EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL

NINFIELD PRIMARY SCHOOL, NINFIELD, EAST SUSSEX

NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF MULTI-USE GAMES AREA

TECHNICAL REPORT: RFE-0125-17-02

DATE: FEBRUARY 2017

PROJECT TITLE: NINFIELD PRIMARY SCHOOL, NINFIELD, EAST SUSSEX REPORT REF: RFE-0125-17-02 DATE: FEBRUARY 2017

Name Position Signature Date

Prepared By Richard Fenton Director

21st February 2017

For and on behalf of RF Environmental Ltd

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Status Description Date

01 Draft Report for Client Comment 13/02/17

02 Final Report Issued 21/02/17

Notice: This report has been prepared by RF Environmental with all reasonable skill, care and diligence. RF Environmental Ltd accepts no responsibility whatsoever, following the issue of the report, for any matters arising outside the agreed scope of the works. This report is issued in confidence to the Client and RF Environmental Ltd has no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk. Unless specifically assigned or transferred within the terms of the agreement, RF Environmental Ltd retains all copyright and other intellectual property rights, on and over the report and its contents.

NINFIELD PRIMARY SCHOOL, NINFIELD, EAST SUSSEX NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2

3.0 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 4

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE SURVEY 9

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF NOISE LEVELS 12

6.0 MITIGATION OPTIONS 17

7.0 CONCLUSIONS 19

8.0 REFERENCES 20

APPENDIX A: FIGURES

APPENDIX B: TABLES

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC TERMS

RFE-125-17-02 1 February 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 RF Environmental Ltd (RFE) was commissioned by East Sussex County Council in January 2017 to provide an acoustic report to accompany a planning application for a proposed Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) at Ninfield Primary School, Ninfield, East Sussex.

1.2 It is understood that a noise impact assessment has been requested, to understand the potential noise impact from the MUGA on existing noise sensitive receptors.

1.3 The findings of the noise impact assessment are reported herein.

1.4 The existing site and proposed development are described in the following section of this report, whilst the legislation and criteria used for the assessment are presented in Section 3. The noise survey is presented in Section 4, whilst the noise impact assessment is addressed in Section 5. Mitigation options are considered in Section 6 and finally, the conclusions of this study are summarised in Section 7. A list of useful acoustic terms is presented in Appendix C.

1.5 The report has been produced by Richard Fenton (MIOA). Richard is experienced in the production of noise impact assessments following the methodology provided in BS 4142 and BS8233:2014. Richard has produced a significant number of noise assessments in consultancy roles, and reviewed them in local authority roles. He has also provided training workshops on the implementation of BS4142:2014 to Local Authority Environmental Health Teams.

RFE-125-17-02 2 February 2017

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

Site Description

2.1 Ninfield Primary School is located in the village of Ninfield, East Sussex, in the district of Wealden.

2.2 Immediately to the north-east of the school is a recreation ground and playing fields, with the A269 beyond that.

2.3 Inside the recreation ground are several existing activity areas including a skate ramp and zip wire, a children’s playground and an existing sports activity area. On the northern side of the recreation ground is a cricket pitch and football pitch.

2.4 Residential properties lie on all sides of the school, at varying distances, with the closest being approximately 35 metres away from the proposed location of the multi-use games area.

2.5 A plan of the site and immediate area is presented in Figure A1 of Appendix A.

2.6 The ambient noise climate in the immediate vicinity of the development site is influenced by children in the school’s external play areas and distant traffic movements on the local road network. During evenings and weekends, especially in warmer weather, the ambient noise levels will also be influenced by the use of the recreation ground and the activities mentioned in paragraph 2.3 above.

Proposed Development

2.7 The proposed development includes the construction of a multi-use games area, to provide a formal area for ball games and exercise activities.

2.8 It is understood that during term time the MUGA will be in the control of the school during the daytime periods and used as a dedicated area for P.E. lessons and after school activities.

2.9 During the evenings and weekends it will be under the control of the Parish for community use. The hours of use are yet to be agreed with the Parish Council, however it is anticipated that the following proposed hours of operation are anticipated:

During Term Time

Weekdays: 09:00 – 18:00 for priority curriculum use and after-school clubs;

Weekdays: 18:00 – 21:00 for public use during term time;

Saturday and Sundays: 09:00 – 18:00 for public use;

Outside of Term Time

RFE-125-17-02 3 February 2017

Weekdays: 09:00 – 18:00 for public use;

Saturday and Sunday: 09:00 – 18:00 for public use;

2.10 It is anticipated that public use we be formally controlled via an allocation of time slots and that the MUGA will be locked when not in use.

2.11 There is no provision for flood lighting which will limit the use during the evenings.

2.12 A plan showing the proposed location of the MUGA is presented in Figure A2 of Appendix A.

RFE-125-17-02 4 February 2017

3.0 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE)

3.1 The Noise Policy Statement for England (March 2010) [1], sets out the long term vision of Government noise policy.

3.2 The vision of the NPSE is to ‘Promote good health and a good quality of life through the effective management and control of noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development.’ This vision is supported by three key aims:

avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life;

mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life; and

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

3.3 The NPSE should apply to all forms of noise including environmental noise, neighbour noise and neighbourhood noise but does not apply to noise in the workplace (occupational noise).

3.4 The NPSE had adopted the following concepts, to help consider whether noise is likely to have ‘significant adverse’ or ‘adverse’ effects on health and quality of life:

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

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

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

3.5 However the NPSE goes on to state that:

‘it is not possible to have a single objective noise-based measure that defines SOAEL that is applicable to all sources of noise in all situations. Consequently, the SOAEL is likely to be different for different noise sources, for different receptors and at different times. It is acknowledged that further research is required to increase our understanding of what may constitute a significant adverse impact on health and quality of life from noise. However, not having specific SOAEL values in the NPSE provides the necessary policy flexibility until further evidence and suitable guidance is available.’

National Planning Policy Framework

3.6 The Department for Communities and Local Government introduced the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in April 2012 [2]. This framework replaced most national planning policy, circulars and guidance, including Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise.

RFE-125-17-02 5 February 2017

3.7 The NPPF defines the Government’s planning policy for England and sets out the framework, within which local authorities must prepare their local and neighbourhood plans, reflecting the needs and priorities of their communities. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF requires Local Authorities to develop local policies and make decisions which aim to:

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

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

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

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

Planning Practice Guidance - Noise

3.8 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on noise [3] was issued in March 2014. This web-based guidance advises local planning authorities to take into account the acoustic environment, and in doing so consider the following:

whether or not a significant adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur;

whether or not an adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; and

whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved.

3.9 The PPG includes examples of how to recognise when noise could be a concern and provides example outcomes to which the Observed Effect Levels can apply. The PPG noise exposure hierarchy is presented in, based on the likely average response, along with example outcomes.

3.10 While it is acknowledged that planning and nuisance regimes are separate entities, the hierarchy table does provide useful information regarding how the concept of SOAELs and LOAELs, introduced through the NPSE, could be applied and does allow for subjective observations to be considered in the context of potential effect levels. The presence of an “Effect Level” does not infer whether a nuisance is or is not present.

Perception Examples of Outcomes Increasing Effect

Level Action

Not Noticeable

No Effect No Observed Effect No specific measures required

Noticeable and not intrusive

Noise can be heard, but does not cause any change in behaviour or attitude. Can slightly affect the acoustic

character of the area but not such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.

No Observed Adverse Effect

No specific measures required

Lowest Observed

Adverse Effect Level

RFE-125-17-02 6 February 2017

Noticeable and intrusive

Noise can be heard and causes small changes in behaviour and/or attitude, e.g. turning up volume of television; speaking more loudly; where there is no alternative

ventilation, having to close windows for some of the time because of the noise. Potential for some reported sleep

disturbance. Affects the acoustic character of the area such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.

Observed Adverse Effect

Mitigate and reduce to a minimum

Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level

Noticeable and

disruptive

The noise causes a material change in behaviour and/or attitude, e.g. avoiding certain activities during periods of

intrusion; where there is no alternative ventilation, having to keep windows closed most of the time because of the noise.

Potential for sleep disturbance resulting in difficulty in getting to sleep, premature awakening and difficulty in getting back to sleep. Quality of life diminished due to

change in acoustic character of the area.

Significant Observed Adverse Effect

Avoid

Noticeable and very

disruptive

Extensive and regular changes in behaviour and/or an inability to mitigate effect of noise leading to psychological

stress or physiological effects, e.g. regular sleep deprivation/awakening; loss of appetite, significant,

medically definable harm, e.g. auditory and non-auditory

Unacceptable Adverse Effect

Prevent

TABLE 3.1: PPG NOISE EXPOSURE HIERARCHY (Source –Planning Practice Guidance)

3.11 The PPG guidance states that “if external amenity spaces are an intrinsic part of the overall design, the acoustic environment of those spaces should be considered so that they can be enjoyed as intended.” Furthermore the guidance goes on to so say “Although the existence of a garden or balcony is generally desirable, the intended benefits will be reduced with increasing noise exposure and could be such that significant adverse effects occur.”

British Standard 4142

3.12 Guidance on the rating and assessing of sound of an industrial and/or commercial nature is contained in British Standard (BS) 4142: 2014 ‘Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound [4].

3.13 The standard states that:

“This standard is applicable to the determination of the following levels at outdoor locations:

a) rating levels for sources of sound of an industrial and/or commercial nature; and

b) ambient, background and residual sound levels

for the purposes of:

1) investigating complaints; 2) assessing sound from proposed, new, modified or additional source(s) of sound of

an industrial nature and/or commercial nature; and 3) assessing sound at proposed new dwellings or premises used for residential

purposes.”

RFE-125-17-02 7 February 2017

3.14 The determination of noise amounting to a nuisance is beyond the scope of this British Standard.

3.15 The significance of sound of an industrial and/or commercial nature depends upon both the margin by which the rating level of the specific sound source exceeds the background sound level and the context in which the sound occurs.

3.16 Typically, the greater the difference between rating level and background noise level, the greater the magnitude of the impact:

a difference of around +10 dB or more is likely to be an indication of a significant adverse impact, depending on the context;

a difference of around +5 dB is likely to be an indication of an adverse impact, depending on context; and

the lower the rating level is relative to the measured background sound level, the less likely it is that the specific source will have an adverse impact or a significant adverse impact. Where the rating level does not exceed the background sound level, this is an indication of the specific sound source having a low impact, depending on the context.

3.17 Certain acoustic features can increase the significance of the impact of a specific sound source. These features include tonality and impulsivity, as well as additional characteristics and intermittency of the sound.

3.18 Where appropriate, a rating penalty for sound based on a subjective assessment of its characteristics should be established. In other circumstances an objective appraisal of tonal and/or impulsive characteristics may be appropriate.

3.19 BS4142:2014 also states that ‘where a new noise-sensitive receptor is introduced and there is extant industrial and/or commercial sound, it ought to be recognised that the industrial and/or commercial sound forms a component of the acoustic environment. In such circumstances other guidance and criteria in addition to or alternative to this standard can also inform the appropriateness of both introducing a new noise-sensitive receptor and the extent of required mitigation’.

3.20 This version of BS 4142 is not necessarily directly comparable to preceding versions of the same standard. It is more likely to be assessed with higher feature corrections along with different methods to determine background levels.

British Standard 8233:2014

3.21 BS 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings [5] gives recommendations for the control of noise in and around buildings. The Standard suggests appropriate criteria and limits for different situations to guide the design of new or refurbished buildings undergoing a change of use.

3.22 Desirable upper noise levels inside residential habitable rooms are specified in the Standard and are reproduced below in Table 3.2.

RFE-125-17-02 8 February 2017

Activity Room Ambient Indoor Noise

Level 07:00 to 23:00 hrs, dB LAeq,16 hr

Ambient Indoor Noise Level 23:00 to 07:00 hrs,

dB LAeq,8 hr

Resting Living Room 35 -

Dining Dining room/ area 40 -

Sleeping (daytime resting)

Bedroom 35 30

TABLE 3.2: BS8233 INDOOR AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS FOR DWELLING

3.23 In external amenity spaces, such as private gardens and patios, BS 8233 indicates that it is desirable that the external noise level in these areas does not exceed 50 dB LAeq,T with an upper guideline value of 55 dB LAeq,T in noisier environments.

Local Authority Criteria

3.24 Local Authorities in Sussex, including Wealden District Council, have produced a planning guidance document ‘Planning Noise Advice Document – Sussex [6] which sets out the required approach for undertaking a noise assessment, for certain types of development.

3.25 For outdoor sports and recreation, including the use of all weather pitches and multi-use games areas, the guidance acknowledges that

In some circumstances, the noise levels generated from these types of activities are likely to be higher than would normally be accepted for other development consents, such as industrial processes, because of the characteristics of the noise generated, the controls that are possible, and the pattern of use. For these activities, the LPA will need to take account of how frequently the noise will be generated and how disturbing it will be. Therefore clear details of the proposed development are crucial’.

3.26 The guidance recommends that relevant Codes of Practice are considered and where these are not available, for example for the use of MUGAS, local factors need to be taken into account. It recommends that a noise management plan is submitted with the planning application covering issues such as community liaison, complaints procedures, client briefings and preventing unauthorised use.

RFE-125-17-02 9 February 2017

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE SURVEY

Continuous Baseline Noise Survey

4.1 Unattended continuous monitoring of existing noise levels was undertaken at the monitoring location shown as LT1 on Figure A1 of Appendix A. The equipment used during the survey is presented in Table 4.1 below.

Manufacturer Model No. Description Serial No. Calibration Due

Date

Larson Davis LxT Sound Level Meter 0004721 April 2018

Larson Davis LxTPRM1L Microphone Preamplifier 042613 April 2018

Larson Davis 337B02 ½” Electret microphone 161390 April 2018

Larson Davis CAL200 Calibrator 12981 April 2017

TABLE 4.1: SOUND MONITORING EQUIPMENT

4.2 The sound level meter was powered by dry cell batteries and stored inside a weatherproof security box.

4.3 Measurements were obtained using the ‘F’ time weighting and A-weighting frequency network. The equipment was calibrated before and after the survey to generate a calibration level of 114.0 dB at 1 kHz.

4.4 15-minute measurements of LAmax,F, LAeq and LA90 noise levels were obtained at this monitoring location between 16:00 hrs Wednesday 25th January and 08:30 hrs Monday 30th January 2017, with the microphone position set at a height of approximately 2.5 m above local ground level. A photograph of the monitoring equipment can be seen in Figure A3 of Appendix A.

4.5 The dominant noise sources observed during site visits are discussed in section 2. Local traffic movements, bird song and school children playing contributed to the ambient noise levels at the time of the monitoring.

Attended Short Term Noise Surveys

4.6 Attended short-term noise measurements were obtained at monitoring locations ST1 – ST3, as shown on Figure A1 of Appendix A. These measurements were obtained between 09:30 hrs and 10:23 hrs on Wednesday 25th January 2017.

4.7 All noise measurements were made in free-field conditions. The microphone at each location was approximately 1.5 m above local ground.

4.8 Measurements were obtained using the ‘F’ time weighting and A-weighting frequency network. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the survey period to generate a calibration level of 114.0 dB at 1 kHz.

Attended Source Term Measurements

RFE-125-17-02 10 February 2017

4.9 Attended source term measurements of typical after-school activities were undertaken at an existing MUGA, located at Polegate Primary School. This process allowed for the calculation of typical activity noise levels at noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Ninfield Primary School. The activity monitoring during the survey was football practice for approximately 20 children aged between 7 and 11 years. The noise consisted of talking and shouting from both the children and the adult coach, footfall from children running and the footballs striking the metal perimeter fence.

4.10 A residual sound measurement, in the absence of the MUGA activities was also taken.

Weather Conditions

4.11 During the attended surveys, weather conditions were dry and still, with winds speeds well below 5ms-1.

4.12 A history of the weather conditions during the continuous survey period has been obtained from an internet source. Analysis of the data shows periods of dry weather, with some periods heavy rain. The incidents of heavy rain have been removed from the records.

4.13 The weather conditions obtained for the survey period are summarised in Table B1 of Appendix B.

Continuous Noise Survey Results

4.14 The results of the unattended sound measurement survey are presented graphically in Figure A4 of Appendix A and summarised in Table 4.2 below.

Date

Measured Noise Levels, dB re. 2 x 10-5

Pa.

Daytime (07:00 - 23:00) Night-time (23:00 - 07:00)

LAmax,F LAeq,16hr LA90,16hr LAmax,F LAeq,8hr LA90,8hr

Wed 25/01/17 57(48-94)* 48(39-60)* 42(32-47)* 52(43-65) 40(29-47) 34(23-44)

Thu 26/01/17 72(51-104) 70(41-82) 57(33-70) 53(46-66) 40(29-47) 36(30-44)

Fri 27/01/17 66(50-102) 66(42-78) 55(35-69) 57(49-65) 40(35-43) 34(31-39)

Sat 28/01/17 61(46-80) 47(36-56) 41(32-45) 53(45-74) 38(31-49) 28(23-37)

Sun 29/01/17 67(57-81) 50(40-57) 46(35-54) 58(43-75) 42(27-51) 31(22-43)

Mon 30/01/17 62(52-68)* 45(45-47)* 42(41-43)*

Average 64(57-72) 54(45-70) 47(41-57) 55(52-57) 40(38-40) 33(28-36)

TABLE 4.2: SUMMARY OF DAYTIME UNATTENDED NOISE MEASUREMENTS, LT1

Note: * denotes incomplete period. Shaded areas removed due to heavy rain fall.

4.15 The results of the unattended sound measurement, show that ambient day time LAeq,16hr sound levels ranged from 45 - 70 dB with a mean average of 54 dB LAeq,16hr. The night time LAeq, 8hr sound levels ranged from 38 - 40dB, with a mean average of 40 dB.

RFE-125-17-02 11 February 2017

4.16 The maximum sound levels ranged from 46 to 104 dB LAmax, F with an arithmetic average of 64 dB during the daytime, while the night time maximum sound levels ranged from 43 to 75 dB LAmax, F with an arithmetic average of 55dB.

Attended Noise Survey Results

4.17 The results of the attended measurements obtained on Wednesday 25th January 2017 are summarised in Table 4.3 below. The full attended results, along with notes made during the measurements are presented in Table B2 of Appendix B.

Monitoring Location

Date Start Time Duration

Measured Noise Levels, dB re. 2 x 10-5

Pa.

LAmax, F LAeq,T LA90,T

ST1

25/01/2017

14:11:00 00:15:00 60.4 47.0 41.2

15:05:00 00:15:00 68.8 44.9 39.1

Cumul 68.8 46.1 40.3

ST2 14:31:00 00:15:00 57.7 50.4 47.2

ST3 14:47:00 00:15:00 78.4 53.8 43.5

TABLE 4.3: SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM ATTENDED NOISE SURVEY

4.18 The results of the source term measurements obtained on Thursday 26th January 2017 are summarised in Table 4.4 below.

Monitoring Location

Date Start Time Duration

Measured Noise Levels, dB re. 2 x 10

-5 Pa.

LAmax, F LAeq,T LA90,T

ST1 26/01/2017

15:23:00 00:15:00 87.4 67.4 51.9

15:40:04 00:15:00 90.6 68.6 51.2

Cumul 90.6 68.0 51.6

TABLE 4.4: SUMMARY OF SOURCE TERM MEASUREMENT OF MUGA ACTIVITIES AT POLEGATE SCHOOL

RFE-125-17-02 12 February 2017

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF NOISE LEVELS

Calculation of Noise Levels across the Site

Noise Prediction Model

5.1 A computer model of noise propagation has been constructed using SoundPLAN version 4.0. This commercial software package implements complex calculations using acoustical ray-tracing techniques, taking into account the acoustically reflective and absorptive properties of the building elements. The environmental noise propagation from source to receiver position is calculated in accordance with the procedures defined in ISO 9613-2:1996 Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors, part 2: General method of calculation [7], using the following acoustic algorithm:

LfT(DW) = Lw + Dc – A where

Lft(DW) = equivalent continuous downwind octave-band sound pressure

level at a receiver location Lw = sound power level of the noise source

Dc = directivity correction

A = attenuation that occurs during propagation from the point sound source to the receiver. A = Adiv + Aatm + Agr + Abar +Amisc

Adiv = attenuation due to geometrical divergence

Aatm = attenuation due to atmospheric absorption

Agr = attenuation due to the ground effect

Abar = attenuation due to a barrier

Amisc = attenuation due to miscellaneous other effects

5.2 The source term noise levels presented in Table 4.4 have been used to calibrate the MUGA source noise levels used in the noise prediction model at the proposed site. The closest noise sensitive receptors have been included in the model. These receptors are displayed in Figure A1 of Appendix A. The noise contours for daytime MUGA use are presented in Figures A5 of Appendix A.

5.3 The following assumptions have been considered in the computer model:

ground cover has been modelled as soft ground; receivers have been modelled at a height of 1.5 m above local ground, with a floor

height of 2.4m; buildings and any solid barriers, such as walls and fences, are modelled as

reflective acoustic screens; and a worst case scenario, with continuous MUGA use, has been assumed (i.e. no

correction has been made for duration of use across the daytime period);

BS4142:2014

RFE-125-17-02 13 February 2017

5.4 The method for predicting the significance of sound of an industrial and/or commercial nature in accordance with the principles of BS 4142:2014 is based on a comparison of the rating level, defined as the specific sound level plus any adjustment for the characteristic features of the sound, with the background sound level, LA90,T.

5.5 The standard is applicable for assessing sound at proposed new dwellings or premises used for residential purposes.

5.6 The Standard lists people noise as one of the sound sources that the assessment is not intended to be applied to, however, in the absence of any specific assessment criteria for assessing this type of activity, it is considered appropriate to use the principles of BS4142:2014 to help form an assessment of the potential impact from the proposed use of the MUGA.

Background Sound Levels

5.7 The LA90,T background sound level is the sound level exceeded for 90 % of the time in the absence of any sound from the specific source of interest.

5.8 The “typical” background sound levels as described in BS4142:2014 have been established, for the purposes of this noise assessment, from the survey data measured at the nearest noise sensitive receptor and the unattended data from Saturday the 28th January. The unattended data from the weekday periods would be heavily influenced by children at the school and may not be representative of the noise at the receptor location, while the data from Sunday was influenced by the period of rainfall.

5.9 A free field background sound level of 41 LA90, 15min has been adopted for the purposes of this assessment as this is a representative value from the periods described above, in the absence of any school activity, and should therefore be considered a worst case scenario.

Specific Sound Level

5.10 When evaluating the specific sound level during the day time, a reference period of 1 hour is recommended. The ambient sound level for this assessment has been taken from the MUGA survey. These measurements are considered to be typical of the sound levels likely to be experienced over a 1 hr period while the MUGA is in use.

Rating Levels

5.11 Where appropriate, a rating penalty for sound based on a subjective assessment of its characteristics should be established and added to the Specific sound level.

5.12 The activities are not likely to be discernable against the existing noise climate, as the recreation ground already contains a games area, along with a zip wire and skateboard/BMX ramp. The use of the MUGA during school time will replace similar activities already undertaken by the school.

5.13 The results of the assessment are presented in Table 5.2 below.

RFE-125-17-02 14 February 2017

Item

Nearest Noise Sensitive Receptors

R1 R7 R3 R4

Specific Noise Level (dB LAeq, Tr) [1]

45.7 53.2 47.2 47.1

Rating Penalty (dB) 0 0 0 0

Rating Noise Level (dB LAr, Tr) 45.7 53.2 47.2 47.1

Relevant Background Noise Level (dB LA90, T)

41

BS4142 Assessment Level 4.7 12.2 6.2 6.1

BS4142 Assessment Adverse Impact

Significant Adverse Impact

Adverse Impact

Adverse Impact

TABLE 5.2: ASSESSMENT OF TYPICAL USE OF THE MUGA Note: [1] free field sound level

5.14 The calculation presented in Table 5.2 indicates that the Rating level from the use of the MUGA activities is likely to be up to c. 12dB above the existing background sound levels.

5.15 According to BS4142:2014, a rating level difference of around +5 dB is likely to be an indication of an adverse impact, depending on context, while a rating level difference of around +10dB or higher is likely to be an indication of a significant adverse impact, depending on context.

5.16 However, it is important to note that existing activities, including the use of the school playground and the use of the existing games area will already result in similar levels and that the use of the MUGA will not be continuous.

5.17 The unattended monitoring data indicates that the daytime noise level measured at LT1, inside the school grounds, was 70 and 66dB LAeq, 16hr on Thursday and Friday respectively. The source term level for the use of the MUGA was measured at 68dB(A). Therefore, in this context it can be assumed that the impact on the nearest residential receptors from the MUGA use will be comparable to the existing use of the school’s external areas during term time.

BS8233:2014

5.18 BS 8233:2014 contains recommended guideline levels of 35 dB LAeq,T for resting inside bedrooms and living rooms during the daytime, 40 dB LAeq,T for dining areas and 30 dB LAeq,T for sleeping inside bedrooms at night.

5.19 The approximate sound reduction value provided in Annex G of BS 8233 for a closed insulating glass window unit is 33 dB Rw. With a window open to provide background

RFE-125-17-02 15 February 2017

ventilation, the sound insulation of the window reduces to approximately 15 dB from a free-field level.

5.20 Taking these typical sound reduction performances into consideration, internal noise levels have been predicted inside the nearest noise sensitive receptors with windows partially open for ventilation purposes.

5.21 The predictions for internal noise levels from the use of the MUGA are presented in Table 5.3

Receptor/ Floor Predicted

Daytime Façade Noise Level LAeq,T

Predicted Daytime Internal Noise Level, dB LAeq, T

BS8233 Internal Noise Criterion Achieved [2]

Windows Partially Open

[1]

Windows Closed

Living Room/Bedroom

Dining Room

R1 49 34 16 Y Y

R2 49 34 16 Y Y

R3 50 35 17 Y Y

R4 50 35 17 Y Y

R5 39 24 6 Y Y

R6 47 32 14 Y Y

R7 56 41 23 N N

TABLE 5.3: ASSESSMENT OF ESTIMATED DAYTIME NOISE LEVELS Note: [1] assuming a 15dB(A) reduction for windows partially open, [2] assumes windows open

5.22 Based on the assumed typical reductions for windows being partially open for ventilation purposes, the noise predictions show that internal noise levels exceed the daytime criterion of 35dB at the closest receptor, by up to 6dB.

5.23 However, as discussed above, based on the measured data collected from the unattended monitor, the existing conditions at this receptor would also exceed the criteria.

5.24 It is also important to note that this internal criteria is based on continuous noise over a 16hr daytime period. These results are based on a worst case scenario which assumes continuous use of the MUGA, however, in reality, this will not be the case and in this context, the resulting daytime 16hr noise level would be much lower.

Planning Practice Guidance

5.25 The Planning Practice Guidance for noise provides a hierarchy table, which does allow for subjective observations to be considered in the context of potential effect levels. This is replicated in Table 3.1 in Section 3.

5.26 The Table provides the following description of noise which can be considered noticeable but not intrusive – ‘Noise can be heard, but does not cause any change in behaviour or attitude. Can slightly affect the acoustic character of the area but not such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.’

RFE-125-17-02 16 February 2017

5.27 It also provides the following description of noise which might be considered intrusive and

which could be considered at a level where adverse effects are observed – ‘Noise can be

heard and causes small changes in behaviour and/or attitude, e.g. turning up volume of television; speaking more loudly; where there is no alternative ventilation, having to close windows for some of the time because of the noise. Potential for some reported sleep disturbance. Affects the acoustic character of the area such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.’

5.28 Subjective observations made during the attended monitoring of the MUGA activities indicate that the activities would be audible at the boundary of the closest noise sensitive receptors but due to the similar nature of the activities to those already present at the school, it is the author’s opinion that this would not necessarily cause a change in behaviour and would not lead to a change in the quality of life of residents.

5.29 However, this would depend to some degree on the duration of use and perhaps, more importantly, to the time periods in which the MUGA is in use. Therefore, to ensure any adverse effects are minimised as far as reasonably practicable, careful management of the MUGA and its intended use needs to be implemented. Mitigation options are discussed further in the next chapter.

Uncertainty

5.30 Uncertainty in the measurements and calculations needs to be taken into account when assessing the validity of these conclusions.

5.31 Uncertainty in the measurement for meteorological effects on the data is reduced by excluding data during periods of high wind or heavy rainfall. In this instance, the data during the daytime period on Sunday 29th January 2017 was removed due to the influence of heavy rainfall.

5.32 Rounding has been used in the derivation of the background sound level and calculations, to avoid an impression of precision to decimal places. Rounding has been to integer values with 0.5 being rounded up on completion of the statistical analysis.

RFE-125-17-02 17 February 2017

6.0 MITIGATION OPTIONS

6.1 The results of the above noise assessment indicate that while MUGA activities are likely to be audible at the nearest noise sensitive receptors, when considered in the context of the existing noise sources and current recreational space, adverse impacts should not occur.

6.2 However, it is important to safeguard against potential disturbance, and therefore it would be prudent to demonstrate that ‘best practicable means’ are being adopted at all times.

6.3 In this respect, a Noise Management Plan (NMP) is suggested, which sets out a series of noise control measures. It is recognised that any Noise Management Plan is a dynamic set of measures, which should be subject to continual review in accordance with any changes in the use of the MUGA and final agreement of the hours of use.

6.4 An example of a number of noise mitigation measures which can be incorporated into a noise management plan are presented in Table 6.1 below.

6.5 The adoption of a similar NMP should be implemented and maintained to ensure any potential impacts from the use of the MUGA are minimised.

Item Number

Noise Control Measures

1 All school staff to be made aware of the importance of maintaining noise control measures due to the proximity of neighbouring properties.

2 Continual supervision of children using the area by suitably trained staff who are familiar with the requirement to minimise noise as far as reasonable practicable.

3 Use of the MUGA outside of school hours will be by appointment only. No unauthorised use of the MUGA will be allowed.

4 Use of the MUGA will not take place other than during the agreed hours of operation.

5 The gate to the MUGA will be kept locked to ensure unauthorised access is prohibited.

6 All persons using the MUGA will be advised of the need to keep noise levels to a minimum and to avoid the use of inappropriate language.

7 Appropriate signage will be placed around the MUGA to advise users of the need to respect neighbours by keeping noise to a minimum.

8 A formal complaints procedure to be implemented that documents any notification of disturbance and logs any mitigation steps or changes in practice that may have been introduced as a result of the complaint.

TABLE 6.1: EXAMPLE NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN

RFE-125-17-02 18 February 2017

Acoustic Fencing

6.6 Consideration has also been given to the introduction of acoustic fencing to provide additional noise attenuation.

6.7 To maximise the impact of an acoustic screen and provide a meaningful degree of attenuation at noise sensitive receptors, the fence would need to be at least 2m in height and line the perimeter of the MUGA on each side, except perhaps the northern edge.

6.8 However, enclosing the MUGA in such a way would close it off to the school rather than allow it to be incorporated into the current layout. It would also lead to negative aesthetic impacts, which might outweigh any potential increase in noise attenuation.

6.9 The closest noise sensitive property is already bounded by a fence of approximately 1.5m in height. Increasing this to a height of 2m will result in a negligible increase in noise attenuation (c. 2dB).

6.10 Therefore, the adoption of the noise management plan and controlled use of the MUGA is considered a more appropriate mitigation option in these circumstances.

RFE-125-17-02 19 February 2017

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 An assessment of the potential noise impacts from the proposed Multi-Use Games Area at Ninfield Primary School, Ninfield, Sussex, has been undertaken.

7.2 Continuous noise monitoring was undertaken to establish the existing ambient sound levels in the vicinity of the proposed development.

7.3 Attended source term measurements were undertaken during typical activities on an existing MUGA, to establish the specific sound levels generated by its use.

7.4 An assessment, following the principles of BS4241:2014 was undertaken to assess the likely impact of noise on nearby noise sensitive receptors. The assessment indicated that the rating level from the activities were at a level which is likely to be an indication of significant adverse impact at the closest residential receptor.

7.5 An assessment of internal noise levels, generated by the MUGA activities have indicated that recommended guideline levels prescribed in BS8233:2014 will be exceeded at the closest noise sensitive receptor, with windows open for ventilation.

7.6 However, it should be noted that the same level of noise already occurs during existing school activities and when considered in the context of the existing noise sources in the vicinity, it is not considered likely that adverse impact would occur, if suitable controls on the use of the MUGA were put in place.

7.7 To ensure that any noise from the MUGA is minimised and controlled as far as reasonably practicable, it is recommended that a noise management plan is implemented and reviewed on a regular basis and that careful control over access and the time of use are observed.

7.8 The implementation of the noise management plan should ensure that the noise from the use of the MUGA will not cause adverse noise impact and will not lead to a loss of amenity at nearby noise sensitive receptors.

RFE-125-17-02 20 February 2017

8.0 REFERENCES

1. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE), 2010.

2. Department of Communities and Local Government. National Planning Policy Framework, 2012.

3. Department for Communities and Local Government: Planning Practice Guidance – Noise. Revision date March, 2014.

4. British Standard BS 4142:2014: Methods for Rating and Assessing Industrial and Commercial Sound.

5. British Standard BS 8233: 2014: Guidance on Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings.

6. Sussex Pollution Working Group: 2014. Planning Noise Advice Document – Sussex

7. ISO 9613-2:1996 Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors, part 2: General method of calculation.

APPENDIX A: FIGURES

FIGURE A1: EXISTING SITE LOCATION IDENTIFYING MONITORING LOCATIONS AND CLOSEST NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

ST1

ST2

R1

ST3

R3

R4

LT1

R6

R7

R5

R2

FIGURE A2: PROPOSED LOCATION OF MUGA

FIGURE A3: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING MONITORING EQUIPMENT

FIGURE A4: CONTINUOUS SOUND MONITORING RESULTS AT LT1

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

20

17

-01

-25

20

17

-01

-25

20

17

-01

-25

20

17

-01

-25

20

17

-01

-26

20

17

-01

-26

20

17

-01

-26

20

17

-01

-26

20

17

-01

-26

20

17

-01

-26

20

17

-01

-26

20

17

-01

-26

20

17

-01

-26

20

17

-01

-27

20

17

-01

-27

20

17

-01

-27

20

17

-01

-27

20

17

-01

-27

20

17

-01

-27

20

17

-01

-27

20

17

-01

-27

20

17

-01

-27

20

17

-01

-27

20

17

-01

-28

20

17

-01

-28

20

17

-01

-28

20

17

-01

-28

20

17

-01

-28

20

17

-01

-28

20

17

-01

-28

20

17

-01

-28

20

17

-01

-28

20

17

-01

-28

20

17

-01

-29

20

17

-01

-29

20

17

-01

-29

20

17

-01

-29

20

17

-01

-29

20

17

-01

-29

20

17

-01

-29

20

17

-01

-29

20

17

-01

-29

20

17

-01

-30

20

17

-01

-30

20

17

-01

-30

20

17

-01

-30

LAFmax

LAeq

LAF90.00

FIGURE A5: NOISE CONTOURS FROM MUGA USE

APPENDIX B: TABLES

TABLE B1: SUMMARY WEATHER CONDITIONS

Day Date Temperature (°C) Humidity (%) Wind Speed (ms-1)

Precipitation (mm)

Avg. Min. Max. Avg. Min. Max. Avg. Max. Tot.

Wednesday 25-Jan-17 3 1.7 4.3 99 97 99 0.3 0.8 0.3

Thursday 26-Jan-17 0.6 -0.2 1.4 92 90 94 0.6 1.4 0

Friday 27-Jan-17 3.9 1 6.8 92 87 95 1.4 2.8 0

Saturday 28-Jan-17 7.3 5.2 9.6 90 81 94 1.7 3.6 0.8

Sunday 29-Jan-17 7.9 6.8 9.1 97 93 99 2.5 3.9 11.7

Monday 30-Jan-17 7.7 5.9 9.4 99 98 100 0.6 3.1 0.8

Monitoring Location

Date Start Time Duration

Measured Noise Levels, dB re. 2 x 10

-5 Pa. Observations

LAmax, F LAeq,T LA90,T

ST1

25/01/2017

14:11 00:15:00 60.4 47.0 41.2 Distant traffic. School break time. Children in playground, shouts, screams

15:05:00 00:15:00 68.8 44.9 39.1 No children in playground. Distant traffic, cars parking within 10m.

Cumul 68.8 46.1 40.3

ST2 14:31:00 00:15:00 57.7 50.4 47.2 Outside pavillion. Road traffic dominant. Teachers voice 5s, distant building works.

ST3 14:47:00 00:15:00 78.4 53.8 43.5 Children inside playground. Cars passing on road. People walking past.

TABLE B2: SUMMARY OF ATTENDED NOISE MEASUREMENTS AT NINFIELD SCHOOL, 25th

JANUARY 2017

Monitoring Location

Date Start Time Duration

Measured Noise Levels, dB re. 2 x 10

-5 Pa. Observations

LAmax, F LAeq,T LA90,T

ST1 26/01/2017

15:23 00:15:00 87.4 67.4 51.9 Approx 20 children in MUGA. Football training. Teacher shouting instructions. Balls hitting fence. Children running. Raised voices. 15:40:04 00:15:00 90.6 68.6 51.2

Cumul 90.6 68.0 51.6

TABLE B3: SOURCE TERM MEASUREMENTS OF MUGA ACTIVITY AT POLEGATE SCHOOL, 26th

JANUARY 2017

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC TERMS

Noise

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The range of audible sound is from 0 to 140 dB. The frequency response of the ear is usually taken to be around 18 Hz (number of oscillations per second) to 18000 Hz. The ear does not respond equally to different frequencies at the same level. It is more sensitive in the mid-frequency range than the lower and higher frequencies and because of this, the low and high frequency components of a sound are reduced in importance by applying a weighting (filtering) circuit to the noise measuring instrument. The weighting which is most widely used and which correlates best with subjective response to noise is the dBA weighting. This is an internationally accepted standard for noise measurements.

For variable sources, such as traffic, a difference of 3 dBA is just distinguishable. In addition, a doubling of traffic flow will increase the overall noise by 3 dBA. The ‘loudness’ of a noise is a purely subjective parameter, but it is generally accepted that an increase/ decrease of 10 dBA corresponds to a doubling/ halving in perceived loudness. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale in decibels (dB) because of the ears’ sensitivity to a wide range of pressure changes. The sound pressure level (SPL) of a signal is denoted by the symbol Lp and defined by the equation Lp = 10 log (p/po)2 where p is the root mean square pressure of the signal and po is the reference sound pressure (2 x 10-5 Pa).

An indication of the range of sound pressure levels commonly found in the environment is given below:

Location LpA dB(A)

Normal threshold of hearing -10 to 20 Music halls and theatres 20 to 30 Living rooms and offices 30 to 50 Inside motor vehicles 50 to 70 Industrial premises 70 to 100 Burglar alarms at 1 m 100 to 110 Jet aircraft on take-off 110 to 130 Threshold of pain 130 to 140

External noise levels are rarely steady, but rise and fall according to activities within an area. In attempt to produce a figure that relates this variable noise level to subjective response, a number of noise indices have been developed. These include:

i) The LAmax noise level

This is the maximum noise level recorded over the measurement period.

ii) The LAeq noise level

This is “equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level, in decibels” and is defined in British Standard BS 7445 [2] as the “ value of the A-weighted sound pressure

level of a continuous, steady sound that, within a specified time internal, T, has the same mean square sound pressure as a sound under consideration whose level varies with time”.

It is a unit commonly used to describe construction noise and noise from industrial premises and is the most suitable unit for the description of other forms of environmental noise. In more straightforward terms, it is a measure of energy within the varying noise.

iii) The LA10 noise level

This is the noise level that is exceeded for 10% of the measurement period and gives an indication of the noisier levels. It is a unit that has been used over many years for the measurement and assessment of road traffic noise.

iv) The LA90 noise level

This is the noise level that is exceeded for 90% of the measurement period and gives an indication of the noise level during the quieter periods. It is often referred to as the background noise level and is used in the assessment of disturbance from industrial noise.

Community response to environmental noise sources is dependent on both acoustic and non-acoustic factors. The acoustic factors include absolute noise level, changes or exceedances of background and ambient levels as well as the characteristics, time, duration and frequency of noise.