2 A 2 B 3 C 4 D 5 C 1C 1 D 2 A 3 B 5 D 4 B 4 C 5 D 1 A 2 B 3C 2 D 3 A 4 B 1 D 5 B 3 C 4 D 5 A 1 B 2C 5 D 1 A 2 B 4 D 3 B 5 C 1 D 2 A 3 B 4C 3 D 4 A 5 B 2 D 1 B 2 C 3 D 4 A 5 B 1C 4 D 5 A 1 B 3 D 2 B 1 C 2 D 3 A 4 B 5

A RockB DanceC SportsD Karaoke

1 Inaudible2 Just audible3 Plainly audible4 Clearly audible5 Loud



APPENDIX C - QUESTIONNAIRES

Main test questionnaire (completed after each noise segment)

Attitudes to Entertainment NoiseId NumberDate

/ /For official use only:

Q1. How would you describe your environment at this moment? (Please mark one selection on each scale)

Temperature

Air Movement

Air Quality

from outside the building

Comfort Overall(considering all of the elements above)

from building systems (e.g. heating ventilation, air conditioning, plumbing, etc)

from within the building (other than frombuilding systems)

Noise overall (everything you can hear)

Noise:

Q2. Were you able to hear any entertainment noise in the last few minutes?

Please answer the following questions on the basis that the level of entertainment noise that youhave experienced in the last few minutes happened on a one-off or very infrequent basis after 11pm.

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very much

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very much

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very much

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very much

... make it difficult to for you to have aconversation, including on the telephone?

... make it difficult for you to concentrate onreading, working, etc?

... make it difficult to for you to get to sleep?

... wake you from sleeping?

Hot Cold

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Comfortable Uncomfortable

HumidDry

Fresh Stuffy

Odourless Smelly

Still Draughty

UnsatisfactorySatisfactory

UnsatisfactorySatisfactory

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

UnsatisfactorySatisfactory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q4. On the basis that the current level of entertainment noise was happening for a longer time during the night but still on a one-off or very infrequent basis, how would you find the noise level overall?

Clearlyunacceptable

Clearlyacceptable

Justacceptable

Justunacceptable

... make it difficult to for you to listen to theTV, radio or recorded music?

Q3. If you were experiencing this level of entertainment noise on a one-off basis in your home, would it...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Yes

No If No, then go directly to Q4.

If Yes, then continue with Q3 and then Q4.

© Copyright Building Research Establishment Ltd, 2006

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very much

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very much... annoy you?

Test Number

- -

59Draft ReportCS/015497/Doc 007 version 1.0


Personal Details Questionnaire

About YouId NumberDate

/ /For official use only:

© Copyright Building Research Establishment Ltd, 2006

Name:

Age: Gender Male

Female

Q1. What kind of location do you currently live in?(a) Open rural area

Between (a) and (b)

(b) Suburban with large gardens

Between (b) and (c)

(c) Urban densely-packed housing

Q2. How would you describe the location you currently live in?Residential only

Mostly residential with some commercial premises

An equal mix of residential and commercial premises

Mostly commercial with some residential premises

Q4. Do you ever notice entertainment noise (e.g. music, sports broadcasts,etc), from pubs, clubs and similar premises when you are indoors at home?

Q5. If Yes to Q4, how often do you notice it?Every day

More than once per week

About once a week

More than once a month

About once a monthMore than once a yearAbout once a yearLess often

Q3. How would you describe the type of property you currently live in?End terrace house

Mid-terrace house

Semi-detached house

Detached house

Flat

Yes

No If No, go to Q7.If Yes, continue with Q5.

Continued overleaf....



Q7. How sensitive would you say you were in general to noise?

Not at all sensitive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very sensitive

Q8. To what extent would you say that you are personally bothered, annoyed or disturbed by entertainment noise from pubs, clubs and similar premises while you are at home, during the

evening and the night?

Not at all

A little

Moderately

Very

ExtremelyDon't know

Q9. Do you have any level of hearing impairment?No hearing impairment

Mild hearing impairment

Moderate hearing impairment

Severe hearing impairment

Q10. How much do you enjoy the following types of music?

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very muchClassical

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very muchJazz

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very muchRock

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very muchPop

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very muchDance

Thank you for your participation

continued...

Q6. And how do you feel about the level of entertainment noise that you hear when you are in your home?Clearly

unacceptableClearly

acceptableJust

acceptableJust

unacceptable1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Karaoke Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very much



Local residents’ questionnaires (extract)

10.4 One page was included for each evening, and the respondents were asked to complete the diary only if

and when they heard noise. This questionnaire also included instructions for completion, and the same

background information that was asked of the test subjects in the post-test questionnaire.



Date

/ /2 3 0 1 2 0 0 6

08:30pm

08:35pm

08:40pm

08:45pm

08:50pm

08:55pm

09:00pm

09:05pm

09:10pm

09:15pm

09:20pm

09:25pm

09:30pm

09:35pm

09:40pm

09:45pm

09:50pm

09:55pm

10:00pm

10:05pm

10:10pm

10:15pm

10:20pm

10:25pm

10:30pm

10:35pm

10:40pm

10:45pm

10:50pm

10:55pm

11:00pm

2

Clearlyunacceptable

Clearlyacceptable

Justacceptable

Justunacceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Only complete the acceptability question for times when you notice the entertainment noise.



Web questionnaire flow chart and questions

Questionnaire Routing1,2,3

A. Respondents that do not have to make judgements on entertainment noise and that are not

managers or other professional within the licensed or entertainment trades are considered to be

non-practising professionals.

B. Non-practising professionals will answer all of the public sector questions in addition to those

questions applicable for the non-public sector. In addition to this non-practising EHPs will answer

a further 2 questions specifically for practitioners.


A2: Comments

Non-Public(If A1 ≠ Member of

public)

Q1, Q2

A1: Profession

Licensed ProfessionalsIf (A1 = owner manager, other licensed,

entertainment professional)

Q1, Q2

Licensed Practitioners If (Q1 = Yes or Q2 = Yes)

Lic1 to Lic8

Non-practising professionals

If (Q1=No and Q2 = No)

Q3, Q4, Q5

Practitioners If (Q1 = Yes or Q2 = Yes)

Prac1 to Prac8

Non-Practising EHPs

(If A1 = EHP)

Prac3, Prac4 only

PublicIf (A1 = Member of

public)

Pub1 to Pub11

Q3, Q4, Q5

Licensed Non-Practitioners

If (Q1 = No and Q2 = No)

Lic1 to Lic8


C. Licensed practitioners will answer questions that are applicable to licensed professionals. In

addition they will also answer questions that are applicable to practitioners.

Screening questions



Questions for practitioners

10.5 This group includes environmental health practitioners, licensed or entertainment trade professionals or

other respondents who make assessments of entertainment noise as part of their jobs.



Questions for members of the licensed and entertainment trades



Questions for members of the public



APPENDIX D – NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA FROM LABORATORY TESTS

Noise levels for Structure-borne transmission tests

Noise type A, Guitar Oriented Rock

Noise Level 1

Noise IndicatorRoom 1

(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -19.7 -17.7 -17.7 -18.5 -18.4 -23.0IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance -11.9 -13.3 -11.5 -12.6 -14.2 -14.6IOA max exceedance -11.9 -13.3 -11.5 -12.6 -14.2 -14.6Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 1.8 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.2BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.6NR Leq 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 37 36 34 43 42 36Absolute LAeq 20.8 19.1 19.2 19.8 19.7 23.6Moorhouse max exceedance -1.8 -10.2 -11.0 -8.2 -7.0 -9.7LCeq 39.9 38.1 38.8 40.0 39.5 40.0LCeq-LC99.8 4.0 8.8 10.0 6.4 9.6 4.8LCeq-LC90(no music) 2.5 5.2 5.5 3.7 5.9 3.1LA90-LA90(no music) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0LC90-LC90(no music) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0LAeq-LA99.95 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.3LCeq-LC99.95 4.4 9.5 10.9 6.8 10.5 5.3

Noise Level 2


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -3.8 -2.5 -3.4 0.1 -3.1 -7.9IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 16.3 20.4 22.1 21.0 20.6 9.9IOA max exceedance 16.3 20.4 22.1 21.0 20.6 9.9Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 2.6 2.3 2.1 3.1 2.3 1.2BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 2.3 2.8 2.7 3.7 2.7 1.2NR Leq 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 24 28 23 27 25 23Absolute LAeq 22.0 20.5 20.4 22.2 21.1 24.2Moorhouse max exceedance -2.2 -9.5 -7.2 -4.0 -7.9 -7.8LCeq 40.6 38.9 40.9 41.7 40.2 40.8LCeq-LC99.8 4.5 7.5 6.4 5.8 7.4 4.6LCeq-LC90(no music) 3.2 6.0 7.6 5.4 6.6 3.9LA90-LA90(no music) 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.5 0.6LC90-LC90(no music) 1.0 2.3 4.2 2.4 2.8 1.2LAeq-LA99.95 2.9 2.4 2.3 3.5 2.8 1.4LCeq-LC99.95 5.1 9.3 7.3 7.5 8.6 5.1

Noise Level 3




(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted 5.9 5.6 7.7 10.1 6.3 0.1IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 26.7 30.9 32.5 31.5 31.1 20.3IOA max exceedance 26.7 30.9 32.5 31.5 31.1 20.3Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 5.4 5.2 7.0 8.6 6.2 3.0BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 7.1 7.0 8.6 10.6 7.5 3.3NR Leq 22 21 21 26 21 21NR L10 25 21 22 30 22 22NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 29 29 28 35 28 26Absolute LAeq 26.8 24.7 26.3 29.1 25.9 26.3Moorhouse max exceedance 1.3 -2.3 3.0 6.1 1.8 0.5LCeq 45.2 43.3 46.5 47.9 46.4 44.9LCeq-LC99.8 7.6 10.1 10.9 9.8 11.4 8.0LCeq-LC90(no music) 7.8 10.4 13.2 11.6 12.8 8.0LA90-LA90(no music) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.9 4.0 1.6LC90-LC90(no music) 3.4 4.9 7.0 6.2 6.1 3.4LAeq-LA99.95 6.2 5.4 7.9 9.1 6.7 3.4LCeq-LC99.95 8.4 10.5 11.4 10.6 12.0 8.7

Noise Level 4


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted 14.7 14.2 16.5 18.8 14.9 8.5IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 35.6 39.7 41.6 40.3 39.8 29.1IOA max exceedance 35.6 39.7 41.6 40.3 39.8 29.1Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 9.9 9.5 10.5 12.0 11.0 7.7BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 14.9 14.4 16.6 18.9 15.1 9.2NR Leq 30 27 28 36 28 26NR L10 33 30 31 40 31 29NR L90 24 21 21 28 21 22NR Lmax 38 40 38 46 39 36Absolute LAeq 34.6 32.1 34.3 37.4 33.5 32.2Moorhouse max exceedance 10.1 6.5 12.0 14.9 10.6 9.1LCeq 52.7 50.8 54.6 56.0 54.5 52.1LCeq-LC99.8 12.6 14.3 15.0 14.0 16.1 13.7LCeq-LC90(no music) 15.3 17.9 21.3 19.7 20.9 15.2LA90-LA90(no music) 10.5 10.1 12.0 13.4 10.5 5.5LC90-LC90(no music) 8.2 10.0 12.0 12.7 11.0 7.3LAeq-LA99.95 12.6 11.2 14.4 13.9 11.9 8.5LCeq-LC99.95 14.4 16.4 17.6 15.3 17.9 14.5



Noise Level 5


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6


Noise type B, Modern Dance Music

Noise Level 1


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6




Noise Level 2


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -2.7 0.5 -3.3 1.7 2.1 -6.0IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 27.7 34.0 27.5 21.9 32.8 16.0IOA max exceedance 27.7 34.0 27.5 21.9 32.8 16.0Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 2.2 3.5 2.7 4.4 4.6 1.5BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 2.6 4.0 2.7 4.5 4.8 1.4NR Leq 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 33 42 38 35 39 32Absolute LAeq 22.3 21.7 20.4 23.0 23.2 24.4Moorhouse max exceedance -0.8 1.2 -3.9 -2.0 4.3 -1.9LCeq 42.6 44.3 42.0 44.5 46.8 42.9LCeq-LC99.8 5.5 12.9 7.7 10.3 15.7 7.2LCeq-LC90(no music) 5.2 11.4 8.7 8.2 13.2 6.0LA90-LA90(no music) 1.4 1.5 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.6LC90-LC90(no music) 1.8 2.4 4.1 2.2 2.6 1.3LAeq-LA99.95 2.5 3.7 2.8 4.6 4.8 1.7LCeq-LC99.95 6.5 13.8 8.4 11.6 16.1 7.5

Noise Level 3


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6




Noise Level 4


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6


Noise Level 5


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6




Noise type C, Non-music noise (sports event)

Noise Level 1


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6


Noise Level 2


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -3.2 -2.4 -2.2 -2.1 -3.7 -8.1IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 8.3 -1.9 11.7 7.0 -3.5 -2.1IOA max exceedance 8.3 -1.9 11.7 7.0 -3.5 -2.1Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.2 1.4BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 2.5 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.5 1.1NR Leq 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 44 50 47 49 53 48Absolute LAeq 22.2 20.6 20.7 21.4 20.9 24.1Moorhouse max exceedance -1.7 -1.6 -3.1 -2.0 1.1 -1.9LCeq 40.4 38.9 41.8 42.3 41.0 41.9LCeq-LC99.8 4.4 8.2 11.0 8.5 9.9 6.5LCeq-LC90(no music) 3.0 6.0 8.5 6.0 7.4 5.0LA90-LA90(no music) 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.3LC90-LC90(no music) 0.5 0.6 1.7 0.7 0.6 0.3LAeq-LA99.95 2.8 2.6 3.2 2.9 2.4 1.6LCeq-LC99.95 5.5 8.9 11.8 9.3 11.5 6.9



Noise Level 3


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted 4.5 4.9 3.8 1.7 2.3 -5.2IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 12.9 9.0 13.4 17.2 6.8 6.4IOA max exceedance 12.9 9.0 13.4 17.2 6.8 6.4Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 4.5 5.2 4.3 3.6 3.9 1.5BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 6.2 6.5 5.8 4.5 4.9 1.6NR Leq 22 21 21 20 21 21NR L10 25 23 21 20 23 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 43 36 33 33 34 29Absolute LAeq 25.9 24.2 23.5 23.0 23.3 24.6Moorhouse max exceedance -1.5 -10.5 -8.8 -7.4 -13.2 -11.2LCeq 40.4 37.7 39.3 40.3 38.7 40.1LCeq-LC99.8 3.6 6.4 5.6 5.9 6.9 4.9LCeq-LC90(no music) 3.0 4.8 6.0 4.0 5.1 3.2LA90-LA90(no music) 3.1 3.2 2.8 2.1 2.3 0.7LC90-LC90(no music) 1.1 1.0 2.8 1.0 1.2 0.3LAeq-LA99.95 5.2 5.5 4.4 3.9 4.5 2.2LCeq-LC99.95 4.7 8.4 6.2 6.2 7.1 5.8

Noise Level 4


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted 10.5 10.9 10.1 8.1 8.7 1.0IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 19.7 16.8 20.5 23.4 16.3 16.6IOA max exceedance 19.7 16.8 20.5 23.4 16.3 16.6Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 6.9 6.7 6.7 5.8 5.8 2.8BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 10.9 11.4 10.6 8.9 9.4 3.8NR Leq 28 26 25 22 26 22NR L10 31 29 27 25 29 24NR L90 21 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 44 42 39 40 40 35Absolute LAeq 30.6 29.1 28.3 27.4 27.8 26.8Moorhouse max exceedance -1.3 -6.6 -5.9 -1.5 -7.5 -7.6LCeq 41.5 39.5 40.6 41.9 40.1 41.0LCeq-LC99.8 3.8 6.7 5.9 5.8 6.9 4.6LCeq-LC90(no music) 4.1 6.6 7.3 5.6 6.5 4.1LA90-LA90(no music) 6.6 6.9 6.4 4.9 5.5 1.8LC90-LC90(no music) 2.0 3.1 4.2 2.3 2.9 1.1LAeq-LA99.95 9.6 9.1 8.8 7.4 6.3 3.4LCeq-LC99.95 5.1 7.6 7.4 6.9 8.4 5.2



Noise Level 5


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted 16.3 16.8 15.9 14.0 14.5 6.5IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 25.5 22.3 25.7 29.3 20.1 19.4IOA max exceedance 25.5 22.3 25.7 29.3 20.1 19.4Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 8.6 8.9 8.6 8.2 8.5 5.4BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 16.5 16.9 16.0 14.2 14.7 7.5NR Leq 34 32 31 28 32 27NR L10 37 35 33 31 35 30NR L90 27 26 24 22 26 22NR Lmax 54 48 46 45 46 41Absolute LAeq 36.2 34.6 33.7 32.7 33.1 30.5Moorhouse max exceedance -0.6 -1.9 -0.7 4.2 -3.3 -4.0LCeq 43.1 41.2 42.0 44.6 41.7 41.5LCeq-LC99.8 4.5 7.0 5.4 7.0 6.9 4.7LCeq-LC90(no music) 5.7 8.3 8.7 8.3 8.1 4.6LA90-LA90(no music) 11.2 11.5 10.9 9.1 9.8 4.0LC90-LC90(no music) 3.0 4.6 5.7 3.9 4.8 2.0LAeq-LA99.95 11.3 12.0 10.7 10.1 10.4 5.7LCeq-LC99.95 5.6 7.5 6.2 7.9 7.3 5.5

Noise type D, Karaoke

Noise Level 1


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6




Noise Level 2


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -8.4 -4.8 -5.3 -10.3 -7.2 -12.2IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 11.1 19.1 16.1 9.5 17.3 7.9IOA max exceedance 11.1 19.1 16.1 9.5 17.3 7.9Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 2.2 2.3 2.5 1.6 1.9 1.1BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 1.6 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.9 0.8NR Leq 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 32 32 33 27 39 27Absolute LAeq 21.3 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.3 23.8Moorhouse max exceedance -2.6 -10.4 -8.4 -8.6 -10.7 -10.3LCeq 40.1 38.7 40.0 40.3 39.7 40.8LCeq-LC99.8 4.1 7.2 6.4 5.4 7.7 5.5LCeq-LC90(no music) 2.7 5.8 6.7 4.0 6.1 3.9LA90-LA90(no music) 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3LC90-LC90(no music) 0.5 1.6 3.4 1.2 1.9 0.8LAeq-LA99.95 2.4 2.5 2.6 1.9 2.2 1.4LCeq-LC99.95 5.9 8.7 7.0 6.3 8.7 6.5

Noise Level 3


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted 6.0 7.0 5.9 4.8 6.1 -2.8IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 23.0 29.9 27.2 21.9 28.9 12.9IOA max exceedance 23.0 29.9 27.2 21.9 28.9 12.9Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 6.5 6.9 6.2 5.6 6.4 2.0BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 7.2 8.0 7.2 6.4 7.4 2.2NR Leq 24 23 21 20 24 21NR L10 27 26 24 22 23 22NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 41 41 37 39 47 38Absolute LAeq 26.9 25.7 24.9 24.9 25.8 25.2Moorhouse max exceedance -1.2 -3.7 -5.3 -2.9 -0.5 -5.1LCeq 41.7 41.1 41.9 42.9 43.4 41.9LCeq-LC99.8 4.7 8.2 6.9 7.3 9.6 5.7LCeq-LC90(no music) 4.3 8.2 8.6 6.6 9.8 5.0LA90-LA90(no music) 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 0.8LC90-LC90(no music) 1.6 3.2 4.7 2.9 3.8 1.6LAeq-LA99.95 6.9 7.6 6.5 5.8 7.0 2.4LCeq-LC99.95 5.5 9.7 8.5 8.7 10.0 6.5



Noise Level 4


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6


Noise Level 5


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6




Noise levels for Airborne transmission tests

Noise type A, Guitar Oriented Rock

Noise Level 1


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6


Noise Level 2


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -21.7 -20.8 -5.1 -12.3 -20.9 -23.4IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 9.5 11.7 7.3 7.3 7.0 8.2IOA max exceedance 9.5 11.7 7.3 7.3 7.0 8.2Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 1.9 1.9 2.6 1.8 1.8 1.2BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 0.1 0.5 2.5 1.0 0.6 0.6NR Leq 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 23 27 24 29 24 28Absolute LAeq 21.8 21.3 21.0 21.4 21.5 24.0Moorhouse max exceedance -2.7 -7.3 -10.0 -3.6 -10.1 -8.8LCeq 41.5 40.2 40.0 43.0 40.8 41.6LCeq-LC99.8 5.1 6.3 7.0 6.7 7.0 5.4LCeq-LC90(no music) 2.8 3.9 4.4 4.8 4.6 3.6LA90-LA90(no music) -0.9 -0.4 1.2 0.1 -0.3 0.0LC90-LC90(no music) 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.6 0.8LAeq-LA99.95 2.2 2.1 3.1 2.0 2.1 1.4LCeq-LC99.95 5.7 6.8 8.8 7.7 7.6 5.8



Noise Level 3


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -21.7 -3.4 4.2 -2.8 -5.3 -6.7IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 15.8 15.8 10.7 10.5 6.4 8.9IOA max exceedance 15.8 15.8 10.7 10.5 6.4 8.9Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 1.9 2.4 4.0 2.0 1.9 1.7BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 1.3 2.5 6.1 2.4 1.9 1.4NR Leq 21 22 22 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 24 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 42 44 38 33 29 25Absolute LAeq 23.0 23.3 24.6 22.8 22.8 24.8Moorhouse max exceedance -1.7 -7.2 -9.7 -5.4 -12.0 -8.0LCeq 41.4 40.3 39.7 42.0 40.0 41.5LCeq-LC99.8 4.0 5.7 5.9 5.5 5.8 4.9LCeq-LC90(no music) 2.7 4.0 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.5LA90-LA90(no music) 0.2 1.1 3.5 1.3 0.7 0.5LC90-LC90(no music) 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.9LAeq-LA99.95 2.2 2.9 4.5 2.2 2.1 1.9LCeq-LC99.95 4.3 6.2 6.4 6.0 6.9 5.7

Noise Level 4


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted 5.5 10.5 17.2 10.5 9.5 7.4IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 29.1 28.8 24.6 23.6 19.8 20.4IOA max exceedance 29.1 28.8 24.6 23.6 19.8 20.4Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 6.4 7.9 9.9 9.8 9.2 6.5BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 7.1 10.9 17.3 11.0 10.1 8.3NR Leq 22 27 34 27 26 27NR L10 25 30 36 30 29 31NR L90 20 22 29 22 21 22NR Lmax 37 40 43 38 36 38Absolute LAeq 28.8 31.7 35.8 31.4 31.0 31.7Moorhouse max exceedance 5.9 4.0 -0.8 4.6 -3.3 1.6LCeq 47.7 46.7 44.6 48.6 43.9 46.6LCeq-LC99.8 8.6 8.3 7.0 9.2 6.3 7.6LCeq-LC90(no music) 9.0 10.4 9.0 10.4 7.7 8.6LA90-LA90(no music) 3.9 7.9 13.0 8.0 6.6 4.9LC90-LC90(no music) 2.9 6.5 5.9 4.5 4.5 4.3LAeq-LA99.95 6.9 9.4 14.0 10.5 9.8 7.4LCeq-LC99.95 10.8 9.5 7.7 11.2 7.5 8.5



Noise Level 5


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6


Noise type B, Modern Dance Music

Noise Level 1


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6




Noise Level 2


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -21.7 -6.2 -18.5 -16.4 -20.9 -23.4IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 18.5 26.6 12.0 12.7 12.7 10.7IOA max exceedance 18.5 26.6 12.0 12.7 12.7 10.7Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 1.9 3.4 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.0BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 0.9 1.9 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.4NR Leq 20 23 21 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 29 53 38 29 23 25Absolute LAeq 22.6 22.7 19.7 21.3 21.3 23.8Moorhouse max exceedance -1.0 -3.4 -9.8 -3.8 -10.9 -7.7LCeq 41.4 41.8 38.9 42.6 40.2 41.5LCeq-LC99.8 3.9 8.0 6.4 6.7 6.4 5.2LCeq-LC90(no music) 2.7 5.5 3.3 4.4 4.0 3.5LA90-LA90(no music) -0.1 -0.3 0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.1LC90-LC90(no music) 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.8LAeq-LA99.95 2.2 3.6 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.1LCeq-LC99.95 4.6 9.7 7.8 8.5 7.2 5.9

Noise Level 3


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -21.7 -4.0 -8.8 -3.8 -21.7 -14.7IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 23.0 31.0 16.2 17.1 16.8 14.4IOA max exceedance 23.0 31.0 16.2 17.1 16.8 14.4Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 2.9 3.4 2.4 2.8 1.9 1.4BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.0 0.8NR Leq 21 21 21 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 46 37 35 46 39 31Absolute LAeq 23.5 23.1 20.6 22.5 21.9 24.2Moorhouse max exceedance -2.1 0.9 -9.1 0.7 -7.3 -5.2LCeq 42.8 44.4 39.2 45.4 41.2 42.3LCeq-LC99.8 6.3 10.6 7.2 9.2 7.4 6.1LCeq-LC90(no music) 4.1 8.1 3.6 7.2 5.0 4.3LA90-LA90(no music) -0.3 0.2 0.8 0.2 -0.1 0.1LC90-LC90(no music) 0.3 0.8 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.7LAeq-LA99.95 3.2 3.6 2.7 2.9 2.0 1.6LCeq-LC99.95 7.4 12.6 8.2 10.9 9.0 7.3



Noise Level 4


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6


Noise Level 5


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6




Noise type C, Non-music noise (sports event)

Noise Level 1


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6


Noise Level 2


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -21.7 -10.5 -1.5 -7.3 -10.7 -11.8IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance -9.1 -4.0 -11.4 -10.1 -5.1 -6.5IOA max exceedance -9.1 -4.0 -1.5 -7.3 -5.1 -6.5Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 2.3 2.4 3.2 2.2 2.1 1.3BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 1.6 1.5 3.4 1.5 1.3 0.9NR Leq 21 21 21 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 48 37 34 27 28 37Absolute LAeq 23.3 22.3 21.9 21.9 22.2 24.3Moorhouse max exceedance -1.2 -7.8 -10.1 -8.0 -12.4 -8.6LCeq 40.6 39.4 39.3 40.6 39.7 41.1LCeq-LC99.8 3.5 6.7 7.5 5.6 6.6 5.2LCeq-LC90(no music) 1.9 3.1 3.7 2.4 3.5 3.1LA90-LA90(no music) 0.2 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.1LC90-LC90(no music) -0.1 -0.5 -0.8 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2LAeq-LA99.95 2.7 2.7 3.3 2.6 2.4 1.4LCeq-LC99.95 4.7 7.6 8.2 7.3 9.2 6.4



Noise Level 3


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -21.7 -6.0 4.9 -1.7 -5.6 -4.7IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance -14.9 -15.9 -11.4 -15.8 -18.3 -14.1IOA max exceedance -14.9 -6.0 4.9 -1.7 -5.6 -4.7Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 1.9 2.4 5.2 2.9 2.4 1.9BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 0.8 1.9 6.6 2.8 1.9 1.7NR Leq 20 21 22 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 24 22 21 23NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 25 30 36 34 32 33Absolute LAeq 22.5 22.7 25.1 23.2 22.8 25.1Moorhouse max exceedance -1.9 -7.6 -10.2 -8.3 -12.7 -11.1LCeq 39.8 38.6 38.0 40.3 38.9 40.0LCeq-LC99.8 3.3 5.7 6.3 5.3 6.3 4.4LCeq-LC90(no music) 1.1 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.7 2.0LA90-LA90(no music) -0.2 0.5 3.0 1.0 0.5 0.5LC90-LC90(no music) -0.7 -0.8 -1.0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.3LAeq-LA99.95 2.0 2.8 5.6 3.2 2.7 2.3LCeq-LC99.95 3.6 6.6 6.8 6.0 6.7 5.2

Noise Level 4


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -6.9 4.6 12.3 6.1 3.2 3.6IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 0.0 7.5 7.6 2.0 -0.2 1.3IOA max exceedance 0.0 7.5 12.3 6.1 3.2 3.6Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 2.5 5.1 8.7 5.6 4.1 4.6BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 2.7 6.2 12.6 7.2 5.2 5.3NR Leq 20 23 29 26 23 26NR L10 21 26 31 29 26 29NR L90 20 20 22 20 20 21NR Lmax 34 50 43 40 37 40Absolute LAeq 24.4 27.0 31.1 27.6 26.1 28.7Moorhouse max exceedance -1.6 -6.8 -9.2 -7.7 -11.5 -10.6LCeq 40.6 39.8 39.9 41.1 39.9 41.0LCeq-LC99.8 4.2 6.3 6.5 5.2 6.4 4.4LCeq-LC90(no music) 1.9 3.5 4.3 2.9 3.7 3.0LA90-LA90(no music) 1.1 2.7 7.5 3.5 2.3 2.1LC90-LC90(no music) -0.3 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4LAeq-LA99.95 2.9 5.6 9.8 6.1 4.5 4.8LCeq-LC99.95 4.9 6.8 6.8 6.0 7.0 5.1



Noise Level 5


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted 4.0 10.6 19.2 13.1 10.2 10.7IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 7.0 15.0 16.7 10.3 4.2 10.0IOA max exceedance 7.0 15.0 19.2 13.1 10.2 10.7Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 5.6 7.8 10.9 12.0 9.9 8.3BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 6.2 11.1 19.3 13.4 10.7 11.1NR Leq 25 30 36 33 30 33NR L10 28 32 39 36 33 36NR L90 20 24 29 27 24 27NR Lmax 38 44 51 47 44 48Absolute LAeq 27.9 31.9 37.8 33.8 31.6 34.5Moorhouse max exceedance -1.8 -4.2 -9.1 -7.1 -10.7 -10.4LCeq 41.2 41.3 42.9 42.8 41.5 42.6LCeq-LC99.8 4.1 5.8 7.1 5.0 6.1 5.2LCeq-LC90(no music) 2.5 5.0 7.3 4.6 5.3 4.6LA90-LA90(no music) 2.9 6.3 13.5 8.3 5.9 5.8LC90-LC90(no music) 0.4 1.9 3.5 2.0 2.0 1.8LAeq-LA99.95 6.1 8.6 14.1 13.4 10.2 10.5LCeq-LC99.95 4.7 6.8 7.7 5.7 8.2 5.5

Noise type D, Karaoke

Noise Level 1


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6




Noise Level 2


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -21.7 -16.9 -4.5 -11.4 -19.5 -19.5IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance -14.9 -1.8 -2.1 -2.4 -18.3 4.8IOA max exceedance -14.9 -1.8 -2.1 -2.4 -18.3 4.8Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 1.9 2.0 3.0 1.9 1.7 1.4BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 0.6 1.2 2.6 1.1 1.0 0.7NR Leq 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 38 28 38 34 24 33Absolute LAeq 22.3 22.0 21.1 21.5 21.9 24.1Moorhouse max exceedance -3.0 -7.8 -10.2 -7.2 -12.5 -10.0LCeq 40.1 39.1 38.8 40.9 39.8 40.7LCeq-LC99.8 4.3 6.5 6.6 5.6 6.4 5.1LCeq-LC90(no music) 1.4 2.8 3.2 2.7 3.6 2.7LA90-LA90(no music) -0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 -0.1LC90-LC90(no music) -1.0 -0.7 -0.8 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2LAeq-LA99.95 1.9 2.1 3.4 2.2 1.8 1.4LCeq-LC99.95 5.6 7.2 7.9 6.2 6.7 5.3

Noise Level 3


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted -21.7 -6.3 0.7 -4.0 -10.1 -9.2IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance -2.7 4.7 -11.4 -5.3 -8.0 -8.1IOA max exceedance -2.7 4.7 0.7 -4.0 -8.0 -8.1Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 1.9 2.7 4.5 2.6 2.0 1.7BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 0.9 1.9 4.2 2.1 1.3 1.1NR Leq 20 21 21 20 21 21NR L10 20 21 22 20 21 21NR L90 20 20 20 20 20 21NR Lmax 28 44 40 40 34 34Absolute LAeq 22.6 22.7 22.7 22.5 22.2 24.5Moorhouse max exceedance -1.8 -7.8 -10.4 -8.1 -12.6 -10.6LCeq 40.4 39.4 38.9 40.7 39.8 40.8LCeq-LC99.8 3.7 6.4 7.8 5.5 6.8 4.7LCeq-LC90(no music) 1.7 3.1 3.3 2.5 3.6 2.8LA90-LA90(no music) -0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1LC90-LC90(no music) -0.4 -0.8 -1.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.2LAeq-LA99.95 2.2 3.0 4.9 3.0 2.2 1.9LCeq-LC99.95 4.5 6.8 9.4 6.8 8.2 5.3



Noise Level 4


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted 1.5 9.8 17.3 12.3 7.4 8.5IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 18.5 22.6 10.0 8.2 11.3 8.7IOA max exceedance 18.5 22.6 17.3 12.3 11.3 8.7Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 5.5 10.2 15.0 11.8 7.9 8.8BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 4.9 10.4 17.4 12.6 8.3 9.2NR Leq 24 30 35 33 28 31NR L10 26 33 38 33 30 35NR L90 20 20 21 20 20 21NR Lmax 44 49 56 56 47 50Absolute LAeq 26.6 31.2 35.9 33.0 29.2 32.6Moorhouse max exceedance -2.8 -6.9 -9.7 -5.2 -10.0 -9.0LCeq 41.1 41.3 41.8 43.1 40.7 42.1LCeq-LC99.8 4.5 7.3 7.7 6.4 6.1 5.0LCeq-LC90(no music) 2.4 5.0 6.2 4.9 4.5 4.1LA90-LA90(no music) 1.1 3.1 6.7 3.8 2.4 2.0LC90-LC90(no music) -0.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0LAeq-LA99.95 5.8 10.6 17.9 12.4 8.4 9.3LCeq-LC99.95 5.0 8.0 9.0 7.9 7.2 5.9

Noise Level 5


(dB)Room 2

(dB)Room 3

(dB)Room 4

(dB)Room 5

(dB)Room 6

(dB)IOA A-weighted 10.0 17.4 24.9 19.9 14.9 16.2IOA Max 1/3rd octave exceedance 26.1 30.4 18.4 17.6 19.0 16.8IOA max exceedance 26.1 30.4 24.9 19.9 19.0 16.8Noise Act LAeq-LA99.8 9.7 14.2 19.2 16.7 13.2 14.3BS4142 LAEeq-LA90(no music) 10.7 17.5 24.9 20.0 15.1 16.3NR Leq 31 37 43 41 35 39NR L10 33 40 46 41 38 43NR L90 20 24 28 27 23 26NR Lmax 51 57 63 64 53 58Absolute LAeq 32.4 38.3 43.4 40.4 36.0 39.7Moorhouse max exceedance -2.0 -0.6 -7.2 1.2 -6.9 -4.2LCeq 44.9 46.7 47.7 48.5 44.7 46.8LCeq-LC99.8 7.6 9.9 11.5 10.1 8.5 8.5LCeq-LC90(no music) 6.2 10.4 12.1 10.3 8.5 8.8LA90-LA90(no music) 3.9 7.5 12.9 9.1 6.3 6.2LC90-LC90(no music) 2.0 5.1 5.1 4.3 3.6 3.7LAeq-LA99.95 10.7 15.1 23.4 18.0 14.1 16.1LCeq-LC99.95 8.6 11.2 13.0 11.0 10.2 9.2



Typical 1/3rd-octave spectra within laboratory test room

A. Noise Type A (Rock), Level 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

20 H

z25

Hz

31.5

Hz40

Hz

50 H

z63

Hz

80 H

z

100 H

z

125 H

z

160 H

z

200 H

z

250 H

z

315 H

z

400 H

z

500 H

z

630 H

z

800 H

z1.0

k1.2

5 k 1.6 k

2.0 k

2.5 k

3.15 k 4.0

k5.0

k6.3

k8.0

k10

.0 k

12.5

k16

.0 k

20.0

k

1/3-octave centre frequency

Leq

(dB

)

B. Noise Type B (Modern Dance Music), Level 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

20 H

z25

Hz

31.5

Hz40

Hz

50 H

z63

Hz

80 H

z

100 H

z

125 H

z

160 H

z

200 H

z

250 H

z

315 H

z

400 H

z

500 H

z

630 H

z

800 H

z1.0

k1.2

5 k 1.6 k

2.0 k

2.5 k

3.15 k 4.0

k5.0

k6.3

k8.0

k10

.0 k

12.5

k16

.0 k

20.0

k


Leq

(dB

)



C. Noise Type C (Sports), Level 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

20 H

z25

Hz

31.5

Hz40

Hz

50 H

z63

Hz

80 H

z

100 H

z

125 H

z

160 H

z

200 H

z

250 H

z

315 H

z

400 H

z

500 H

z

630 H

z

800 H

z1.0

k1.2

5 k 1.6 k

2.0 k

2.5 k

3.15 k 4.0

k5.0

k6.3

k8.0

k10

.0 k

12.5

k16

.0 k

20.0

k


Leq

(dB

)

D. Noise Type D (Karaoke), Level 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

20 H

z25

Hz

31.5

Hz40

Hz

50 H

z63

Hz

80 H

z

100 H

z

125 H

z

160 H

z

200 H

z

250 H

z

315 H

z

400 H

z

500 H

z

630 H

z

800 H

z1.0

k1.2

5 k 1.6 k

2.0 k

2.5 k

3.15 k 4.0

k5.0

k6.3

k8.0

k10

.0 k

12.5

k16

.0 k

20.0

k


Leq

(dB

)



Typical LAeq,125ms time-history in laboratory test rooms over 5-minute noise sample

Noise Type A (Rock), Level 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

00:00.000 00:30.000 01:00.000 01:30.000 02:00.000 02:30.000 03:00.000 03:30.000 04:00.000 04:30.000 05:00.000

Time

LA

eq,1

25m

s (dB

)

Noise Type B (modern dance music), Level 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

00:00.000 00:30.000 01:00.000 01:30.000 02:00.000 02:30.000 03:00.000 03:30.000 04:00.000 04:30.000 05:00.000

Time

LA

eq,1

25m

s (dB

)



Noise Type C (Sports), Level 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

00:00.000 00:30.000 01:00.000 01:30.000 02:00.000 02:30.000 03:00.000 03:30.000 04:00.000 04:30.000 05:00.000

Time

LA

eq,1

25m

s (dB

)

Noise Type D (Karaoke), Level 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

00:00.000 00:30.000 01:00.000 01:30.000 02:00.000 02:30.000 03:00.000 03:30.000 04:00.000 04:30.000 05:00.000

Time

LA

eq,1

25m

s (dB

)



APPENDIX E – DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FROM LAB TESTING

Age in bands

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid 15 – 34 20 33.3 33.3 33.3

35 – 54 20 33.3 33.3 66.755 and over 20 33.3 33.3 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0

Gender


PercentValid Male 30 50.0 50.0 50.0

Female 30 50.0 50.0 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0

Q1: What kind of location do you currently live in?


PercentValid (a) Rural 0 0 0 0

Between (a) and (b) 13 21.7 21.7 21.7(b) Suburban with large gardens 23 38.3 38.3 60.0Between (b) and (c) 19 31.7 31.7 91.7(c) Urban densely-packed housing 5 8.3 8.3 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0



Q2: How would you describe the location you currently live in?

Frequency PercentValid

PercentCumulative

PercentValid Residential only 44 73.3 73.3 73.3 Mostly residential with some

commercial premises 14 23.3 23.3 96.7

An equal mix of residential and commercial premises 2 3.3 3.3 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0

Q3: How would you describe the type of property you currently live in?


PercentValid End terrace house 3 5.0 5.0 5.0

Mid-terrace house 10 16.7 16.7 21.7Semi-detached house 19 31.7 31.7 53.3Detached house 23 38.3 38.3 91.7Flat 5 8.3 8.3 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0

Q4: Do you ever notice entertainment noise from pubs, clubs and similar premises when you are indoors at home?


PercentValid Yes 22 36.7 36.7 36.7

No 38 63.3 63.3 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0

Q5: (If 'Yes' to Q4) How often do you notice noise from pubs, clubs and similar premises when you are indoors at home?


PercentValid Every day 1 4.5 4.8 4.8

More than once per week 2 9.1 9.5 14.3About once a week 2 9.1 9.5 23.8More than once a month 2 9.1 9.5 33.3About once a month 3 13.6 14.3 47.6More than once a year 7 31.8 33.3 81.0About once a year 4 18.2 19.0 100.0Total 21 95.5 100.0

Missing System 1 4.5Total 22 100.0



Q6: (If 'Yes' to Q4) And how do you feel about the level of entertainment noise that you hear when you are in your home?


PercentValid Clearly acceptable 4 18.2 19.0 19.0

2 4 18.2 19.0 38.13 4 18.2 19.0 57.14 3 13.6 14.3 71.4Just acceptable 3 13.6 14.3 85.7Just unacceptable 1 4.5 4.8 90.57 0 0 0 90.58 0 0 0 90.59 1 4.5 4.8 95.2Clearly unacceptable 1 4.5 4.8 100.0Total 21 95.5 100.0


Q7: How sensitive would you say you were to noise in general?


PercentValid Not at all 0 0 0 0

2 7 11.7 11.7 11.73 7 11.7 11.7 23.34 8 13.3 13.3 36.75 13 21.7 21.7 58.36 14 23.3 23.3 81.7Very sensitive 11 18.3 18.3 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0

Q8: To what extent would you say that you are personally bothered, annoyed or disturbed by entertainment noise form pubs, clubs and similar premises while you are at home, during the evening and night?


PercentValid Not at all 24 40.0 40.0 40.0

A little 11 18.3 18.3 58.3Moderately 16 26.7 26.7 85.0Very 6 10.0 10.0 95.0Extremely 3 5.0 5.0 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0

Q9: Do you have any level of hearing impairment?


PercentValid No hearing impairment 56 93.3 93.3 93.3

Mild hearing impairment 4 6.7 6.7 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0



Q10: (a) How much do you enjoy classical music?



2 6 10.0 10.0 21.73 0 0 0 21.74 9 15.0 15.0 36.75 15 25.0 25.0 61.76 10 16.7 16.7 78.3Very much 13 21.7 21.7 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0

Q10: (b) How much do you enjoy jazz music?



2 14 23.3 23.3 41.73 13 21.7 21.7 63.34 4 6.7 6.7 70.05 4 6.7 6.7 76.76 8 13.3 13.3 90.0Very much 6 10.0 10.0 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0

Q10: (c) How much do you enjoy rock music?



2 4 6.7 6.7 23.33 4 6.7 6.7 30.04 5 8.3 8.3 38.35 17 28.3 28.3 66.76 12 20.0 20.0 86.7Very much 8 13.3 13.3 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0



Q10: (d) How much do you enjoy pop music?



2 7 11.7 11.7 25.03 2 3.3 3.3 28.34 10 16.7 16.7 45.05 9 15.0 15.0 60.06 12 20.0 20.0 80.0Very much 12 20.0 20.0 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0

Q10: (e) How much do you enjoy dance music?



2 6 10.0 10.0 25.03 4 6.7 6.7 31.74 7 11.7 11.7 43.35 8 13.3 13.3 56.76 12 20.0 20.0 76.7Very much 14 23.3 23.3 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0

Q10: (f) How much do you enjoy karaoke music?



2 18 30.0 30.0 71.73 6 10.0 10.0 81.74 3 5.0 5.0 86.75 3 5.0 5.0 91.76 4 6.7 6.7 98.3Very much 1 1.7 1.7 100.0Total 60 100.0 100.0



Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum MeanStd.

DeviationAge: 60 18 73 44.95 16.717Rating of sensitivity in general to noise: 1 = not at all sensitive, 1 very sensitiveQ7: How sensitive would you say you were to noise in general? 60 2 7 4.88 1.627

Rating of acceptability of the level of entertainment noise: 1 = clearly acceptable, 10=clearly unacceptableQ6: (If 'Yes' to Q4) And how do you feel about the level of entertainment noise that you hear when you are in your home?

21 1 10 3.62 2.459

Ratings of how much different types of music is enjoyed: 1 = not at all, 7=very much Q10: (a) How much do you enjoy classical music? 60 1 7 4.68 1.979Q10: (b) How much do you enjoy jazz music? 60 1 7 3.40 2.002Q10: (c) How much do you enjoy rock music? 60 1 7 4.38 2.009Q10: (d) How much do you enjoy pop music? 60 1 7 4.48 2.071Q10: (e) How much do you enjoy dance music? 60 1 7 4.52 2.159Q10: (f) How much do you enjoy karaoke music? 60 1 7 2.28 1.617

Type of musicPositively dislike Neither like or dislike Positively like Group Total

Count Row % Count Count Row % Count Count Row %Classical 13 21.7% 24 40.0% 23 38.3% 60 100.0%Jazz 25 41.7% 21 35.0% 14 23.3% 60 100.0%Rock 14 23.3% 26 43.3% 20 33.3% 60 100.0%Pop 15 25.0% 21 35.0% 24 40.0% 60 100.0%Dance 15 25.0% 19 31.7% 26 43.3% 60 100.0%Karaoke 43 71.7% 12 20.0% 5 8.3% 60 100.0%Positively dislike: ratings of 1 or 2Neither like nor dislike: ratings of 3, 4 or 5Positively like: ratings of 6 or 7


PercentValid Less than average

sensitivity to noise 4 18.2 18.2 18.2

Approximately average sensitivity to noise 12 54.5 54.5 72.7

Higher than average sensitivity to noise 6 27.3 27.3 100.0

Total 22 100.0 100.0Less than average: ratings of 1 or 2Approximately average: ratings of 3, 4, or 5Higher than average: ratings of 6 or 7



KaraokeDancePopRockJazzClassical

Type of music

50

40

30

20

10

0

Cou

nt

Positively like

No great positive ornegative feeling

Positively dislike

Preference for types ofmusic



APPENDIX F – RESULTS FROM TEST QUESTIONNAIRE, LAB TESTING

Charts of Q3(a) to Q3(f) by Level

Q3. If you were experiencing this level of entertainment noise on a one-off basis in your home, would it...

Chart 1 - make it difficult for you to have a conversation, including on the telephone?

54321Test Level

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (a) Would itmake it difficult for

you to have a...

Verymuch

65432Not atall


you to have a...

Verymuch

65432Not atall


you to have a...

Verymuch

65432Not atall


you to have a...

Verymuch

65432Notatall


you to have a...

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cou

nt



Chart 2 - make it difficult for you to listen to the TV, radio or recorded music?

54321Test Level

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (b) Would itmake it difficult foryou to listen to th...

Verymuch

65432Not atall


Verymuch

65432Not atall


Verymuch

65432Not atall


Verymuch

65432Notatall


100

80

60

40

20

0

Cou

nt



Chart 3 - make it difficult for you to concentrate on reading, working, etc?

54321Test Level

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (c) Would itmake it difficult for

you to concentrate...

Verymuch

65432Not atall



Verymuch

65432Not atall



Verymuch

65432Not atall



Verymuch

65432Notatall



100

80

60

40

20

0

Cou

nt



Chart 4 - make it difficult for you to get to sleep?

54321Test Level

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (d) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (d) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (d) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (d) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Notatall

Q3: (d) Would it...

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cou

nt



Chart 5 - wake you from sleeping?

54321Test Level

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (e) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (e) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (e) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (e) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Notatall

Q3: (e) Would it...

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cou

nt



Chart 6 - annoy you?

54321Test Level

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (f) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (f) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (f) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Not atall

Q3: (f) Would it...

Verymuch

65432Notatall

Q3: (f) Would it...

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cou

nt



Noise Level

Q2: Were you able to hear any entertainment noise in

the last few minutes?

Yes No

1 8 2122 78 1343 189 444 228 85 222 2

54

32

1Test Level

Clearlyunaccept

able

987Justunaccept

able

Justaccepta

ble

432Clearlyaccepta

ble


200

150

100

50

0

Cou

nt

200

150

100

50

0

Cou

nt

200

150

100

50

0

Cou

nt

200

150

100

50

0

Cou

nt

200

150

100

50

0

Cou

nt

NoYes

Q2: Were you able tohear any entertainment

noise in the last fewminutes?



APPENDIX G - FIELD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EHPS

Entertainment Noise AssessmentBRE Id No:

These questions concern entertainment noise from Licensed Premises. Information in this questionnairewill only be seen by the research team and be used for analysis. It will not be passed on to any third partynor will any information be published except as averaged and anonymous data.

Please attempt all the questions. Do not take too much time over your answers. Just give your initialresponse. It is important that you record all your own views without talking to colleagues.

Continued overleaf

For a "one-off" or infrequent event lasting 2 hours and occurring after 23:00 hrs e.g. once every 6 months

One-Off Events

Q1. Would you consider this level of noise to be a statutory nuisance?YesNoDon't know

Q2. Would you consider this level to be an offence resulting in the issue of a fixed penalty notice?YesNoDon't know

Q3. Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be... (Mark all that apply)

Tolerable Intrusive Annoying Disturbing OtherYesNoDon't know

Q4. What has influenced your decision on this? (Mark all that apply)

Low f. component

Vocals

Volume

Tonal component

Don't like music type

Length of event

Breaks in music

Rhythm component

Other

Q5. How would you rate the current level of entertainment noise overall, for a one-off event?Clearly

unacceptableClearly

acceptableJust

acceptableJust

unacceptable1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(Please specify below)

(Please specify other)

Field Trial Ref No:EHP No:

© Copyright BRE Ltd - Capita Symonds, 2006

Analyser File No:Assessment Start Time:

:

How would you describe this level of noise?

InaudibleBarely audible/perceptible

Just audibleClearly audible



For a "regular" event lasting 2 hours and occurring after 23:00 hrs e.g. once a week

Regular Events

Q7. Would you consider this level of noise to be a statutory nuisance?YesNoDon't know

Q8. Would you consider this level to be an offence resulting in the issue of a fixed penalty notice?YesNoDon't know

Q9. Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be... (Mark all that apply)

Tolerable Intrusive Annoying Disturbing OtherYesNoDon't know

Q10. What has influenced your decision on this? (Mark all that apply)

Low f. componentVocalsVolume

Tonal componentDon't like music typeLength of event

Breaks in musicRhythm componentOther

Q11. How would you rate the current level of entertainment noise overall, for a regular event?Clearly

unacceptableClearly

acceptableJust

acceptableJust

unacceptable1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(Please specify below)

(Please specify other)

If you have any comments that you would like to be taken into account about the entertainmentnoise or your assessment of its impact please write it in the box below.



APPENDIX H - DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF FIELD TEST DATA


PercentValid Inaudible 5 6.7 7.5 7.5

Barely audible/perceptible

12 16.0 17.9 25.4

Just audible

19 25.3 28.4 53.7

Clearly audible

31 41.3 46.3 100.0

Total

67 89.3 100.0


The original questionnaire that did not include the question on audibility was used in one club, hence the 8 missing responses in this table.

One-Off Events

Q1: Would you consider this level of noise to be a statutory nuisance?



No

50 66.7 66.7 93.3

Don't know

5 6.7 6.7 100.0

Total

75 100.0 100.0

Q2: Would you consider this level to be an offence resulting in the issue of a fixed penalty notice?



No

48 64.0 64.0 94.7

Don't know

4 5.3 5.3 100.0

Total

75 100.0 100.0



Q3a: Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be tolerable



No

17 22.7 27.4 96.8

Don't know

2 2.7 3.2 100.0

Total

62 82.7 100.0

Missing responses 13 17.3Total 75 100.0

Q3b: Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be intrusive



No

26 34.7 44.1 96.6

Don't know

2 2.7 3.4 100.0

Total

59 78.7 100.0


Q3c: Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be annoying



No

21 28.0 36.8 96.5

Don't know

2 2.7 3.5 100.0

Total

57 76.0 100.0


Q3d: Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be disturbing



No

23 30.7 38.3 100.0

Total

60 80.0 100.0




Q3e: Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be ‘other’



No

2 2.7 33.3 83.3

Don't know

1 1.3 16.7 100.0

Total

6 8.0 100.0


Other responses for Q3 o I think it would be very difficult to sleep or get to sleep at this level of noiseo Although I consider the noise to be intrusive, annoying, disturbing, it was not sufficient in level to be a

nuisance for a 'one-off' event.o Beat, vocal are audible and sleep would be very difficulto Enough to cause sleep disturbanceo External noise clearly audible but difficult to judge likely internal levelo Just noticeableo Levels varied until door opening to pubo Likely to prevent sleepo Note - intermittent due to doors - patron noise was worseo Slight variation in level during assessment but not a problemo Some variance in levels in trackso Too loud for a bedroom

Q4: What has influenced your decision on this (Q1 to Q3)?

Influences Yes Response No ResponseFrequency Percent Frequency Percent

Low F component 38 50.7 37 49.3Vocals 19 25.3 56 74.7Volume 45 60 30 40Tonal component 8 10.7 67 89.3Don't like music type 0 0 75 100Length of event 12 16 63 84Breaks in music 2 2.7 73 97.3Rhythm component 16 21.3 59 78.7Other 11 14.7 64 85.3

Other responses for Q4o Background RTN dominanto Background noise very higho Barely and only intermittently audibleo Barely audibleo Depends on track being played some more audible than otherso Difficult to decide because of locationo High background level (people in street) and location of premiseso Inaudibleo Just audible



o Lf component noticeable but not intrusiveo Low level outsideo Locality - presence of traffic noiseo Low level, bass just audibleo Music only just barely audible ??? at low levelo No music audibleo Only just audibleo Parts of music track clearly audibleo Problem with insulation between buildingso The bass beat was the most distinguishable feature of the noise

Q5: How would you rate the current level of entertainment noise overall, for a one-off event?



2

5 6.7 6.7 17.3

3

14 18.7 18.7 36.0

4

3 4.0 4.0 40.0

Just acceptable

16 21.3 21.3 61.3

Just unacceptable

9 12.0 12.0 73.3

7

2 2.7 2.7 76.0

8

11 14.7 14.7 90.7

9

2 2.7 2.7 93.3

Clearly unacceptable

5 6.7 6.7 100.0

Total

75 100.0 100.0

Regular Events

Q7: Would you consider this level of noise to be a statutory nuisance?



No

36 48.0 48.0 94.7

Don't know

4 5.3 5.3 100.0

Total

75 100.0 100.0

Q8: Would you consider this level to be an offence resulting in the issue of a fixed penalty notice?


Percent



Valid Yes 28 37.3 37.3 37.3 No

42 56.0 56.0 93.3

Don't know

5 6.7 6.7 100.0

Total

75 100.0 100.0

Q9a: Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be tolerable



No

30 40.0 50.0 95.0

Don't know

3 4.0 5.0 100.0

Total

60 80.0 100.0


Q9b: Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be intrusive



No

19 25.3 32.2 96.6

Don't know

2 2.7 3.4 100.0

Total

59 78.7 100.0


Q9c: Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be annoying



No

16 21.3 27.1 98.3

Don't know

1 1.3 1.7 100.0

Total

59 78.7 100.0




Q9d: Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be disturbing



No

18 24.0 28.1 100.0

Total

64 85.3 100.0


Q9e: Would you consider this level of entertainment noise to be other


PercentValid Yes 3 4.0 100.0 100.0Missing responses 72 96.0Total 75 100.0

Other responses for Q9o A level such as this being experienced once a week would be a nuisance due to it's regularityo Depends on taste of music. It is audible and can make out some lyrics. But are stood outside. Wouldn't

expect same standard outside as in a bedroom.o If regular could be annoying and disturbing if tuned into noise but not stat nuisanceo Level enough to cause sleep disturbanceo No music audibleo Unacceptable in a bedroomo Would significantly interrupt sleep

Q10: What has influenced your decision on this (Q7 to Q9)?

Influences Yes Response No ResponseFrequency Percent Frequency Percent

Low F component 43 57.3 32 42.7Vocals 22 29.3 53 70.7Volume 46 61.3 29 38.7Tonal component 18 24 57 76Don't like music type 0 0 75 100Length of event 22 29.3 53 70.7Breaks in music 4 5.3 71 94.7Rhythm component 25 33.3 50 66.7Other 5 6.7 70 93.3

Other responses for Q10o All doors propped openo Barely audibleo High background level people in street & location of premiseso Inaudibleo Inaudibleo Lf component noticeable but not intensiveo Low 'throb' from bass audible



o Low frequency content is often more disturbing than overall levelo Low level - barely audibleo Low level outsideo No music audibleo Only just audibleo Other sounds in street, people shouting, city centre location (expectation)o Outside test therefore assuming in garden of property, would not be able to use garden on summer

nighto Vocals could be heard depending on the song

Q11: How would you rate the current level of entertainment noise overall, for a regular event?



2

3 4.0 4.0 12.0

3

8 10.7 10.7 22.7

4

6 8.0 8.0 30.7

Just acceptable

10 13.3 13.3 44.0

Just unacceptable

8 10.7 10.7 54.7

7

4 5.3 5.3 60.0

8

12 16.0 16.0 76.0

9

4 5.3 5.3 81.3

Clearly unacceptable

14 18.7 18.7 100.0

Total

75 100.0 100.0



APPENDIX I – COMMENTS FROM FIELD TEST QUESTIONNAIRES

These are additional comments from field test questionnaires (either comments on particular assessments, or general comments).

Comments relate to just to 5 minutes observation period. My comments would have been different if I had considered my previous knowledge & experience of music events at this location. The 5 minutes monitored were probably a 'better than average/typical' 5 minutes.

Aggravation factor - intermittent change in level due to opening of door.

External doors open shouting tone if vocals. Audience joining in occasionally

Doors open - sound coming straight out of building

Background noise dominant

During event environmental noise from road traffic far louder than entertainment at club.

Varies dramatically between songs

Although not acceptable not clear stat nuisance in my opinion. Would need to hear on a number of occasions. I would say club would be unreasonable to play at level with door open. Therefore no BPM defence if considered.

Difficulty with this second location. Closest to one of largest 'dance' clubs in uk. City centre location lots background noise. However, fire doors not sound proofed adequately so would question reasonableness of club and BPM defence.

My assessments are based on the idea that residential premises are located at the point we monitored. The level is unlikely to be 'nuisance' in the absence of properties.

My judgement is made on the premise that the noise levels of this magnitude outside are likely to be a nuisance inside - any nuisance or fixed penalty action would need to be [verified]? Inside.

Sounded like music stopped before end of monitoring period. I also considered locality & nature of mixed residential commercial uses. More disturbance & annoyance could be attributed to noise from shouting swearing in street as people passed by too and from the disco.

Clearly audible - could hear lyrics, found disturbing. Likely to affect ability to get to sleep.

Roads wet and some raised level of traffic noise will have informed the overall assessment in comparison to a day night.

Noise level very low almost imperceptible

Need comments on inaudible, just audible, clearly audible, barely audible/perceptible

The music is just audible though not generally audible as music is generally at a lower level than background of people in street. Considering location of premises music level is acceptable in my opinion.

Due to location was an element of 'people' noise (who were not at the venue but just passing by)

Level of noise was not constant and amount of 'people' noise (was happening outside venue).

Fridge could be heard in background

Road traffic noise is dominant



Again the location being in centre of busy city near large club has impact on decision, would probably need to re-visit for second opinion. Again as with outside assessment would advise fire door insulated then re-assess.

The test was conducted with windows closed. Open windows should be considered so that a persons use and enjoyment of their property at all times i.e. in summer is taken into account.

I would not be able to live next to that noise. The sounds were identifiable

I would not be able to sleep with this level of disturbance. If regular event then distress level would increase.

Sleep not possible with this level of intrusion. Vocal 'well down' in level compared to guitar and bass drums (unusual)!

Raised traffic noise levels due to rain may have influenced assessment as club noise could partially be intrusive when dry.

The noise from residents bedroom door rattling with breeze was far louder than entertainment



APPENDIX J – BRIEFING DOCUMENTS FROM FIELD TRIALS

Noise from pubs and clubs Research Project

Phase II (NANR 163)

Briefing note for licensees

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the field trials for the Government (defra) sponsored research

project NAN163 – Noise from pubs and clubs.

The purpose of the research project is to gather information to assist in developing a suitable

assessment methodology and criteria to support the extension of the fixed penalty powers contained in

the Noise Act 1996 to cover entertainment noise from licensed premises. These powers will enable a

local authority to serve warning notices where a permitted noise level is being exceeded by

entertainment noise from licensed premises, and if after a short warning period the noise continues to

exceed the permitted level the local authority will be able to serve a fixed penalty notice of up to £500

on the person holding the premises licence or the designated premises supervisor (DPS) or in the

absence of the DPS, the person who appears to be in charge of the premises at the time of the offence.

The proposal to extend the Noise Act 1996 to licensed premises came about during the

implementation of the Licensing Act 2003, when some of those concerned with the potential impacts

of the proposed changes to the legislation highlighted that the existing statutory nuisance powers and

the new licence review procedures, whilst probably better suited to deal with subtle but persistent

noise problems, did not offer a rapid response to “one –off” or infrequent serious noise problems from

licensed premises.

However, currently the Noise Act 1996 only applies to noise from dwellings and the noise level

measurement protocol and assessment criteria of the Noise Act 1996 may not be particularly well

suited to entertainment noise. Consequently, the Government has commissioned Capita Symonds Ltd

and the Building Research Establishment to jointly investigate methods and criteria for assessment of

entertainment noise from licensed premises.

The project is in two parts, the first part consisting of the laboratory testing of selected methods of

entertainment noise assessment to determine the degree of correlation with the subjective response to

in-frequently occurring entertainment noise late at night, and the second part are field trials to

determine the practicability of such methods in real world conditions.



So that you have some background information on how the lab testing is being carried out, a brief

description follows:

Laboratory Testing:-

1. Two scenarios have been considered in order to assess both structure-borne and airborne

noise transmission situations.

2. The range of scenarios for laboratory testing is using 9 assessment methods

3. Noise Types: - Individuals have different tolerances to different types of noise; therefore the

lab testing is using a variety of ‘entertainment’ noise types including

i) Karaoke – the vocal content (of varying subjective quality) is often emphasised over the

backing music compared to other music types and this sort of entertainment can be played at

relatively high levels.

ii) Guitar Orientated Rock – typically operates at high noise levels with peak low frequency

noise levels around the 125Hz octave band, with a developed and extended range frequency

spectra with additional peaks at mid to high frequency

iii) Modern Dance Music - typically this style of music is played at the higher end of the

range of entertainment noise levels found and the “House” and Drum & Bass and other dance

music types have a reputation for persistent virtually non-stop strong low frequency bass

thump noise often peaking around the 63 Hz octave band, with sometimes significant energy

in the 40 Hz and 50 Hz 1/3 octave bands.

iv) Non-music entertainment noise – Sport noise is not uncommon in pubs and bars, an

example being a football match being shown on a large TV or video screen. The spectrum of

this type of noise typically has peaks at or above the 250 Hz octave band.

4 Noise levels: - During the lab tests 60 test subjects are being exposed to the four

entertainment noise sources described above, at 5 different noise levels that could be

subjectively described as follows:

a) inaudible to an average listener,

b) just audible to an average listener,



c) a noise level which is plainly audible i.e. the content of the noise is communicated to the

test subject so they can recognise its type i.e. music or speech etc, but the content is not

intelligible;

d) a noise level which is clearly audible i.e. the content of the noise is communicated so that

the content is intelligible to an average person i.e. subjects can make out words and

recognise tunes etc;

e) a noise level that an average listener might describe as loud.

The outcomes of the laboratory tests will determine which assessment methods and criteria are taken

forward for assessment of practicability in the field trials.

Field Tests – were you come in

The primary objective of the field tests is to assess the practicability of using the assessment methods

identified in the lab-testing phase as having the best correlation with subjective response to

entertainment noise, in real world conditions. In order to do this we are asking if you could help us by

using your licensed premises as a source of entertainment noise that we can measure and ask a panel

of Environmental Health Professionals to assess.

In particular we are looking for licensed premises that fall into the following categories:

1. Having a recognised noise problem

2. Being borderline

3. Having an acceptable noise climate.

Details of the information gathered in the field tests will only be seen by the research team and will

not be passed on to any third party, nor will any information be published except as averaged and

anonymous data. Any personal information e.g. licensees names, pub or club details etc. gathered

during the field trials will be held confidentially and only for as long as necessary for the field trials to

be effective, and will then be disposed off.

The purpose of the field trials is to gather information for this research project and as such would not,

and indeed could not, be used against you or the licensed premises in any form of enforcement action



The field tests would preferably be carried out between 2300 and 0700 hrs. We wish to visit residents

affected by entertainment noise from licensed premises and, where possible, take simultaneous

measurements outside and inside their homes (only inside measurements if the residential premises is

directly joined to the entertainment building) and within the licensed premises. To ensure consistency

we would carry out the noise measurements using the same sound level analysers as used for the

laboratory testing, that continuously log an extensive range of parameters, which can then be post-

processed according to the preferred assessment criteria. An indication of the background and ambient

noise levels with no entertainment noise or a lull in the activity would also be made at each testing

location for the comparative assessments. Once set up and in place, we would anticipate taking less

than an hour to gather all the noise measurements required.

Representatives of our project team and 3 EHPs who have also volunteered to be part of the field test

trials, will form a small assessment panel who also be asked to listen to the entertainment noise from

your licensed premises in an affected dwelling. It is likely that we would ask if the entertainment

noise levels could be altered for short periods e.g. 5 minutes, so that a range of entertainment noise

impacts could be measured and assessed.

Correlation techniques will be used to compare the field test data with that from the laboratory

analysis. Further fine-tuning of the analysis of both sets of data would then be completed to establish

a draft matrix of methodologies and several final field tests would be then be arranged to validate the

relevant methodologies.

In order to plan and programme the field tests, which we hope to start towards the middle of February, it would be helpful if you could provide us with the information requested below.

1. Name of premises licence holder 2. Name of designated premises

supervisor3. Contact details for premises licence

holder or designated premises supervisor

Tel No/s Fax No/s E-mail/s

4. Do you think your licensed premises falls in the following categories? (please answer all that apply)i) Having a recognised noise problem Yes No



If yes please give details e.g. name, address, day/s & time when likely to

occur

ii) Being borderline Yes NoIf yes please give details e.g. name,

address, day/s & time when likely to occur

iii) Having an acceptable noise climate Yes No5. If you answered yes to question 7i),

ii), iii) above, are you able to collaborate with the field trials, and vary the noise emissions from your premises if necessary?

Yes No

If your answer is yes please give details e.g. name, address, contact phone number of who we need to talk to make arrangements to visit and who will authorise the varying of noise emissions8. Is there any other information you think we should have before contacting you to make specific arrangements to visit?

It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide the information requested above as soon as

possible by simply highlighting in bold text the yes or no option you wish to reply or adding text as

appropriate, then save the document and e-mail it back to:

[email protected]

If you have any queries or wish to discuss the project please call on 01342 327161 or 07786 660945

or via e-mail to the above address.

Thank you for your time and effort in considering the above and for agreeing to participate in this

project. If the above proposals present you with any difficulties, please let us know as soon as

possible so we can determine if we can solve any problems and allow you to continue to contribute if

you wish.


mailto:[email protected]



Phase II (NANR 163)

Briefing note for residents

Thank you for agreeing to let us take measurements and observations of entertainment noise from a

pub or club type premises in your home. This note aims to provide information as to why we have

asked to do this and what will happen with the results.

Firstly may we assure you that any information we gather will be held confidentially and details of

your name and address etc. will not be revealed to anyone else, and any such personal information

will be destroyed at the end of the project. Any information published will be anonymous so that you

or your home will not be identifiable.

In response to concerns about a possible gap in the existing law concerning noise from pubs and clubs

the Government has used the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 to extend the Noise

Act 1996 to cover licensed premises, with the aspiration that the new powers will come into force in

late spring/early summer 2006. The intention is that the Fixed Penalty Notice powers in the Noise Act

1996 will provide a useful enforcement tool for circumstances where a licensed premises is being

excessively noisy on a "one -off" basis and a quick response is required. In order to support the

change in the law the government has appoint Capita Symonds Ltd and the Building Research

Establishment to undertake a research project to investigate how entertainment noise from pubs and

clubs affects people late at night. Consequently, your agreement to allow us to measure and observe

entertainment noise impacts in your home will be very useful as a means of ensuring what comes out

of the project is practicable and useful. The research project is divided into two sections;

(i) Laboratory tests to quantify a subject's response to music and sporting events played at

various levels.

(ii) Field tests to assess music etc. noise from a range of licensed establishments impacts on

persons late at night.

You are helping us with the second part of the project, the field tests.

During our visit to you a small group of Environmental Health Professionals will listen too

entertainment noise in your home and use their judgment to assess the impact, it would best if they

could go to the part of your home most affected by the noise. At the same time one of the project team

will measure noise levels in the same part of your house. In order to get the most from this visit we



may have arranged for the noise from the pub or club type premises to vary and they project team may

have to listen too measure several the entertainment noise at several different levels of loudness.

However, we anticipate that once set up we should not need to be in your home form more than 1

hour.

I'm afraid we are unable to pay you for using your home for this project. However as a small token of

our gratitude we would like to offer you a £10 Marks & Spencer voucher.




Phase II (NANR 163)

Field Test crib for EHP

Date:

Venue: Inside/Outside

Name (optional):

Occupation:

Qualifications:

Experience (years):

1. Are you ever called upon in your job to make judgements on the acceptability of entertainment noise from licensed premises?

Yes No

2. Are you ever called upon in your job to make judgments on entertainment noise as statutory nuisance?

Yes No

3. Which method(s) do you use to assess entertainment noise? (Tick all that apply)

InaudibilityLAmax

LAeq vs. background (LA90, LA99, etc.)(BS4142, Noise Act etc.)Noise Rating CurveAbsolute LAeq

10-160Hz 1/3 octave LAeq vs reference curve (DIN 45680)C-WeightingComparative LA90 and LC90 (with and without music)IOA Working group annex (LAeq vs LA90 plus LA10 vs LA90 in 40-160Hz 1/3 octave bandsSubjective assessment of nuisanceOther (please specify)

4. In the context of one-off or very infrequent events, which method do you believe is the most appropriate to assess entertainment noise? (Tick one)


Field trial Reference No-………………….EHP No……….


InaudibilityLAmax


10-160Hz 1/3 octave LAeq vs reference curve (DIN 45680)C-WeightingComparative LA90 and LC90 (with and without music)IOA Working group annex (LAeq vs LA90 plus LA10 vs LA90 in 40-160Hz 1/3 octave bandsSubjective assessment of nuisanceOther (please specify)Don’t know

5. In the context of regularly occurring events, which method do you believe is the most appropriate to assess entertainment noise? (Tick one)

InaudibilityLAmax


10-160Hz 1/3 octave LAeq vs reference curve (DIN 45680)C-WeightingComparative LA90 and LC90 (with and without music)IOA Working group annex (LAeq vs LA90 plus LA10 vs LA90 in 40-160Hz 1/3 octave bandsSubjective assessment of nuisanceOther (please specify)Don’t know

6. When assessing noise from licensed premises, do you have instrumentation capable of measuring/complying with the following noise indicators/meter specification? (Tick all that apply)

A-weighted Sound Pressure Level C-Weighted Sound Pressure LevelLAeq

LAmax

Statistical Levels (e.g. L1, L10, L90, L99etc)Individual 1/3-octave bandsReal-time 1/3-octave spectrumFull time-history (e.g. LAeq,125millisecond over complete measurement duration)Type I/Class 0 SpecificationType II/Class 1 SpecificationNo access to instrumentation



7. Which of the following have you or your authority used to control noise from licensed premises? (Tick all that apply)

Statutory NuisanceASBO/Acceptable behaviour contractPlanning controlLicensing controlAdvice/Informal warningOther (please specify)None

8. Do you think that the extension of the Noise Act 1996 fixed penalty powers to deal with one –off incidents of entertainment noise will be useful in dealing with such problems?

Yes No Don’t Know


Noise from Pubs & Clubs - Phase II - Department for...

Documents

Transcript of Noise from Pubs & Clubs - Phase II - Department for...