EPUK Noise Committee Meeting - Minutes
23 January 2014
The Chair opened the meeting by paying tribute to John Dinsdale who sadly passed away on
16 January 2014. The Chair commended John’s personality and professional input.
Thanks were extended to Anna Mahoney for having offered to take Minutes at this meeting, and
to Mary Stevens who has offered to act as Secretary in the future.
The Chair called for further support for the Noise Committee to be forthcoming.
Welcome & Introductions
The Chair welcomed Anna Hunt, Policy Adviser, Neighbourhood Noise Nuisance, Department
for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).
Introductions were made around the table and via the telephone conference facility.
1.
Introductions and Apologies
Apologies tendered
Bernadette McKell
AECOM
John Grant
Walsall Council.
Richard Stait
Greg Watts
Professor of Transportation Noise, University of Bradford
Peter Oates
Torfaen Council.
Martin McVay
Welsh Government office
Colette Clarke
Defra)
Colin Grimwood
Karen Edmonds
(RDO)
Attendees
Alan Bratt
Chair, EPUK Noise Committee
Mary Stevens
Member, EPUK Noise Committee; consultant; lead organiser of
Noise Action Week (NAW)
Rob Gibson
Environmental Strategy Manager, London Borough of Hounslow;
EPUK London Division Coordinator; Member, EPUK Noise
Committee
Ben Fenech
Public Health England
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
1
23 January 2014
2.
Gareth Hooper
Environmental Health Officer, Gloucester City Council; Vice Chair,
EPUK Noise Committee; EPUK South West Division Coordinator;
Member, EPUK Noise Committee
Howard Price
Principal Policy Officer, Chartered Institute of Environmental
Health (CIEH)
Anna Hunt
Policy Adviser, Neighbourhood Noise Nuisance, Department for
Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra)
Stephen Turner
Technical Adviser, Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs (Defra)
Tony Clayton
Environment Agency (EA)
(via telephone conference facility)
Anna Mahoney
Director, Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group (SASIG)
(minute-taker)
Lisa Lavia
Noise Abatement Society (NAS)
Minutes of Previous Meeting Held 14 November 2013
Bernadette McKell has confirmed she will be directing her activities through AECOM and
has resigned from the EPUK Noise Committee. Bernadette is now a member of EPS
Environmental Protection Scotland.
EPUK & EPS relationship



EPS is a wholly separate organisation to EPUK, funded from EPS members in
Scotland, which are primarily Local Authorities plus consultants and individuals,
along with a substantial grant from the Scottish Government.
EPUK had decided the Scottish Division would remain as part of the organisation
for those who wanted to remain members of EPUK as opposed to being a
member of EPS.
The two organisations are now distinct and separate, but working closely together,
for instance with regards to Noise Action Week (NAW).
Matters arising
EPUK website
There will be a session next week hosted by Tata Steel for web-training (Mary Stevens &
Alan Bratt attending).
‘WideNoise’ initiative led by Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
(RBWM) and University College London (UCL)


It was felt that this project has great value in terms of raising community awareness,
involvement in the noise debate, and empowering citizens.
RBWM & UCL have been looking at collecting robust data – there is potential to collect
calibrated data, which would broaden the possibilities for use of the data.
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
2
23 January 2014





Data collected through ‘WideNoise’ is more qualitative than quantitative, thus meaning it
has certain uses and not others.
Stephen Turner has an open invitation to UCL.
There is a mobile telephone ‘app’ that can be used to measure neighbour noise which is
focussed on capturing data for investigation into statutory nuisance.
Chris Hurst at RBWM is the contact in relation to the mobile ‘phone ‘app’.
The need remains for applicable social response data to be provided and used.
European Environment Agency noise tool
The European Environment Agency has a noise tool on its website:

European Environment Agency website - noise page
http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/noise;

click on ‘Noise data service’;

‘Data services overview’ page http://www.eea.europa.eu//themes/noise/dc;

Under the heading ‘Browse catalogue’ there are a number of tabs: ‘All data products’,
‘Datasets’, ‘Maps’, ‘Interactive maps’, ‘Indicators’, ‘Graphs’.

For instance, under ‘ All data products’, there is access to ‘NOISE’ - “the Noise
Observation and Information Service for Europe maintained by the European
Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Topic Centre on Spatial Information and
Analysis (ETC-SIA, previously ETC-LUSI) on behalf of the European Commission. It
contains data related to strategic noise maps delivered in accordance with European
Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental
noise.” http://noise.eionet.europa.eu/
Discussion of noise measuring equipment
It is not clear why disposablecalibration microphones are less used now.
MENS – ALAN - this was mentioned by not explained/expanded upon, other than
Mary mentioning that none of the research funding bids came through MENS;
please add detail if you are aware of any.
Cheap sound level meters, such as those used at Luton Airport, matched expensive kit
within 1dB; but surprisingly not linear. Voice measurements at near range are acceptable,
however, lower frequencies are not accurate.
Comment was made that when surveying annoyance or sleep disturbance you have to go
to great lengths to not disclose you are surveying regarding noise.
ACTION ITEM
Alan Bratt to invite RBWM & UCL to a future EPUK Noise Committee Meeting (Chris
Nash, RBWM; UCL).
DECISION
The Minutes of the previous meeting were accepted subject to some minor typographical
amendments.
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
3
23 January 2014
3.
Guest Speaker: Karen Edmonds, Better Regulation Delivery Office - Noise
Competency Knowledge Test
Karen Edmonds, from the Better Regulation Delivery Office (BRDO) at the Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) had been invited to the meeting to speak about
their Noise Competency Knowledge Test. Unfortunately Karen was not able to attend this
meeting.
The Noise Competency Knowledge Test is off-line whilst being improved.
The Chair also supplied, subsequent to the meeting, the following information.
Comments from the Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire Environmental
Protection Group (a group comprising environmental health practitioners and
scientific staff from the Local Authorities in the West of England) in response to
BRDO consulting on the technical knowledge section on noise, were:
“The heading of the Knowledge Section on Noise should state clearly what it is for.




It should be made clear that the competence for individual modules, or
parts of them, should only apply where an individual is working in that
specific area of work. It is possible that not all staff working in the various
areas of Noise monitoring, enforcement monitoring, and control, will work
in all modules/statements and similarly not all will be competent in all of
those modules. Put simply, individuals should be able to demonstrate the
levels of competence(s) for the levels of work they are involved with or
engaged in.
 The group feel that there should be a specific section on measurement
which should include familiarity and compliance with the relevant
standards applicable to the task in hand, calibration and validation
requirements, calibration of equipment and reporting which should
include, at least, all the requirements of Section 10 of BS:4142, also to
include accuracy of measurements, assessment of tonal content and an
optional FFT assessment.
 The silo approach of the document does assist with detailed identification
of knowledge required but unfortunately does make the document
disproportionally long.
 There should be some recognition of attained qualifications - i.e. I.O.A.
Diploma or academic equivalent EH degree or Certificate of competence
in Environmental Noise Measurements and degrees of competence
acquired by experiential means.
 The group feel it would also be helpful if there was a section on noise that
cannot necessarily deal within the suite of Local Authority enforcement
powers and to summarise the options available to refer onwards or
options open to the public to make a complaint or those areas where we
may have a very limited role. Aircraft noise, certain aspect[sic] of noise
from trains, and noise insulation grant schemes spring to mind.”
The Noise Competency Knowledge Test was described as a process for those who get
brought in to do a job checking whether or not they know how to do it; it is not replacing
professional qualifications, but acting as a sense-check.
The test does not cover things that Local Authorities have statutory powers for; these
could usefully be mentioned in a ‘Miscellaneous’ section.
The public-facing nature of the Test (i.e. not within a professional body or statutory
authority) means the document must make clear what the Knowledge Test cannot be
applied to.
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
4
23 January 2014






As there is no screening to record whether or not environmental health officers (EHOs)
are the only users, there could be challenges made to Local Authorities regarding
matters they said they could not deal with – this document could be used against Local
Authorities due to the online Test not setting out what it does not cover.
With the contraction in Government and regulatory services generally, the BRDO is now
championing environmental health and trading standards no longer being separate
disciplines. BRDO see this tool supporting that joint approach – hence the preventative
action not being reflected there. Beware of supporting it because of that. It is the
antithesis of the whole qualification process. BRDO take the view that qualifications
show knowledge at a point in time but that competency shows competency today.
There is no obvious ‘continuous professional development’ (CPD) requirement in the
environmental health profession; Chartered status is not necessarily required for senior
roles.
The Local Government Association (LGA) & BRDO believe qualifications stand for very
little.
Professional expertise could be undermined through only staff on lower pay grades
being required to work through the test. Pressure to further reduce staffing costs is
illustrated by LGA figures showing that all Local Authority funding by 2020 will be in
education and adult social care.
Another stage in the process is needed to show actual competency.
DECISION & ACTION
Discuss these issues and concerns with Karen Edmonds of BRDO when she attends the
next EPUK meeting.
4.
Defra Updates
As part of the Red Tape Challenges reviewing legislation and regulation that may be
redundant, Defra is looking at the Order that approves the Code of Practice on Audible
Alarms. The current thinking is that this legal Order can potentially be remove because
the Code of Practice has been superseded by: Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment
Act; and British Standard (BS) on installation of Audible Intruder Alarms.


In response to Defra enquiring whether or not there are any issues that might
result from removing the Legal Order, not the Code of Practice, it was pointed out
that if the Code of Practice itself has been superseded, then the Code should be
amended with the legal Order being retained.
In response to Defra seeking to improve upon replication in documentation, i.e.
where there are several documents saying the same thing, it was explained that
British Standards differ from Codes of Practice, the latter being supported by
Ministerial Order.
Community Protection Notices (CPNs) - part of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime
and Policing Bill
The group were asked whether or not they have any concerns about Practitioner
Guidance; the Chair committed to submit these after the meeting.
There was still an opportunity to comment; Defra has collected questions but would
welcome further suggestions.
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
5
23 January 2014
The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill had a rocky road through the House of
Lords; Ministers could not respond adequately. The Bill was at Lords Report Stage in late
January, after which it may well enter ‘ping-pong’ between the two Houses. The agreed
amendments will help with enforcement of CPNs; everyone who can serve a CPN can
now seize noise-making equipment if the CPN is not complied with.
It was highlighted that parties will want to be accompanied by police constables when
seizing equipment, and that the decision-making must rest with technical specialists.
ACTIONS
Chair to submit concerns about Practitioner Guidance to Defra.
Responses regarding Community Protection Notices in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime
and Policing Bill to be sent to Anna Hunt at Defra.
Deregulation of Entertainment Licensing
The Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) is currently looking at consultation
responses on the legislative reform order; likely to know whether or not changes will then
be needed by next month. Defra extended thanks to those who had responded.
Policy Update on Artificial Light
This was published on 6 January 2014 as a cross-Government item, following on from the
Royal Commission on Environmental Protection (RCEP) report.
It was pointed out that those areas needing most action were exempt, and that the policy
update needed to draw more evidence before justifying changes. The update was an
overview of work done, not proposing changes; a business as usual approach would now
be taken.
Implementation of Environmental Noise Directive (END) - Noise Action Plans
(NAPs)
Defra has reported a summary of Noise Action Plans (NAPs); as far as can be gauged,
the UK has met the reporting obligations in full.
The NAP consultation for road, rail & agglomerations has finished; these NAPs are due to
be adopted and published on the internet by the end of January 2014.
Airport NAPs are being reviewed at the moment; it is expected that by Spring 2014, these
NAPs will be concluded for this 5-year cycle.
The BETA version of noise guidance is still on the Defra website; may get final endorsed
version soon - the Planning Team at the Department for Communities & Local
Government (DCLG) should be contacted for further information on this.
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) - Noise
UPDATE SINCE MEETING Defra’s Noise & Nuisance Team has supplied the following information:
The National Planning Practice Guidance was published in early March 2014, and can be
access on the planning portal at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
6
23 January 2014
The previous planning practice guidance documents being replaced by the on-line
guidance have now been cancelled, and a list of these is available here:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/cancelled-guidance_06032014.pdf
Wind farms
A sizeable report came out for ‘Renewable UK’, researching amplitude modulation – there
are 6 reports on their website including a suggestion for a model planning condition that
Defra is now thinking about. The Institute of Acoustics (IoA) issued a cautious press
statement in response to this report.
BS 5228 – Code of Practice for the Control of Construction Noise

When revised in 2009, technical, typographical, etc. changes were made; the
Standard was then consulted on in Summer 2013. A new version is coming out:
BS 5528:2013 (i.e. a slight iteration on 2009 version). Defra hopes this will then
become an Adopted Code of Practice (ACOP).
BS 4142 Industrial Noise - has been stalled; no Committee meeting until May 2014.
BS 8233 Code of Practice on Noise Control and Sound Reduction in Buildings –
about to get published, but dispute caused delay – awaiting a meeting.




5.
Defra advised people to wait until the National Planning Practice Guidance
(NPPG) comes out. We are still missing the lowest observed adverse effect, noting
the difficulty of applying numbers as these get interpreted as limits that then create
perverse outcomes (not the numbers per se, but how they are interpreted).
Actual powers are needed to tackle non-compliance.
Defra cited from the Energy National Policy Statement (NPS): “decisions maker
must be satisfied that the proposed design will achieve the outcome it purports to
achieve, i.e. that there is consistency.” This must be applied so greater
performance than is plausible is not claimed; satisfactory performance must be
proved to have been achieved.
In response to a question about whether or not the NPPG will include reference to
the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL; deriving from the Noise
Policy Statement for England - NPSE), Defra suggested the situation might have
moved on slightly, and commended that people read the sound, noise & vibration
chapter in the environmental statement for the high-speed rail scheme, HS2,
regarding how noise might be applied to other developments.
Noise Action Week (NAW)
Mary Stevens is working on NAW about a day a week until the start of the event, for
instance on website, logos and mailing list.
EPUK has confirmed it has enough money to kick-start initial activity; this resulted from
prudent use of EPUK funds, having ring-fenced spare budget from last year, means there
is some money available for NAW 2014.
Still hope to acquire further funding for the 2014 event; and need to seed-fund the 2015
event.
EPS is supporting but not funding NAW, so EPS will administer this in Scotland.
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
7
23 January 2014
Scope to acquire funding from companies producing noise reduction equipment has been
limited in previous years, e.g. Bruel & Kjaer supplied prizes for competitions, but not
funding. Many manufacturers are outside the UK, so less interested. There is also a huge
amount of work required to capture this sort of funding.
Twitter feed is being used as only have resources to go through Twitter and the website;
the number of followers on Twitter is increasing.
Thinking about using a weekly blog from a specialist to cover a range of current issues get interest going, raise awareness, etc.. Topics already covered are: The Bill; the role of
EHOs in managing and reducing noise; music and licensing. Topics to come are: history
of noise in culture & society; National Physical Laboratory (NPL) – noise and science;
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) input; and public health commentary.
Use of this noise specialist is working well, however, wish to spread coverage and interest
further.
Health and aircraft noise will potentially be covered.
Invitations are being sent, and suggestions for other invitees and any ideas for the
newsfeed to generate interest would be welcome.
There may be an event in Scottish Parliament regarding anti-social behaviour.
Need to keep topic loose so as to not alienate participants. Reservation was expressed
regarding bringing aviation in as this topic attracts a certain kind of attention.
It is important to focus on individual behaviour, simple solutions, and where services are
available; the message can be jeopardised if environmental noise is brought in too much.
Also, the topic must be aligned with where there is the potential for funding, which is less
the case with environmental noise. It is valuable to have material available for people who
want to be involved – a bookmark, publications, etc.
It is a challenge to ensure issues do not get twisted or misrepresented, meaning that the
research out there is not always represented accurately, e.g. British Medical Journal
report was misreported by the press.
The issues are complex, and there will be difficulty in translating them to the public.
Must always be aware of misreporting, and resources available dictate what is possible in
this regard; there is very little factual information available now, due in large part to the
decline of EPUK!
Suggestions:

Defra’s Important Areas tool - highlight areas of good uptake, and encourage other
areas to take it up?
Some generic material that can be used – e.g. progress on implementation of
Important Areas – could add a comment on Twitter to publicise this?

Penalties for non-compliance with Environmental Directives can be passed on to
Local Authorities; however, tracking compliance can be problematic.

Put out a broad planning press release to ‘Environmental Health News’, ‘Noise
Bulletin’, Local Government Association’s weekly journal ‘first’, etc.
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
8
23 January 2014

Focus on noise and ill health – there are real implications from this. Research is in
place to have reference made to it, albeit with caveats. Information provided must
be accurate and truthful.

Need to consider the stage of the debate at the time of NAW 2014.

Transport noise a useful topic as action can be taken:
- as an individual, for instance buying low-noise tyres;
- Local Authorities can increase use of low-noise road surfaces, e.g. when
resurfacing for potholes should ideally put down low-noise surfacing; and
- promote mitigation measures that Local Highway Authorities can use.
The Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF) has data in it that can be used for
this purpose.
Money is available for highway works following the floods. FM Conway - a transport
infrastructure company - has said they can use low-noise surfacing for the same
money as just dealing with potholes.

Report on air pollution and health – very cautious discussion of impacts, for instance
using quieter roads, not opening windows on road-side of properties - some house
designers/developers are taking this onboard (having two facades to buildings
alongside roads). Could target that campaign as something that housing developers
could pick up – received lots of mention of this on the interested parties’ websites
last year. As these parties are known, they can be contacted to encourage more
active involvement this year.
Could be of interest to housing association to work on awareness raising as
individuals to pre-empt problems happening, and to publicise the message that if
you live in a multi-occupancy building, expect to hear your neighbours to some
extent. NAW can support people being advised that there will be a degree of noise
involved in shared living.
Perhaps approach Max Dixon who could supply a paper on this.

Approach the Association of Noise Consultants (ANC) – it is in their commercial
interest that people are aware of noise; and they could write the leaflets (could be
contribution in kind, especially if focus on building design, layout, etc.).

John Drever’s work on vulnerable people (e.g. tinnitus sufferers, etc.) - he may have
article ideas (e.g. hand drier noise in public toilets). NAS is hearing more from
parents of children with hearing difficulties.

Brighton & Hove Council is involved with EU Silence project – road surfaces, green
areas, and how they can be made more acoustically comfortable or inviting.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/transport/projects/items/_qcity__and__silence__
__eu_projects_target_urban_noise_en.htm
ACTIONS
Everyone to advise Mary Stevens of:

suggestions for invitees;

ideas for the newsfeed to generate interest;

a focus for NAW that is attractive to sponsors/companies/the public.
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
9
23 January 2014
6.
Airports Commission - aviation noise Discussion Paper; Interim Report; and draft
Appraisal Framework
Relevant Airports Commission publications:

noise Discussion Paper:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/aviation-noise-discussion-paper

Interim Report, published 17 December 2013:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/airports-commission-publishes-interimreport)

draft Appraisal Framework, for consultation 16 January to 28 February 2014:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/airports-commission-appraisalframework









Adherence to the 16-hour Leq in the Airports Commission’s Interim Report is a
worry. However, the Appraisal Framework incorporates other noise metrics.
The Commission will look at Leq to 54, LDEN and N70, however, it is not clear what
will actually be used in the assessment, perpetuating the perennial issue of
contour measurements. Leq is one in a suite of measures, all of which should be
taken into account in the assessment to inform recommendations and decisionmaking.
To date, economic appraisals have driven the Commission’s recommendations;
noise and health are only now being picked up as mitigation measures in the draft
Appraisal Framework, which suggests the Commission regards health and noise
as less important than economic measures.
The London Borough of Hounslow is scrutinising the Aviation Policy Framework
(APF) with regard to a planning application submitted by Heathrow Airport Ltd.
The planning application does not take account of the context of noise impact on
schools, which occurs over the period during which teaching is taking place, i.e. an
8-hour period, not 16-hour. LB Hounslow is seeking 35dB in school classrooms
(07:00 – 15:00). Using the 16-hour contour suggests virtually no effect at all, as it
includes the period 15:00 – 23:00 which is outside the hours of the school day.
There remains the unresolved question from RANCH1 that the study used the
average mode 16-hr summer contour, covering the period end of June to end of
September, so one can question whether or not that is the right period to look at
any way, when considering noise impact on schools.
Around Heathrow Airport, a 16-hr noise dose varies by location thus the overall
value is made up from very different localised conditions.
Local Authorities have a noise target of 35 or 40 dB to be provided – to achieve
this, proper mitigation must be provided, and a suite of metrics need to actually be
used in the assessment stage to inform decision-making.
Mitigation scenarios across the world show how woeful the UK situation is. If
airport operators offered better packages when they seek development, this could
progress their aims better, but this has not been the case in the UK.
There remains the need for up to date social survey data to be available for use in
assessing aviation related development, informing recommendations and
decision-making.
Airspace redesign
RANCH - ‘Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: a cross-national study’,
Stansfeld et al, Lancet 2005; 365: 1942–49.
1
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
10
23 January 2014

7.
NATS Ltd. is currently working on redesign of airspace. These proposals are not
likely to cloud the issues around noise metrics, compensation or mitigation
associated with aviation-related development. Recently issued guidance indicates
that noise is more of a priority the nearer planes get to the airport, which is good.
There is no point delaying airspace redesign as there is a historical mess; there
may be some opportunities for promoting further noise mitigation using up to date
navigational aids.
Health and Wellbeing Boards


















A briefing note was issued by EPUK drawing attention to EPUK as a place to
assist Health and Wellbeing Boards. It would be ideal if another briefing note could
be produced, however, the resources to do so have not been identified. EPUK is
eager to keep the momentum progressing.
Health and Wellbeing aspect covers education.
Public Health England (PHE) now incorporates the Health Protection Agency
(HPA), which brings with it work on noise and health.
In 2010, the Department of Health (DoH) and Defra commissioned experts to
report on noise and health, reviewing the evidence to date.
In 2012, the HPA produced a noise and health work plan to describe the way
forward. There have been a number of responses to that.
One outcome has been to appoint staff members of which Ben Fenech is the first.
Upcoming tasks are to update the work plan; and to set up an expert advisory
group – a panel of health experts to advise on the supply of information to Local
Authorities and the public through the website, as well as produce evidence - but
not work on policy.
Longer term hope is to share resources to identify gaps and fill them.
First priority is to look at what is the best available evidence – important to give
noise the priority it deserves.
The lack of research into health impacts of neighbour noise was mentioned.
PHE is unlikely to cover neighbour noise as it is so subjective - cannot derive
noise levels and directly related impacts.
Where noise can be reduced at source there can be gains with regard to health
impacts.
Would there ever be a point at which a nuisance notice could be issued on the
basis of negative health impacts?
The difficulty with addressing this is that the issues cannot be objectively argued
and evidenced.
Is it possible to link the geographical areas from which complaints are collected
with health impacts, to assess any relationship between these? For instance,
given that we can map where people with high incidence of heart disease live, can
this be linked to noise?
Probably not due to the range of issues involved; it would not be possible to
extrapolate from complaints to number of myocardial infarctions.
Soundscapes, quiet areas, etc., yield massive potential for improving people’s
health.
Air quality pollution and health relationships are much better developed than
noise, so we definitely need to push noise up the agenda - noise is now at the
stage that air quality was at about 20 years ago, and it was the health evidence
that got those issues noticed.
The Chair extended a general invitation to Ben Fenech to future EPUK Noise
Committee meetings, and offered EPUK help to PHE where it is desired.
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
11
23 January 2014
Any Other Business

Defra advised that the Noise Attitudes Survey will go public this year.

The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Review of Quiet Delivery Guidance might
be published at the end of January 2014. The Noise Abatement Society (NAS) and
others have suggested this should not be published as it has not addressed any of
the barriers to uptake, nor the deep problems of noise. There has been lots of
pushback behind the scenes to encourage DfT to wait and take a more circumspect
view. The Guidance will be fairly general, and is not really saying anything new.
There is a danger this could give less-informed audiences the idea that it is a lot
easier to deal with noise now, which is not the case. The Guidance seems to be
going back to the approach of the DfT and road haulage parties that impacts are
tradable for impacts on residents. DfT want to promote through CIEH and others,
which they cannot do unless those parties agree with contents.

Health and Wellbeing Boards – it will be statements of data not questions that will
be the facts upon which the Directors of Public Health may choose to act, or not.
Date of next meeting –
Thursday 3rd April 2014
12.30 to 17.00
City of London Corporation, Department of Environmental Services, Walbrook Wharf,7478 Upper Thames Street, London, EC4R 3TD.
Dial-in conference facilities are available for those unable to travel on the day.
_______________________________________________
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
12
23 January 2014
Glossary
ACOP
Adopted Code of Practice
ANC
Association of Noise Consultants
APF
Aviation Policy Framework (APF)
BRDO
Better Regulation Delivery Office (BRDO) (hosted by DBIS - see below)
BS
British Standard
CIEH
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
CPD
continuous professional development
CPN
Community Protection Notice (part of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and
Policing Bill)
DBIS
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (hosts the BRDO - see above)
DCLG
Department for Communities & Local Government
DCMS
Department for Culture, Media & Sport
Defra
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
DfT
Department for Transport
DoH
Department of Health
EA
Environment Agency
EEA
European Environment Agency
EHO
Environmental Health Officer
END
Environmental Noise Directive
EPS
Environmental Protection Scotland
EPUK
Environmental Protection UK
FFT
ALAN - would you please add detail for this acronym? Thanks.
HAL
Heathrow Airport Ltd.
HPA
Health Protection Agency (now part of PHE - see below)
IoA
Institute of Acoustics
LGA
Local Government Association
NAP
Noise Action Plan
NAS
Noise Abatement Society
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
13
23 January 2014
NAW
Noise Action Week
NPL
National Physical Laboratory
NPPG
National Planning Practice Guidance
NPS
National Policy Statement
NPSE
Noise Policy Statement for England
PHE
Public Health England (now incorporates the HPA - see above)
PHOF
Public Health Outcomes Framework
RBWM
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
RCEP
Royal Commission on Environmental Protection
SASIG
Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group
SOAEL
Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level
UCL
University College London
EPUK Noise Committee Meeting
14
23 January 2014