Environmental protection

Homepage > Environmental Protection > Noise > Guidance > Codes of Practice

Guidance on preparing Codes of Practice for minimising noise in England

Process

Assess the need for a code

5. The first step in the production of a Code on Noise is to define the issue concerned and establish the extent to which it is already covered by an existing Code or whether a more appropriate control regime exists within other legislation. It may be useful at this stage to contact Defra (Noise and Nuisance Policy) to discuss your intention to produce a Code. The Department holds a list of approved Codes (see Appendix A for the current list) and information on codes being developed. If another group is already undertaking work in this area, the Department will be able to put you in touch with them. If you intend to produce a Code for application throughout the UK, the Department will liaise with the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the Scottish Executive.

6. In parallel with this, there must be an assessment of whether a Code is the best means to deal with this particular issue and enabling a preliminary assessment by the Department at the outset could save much time and effort. The following criteria should be met for all proposed Codes.

The issue should:

  • be clearly defined and concern a distinct activity, operation or circumstance. For example, "clay pigeon shooting" is a distinct activity and therefore could merit a Code whereas "field sports" is probably too general a description;
  • have a reasonable geographical distribution, preferably national, rather than being confined to the local area;
  • have generated a demonstrable level of concern amongst the general public, regulatory authorities, consultants or industry. While there is not, nor should there be, a minimum number of complaints needed to warrant a Code, concern should go beyond a small number of vociferous complainants about a specific activity;
  • be one which is likely to recur on a regular basis; and
  • be consistent with the objectives of the Government's strategy for sustainable development for the UK, the objectives of which are summarised in Appendix B.

7. This should mean that the Code helps those involved understand and take a reasonably consistent approach to similar problems.

8. Having determined that the Code will fulfil a need, the proposal should be announced. This may be done by the proposers in a number of ways and the Defra web site (www.defra.gov.uk/environment) would serve as one.

Form a working party

9. The working party will be the group responsible for drafting the Code and developing the noise control advice and mechanisms which will be central to it. While its members may not be directly involved in the relevant research work, they will decide the extent to which the results or findings of the work are incorporated into the final Code.

10. Membership of the working party should be balanced and structured with at least a nominated Chairman and Secretary. Any relevant trade bodies should be included and members should have some technical knowledge of the problem and be mandated to speak for their organisation. Within the working party there should be a detailed knowledge of noise and the governance of environmental matters. Failure of a key relevant group to participate in a working party should not necessarily be a bar to other interested parties drawing up a Code although any key stakeholder's non participation should be made clear in a written statement to the Secretary of State with any relevant reasons.

11. When approving a Code the Secretary of State has to be sure that the working party has considered the interests of relevantparties during its development. All reasonable efforts should be made to allow all stakeholders the opportunity to express their views and propose amendments to the draft Code.

12. However, care must also be taken not to make the working party too large. It may be that a core group is formed, whose membership adheres to the principles of balance and representation, with a wider group which is kept informed of developments at regular intervals. The most appropriate format ultimately will be governed by the issues concerned and the number of organisations or individuals involved. It is probable that a core group of between four and fifteen individuals will provide the best working arrangement but it is for the working party to determine the appropriate number.

Assess the information requirements

13. One of the first tasks for the working party, once the problem has been sufficiently defined, is to determine the extent of knowledge which exists concerning the problem. All decisions on optimum control techniques or effective solutions should be as informed as possible and therefore the working party needs to be in possession of the full range of information available on the subject. Much of this information is likely to be held by members of the working party, but some may not and so a process for obtaining and evaluating this external information should be developed. The code should not be developed utilising information which is not within the public domain.

14. If, following this process, there is insufficient information to develop the Code fully, the working party has three options:

  • conduct the necessary research. Issues such as scope, timescales and funding should be addressed if this option is pursued;
  • continue to produce the Code but highlight clearly where gaps in knowledge limit the full development of the Code; or
  • postpone or abandon the Code.
Formulate the control method

15. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 states that the Codes of Practice approved under section 71 are "for the purposes of giving guidance on appropriate methods....for minimising noise". The control method is therefore the central part of the Code and its development will form the bulk of the working party's task. The precise nature of the control method proposed will depend on the problem it is intended to alleviate, nevertheless the following principles should be followed. The Code should:

  • represent good practice for minimising the noise in question;
  • provide the general principles for noise control for the events, premises or circumstances it is intended to cover;
  • be practical in nature and provide a clear implementation mechanism;
  • take account of existing relevant law and guidance;
  • include the process for developing a noise control programme for each individual event, premises or circumstance and show how it can be related to other environmental issues relevant to the situation; and
  • define the ideal conditions within which noise problems will not occur. If this is not feasible, a secondary approach would be to develop a set of criteria below which problems are unlikely and another set above which there will almost certainly be a problem. The purpose of the code is then to advise on how to deal with situations that arise between these upper and lower criteria and avoid occurrences of the upper criteria being met or exceeded.

16. It should be remembered that the Code will form national guidance. Therefore, the control method needs to be proven and the technical detail must be of the highest quality.

Draft the Code

17. The Code, if approved by the Secretary of State, may be used by people with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise and it must therefore be an accessible document. The working party should take into account the costs and impacts of the Code, both on those stakeholders directly involved, and also on the wider public.

18. The exact format of the Code and the mechanisms for drafting it will vary according to the agreed working arrangements of the group. However, the Code should adhere to the following principles:

  • it should be clear, with any lengthy technical information, where it is deemed necessary, included in appendices. Jargon and acronyms should be avoided and minimised as far as possible;
  • while justification of a particular point or position is important, lengthy argument should be avoided;
  • it should not include lengthy explanations of either the legal or planning process but rather focus on the practical nature of noise control, although some explanation of the legal status of Codes of Practice should be included;
  • it should comply with all relevant national legislation;
  • it should provide a cross reference to other Codes and legislation concerning the minimisation of noise;
  • any research results included in the Code should be fully referenced;
  • wherever possible the Code should utilise the best available method for predicting the noise levels which would be received from the source under standard conditions (with prediction methods details in an appendix to include one or more worked examples);
  • a preferred strategy for rating the noise and setting acceptable received noise levels should be given (with the rationale stated in an appendix);
  • the Code should include a reference to the date at which it was drafted and that it therefore represents the best practice known at the time;
  • be available, ideally, in a number of formats, e.g. in paper and internet versions 1; and
  • be subject, ideally, to review every five to ten years 2.

19. The ability of the Code to achieve its objective of minimising noise from a given activity will depend on both the quality of the guidance within the Code and how it is presented. Careless drafting could lead to ambiguous or unintended interpretation. The working party might find it useful to consider seeking legal advice while drafting the Code.

Consult on draft Code

20. When the working party is agreed on its draft text, it should be sent out for consultation, the list of consultees being as wide and inclusive as possible. Defra may be able to advise on appropriate bodies for inclusion in the list of consultees. The list of consultees needs to be provided to the Secretary of State with the submitted draft Code if she is to satisfy herself that consultation has been adequate.

21. The consultation process should allow enough time for the consultees to consider fully the Code and formulate a response. It is recommended that the minimum time allowed for consultation responses should not be less than 12 weeks, although this may be extended.

22. In addition to agreeing a list of consultees, the working party should agree a mechanism for considering and analysing the responses and, where necessary, amending the Code. The criteria for the consultation process are detailed in Appendix C and further advice may be found at the Cabinet Office's web site:

www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/index/consultation.htm

Review and amendment process

23. Depending on the nature and scale of the problem which the Code addresses, the responses may be numerous and detailed and therefore time should be allowed to consider all of these in full. Where the consultation response reveals new or alternative basic research there needs to be a thorough re-evaluation of the Code with time allowed for this. Documentary evidence of the consultation exercise carried out will be required when the Code is submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.

24. In addition to providing sufficient weight and time to the review and incorporation of consultation responses it is important that the Code includes provision for a review and amendment procedure. This should include the opportunity for both routine periodical review and review in response to legislative and technical developments or advances in good practice that may have a significant effect on the currency of the Code.

25. Any revision of an approved Code will have to be resubmitted for approval by the Secretary of State.

Submit draft to Secretary of State

26. Following final consultation and amendment, the proposed Code should be submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration, along with supporting documentation. These supporting documents should include written evidence showing that the procedure set out in this guidance has been followed. The Secretary of State may request officials to carry out further consultation with other Government Departments, technical advisors, lawyers and other interested parties. This scrutiny will attempt to verify that the Code:

  • will assist in minimising noise;
  • is an indicator of good practice of noise control for the Courts;
  • has taken account of advice and criteria in other Codes and guidance;
  • has taken account of technical research;
  • has identified the current situation with respect to the matters covered by the Code and that its formal approval will not detract from that position;
  • is balanced in the detailed guidance it provides;
  • as submitted, addresses concerns raised in the consultation process; and
  • has identified the significant costs, benefits and other impacts of the proposals.

27. As a result of the above, the Secretary of State may return the Code to its authors with detailed comments and suggestions for further work or consultation. It should be noted that the approval of any Code under section 71 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. There is no obligation for submitted Codes to receive approval. Draft Codes which are not accepted, for whatever reason, might nevertheless still find legitimate use as good practice within the trade although the Secretary of State may consider it appropriate to make public the reasons for declining to approve the Code.

28. The postal address to which draft Codes should be sent is as follows:

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Environment Quality and Waste Division
Zone 4/H17, Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6DE

Tel: 020 7944 6307
Fax: 020 7944 6300

E-mail: noise@defra.gsi.gov.uk

1 Defra may be able to offer advice and assistance with the publication and dissemination of the Code.

2 Note that any revision to an approved Code would need to be considered by the Secretary of State and, if approved in its revised form, a new Order made by Statutory Instrument would be required.

Page last modified: 19 May 2005
Page published: 2 September 2002

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs