Agenda item

RESOLVED to:

1  Note the annual performance report for the service.

2  Note the level and scope of work being carried out to meet the requirements of the Plan.

         5.1  Gerry McCarthy outlined the report setting out the annual performance in relation to noise nuisance for the period 1^st January to 31^st December 2018 and an update on the volume of noise complaints, a breakdown of the individual types of noise within the services workload, including Temporary Event Notices (TENs).  The Environmental Protection Service Delivery Plan sets out the objectives of the Team and the key areas relating to Environmental Protection addressing statutory nuisance including commercial noise and odours, artificial light nuisance and construction noise, the management arrangements and resources allocated for the works.

5.2  Mr McCarthy stated that noise nuisance was the largest anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the borough and a range of resources had been allocated to address this issue.  He highlighted the key areas within the report:

Noise and ASB management

·  The Council’s Environmental Protection Officers (EPOs) focused on noise from commercial premises and issues related to construction noise and Principal Enforcement Officers focused on domestic noise and ASB cases and work out of hours. 

·  The online noise reporting service had been made simpler and streamlined. 

·  The e-form had been redesigned to allow the complainant to report noise nuisance issues and to complete a more detailed self-triage allowing officers to receive relevant information.

·  The use of the online complaint e-forms and the ongoing planned automation changes would make the triage process less resource intensive

·  The Council’s noise nuisance webpage had been updated providing clear and concise information.

·  Any completed form requests received during service hours including out of hours were assessed and triaged for engagement if required. Complaints were now assigned to the perpetrator.

·  The provision of an out-of-hours service was challenging as demand had been unpredictable with officers dealing with both commercial and residential noise nuisance and at times of peak fluctuation could result in up to twenty service requests in an hour

·  EPOs worked closely with the Council’s Licensing section in respect of noise nuisance from commercial licensed premises

Temporary Event Notices (TENs)

·  Hackney had the second highest number of TENs in London and the number of TENs received in Hackney had increased by approximately 25% following the introduction of legislation.  The demand in Hackney had been disproportionately high with a total of 1,315 TENs in 2012 and increasing to 2,401 in 2018.  The maximum number of TENs a premises could apply for was from twelve to fifteen per calendar year.

Construction Noise

·  The rise in construction noise had resulted from an increase in developments and construction within the borough within the past ten years. This had led to an increase in the average number of notices served or applications for consents approved under s60 and s61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.  In the period April to December 2018 there were 103 Section 60 notices served and 122 consents issued.

·  Funding had been agreed for two additional officers on fixed term contract until 3st March 2021 to assist with the increased number of requests received and out of hour’s service and to continue the proactive service on Sundays in relation to construction noise

5.3  Mr McCarthy responded to questions and comments from members relating to the report as follows:

·  Environmental Protection Officers had been jointly working with external agencies such as the police and the Council’s Licensing Services to address commercial noise nuisance.  Progress had been made in responding to Members’ queries and complaints relating to noise nuisance and work had been continuing on further improving this service.

·  The Council had been successful in three noise nuisance complaints that were not upheld at review and an Ombudsman case dating from 2018.

·  The Council had been working on improving its pro-active intelligence gathering and further strengthening of local borough protocols to address this issue.

·  The service’s approach had been to deal with the premises when a complaint relating to noise was received.

·  A high number of late night TENs applications had been submitted although the spirit of the legislation had been intended for events such as birthdays.  The Council had also been concerned about the potential for crime and disorder at these late night events. 

·  TENs were risk assessed but late night TENs in particular had contributed to a rise in noise nuisance.

·  All TEN applications received by the Council were published on its website.

·  People could report noise nuisance complaints by phone or email and both these methods were effective and a response would be received.

·  An agreement was drawn between the Council and construction setting out the hours of construction work.  In drawing up the agreement the Council took in to consideration and balanced the needs of residents and the disruption of works and other factors such as the number of construction sites in an area. 

·  Construction and building site noise is governed by legislation and permitted hours were set out subject to a few exceptions.  Companies could apply for Section 61 Application for construction works on Sundays or out of hours.  These applications for consent were granted subject to strict conditions. 

·  Officers engaged with residents regarding noise nuisance arising from construction work occurring outside permitted hour and residents were informed of any hours of construction and building site noise.

·  Information on construction works taking place on Sundays within the borough were available on online.  Councillor Selman emphasised that the service had made good progress in addressing noise nuisance as demand had increased but no additional resources had been provided.  The Council was currently examining the reasons for the increase in noise nuisance within the borough in order to address this issue.

·  The increase in noise nuisance was a combination of making it easier for residents to report noise nuisance online together with a gradual rise in both commercial and residential noise.  Councillor Selman added that the Council was currently examining the reasons for the increase in noise nuisance within the borough in order to address this issue.

·  The Council also had the powers to take action against domestic noise not considered normal domestic activity that was causing a nuisance such as noise emanating from power showers.  It was confirmed that the Council had been received complaints related to noise nuisance from power showers. 

·  Noise emanating from laminate or wooden flooring in a block could be considered as normal domestic activity depending on a tenant’s lease.  Councillor Selman stated that tenants of Hackney Council properties were required to seek permission prior to installing wooden floors and this condition had been included in the tenants’ leases. With regard to Housing Associations this issue would be included in their lease or tenancy agreement. 

·  Any technical issues that were still being identified as a result of the migration of the database from M3 PP to CIVICA in May 2018 were being resolved as soon as possible.  Officers had been provided training on the database and the data had been used in a review of a licensed premises that had been revoked based on the noise nuisance complaints recorded. 

·  The Council had received a total of 5,874 noise complaints in 2018 and the complaints were now recorded under a complainant’s name.

·  The outcomes of the cases of Section 60 and Section 80 Notices served by Environmental Protection Team between April 2018 and January 2019 were measured by whether any further action had been necessary.  If no action was required than the case was considered resolved. 

·  The Council’s approach to nuisance had been to consider alternative enforcement action such as requesting a licensing review before considering prosecution as a final resort.  The Council had not yet prosecuted any individuals for noise nuisance.

·  Upon receipt of a noise nuisance complaint, Council officers visited the property to discuss the complaint and an individual was given a few weeks to respond.  If the noise nuisance persisted, an officer would arrange a further visit to the property. 

·  There were seasonal variations in service demand with more noise nuisance complaints received in the month of July.  Councillor Selman added that during high stress periods managers monitored staff leave to ensure that there was sufficient staff to meet the demands of the service and the service was currently being reviewed.

5.4  Councillor Snell requested that domestic noise and any enforcement action be included in future reports. Councillor Selman undertook to incorporate residential noise nuisance into future reports.

5.5  Councillor Gordon requested that outcomes of the Section 60 and Section 80 Notices served by Environmental Protection Team be included in future reports.

RESOLVED to:

1  Note the annual performance report for the service.

2  Note the level and scope of work being carried out to meet the requirements of the Plan.