SHF 1014 003 R 001 C - Bannerbrook...

Noise Assessment Marston’s Inn and Taverns: Bannerbrook, Coventry

STEP Business Park

Wortley Road, Deepcar, Sheffield S36 2UH

Tel: +44(0)114 290 3677 Fax: +44(0)114 290 3688

www.enzygo.com

October 2012

© Enzygo Ref:

SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

‘Experience and expertise Working in union’

Enzygo Limited

STEP Business Centre

Wortley Road

Deepcar

Sheffield

S36 2UH

Tel: 0114 290 3677

Tel/Fax: 0114 290 3688

Email: [email protected]

www: www.enzygo.com

Noise Assessment, Marston’s Inn and Taverns

Bannerbrook, Coventry.

Project: Marston’s Inn and Taverns, Bannerbrook, Coventry

Site: Banner Lane, Bannerbrook, Coventry

For: Wildgoose Construction and Marston’s Inn and Taverns

Status: SHF.1014.003.R.001.C_Draft

Date: October 2012

Author:

Reviewer:

Mark Harrison AMIOA

Pete Tallantyre MIOA

Disclaimer:

This report has been produced by Enzygo Limited within the terms of the contract with the client and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client.

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.

This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk.

Enzygo Limited Registered in England No. 6525159

Registered Office Stag House The Chipping Wotton-Under-Edge Gloucestershire GL12 7AD

August 2012

© Enzygo Ref:

SHF.178.001.R.001.A

‘Experience and expertise working in union’

Marston’s Inn and Taverns

Bannerbrook, Coventry

© Enzygo Ltd 2012 ii SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

CONTENTS

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Project Introduction .................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Site Description ........................................................................................................ 5 1.3 Proposed Scheme.................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Consultation ............................................................................................................. 8 1.5 Noise Assessment Methodology .............................................................................. 8

2.0 NOISE UNITS .......................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Noise ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.1.1 LAeq Noise Level ....................................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 LA10 Noise Level ..................................................................................................... 10 2.1.3 LA90 Noise Level ..................................................................................................... 10

3.0 STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE ............................................................................ 11 3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, March 2012) ................................... 11 3.2 Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE, March 2010) .................................... 11 3.3 Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise ....................................... 12 3.4 British Standard 4142: Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and

Industrial Areas - 1997 ........................................................................................... 13 3.5 British Standard 8233: ‘Noise Reduction and Sound Insulation for Buildings – Code

of Practice’. ............................................................................................................ 14 3.6 Institute of Acoustics: Good Practice Guide on the Control of Noise from Pubs and

Clubs. 2003 ............................................................................................................ 14 4.0 NOISE MONITORING ............................................................................................ 16

4.1 Base Line Noise Monitoring ................................................................................... 16 4.1.1 Noise Monitoring Locations .................................................................................... 16 4.1.2 Monitoring Equipment ............................................................................................ 17 4.2 Meteorological Conditions ...................................................................................... 18 4.3 Onsite Operations .................................................................................................. 18

5.0 NOISE SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................. 20 5.1 Baseline Noise Monitoring Results ........................................................................ 20 5.1.1 Subjective field notes ............................................................................................. 22 5.2 Onsite Noise Survey Results ................................................................................. 22

6.0 PREDICTIVE NOISE MODELLING ....................................................................... 23 6.1 Noise Modelling Protocols...................................................................................... 23 6.1.1 Prediction Methodology.......................................................................................... 23 6.2 Modelling Methodology .......................................................................................... 23 6.2.1 Foundation of the Model ........................................................................................ 23 6.3 Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 23

7.0 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 27 7.1 Residential Suitability ............................................................................................. 27 Overnight Assessment .................................................................................................... 28 Daytime Assessment ....................................................................................................... 29 7.2 Entertainment Noise............................................................................................... 29 7.3 Static Plant and Machinery .................................................................................... 33 7.4 Waste Handling ...................................................................................................... 35



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 iii SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

7.5 Vehicle Movements ................................................................................................ 35 7.6 Patron Noise .......................................................................................................... 39

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 41 8.1 Residential Suitability ............................................................................................. 41 8.2 Entertainment Noise............................................................................................... 41 8.3 Static Plant and Machinery .................................................................................... 43 8.4 Vehicle Movements ................................................................................................ 43 8.5 Patron Noise .......................................................................................................... 44 8.6 General Conclusion................................................................................................ 44

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................................

TABLES

Table 2-1 - Typical Noise Levels ............................................................................................. 9

Table 3-1 – PPG24 Noise Exposure Category (NEC) Definitions ........................................ 12

Table 3-2 – PPG24 NEC Noise level Bands ......................................................................... 13

Table 3-3 - BS8233 Guidance Values .................................................................................. 14

Table 3-4 – IOA Good Practice Guide Criteria for Entertainment Noise ............................... 15

Table 4-1 – Noise Monitoring Periods ................................................................................... 16

Table 4-2 – Monitoring Equipment ........................................................................................ 17

Table 4-3 – Onsite Noise Sources ........................................................................................ 19

Table 5-1 – Measured Noise Level Data .............................................................................. 21

Table 5-2 - Onsite Noise Monitoring Results ........................................................................ 22

Table 6-1 – Assumed Vehicle Deliveries/Collections ............................................................ 25

Table 6-2 - Plant Compliment and Details ............................................................................ 26

Table 7-1 – PPG24 Overnight Noise Assessment ................................................................ 28

Table 7-2 – PPG24 Daytime Noise Assessment .................................................................. 29

Table 7-3 – Typical Entertainment Noise Level (up to 23:00hrs) .......................................... 30

Table 7-4 – Maximum Internal Entertainment Noise Level (up to 23:00hrs) to achieve LA90

+5dB .............................................................................................................................. 31

Table 7-5 - Daytime Operational Noise Levels – Static Plant ............................................... 33

Table 7-6 - Overnight Operational Noise Levels – Static Plant ............................................. 34

Table 7-7 – Vehicle Movement BS4142 Assessment ........................................................... 37

Table 7-8 – Vehicle Movement Ambient Assessment .......................................................... 39



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 iv SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

SUMMARY

Enzygo has been instructed by Wildgoose Construction on behalf of Marston’s Inn and Taverns to prepare a noise assessment in support of a Planning Application for a commercial family public house in the vicinity of Banner Lane, Hockley, Coventry.

Within the scope of the assessment undertaken, noise levels have been quantified at a location within the vicinity of the site in order to determine the existing ambient and background noise climate of the area. This has been considered and assessed against national guidance in order to establish the acceptability of the site for redevelopment.

The proposed development includes a provision for a residential dwelling on the upper floor of the building for the use of management/staff. Consideration of the suitability concludes the site to be within PPG24 NEC “A/B” and with minimal mitigation appropriate internal noise levels can be achieved.

Whilst the development will not be used as a music venue, calculations have been undertaken to investigate entertainment and amplified music noise following advice received from the Environmental Health Department at Coventry City Council during pre-application discussions. Consideration of typical noise levels from a similar pub to that proposed concluded acceptable impacts when assessed in light of BS4142. Furthermore, calculations were undertaken to demonstrate maximum levels of internal noise that could be generated in order to achieve acceptable criteria at the nearest residential properties. This concluded the key element to be the façade construction and glazing specification of the development. This element would require conditioning and considering in the detailed design stage of the site.

The assessment of static plant and machinery, during both the day time and overnight periods has indicated a worst case impact of significantly ‘less than marginal significance’ tending towards the levels where complaints would not be expected when considered in accordance with the criteria of BS4142. During typical daytime operational hours (11:00 – 23:00hrs) the assessment provides a ‘positive indication that complaints are unlikely’ to occur.

Noise associated with delivery movements would result in impacts of marginal significance where BS4142 is appropriate, and acceptable internal criteria where not. However, it is suggested that deliveries be limited to daytime periods only and avoided in sensitive periods.

Issues such as patron noise have been recommended to be controlled by condition and within a noise management plan for the development incorporated into the site management plans.

Based upon the assessments undertaken within the scope of this report and the assumptions made therein, there are considered to be no significant issues relating to noise that could not be controlled by suitable planning conditions and that would restrict the application from being granted planning permission for the development herein proposed.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 5 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Introduction

Enzygo has been instructed by Wildgoose Construction on behalf of Marston’s Inn and Taverns to prepare a Noise Assessment in support of a Planning Application (Ref RMM/2012/1724) for a community/family style public house site for Marston’s Inn and Taverns on Banner Lane, Hockley, Coventry.

The proposed application is for a public house and associated residential provision, with vehicular access and parking facilities.

The purpose of this Noise Assessment is to identify any potential noise impacts associated with the proposed development of the site, to assess whether this would be within acceptable levels and where appropriate recommend suitable mitigation measures.

This Noise Assessment is based upon noise survey information collected at the site between the 31st August and 2nd September 2012. Details regarding the assessment methodology used, together with results of the survey undertaken, and the subsequent conclusions and recommendations drawn are presented within the following report.

1.2 Site Description

The proposed development site extends to 0.6 Hectares with access off Banner Lane (grid reference SP 274 793) and is located in Hockley approximately 6km west of Coventry city centre.

Site lies within the vicinity of Bannerbrook Park, a multi-phase housing and regeneration scheme covering approximately 16.5Ha, approximately 6km to the west of Coventry city centre.

The Bannerbrook Park scheme as a whole aims to provide up to 380 new homes, including a local centre. It is understood that the majority of the phases of the Bannerbrook development have been completed with only a small number of elements awaiting completion.

The approximate location of the proposed development is broadly as detailed on Figure 1 below, however, it is noted that the plan presented does not suitably reflect the character of the area accounting for the wider Bannerbrook Park Development (which is accounted for in the assessment) and is merely presented for context and the purposes of locating the site.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 6 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Figure 1: Approximate Pub Location Plan

(Image Source: Imagery ©2012 Bluesky, DigitalGlobe GeoEye Getmapping plc. Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, The Geoinformation Group, Map data ©2012 Google)

The site is immediately constrained on all sides by existing features and buildings which dictate the noise climate of the area. Detailed below are the area classifications and descriptions and the given directions from the site boundary:

To the north, the site is bound by the continuation of the spine road running through the Bannerbrook Park development. Beyond this, within the Bannerbrook Master plan is provision for residential housing with the Bestway distribution centre located beyond this, at an approximate distance of 120m;

To the east, the site is bounded by commercial/retail buildings with residential flats above. Beyond this, at a distance of approximately 75m is located Banner Lane;

To the south, the master plan indicates provision for a primary school though it is not clear if this has been constructed, consented or designed as yet; and,

To the west, the site is bound the continuation of the Bannerbrook estate. The closest residential receptor being some 15m from the site boundary on the opposite side of the road.

It was noted during the site visit that construction works were not completed at the site and a number of building plots remain empty at the present time.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 7 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

1.3 Proposed Scheme

The proposed scheme is for a community/family style pub contained within a two storey purpose built structure within the site area.

The indicative layout drawing of the proposed building (White Design Architecture and Interiors, drawing number 0053/12/0203) includes provision for the following elements within the proposed building;

Purpose built ‘family’ public house/ restaurant with provision for 150 covers; Associated service yard accessed to the east of the building; Car parking for up to 14 patrons towards the south of the site area; and, Children’s play area/ outdoor table space towards the southern elevation of the site;

The proposed pub layout is as indicated within Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Proposed Bannerbrook Layout

Further to the commercial elements of the public house, it is noted that provision is made within the 1st floor space, for ancillary accommodation for a “live in” Manager, which includes residential living quarters. Provision is also made for staff changing facilities and an office area.

It is noted that there is currently no provision within the design proposed for a function room/suite associated with the pub.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 8 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

1.4 Consultation

Formal consultations were undertaken with the Environmental Protection Department at Coventry City Council (CCC) as part of this Noise Assessment.

The initial consultation took the form of an email transmission between Neil Chaplin (CCC) and Peter Tallantyre (Enzygo) detailing the specifics of the proposed development and the noise assessment methodology. This was followed by subsequent emails detailing specific points within the proposed assessment methodology.

In summary, the consultation considered the following aspects;

Sources of noise associated with the pub development; o Entertainment noise including music, speech and televised events; o Static Plant including refrigeration and air conditioning etc; o Vehicle movements within the associated car parks and surrounding road

network; o Deliveries; and, o Patron Noise.

Noise Monitoring Methodology including consideration of; o Noise monitoring locations; o Noise monitoring periods; and o Noise monitoring equipment.

Assessment Methodology; o Assessment of Static plant and other fixed noise sources would be assessed

in line with the guidance detailed within BS4142; o Noise impact at the nearest noise sensitive receptors would be considered

in line with BS8233; o Further guidance will be sought from other relevant guidance including the

‘Good Practice Guide on the Control of Noise from Pubs and Clubs’ IOA 2003.

During the consultation, it was also highlighted by the LPA that consideration should be given to the forthcoming changes to the licensing regime. Changes to the Live Music Act were specifically noted with a view to consider any associated implications for the proposed pub becoming a venue for small scale concerts.

1.5 Noise Assessment Methodology

In order to assess the impact of the proposed operations, a number of elements of work have been completed. These are as detailed below:

Formal consultation with the Environmental Health Department at the Local Planning Authority to discuss and agree the scope and methodology of the study;

Quantification of the existing baseline noise climate of the area; Predictive 3-D modelling of the public house in accordance with appropriate noise

prediction methodologies and protocols, accounting for the specifics of the operations proposed; and,

Assessment of the noise generated by the operational facility during the proposed opening hours in accordance with appropriate guidance criteria.

Consideration of suitable acoustic mitigation measures and strategies that could be employed to control noise.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 9 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

2.0 NOISE UNITS

2.1 Noise

Before presenting the results of the noise assessment, it is considered useful to provide some background information on noise, the units of measurement and perception of changing levels by humans.

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The range of audible sound is taken to be from 0 dB to 140 dB. Examples of typical noise levels relating to everyday occurrences are presented within Table 2-1 below:

Table 2-1 - Typical Noise Levels

Source Sound Pressure Level in

dB(A) Subjective Level

Traffic at kerb edge 70 – 85 Loud

Raised voice at 1 metre 80 Loud

Normal voice at 1 metre 60 Moderate

Residential area at night 40 Quiet

The frequency response of the human ear to noise is usually taken to be about 18Hz (number of oscillations per second) to 18,000Hz. However, the human 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, when undertaking the measurement of noise the low and high frequency components of any given sound are reduced in importance by applying a filtering (weighting) circuit to the noise measuring instrument. The weighting which correlates best with the subjective nature of human response to noise and is most widely used to quantify this is the A-weighted filter set. This is an internationally accepted standard for noise measurements.

For variable noise sources within an area an increase of 3 dB(A) would be considered to be the minimum perceptible to the human ear under normal conditions. It is generally accepted that an increase/decrease of 10 dB(A) corresponds to a doubling or halving in perceived loudness. The ‘loudness’ of a noise is a purely subjective parameter, dependant not only upon the sound pressure of the event but also on the dynamics of the listener’s ear, the time of the day and the general mood of the person.

With regard to environmental noise levels (in the open air), these are rarely steady, but rise and fall according to the activities being undertaken within the surrounding area at any given time. In an attempt to produce a figure that relates this variable nature of noise to human subjective response, a number of statistical noise metrics have been developed. These include:

2.1.1 LAeq Noise Level

This is the ‘equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level, in decibels’, and is defined in British Standard BS7445 as the ‘value of the A-weighted sound pressure level of a continuous, steady sound that, within a specified time interval, T, has the same mean



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 10 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

square sound pressure as a sound under consideration whose level varies with time’. It is the unit most suitable for the description of environmental noise.

2.1.2 LA10 Noise Level

The LA10 is the noise level that is exceeded for 10% of the measurement period, and gives an indication of the noisier portion of the climate. It is a unit that has been used over many years for the measurement and assessment of road traffic noise.

2.1.3 LA90 Noise Level

The LA90 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.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 11 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

3.0 STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE

Within the following section of the report, detail will be presented relating to the guidance documents and assessment methodologies appropriate for noise associated with developments such as the one proposed.

3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, March 2012)

The National Planning Policy Framework set out the Government’s planning policy for England. The NPPF states, with respect to noise that planning policies and decisions should aim to:

Avoid noise 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 noise from a new development, including through the use of conditions;

Recognise that development will often create some noise and existing business wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put upon 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.

The guidance contained within the NPPF further determines that consideration should be given to the Noise Policy Statement for England (DEFRA, March 2010).

3.2 Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE, March 2010)

The Noise Policy Statement for England attends to three types of noise;

“Environmental noise” which includes noise from transportation sources; “Neighbour noise” which includes noise from inside and outside people’s homes;

and “Neighbourhood noise”, which includes noise arising from within the community

such as industrial and entertainment premises, trade and business premises, construction sites and noise in the street.

The inline with the aims determined in the NPPF, the NPSE determines three aims;

1) Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development;

2) Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development; and,

3) Where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 12 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

3.3 Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise

The framework determined by the NPPF has effectively replaced the guidance contained within the Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise 1994 (PPG24).

However, a review of the framework provided in the NPPF and of the policy determined in the NPSE does not suggest a replacement assessment methodology. As such the methodology determined by PPG24 will still be applied to this assessment.

In general, the guidance contained within PPG24 considers the following:

Outlines the considerations, relating to noise, to be borne in mind when determining planning applications for both developments which will generate noise and those that will be noise sensitive;

Introduces the Noise Exposure Category (NEC) method of determination for residential developments;

Advises on the use of conditions to minimise noise impact.

The document PPG24 states the following, with respect to assessing the impact of noise on proposed residential developments;

“When assessing a proposal for residential development near a source of noise, local planning authorities should determine into which of the four noise exposure categories (NECs) the proposed site falls, taking into account both the day and night-time noise levels and the main noise sources of the area”.

The Noise Exposure Categories (NEC) are subsequently defined as follows:

Table 3-1 – PPG24 Noise Exposure Category (NEC) Definitions

Noise Exposure Category

Definition

A Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting

planning permission, although the noise level at the higher end of the category should not be regarded as a desirable level.

B Noise should be taken into account when determining planning

applications and, where appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise.

C

Planning permission should not normally be granted. Where it is considered that permission should be given for example because there are no alternative quieter sites available, conditions should be imposed

to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise.

D Planning permission should normally be refused

The LAeq noise levels corresponding to the above noise exposure categories are as detailed within the table below:



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 13 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Table 3-2 – PPG24 NEC Noise level Bands

Noise Levels Corresponding to the Noise Exposure Categories for New Dwellings LAeq,T dB, PPG24

Noise Source Noise Exposure Category

A B C D

Road Traffic 07:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 07:00

< 55 < 45

55 – 63 45 – 57

63 – 72 57 – 66

>72 >66

Rail Traffic 07:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 07:00

< 55 < 45

55 – 66 45 – 59

66 – 74 59 – 66

>74 >66

Air Traffic 07:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 07:00

< 57 < 48

57 – 66 48 – 57

66 – 72 57 – 66

>72 >66

Mixed Sources 07:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 07:00

< 55 < 45

55 – 63 45 – 57

63 – 72 57 – 66

>72 >66

As defined within Table 3-2 above, PPG24 defines appropriate bandings for the NEC categories for both the daytime and night-time periods. Daytime is subsequently defined within the document as being between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 with night-time being defined as the period 23:00 to 07:00.

Local planning authorities have the power under PPG24 to increase NEC limits by up to 3dB(A) above the recommended levels where for example there is a clear need for the development.

With regard to night-time noise levels where individual noise events regularly exceed 82dB LAmax several times in any one hour, the site should be considered to be within NEC “C” regardless of the LAeq,8h except when the site is already within NEC “D”.

3.4 British Standard 4142: Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas - 1997

This British Standard provides a methodology for assessing the likelihood of complaints arising from sensitive receptors due to industrial and commercial activities. It states the ‘complaints are likely’ when a noise from one of these sources, corrected for tonal, impulsive or irregularity characteristics (to provide the ‘rating’ level), exceeds the existing ‘background’ level, referred to as the LA90 (the noise level exceeded for 90% of the time), by 10dB(A) or more. Increases of 5dB(A) above existing background are deemed by the standard to be of ‘marginal significance’, whilst a rating level of more than 10dB(A) below the measured background level provides a ‘positive indication that complaints are unlikely’.

The source noise is assessed in terms of LAeq,T, where ‘T’ is a reference period of one hour during daytime hours (07:00 – 23:00hrs) and five minutes at night-time (23:00 – 07:00hrs).

However, the Standard states that the assessment methodology provided is neither suitable for assessing internal noise levels or where the background and rating noise levels



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 14 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

are both very low (i.e below 30dB LA90 and approximately 35dB LAr,T respectively). Where this occurs it is considered appropriate to reference the guidance provided in British Standard BS 8233: 1999 – Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings – Code of Practice and where appropriate the World Health Organisation ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’ and the recently published ‘Night Noise Guidance for Europe’.

3.5 British Standard 8233: ‘Noise Reduction and Sound Insulation for Buildings – Code of Practice’.

When internal noise levels are required to be considered PPG24 recommends that suitable guidance can be found within BS8233: 1999.

This standard provides guidance values for a range of design criteria levels within properties as shown in Table 3-3 below. These values also reflect the suggested levels surmised from the World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline criteria.

Table 3-3 - BS8233 Guidance Values

Criterion Typical Situation Design Range dB LAeq,T

Good Reasonable

Reasonable resting/ sleeping conditions

Living rooms 30 40

Bedrooms 30 35

3.6 Institute of Acoustics: Good Practice Guide on the Control of Noise from Pubs and Clubs. 2003

The Institute of Acoustics (IOA) Good Practice Guide details guidance for local authorities and venue management as a means to prevent noise disturbance resulting from the operation of public houses, clubs, restaurants etc.

The initial intention of the document was to provide objective noise criteria as a means to assess and control noise from all the main sources associated with pubs, and clubs etc. However, following the withdrawal of a number of parties from the working group, the criteria proposed within the document were not subjected to a satisfactory validation process. As such, the Good Practice Guide was published without the criteria. Aspects of the IOA Good Practice Guide are also presented within the guidance specific for Licensees of the British Beer and Pub Association document “Effective Management of Noise from Licenced Premises.”

The criteria presented below are taken from the original Good Practice Guide and were published in a later article (2003). The table presented below is summarised from the DEFRA Noise from Pubs and Clubs – Phase I report1.

1 Noise from Pubs and Clubs Phase 1 report. Davis, Hepworth, Moorhouse and Oldfield. Defra 2005



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 15 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Table 3-4 – IOA Good Practice Guide Criteria for Entertainment Noise

Event Frequency Suggested Regulations Outcome if Criteria met

Entertainment < 30times/ year LAeq, 15mins (EN) should not exceed LA90 (WEN) by more than 5dB.

EN will generally be audible but not overly obtrusive inside noise sensitive properties

Entertainment > 30 times/year LAeq (EN) should not exceed LA90 (WEN) by more than 5dB and the L10 (EN) should not exceed L90 (WEN) by more than 5dB in any 1/3 octave band between 40 and 160Hz.

EN will generally be audible but not overly obtrusive inside noise sensitive properties

Entertainment > once/week or continues beyond 2300hrs

LAeq (EN) should not exceed L90 (WEN) and L10 (EN) should not exceed L90 (WEN) in any 1/3 octave band between 40 and 160Hz

EN will be virtually inaudible inside noise sensitive properties.

EN = Entertainment noise level WEN – Representative background noise level without entertainment noise



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 16 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

4.0 NOISE MONITORING

This section of the Noise Assessment sets out the specifics of the noise monitoring surveys undertaken to inform the proposals at Bannerbrook Park, Coventry.

As detailed within Section 1.4, prior to the any aspect of the assessment being undertaken, the Local Planning Authority (CCC) was contacted2 and it was agreed that monitoring would be undertaken as detailed below.

4.1 Base Line Noise Monitoring

In order to determine the existing noise climate of the area, a noise monitoring survey was undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed development site.

The noise monitoring methodology (including durations) was discussed and agreed with CCC prior to the surveys, with only slight changes due to site specific parameters and limitations.

4.1.1 Noise Monitoring Locations

Noise monitoring was undertaken at the location detailed in figure 3 below between the 31st August and 2nd September 2012. It is noted that the area surrounding the proposed site has been extensively redeveloped as part of a wider development of the Bannerbrook area. As such, the commercially available mapping of the area, presented within figure 2, is out of date and does not accurately present the nearest residential receptors within the area. The noise monitoring location utilised within the scope of this assessment was informed by onsite factors, which were determined during the site visit and was chosen so as to be representative of the nearest noise sensitive residential properties.

Noise monitoring was attended at all times by a fully trained and competent field engineer. Subjective field notes taken during the survey are summarised in section 5.1.1 of this report.

The noise monitoring survey was undertaken in accordance with the time periods detailed in Table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1 – Noise Monitoring Periods

Period Time Date Friday – Saturday 18:00 – 04:30 31st Aug – 1st Sept

Saturday 06:00 – 08:00 1st Sep Sunday 13.45 – 17:00 2nd Sep

2 Email transmissions between Peter Tallantyre (Enzygo) and Neil Chaplin (CCC) dated 17th August 2012.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 17 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

(Image Source: Imagery ©2012 Bluesky, DigitalGlobe GeoEye Getmapping plc. Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, The Geoinformation Group, Map data ©2012 Google)

Figure 3: Noise Monitoring Location Plan

During all noise monitoring undertaken the sound level meter was positioned approximately 1.5m above local height, with no reflecting façades within 3.5m of the microphone. As such, the measured data is considered to be representative of Free Field conditions.

4.1.2 Monitoring Equipment

The monitoring of noise was undertaken in line with the guidance set out within BS7445:Pt2 1991. The sound level meters were programmed to monitor over 15 minute intervals during the daytime and 5 minutes intervals during the overnight. The equipment used was set to record the following statistical parameters:

LAeq in dB LA10 in dB LA90 in dB LAmax in dB

The following noise monitoring equipment was used in order to undertake the survey work at the proposed development site.

Table 4-2 – Monitoring Equipment

Equipment Manufacturer Type Serial Number Sound Level Meter 01dB Blue Solo 61718 Acoustic Calibrator Cirrus CR515 59522

The following set-up parameters were used on the sound level meter during all of the noise measurements undertaken:

Time Weighting: Fast Frequency Weighting: “A”



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 18 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

The sound level meter used was field calibrated using an electronic calibrator prior to commencement and upon completion of the surveys, no significant drift in calibration was observed.

The calibration documentation for the equipment used is available on request.

4.2 Meteorological Conditions

During the noise monitoring period, the prevalent meteorological conditions were noted to be as follows:

Friday 31st August 2012

The weather during the daytime of the 31st August 2012 was noted to be cloudy with 100% cloud cover. Winds were noted to be less than 5m/s with no prevailing directional component. There was a slight drizzle at the start of the monitoring survey which ceased as the survey progressed. The temperature was noted at 18oC.

The overnight period, leading into the 1st September was noted, again, to have the same meteorological conditions except the temperature was noted at 14oC.

Road surfaces were noted to be slightly damp.

Saturday 1st September 2012

The weather during the early part of the 1st September was noted to be similar to the preceding night-time period approximately 2 hours before the commencement of this aspect of the survey.

Sunday 2nd September 2012

The weather during the daytime of the 2nd September 2012 was noted to be cloudy with 100% cloud cover. Winds were noted to be less than 5m/s with no prevailing directional component. The temperature was noted at 19oC.

4.3 Onsite Operations

Further to the base line noise survey undertaken at Bannerbrook, monitoring was also undertaken of noise sources associated with typical operations in a Marstons Inn and Taverns type pub, similar to that proposed at Bannerbrook.

This monitoring was undertaken at the Fallow Deer pub, an operational Marston’s Inn and Taverns pub in Chapel-en-le-Frith. The noise sources identified during the monitoring survey are summarised in Table 4-3 below.

Upon arrival at the Fallow Deer, discussions were held with the Pub Manager to conclude the main sources of noise evident within his operations. These are listed within the table below:



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 19 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Table 4-3 – Onsite Noise Sources

Location Noise Source Duration

Bottle Banks Bottles Smashing in Bottle Bank (External) 1 minute

Music Inside Pub – typical level of operation

Internal Speakers (Loc 1) 3 minutes


Music Inside Pub - peak Level associated with Friday/ Saturday night operation



Heating Unit above Entrance Small fan unit above door (Internal) 2 minutes

In order to quantify the noise generated by the identified activities, noise measurements were made in close proximity to the noise sources such that each dominated the levels monitored and extraneous source contribution was minimised. The measured noise levels and relative distances to the noise sources are detailed within Table 5-2 of this report.

During the noise monitoring survey, subjective field notes were taken as a means of further detailing the noise generated by the identified activities. Subjective field notes indicate that the external noise climate in the vicinity of the Fallow Deer Pub was dominated by traffic noise on the surrounding road network.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 20 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

5.0 NOISE SURVEY RESULTS

This section of the report presents the results of the noise monitoring surveys undertaken within the proposed development site.

5.1 Baseline Noise Monitoring Results

Presented below in Table 5-1 is a summary of the noise monitoring surveys undertaken at the Bannerbrook site. The full measurement data is presented in Appendix 1.

The daytime data is presented as averaged 15 minute values over the daytime monitoring period between the hours of 07:00 – 23:00hrs.

The overnight data is presented as averaged 5 minute values over the overnight monitoring period between the hours of 23:00 – 07:00hrs.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 21 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Table 5-1 – Measured Noise Level Data

Location Period Day (date) Time Duration

(hh:mm:ss)

Statistical Parameters in dB(A)

Leq, T Lmax, T L90, T L10, T

Location 1

Daytime Friday (31st Sept) 18:00 – 23:00 05:00:00 53.5 87.0 37.9 54.9

Overnight Fri/Sat (31st Sept – 1st Aug) 23:00 – 04:30 05:30:00 44.2 75.6 27.8 42.4

Overnight Saturday (1st Aug) 06:00 – 07:00 01:00:00 52.9 81.7 32.9 47.6

Daytime Saturday (1st Aug) 07:00 – 08:00 01:00:00 52.4 79.3 38.0 54.9

Daytime Sunday (2nd Aug) 13:45 – 15:00 01:15:00 53.8 83.9 43.7 55.6

Daytime Sunday (2nd Aug) 15:15 – 17:00 01:45:00 51.4 82.8 43.8 53.4



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 22 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

5.1.1 Subjective field notes

During the noise monitoring surveys the equipment was attended at all times by a competently trained and experienced field technician in order to subjectively quantify the existing noise climate of the site and locality.

The notes made during the noise monitoring survey are summarised below;

Daytime period 31st, 1st & 2nd (07:00 to 23:00)

During the daytime period the noise climate was considered to be dominated by human activity such as kids playing in the street and workmen in the area, as well as road traffic noise on the surrounding public roads.

The location was also subject to a number of overhead aircraft movements, which suggest that the site is possibly, under certain conditions, underneath the arrival or departure flight path for Birmingham International Airport.

Overnight period 1st & 2nd (23:00 to 07:00)

The noise climate during the overnight period was noted to be governed by both traffic noise from the surrounding road network and the occasional overhead aircraft flights.

5.2 Onsite Noise Survey Results

To quantify noise generated within and around the proposed public house, noise monitoring was completed in close proximity to the key sources identified within Table 4-3. For reference, the time duration (T) as detailed within Table 5-2 is considered to provide a representative sample period for each noise source under investigation.

Table 5-2 - Onsite Noise Monitoring Results

Location Distance to

Noise Source Duration (T)

Statistical Parameters in dB(A)

Leq, T Lmax, T

Bottle Banks 2m 1 minute 87.3 104.2

Music Inside Pub – typical level of operation

Loc 1*(1) 3 minutes 52.3 64.1

Loc 2*(1) 3 minutes 53.8 61.9

Music Inside Pub - peak Level associated with busier periods

Loc 1*(1) 3 minutes 54.4 64.5

Loc 2*(1) 3 minutes 58.6 67.0

Heating Unit above Entrance 1.5m 2 minutes 61.3 63.5

*(1) Locations 1 and 2 were arbitrary locations within the main body of the pub to quantify general noise and hubbub from human activity and amplified music within the dining/drinking areas

Further analysis of the frequency data, as presented in Appendix 1 does not indicate the presence of any dominant tones within the noise emissions from these activities.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 23 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

6.0 PREDICTIVE NOISE MODELLING

This section of the report outlines the calculation methodologies used to predict the noise levels associated with the operational public house.

This section will further detail any assumptions that have been made during the modelling process in order to conclude the predicted noise levels.

6.1 Noise Modelling Protocols

The model of the proposed site was constructed within the commercially available Braunstein + Berndt GmbH computer noise mapping software SoundPLAN 7.1. The SoundPLAN software was set to implement the following assessment and calculation methodologies within the scope of the model.

6.1.1 Prediction Methodology

Within the UK, the current government guidance with regard to noise prediction from open sites is contained within BS5228: 2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites: Part 1, Noise. Within the BS5228 document it is stated within Section F2.2.2.2 of Annex F that with regard to distance adjustment:

“At distances over 300m noise predictions should be treated with caution, especially where a soft ground correction factor has been applied, because of the increasing importance of meteorological effects”

However, within the scope of this study a combination of the guidance of BS5228 and that of ISO 9613-2: Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors: Part 2: General method of calculation has been used.

6.2 Modelling Methodology

6.2.1 Foundation of the Model

The model was constructed utilising the following information;

Detailed commercial OS Vector topographical data; and Layout Plan (White Design architects, drawing number 0053/12/0203).

6.3 Assumptions

Within the scope of the construction of the noise model certain information was assumed in order to facilitate the calculation of noise levels. All assumptions embodied within the scope of the modelling exercise are as detailed below;

Car Park Movements

With regard to the car parking facilities, in the absence of any UK methodology for the prediction of noise from car parks, calculations have been undertaken in line with the methodology of revisions 3 and 4 the Parkplatzlärmstudie des Bayerischen Landesamts fűr Umweltschutz (Bavarian Parking Lot Study of the Bavarian department for Environmental Protection).



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 24 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

The source calculation of the methodology converts the number of movements per bay of the car park per hour and the number of bays within the car park into an area noise source for inclusion within the model.

Information supplied to Enzygo concluded that within the development 14 car parking spaces would be provided. These would be located to the south of the pub building.

It is understood that the car park is for pub patrons and not for general use. The assessment of the noise generated by car park movements is based on traffic data provided by Rowland Bilsland Traffic Planning Ltd for a similar Marston’s pub development albeit with a much larger pub (Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 788 sq.m) and car parking facility (49 spaces). Analysis of the traffic data indicated:

peak weekday flows between 17:00 and 18:00 where 39 vehicles would access 49 spaces,

peak weekend flows between 19:00 and 20:00 where 88 vehicles would access 49 spaces.

no vehicle movements would be expected between the hours of midnight (00:00) and 10:00 hrs.

In summary, based upon the findings of the bigger pub the assumptions with regard to the car park facility have been made as follows;

Weekday Peak hour – each space would be visited by 1 car in the 1 hour assessment period; and,

Weekend Peak hour– each space would be visited by 1.8 cars in the 1 hour assessment period.

HGV Frequency and Movements

Within the model, noise levels generated by HGV movements associated with the deliveries/collections to the proposed pub development have been predicted based on the following methodologies and assumptions:

The source level for the vehicle movements has been calculated based upon the ‘Haul Road’ methodology of BS5228.

Source height for the HGV’s has been assumed to be 0.5m to represent the approximate height of the exhaust and engine.

The calculations have been based upon the sound power level limits for maximum permitted noise levels from within EC Directive 92/97/EC. This is specified for an HGV under acceleration as 80 dB at 7.5m.

Deliveries/Collections to and from the proposed pub are assumed within the Transport statement as follows;



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 25 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Table 6-1 – Assumed Vehicle Deliveries/Collections

Delivery Type Vehicle Movements/ Week

Beers and Spirits 1 – 2 Food Deliveries 2 – 3

Refuse Collections 1 – 2

Total 4 - 7

The information presented within the transport statement indicates that all deliveries will take place during daytime hours. Typically delivery’s to pubs of this sort occur before 10:30am when patrons begin to arrive, however, this may not be the case with the Bannerbrook pub and as such deliveries have been assumed to occur at any point through the day.

It has therefore been deemed appropriate to assume within the calculations that one delivery would occur within the assessment period of 1 (one) hour.

External plant and other noise generating equipment

The indicative layout of the static plant and machinery indicates that all items of plant would be positioned on the flat portion of the roof, between the pitched elements. This positioning affords a considerable degree of acoustic screening from the surrounding environment, effectively screening the noise generating plant from the nearby noise sensitive receptor locations. For reference, the locations of the static plant items are indicated in red on Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Static Plant Location Plan



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 26 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Information provided by Anthony Grice Plumbing and Heating Engineers Ltd indicates a number of items of static plant associated with operations at the proposed Marston’s Inn. Table 6-2 below details the items of plant included within the noise modelling assessment.

Table 6-2 - Plant Compliment and Details

Plant Item Data Source SWL dB(A) Number Operational

Period Daikin

(UATYQ250CY-1 Anthony Grice Plumbing and

Heating Engineers

68 1

11am – 11pm Carbon Air filtration system

(Attenuated) 67 1

Heat recovery system (MAX/E/4-W/SE/S)

48 1

The information presented within Table 6-2 indicates that the external plant would typically operate between the core hours of 11:00 and 23:00. It is further noted that there is provision to extend the operational period of the plant if necessary.

Therefore, in the interest of presenting a robust assessment it is assumed that the static plant associated with the development would be operational for 100% of the assessment period during both the day time and overnight periods.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 27 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

7.0 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

In this section of the report, the potential noise impacts related to the pub development have been assessed and considered in accordance with the relevant criteria of the guidance summarised in section 3.0 of this report.

The potential noise impacts of the development have been examined in a number of separate elements;

Residential Suitability - Consideration of the suitability of the site for residential dwelling as indicated within the design;

Entertainment Noise – Including music (both amplified and non-amplified), speech and televised events;

Static Plant – Including Ventilation units, air conditioning, refrigeration units and beer pumps;

Vehicle Movements – Including car park movements and delivery/collection vehicles servicing the facility;

Patron Noise – Including noise within external areas such as play areas, beer gardens and smoking areas.

7.1 Residential Suitability

Within the scope of the development proposal is provision for a residential aspect to the pub building located on the upper floor. It is understood that the dwelling would not be for commercial letting but would be for the use of the management/staff operating the pub.

It is noted that the proposed residential aspect would be impacted by noise from the following sources:

The existing noise climate of the area; Noise generated within and around the pub premises.

However, with regard to point 2, noise generated in and around the pub, it is noted that the residential aspect would solely be provision for the management/staff of the bar and as such concession of this should be borne in mind when considering residential suitability. However, controls should be inherent within the design of the building covering walls, floors, façades etc. to ensure that these are suitably specified to provide a reasonable level of amenity to the residents of the dwelling.

As stated in Section 3.3, whilst the NPPF has technically superseded the guidance of PPG24 it does not present an alternative assessment tool for residential suitability. Therefore, the assessment of residential suitability will be undertaken in accordance with PPG24.

Analysis of the subjective field notes completed during the monitoring survey concluded that the noise climate of the area was dominated by a mixture of predominantly road traffic noise combined with human activity noise. As a result of the general character of the area the site will be assessed under the “Mixed Source/Road Traffic” banding of PPG24.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 28 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Consideration in light of the methodology of PPG24 shows that the proposed dwellings would fall into the noise exposure categories (NEC), as detailed within Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 below.

Overnight Assessment

Within PPG24, Note 1 of Annex 1, states that “sites where individual noise events regularly exceed 82dB LAmax several times in any hour should be treated as being in NEC C, regardless of the LAeq (except where the LAeq, 8hr already puts the site in NEC “D”)”.

The monitoring data, presented in Appendix 1, indicates that the maximum recorded levels during the overnight period did not exceed the 82dB LAmax criteria level at any point. As such the assessment presented within Table 7-1 is deemed appropriate and subject to no change.

Table 7-1 – PPG24 Overnight Noise Assessment

Location Period Free Field

Noise Level LAeq.T

PPG24 Noise Source

Assessment Category

PPG24 Noise Exposure

Category (NEC)

1

Overnight 23:00 – 04:30

44.2 Mixed Source/Road

Traffic

A

Overnight 06:00 – 07:00

52.9 B

The PPG24 assessment of the overnight noise levels concludes that the site is within NEC “A/B” during the overnight period.

PPG24 classifies NEC “A” as acceptable with regard to noise and NEC “B” as a noise level band which deals with “situations where noise mitigation measures may make development acceptable”.

However, it is noted that the proposed dwelling has no associated external amenity and as such consideration of internal limits, specifically with regard to the overnight period when people will be inside, should be given. Assessment in line with BS8233 concludes that subject to the implementation of the following design measures internal noise levels within the property during the overnight would be acceptable based upon the existing noise climate of the area.

Provision of 4/12/4 thermal double glazing. When set within a standard blockwork wall this would provide a composite façade attenuation of 33dB (PPG24).

Provision of alternative forms of ventilation to prevent the necessity to open windows for ventilation. This could be by way of acoustic trickle vents or by the residential aspect being linked to the pub system.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 29 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Based upon the incorporation of these measures internal noise levels of in the region of 22.9dB(A)3 would be expected which are comfortably within the “good” internal design range criteria of BS8233.

Daytime Assessment

Table 7-2 – PPG24 Daytime Noise Assessment

Location Period Free Field

Noise Level LAeq.T

PPG24 Noise Source

Assessment Category

PPG24 Noise Exposure

Category (NEC)

1

Daytime 18:00 – 23:00

53.5 Mixed

Source/Road Traffic

A

Daytime 07:00 – 08:00

52.4 A

Daytime 13:45 – 17:00

53.8 A

The PPG24 assessment undertaken for the daytime period, as concluded in Table 7-2 above indicates that the site lies within NEC “A”. Noise Exposure Category (NEC) “A” concludes that “Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission”.

7.2 Entertainment Noise

It is understood that the proposed public house would operate primarily as a family pub/ restaurant rather than as a specific music or concert venue. However, whilst it is understood that there will be provision for amplified music within the building space and there is a potential for trends and requirements to change over time, an assessment of entertainment noise in this case has been undertaken purely for robustness, given that the pub will at no time be used as a music/ function venue. As such, it is considered pertinent to assess the potential impact of the entertainment noise on nearby noise sensitive receptors.

As detailed within Section 3.6, the criteria determined within the IOA Good Practice Guide were not subjected to a ‘satisfactory validation process’. As such, assessment undertaken in line with the suggested regulations cannot be relied up on to provide a robust consideration of the potential impacts arising from entertainment noise associated with pubs, clubs etc.

Further to this, questions have been raised as to the validity of assessment to an undefined ‘inaudible’ criterion. Particular attention is paid to the appeal decision resulting from the inquiry (ref: APP/P4605/A/07/2039953)4 dated October 2007. The decision noted that, in

3 Measured external level of 52.9dB(A), façade correction of +3dB(A) and a façade reduction of 33dB(A)

4 Appeal Ref: App/P4605/A/07/2039953. Crosby Lend Lease appeal against Birmingham City Council. Decision

date 8th November 2007



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 30 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

the absence of the publication of validated assessment criteria, an assessment to an ‘inaudible’ criterion would not be considered appropriate in all cases.

Given this, it has been considered pertinent to consider the noise impacts of the proposed development based upon the typical noise levels quantified for the type of pub proposed as quantified at the Fallow Deer and to also minimise the potential impacts resulting from entertainment noise by calculating the maximum permissible internal noise levels. That is to say, calculate an internal noise level which is unlikely to result in disturbance or nuisance at the nearest noise sensitive receptor location. It would then be necessary to provide internal control measures within the pub (tamperproof to all staff but the management) to ensure that these levels are not exceeded by overzealous staff. However, this is discussed in more detail later within this section.

To facilitate this, the assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the methodology determined within BS 4142. The assessment has primarily been undertaken based upon the ambient noise levels quantified at the Fallow Deer (typical and High Activity levels) and then also based upon achieving a criterion of L90+5dB at the nearest noise sensitive receptors off the site which is considered by BS4142 to be of “Marginal Significance”. Given the type of sounds associated with entertainment noise (amplified music, bass beats etc) it is considered necessary to apply a +5dB rating level correction in line with the assessment methodology detailed within BS4142.

To provide further clarity, the assessment has been undertaken, where possible, in the octave bands between 31.5Hz and 8kHz. Furthermore, due to the proximity of the nearest residential dwellings to the pub building no attenuation due to distance has been assumed in the calculations on this occasion.

Table 7-3 – Typical Entertainment Noise Level (up to 23:00hrs)

Normal Activity Levels High Activity levels

Measured LAeq at Fallow Deer 53.8 58.6

RW of 4/12/4 Glazing - 31 - 31

Character correction (+5dB) + 5 + 5

Corrected external noise level 28 (27.8) 33 (32.6)

Lowest Measured L90, 1hr at Location 1 38 (37.9) 38 (37.9)

BS4142 Assessment result -10

“Positive indication that complaints are unlikely”

-5 Less than “Marginal

Significance”

Reference to Table 7-3 details that based upon the internal operational levels monitored at the Fallow Deer, and the assumption of a basic double glazing provision in the construction of the Pub (assumed fixed shut with alternative ventilation) the BS4142 assessment concludes a “positive indication that complaints are unlikely” under typical activity increasing to less than “Marginal Significance” during peak times.

Table 7-4 below considers what might be the allowable internal levels of noise based upon a number of glazing options within the façade construction of the Pub.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 31 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Table 7-4 – Maximum Internal Entertainment Noise Level (up to 23:00hrs) to achieve LA90 +5dB

Overall in

dB(A) Frequency Bands

31.5Hz 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1kHz 2kHz 4kHz 8kHz Assumed basic 4/12/4 thermal double glazed units, sealed shut with alternative forms of ventilation supplied by alternative systems (A/C, trickle vents or whole building system)

Measured L90 at Location 1 37.9 43.9 44.9 38.3 32.9 29.2 26.3 22.2 13.6 6.4

Marginal Significance (+5dB) 42.9 48.9 49.9 43.3 37.9 34.2 31.3 27.2 18.6 11.4

RW of 4/12/4 Glazing 31 24*(1) 24*(1) 24 20 25 35 38 35 35*(2)

Predicted Internal Level (LAeq) 73.9 72.9 73.9 67.3 57.9 59.2 66.3 65.2 53.6 46.4

Maximum Permissible Internal Noise level (LAeq -5dB rating Correction)

68.9 67.9 68.9 62.3 52.9 54.2 61.3 60.2 48.6 41.4

Assumed enhanced 10/12/6.4PVB thermal double glazed units, sealed shut with alternative forms of ventilation supplied by alternative systems (A/C, trickle vents or whole building system)



RW of 4/12/4 Glazing 40 27*(1) 27*(1) 27 29 36 41 42 52 52*(2)



77.9 70.9 71.9 65.3 61.9 65.2 67.3 64.2 65.6 58.4

Assumed enhanced 6/100/4 secondary glazing, sealed shut with alternative forms of ventilation supplied by alternative systems (A/C, trickle vents or whole building system)



RW of 4/12/4 Glazing 46 26*(1) 26*(1) 26 34 44 56 53 52 52*(2)



83.9 69.9 70.9 64.3 66.9 73.2 82.3 75.2 65.6 58.4

(1) Attenuation level assumed as 125Hz (2) Attenuation level assumed as 4kHz



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 32 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

It can be seen by reference to the data within Table 7-4 that generally speaking the better the attenuation attributable to the façade the higher levels of noise that can be acceptably generated insider the pub without causing undue impacts at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. However, the information in Table 7-4 is presented for information only and as stated earlier strives to achieve a result of LA90+5dB (BS4142 Marginal Significance). Should the LPA set a lower limit than this in the planning permission, the allowable internally generated noise levels for each glazing specification would reduce accordingly and as such would require to be fully considered and understood in the detailed design stage of the development.

Furthermore, it is noted that the assessments undertaken within Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 are based upon the assumption that the entire façade is constructed of the glazed element, so is in essence an exaggerated worst case scenario. In reality the windows would occupy a much smaller percentage of the composite façade than would the blockwork element which would perform to a much better degree (possible Rw of 45 – 50dB(A)). As such the levels presented contain a significant margin of error inherent within the calculation assumptions. Therefore, the information presented within Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 is caveated as follows:

Detailed composite façade consideration would aid to increase the façade attenuation of the 4/12/4 unit and as such present more favourable BS4142 impact assessment results than detailed within Table 7-3.

Detailed composite façade consideration would aid to increase the façade attenuation of each stated glazing detail and as such would allow slightly higher internal noise limits to achieve the same external levels than those as detailed within Table 7-4for each considered glazing specification

It is noted that the calculations undertaken above assume window units would remain closed and that adequate ventilation would be provided by alternative means. Furthermore, doorways into the pub should be of a lobby design (two sets of doors with a lobby area between) with automatically closing, good quality heavy wooden doors. This will aid to prevent noise break out from the pub as people enter and leave. These doors, and all other doors on the external façade of the building, should be kept closed at all times when not being used.

In conjunction with specifying maximum internal limits for amplified music, the following measures are proposed to aid in the control of entertainment noise at the development:

Windows should be fixed shut with ventilation provided by other means such as air conditioning or a whole building ventilation system;

Doors should remain closed when not in use and should not be wedged open; Automated volume controls capable of limiting noise at specific frequencies to

prevent significant bass frequency noise should be implemented at the site. Example systems that may be appropriate include the following but these would need to be researched properly at the detailed design stage of the development. It is qualified that these are example products only, and by no means constitute a recommended product, other products and manufacturers may also provide appropriate equipment:



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 33 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

o Formula Sound Automatic Volume Control – AVC2, capable of control in both “A” weighting and Linear response to allow control at bass frequencies (www.noisemeters.co.uk/product/avc2/)

o Formula Sound Sentry Music Noise Controller with AT-1 Automatic Volume Control (www.noisemeters.co.uk/product/sentry/volume.asp)

Should external acts or DJ’s ever perform at the pub they should be precluded from using their own equipment unless plugged into the main pub system through the volume control measures.

It is noted that any automated volume control measures should be installed and activated by appropriately experienced noise control consultants/engineers to ensure that the equipment operates effectively.

7.3 Static Plant and Machinery

Assessment of the static plant and machinery has been undertaken in line with the methodology detailed within BS4142.

Given the potential for static plant to generate tonal content, it is considered pertinent to include the rating level correction in accordance with the BS4142 methodology. As such, a +5dB correction factor has been applied to the predicted noise levels to produce the rating level.

Daytime Operational Period

Table 7-5 below presents the results of this assessment to each of the identified sensitive receptor location during typical daytime operational period.

The assessment is formed on the basis of the average measured LA90 levels, and the comparison of such to a peak hour, predicted operational scenario (LAeq,T). It is reiterated that during the peak operational period all of the plant detailed within Table 6-2 is fully operational in accordance with the percentage “on-time” as detailed.

Table 7-5 - Daytime Operational Noise Levels – Static Plant

Period

Predicted LAeq

‘Specific’ Noise

Level (dB)

Predicted LAeq

‘Rating’ Noise level

(dB)*

Average Measured

Background LA90 level

(dB)*

Predicted Difference

Resultant BS4142

Conclusion

Weekday Daytime 16 (16.4) 21 38 -17

“Positive Indication that Complaints are

unlikely”

Saturday Daytime 16 (16.4) 21 38 -17


unlikely””

Sunday Daytime 16 (16.4) 21 44 -23


unlikely”



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 34 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

The BS4142 assessment of the daytime operational period indicates that noise from the proposed public house would be considered as:

Daytime Period - Based upon the model constructed and the assumptions inherent within, the predicted noise levels show that the impact associated with static plant would provide a positive indication that ‘complaints are unlikely’ at the assessment location.

Overnight Operational Period

It is understood that the static plant would typically only operate between the hours of 11:00 - 23:00hrs under normal working conditions which is entirely contained within the daytime assessment period of BS4142. However, it is noted that under certain circumstances the operational hours can be extended beyond this time if necessary. Given this it is considered pertinent to assess the potential impact of the noise generated during the overnight period on the identified receptor location to provide a robust consideration of this aspect of the site.

Table 7-6 below presents the results of this assessment during the overnight assessment period. The assessment is presented as the average measured LA90 compared to the peak operational hour assessment.

Table 7-6 - Overnight Operational Noise Levels – Static Plant

Period

Predicted LAeq

‘Specific’ Noise

Level (dB)

Predicted LAeq

‘Rating’ Noise

level (dB)*

Average Measured

Background LA90 level

(dB)*

Predicted Difference

Resultant BS4142

Conclusion

Friday 23:00 – 04:30 16 (16.4) 21 28 -7

Significantly Less than “marginal

significance” to a “Positive

Indication that Complaints are

unlikely”

Saturday 06:00 – 07:00 16 (16.4) 21 33 -12


unlikely”

The BS4142 assessment of the overnight operational period indicates that noise from the proposed public house would be considered as:

Overnight Period - Based upon the model constructed and the assumptions inherent within, the predicted noise levels show that the facility would operate with significantly less than ‘marginal significance’ tending towards a situation where “complaints would be unlikely” during the overnight period between Friday to Saturday. The assessment of the early Saturday morning period details a positive indication that ‘complaints are unlikely’ to occur as a result of the operation proposed.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 35 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

7.4 Waste Handling

It was noted during the works undertaken at the Fallow Deer that one of the noisier waste stream operations associated with the pub was the disposal of waste glass bottles. As indicated within Section 4.3 noise levels resulting from this activity were measured to result in instantaneous LAmax levels of 104.2dB and 1 minute LAeq levels of 87.3dB in close proximity (2m).

It is noted that whilst these levels are considered to be noisy they would occur within the service area and last approximately 1 minute. Furthermore, it is noted that the indicative layout of the proposed Bannerbrook pub indicates that the service yard would be enclosed in a suitably robust fence (primarily for security purposes) which would serve to screen operations within.

It is therefore considered that whilst it is highly likely that a short duration noise of this level would generate a startle effect on nearby residents, it would be a rare occurrence happening only once per day on average. As such, it is the recommendation of this report that operations such as this be conducted during the typical working daytime period (09:00 – 17:00) when people are generally out at work and ambient noise in an area is at its maximums and under no circumstances occur at the end of service in the evening. This element of the planning application could be controlled within the site management plan for the pub.

7.5 Vehicle Movements

Vehicle movements associated with the proposed Bannerbrook pub would include car park movements (patrons entering and exiting the site), and HGV movements (deliveries/ collections servicing the facility). Within the scope of this report two scenarios have been assumed based upon when delivery vehicles would and would not occur. These are outlined below:

HGV and Car park movements: Weekday and weekend (Saturday) periods. Car movements only: Weekday and weekend (Saturday and Sunday) periods

Assessment has been undertaken to three locations representative of the closest residential receptors to the proposed pub as detailed on Figure 5 below:



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 36 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Figure 5: Noise Assessment Locations (Vehicle Noise)

Car Park Movements

The proposed car park is located towards the southern elevation of the site and is accessed via Collector Road, adjoining Banner Lane. The indicative layout provided by White Design indicates provision for a small car park of 14 car parking spaces in total, 2 of which are disabled spaces.

The weekday and weekend peak hour usage numbers used to inform the noise model are detailed within Section 6.0 of this report.

Deliveries/Collections Vehicles

Deliveries to the proposed pub would typically be made by either heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) or light delivery vehicles (LDVs) depending upon both product and supplier. Within the scope of this assessment, the delivery vehicles have been assumed as HGVs as a worst case.

Delivery vehicle numbers and assumptions informing this study are as detailed within Section 6.0 of this report.

It is further assumed that vehicle idling will be minimised within the scope of the site management plans to reduce resulting noise impacts.

Vehicle Movement Assessment

It is understood from the traffic assessment that deliveries and collections to the proposed pub would be undertaken during typical daytime hours.

The assessment of noise generated by vehicle movements has been undertaken in line with the methodology determined within BS4142. Given the nature of the existing noise



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 37 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

climate, as summarised within section 4.1.2, noise associated with vehicle movements in and around the proposed development site would not be considered exceptional or distinguishable. As such, no feature correction has been applied to the rating levels used within the assessment presented within Table 7-7 below.

Table 7-7 – Vehicle Movement BS4142 Assessment

Location Day and

Activities

Measured Background

(LA90) dB

Predicted Peak Hour (LAeq) dB

BS4142 Assessment Difference

dB Impact Rating

Loc 1 – existing properties on Endicott Bend

Weekday HGV and Cars

38 (37.9) 33 (33.1) -5 Less than ‘Marginal

Significance’ Weekend (Sat) HGV and Cars


Significance’ Weekday Cars only


Significance’ Weekend (Sat)

Cars only 38 (38.0) 36 (36.2) -2

Less than ‘Marginal Significance’

Weekend (Sun) Cars only


Significance’

Loc 2 – New development to the west of the

pub


38 (37.9) 39 (39.0) +1 Less than ‘Marginal


38 (38.0) 43 (42.5) +5 ‘Marginal Significance’

Weekday Cars only



Cars only 38 (38.0) 43 (42.5) +5 ‘Marginal Significance’



Significance’

Loc 3 – existing properties above the shops to the

east


38 (37.9) 46 (45.5) +8 Greater than ‘Marginal


38 (38.0) 48 (47.5) +10 Positive Indication that

complaints likely Weekday Cars only



Cars only 38 (38.0) 46 (45.7) +10

Positive Indication that complaints likely



Significance’

The assessment undertaken within Table 7-7 indicates the following:

Car Park and HGV Movements

On the rare occasions during the weekday period where deliveries coincide with the peak car park activity predicted noise levels of between -5, +1 and +8 occur resulting in BS4142 classification of less than to greater than Marginal Significance. However, it is noted that the +8 result occurs at the residential flats to the east of the development which have no external living space;

On the rare occasions during the weekend (Saturday) period where deliveries coincide with the peak car park activity predicted noise levels of between -2, +5 and +10 occur resulting in BS4142 classification of less than Marginal Significance to Complaints likely. Again it is noted that the +10 result occurs at the residential flats which have no external living space;



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 38 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Car Park Movements only

during the weekday period when only peak car park activity is occurring, predicted noise levels of between -5, +1 and +8 occur resulting in BS4142 classification of less than to greater than Marginal Significance. The +8 result occurs at the residential flats to the east which have no external living space;

during the weekend (Saturday) period when only peak car park activity is occurring, predicted noise levels of between -2, +5 and +10 occur resulting in BS4142 classification of less than to greater than Marginal Significance. The +8 result occurs at the residential flats to the east which have no external living space;

during the weekend (Sunday) period when only peak car park activity is occurring, predicted noise levels of between -8, +1 and +2 occur resulting in BS4142 classification of less than Marginal Significance. The +2 result occurs at the residential flats to the east which have no external living space;

It is noted that with regard to assessment location 3, which displays the greatest potential impacts of the scheme, these properties are flats positioned above the retail units. These properties have no external living space associated and as such the guidance of BS4142 is, by its own volition, not appropriate as it states that the standard is not appropriate for the assessment of noise within buildings. As such, it is considered appropriate to consider internal criteria with regard to these properties with reference to the design criteria of BS8233.

It is deemed appropriate to base the assessment on internal levels expected should windows in these flats be open, as they are unlikely to be afforded alternative forms of ventilation. Assuming a conservative façade reduction of -13dB for an open window (PPG24) internal levels would be expected to be between 29.2 and 34.5 dB(A). Reference to BS8233 concludes that a “reasonable” level of amenity within living rooms during the day should be less than 40dB(A), the predicted internal levels are well within this criteria.

Within the scope of the assessment consideration has also been given to how the noise associated with the vehicle movements at the site would affect the ambient noise climate of the area. This has been undertaken by the logarithmic addition of the predicted LAeq values to the measured LAeq levels, thus highlighting any increases in the ambient climate



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 39 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Table 7-8 – Vehicle Movement Ambient Assessment

Location Day and

Activities

Measured Ambient (LAeq)

dB

Predicted Peak Hour (LAeq) dB

Cumulative LAeq dB level

Impact

Loc 1 – existing properties on Endicott Bend


53.5 33.1 53.5 +/-0.0

Weekend (Sat) HGV and Cars

52.4 36.4 52.5 +0.1

Weekday Cars only

53.5 32.7 53.5 +/-0.0

Weekend (Sat) Cars only

52.4 36.2 52.5 +0.1


51.4 36.2 51.5 +0.1

Loc 2 – New development to the west of the

pub


53.5 39.0 53.7 +0.2


52.4 42.5 52.8 +0.4

Weekday Cars only

53.5 39.0 53.7 +0.2


52.4 42.5 52.8 +0.4


51.4 42.5 51.9 +0.5

Loc 3 – existing properties above the shops to the

east


53.5 45.5 54.1 +0.6


52.4 47.5 53.6 +1.2

Weekday Cars only

53.5 42.2 53.8 +0.3


52.4 45.7 53.2 +0.8


51.4 45.7 52.4 +1.0

The assessment indicates a potential increase in noise level during a peak hour assessment period of between +/-0.0dB and +1.2dB in the rare occurrences where peak car park movements would correspond to a delivery. When considering Car park movements alone the potential increase in ambient noise is between +/-0.0dB and +1.0dB.

Based upon standard impact ratings used within acoustics (eg DMRB) increases of these impacts would be classified as “No Change/Negligible”, with Neutral impact ratings at high sensitivity receptors.

7.6 Patron Noise

The main issues with regard to Patron noise are associated with the following aspects of the pub:

Patron noise from within the pub building; People using the car park and main entrance to the south of the site to access and

leave the pub. This aspect would be year round although people would be less likely to loiter in the adverse weather or in the winter than in good weather in the summer;

People using the external seating area or “external smoking area/shelter” to the south of the pub adjacent to the main doors. This aspect would have a seasonal nature and be more prevalent in the good weather during the summer months than in adverse weather or in the winter; and



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 40 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Children using the external play area to the south of the building adjacent to the external seating area. This aspect would have a seasonal nature and be more prevalent in the good weather during the summer months than in adverse weather or in the winter.

It is noted that noise associated with people, activities such as talking, shouting, laughing, mobile telephones ringing etc., the general hubbub that would be expected associated with a pub, or a station, or a city centre street is very hard to a) quantify, b) predict and c) control. These noise sources are so variable depending upon the people involved, age, the weather, the general mood of the location, the time of day etc. that attempts to quantify a “typical” level would be futile. Any assessment of this type of noise would only endeavour to either vastly over predict noise, if based upon worst case probable volumes or potentially under predict if not.

Attempts were made during the site visit to the Fallow Deer to quantify this type of noise but following discussions with the manager and deliberations by the field engineer it was not deemed conclusive. The noise was noted to be, and would logically be, very variable depending upon a myriad of factors as intimated above, and on the particular day of the visit was described as normal/subdued. The crux of this matter is what should be classified as normal or indeed worst case.

As such it is concluded that the main way of controlling patron noise is down to operational procedures and the management of the pub. These would need to cover aspects such as:

Limiting the operational times of the external areas by gating and closing these areas at agreed times;

No provision for “piped” music into these areas and no tolerance of portable systems unless by prior agreement with the Environmental Health Department at the LPA associated with local public/community events;

Clearly visible signage around the external areas requesting that patrons “respect the amenity and tranquillity of the area and keep noise to a minimum”;

Active control of the external areas by management staff to ensure noise does not escalate and to eject those not willing to “respect the tranquillity of the area” in extreme circumstances;

Ensuring that sufficient taxi coverage is in place (possibly by agreement with a local taxi firm) at closing time and numbers are clearly visible with a free telephone inside the pub to minimise loitering and loud telephone conversations outside during late hours;

Systematic calming of the mood within the pub toward closing time by the playing of less energetic and more mellow music.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 41 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

A noise assessment has been completed for submission to Coventry City Council in support of a planning application for the development of a family public house in the vicinity of Banner Lane, Coventry. The proposals for the site include:

Purpose built ‘family’ public house with residential aspect on the second floor for management and/or staff use only;

Purpose built ‘family’ public house/ restaurant with provision for 150 covers; Associated service yard toward the east of the building; Car parking for up to 14 patrons towards the south of the site area; and, Children’s play area/ Garden towards the southern elevation of the site.

The general character of the area has undergone a major redevelopment in recent years as part of the wider Bannerbrook Park scheme, providing provision for up to 380 residential properties within the area. The works to complete this are still on-going.

A noise survey has been completed to quantify the existing noise climate of the locality during various periods of both the weekday (Friday) and Weekend (Saturday/Sunday). The noise climate of the site was quantified as being dominated by traffic noise from the surrounding road network.

Further operational noise monitoring was undertaken at a similar, open facility to this as a means to quantify the noise generated by operations associated with the running of the pub.

8.1 Residential Suitability

The assessment undertaken for the residential aspect of the site details the development to be within PPG 24 NEC “A/B” for the overnight and NEC “A” during the daytime period. PPG24 NEC “A” considers sites where “Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission” and NEC B deals with sites where “noise mitigation measures may make development acceptable”.

However, it is noted that the residential aspect of the development is for management and staff use only and has no associated external living space. Consideration of internal noise levels based upon the measured external noise climate, demonstrates the residential aspect would achieve the “good” internal design criteria of BS8233 with minimal mitigation.

The necessary mitigation would involve 4/12/4 thermal double glazing and provision for alternative means of ventilation to prevent the necessity to open windows for this purpose.

8.2 Entertainment Noise

The pub will function as a family pub/ restaurant and will at no time be a venue for music or concert type events. It is also noted that there is no provision within the proposed design for a function room/suite associated with the pub. Whilst there is provision within the facility for amplified music through an internal PA system which would require suitable control, an



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 42 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

assessment of entertainment noise has been undertaken purely for the purposes of robustness, following feedback from the EHO during pre-application discussions.

Within the scope of this assessment calculations have been undertaken as a means to quantify the levels of noise generated by pub hubbub and music. The following scenarios have been investigated:

Calculations based upon typical noise levels quantified for the type of pub proposed as quantified at the Fallow Deer; and

Calculation of the maximum permissible internal noise levels based upon assumptions with regard to glazing specifications and façade detail.

With regard to the quantification of the maximum permissible levels, these are defined based upon achieving impacts of BS4142 ‘Marginal significance’ (LA90 +5dB) at the nearest noise sensitive receptor locations.

Based upon the internal operational levels monitored at the Fallow Deer, and the assumption of a basic double glazing provision in the construction of the Pub the BS4142 assessment concludes a “positive indication that complaints are unlikely” under typical activity increasing to less than “Marginal Significance” during peak times.

Turning the assessment process on its head and considering the maximum internal noise levels that could be produced before adverse impacts result concludes the following. The assessment is based upon achieving a limit of LA90 + 5dB which is considered by BS4142 to be of “Marginal Significance”. The numbers presented within Table 7-4 detail that the maximum allowable internal level is directly related to the façade specification of the building. Once an appropriate limit is set for the development, designers would need to consider what levels they wish to generate inside the pub and specify the façade construction accordingly. As such this is an issue which can only be resolved in the detailed design stage.

The following measures are also proposed to aid in the control of entertainment noise at the development:

Windows should be fixed shut with ventilation provided by other means such as air conditioning or a whole building ventilation system;

Automated volume controls capable of limiting noise at specific frequencies to prevent significant base frequency noise should be implemented at the site. Example systems that may be appropriate include the following but these would need to be researched properly at the detailed design stage of the development. However, it is noted that the examples quoted are examples and other products and manufacturers may also be appropriate for use:

o Formula Sound Automatic Volume Control – AVC2, capable of control in both “A” weighting and Linear response to allow control at bass frequencies (www.noisemeters.co.uk/product/avc2/)

o Formula Sound Sentry Music Noise Controller with AT-1 Automatic Volume Control (www.noisemeters.co.uk/product/sentry/volume.asp)



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 43 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

Should external acts or DJ’s ever perform at the pub they should be precluded from using their own equipment unless plugged into the min pub system through the volume control measures.

8.3 Static Plant and Machinery

The assessments undertaken within Section 7.3 present the potential impacts generated by static plant and machinery during both the daytime and overnight period.

The assessment of the daytime period (normal operational period of the equipment) during both the weekday and weekend period indicates a predicted noise level of between -17dB and -23dB below the measured background level. In accordance with the criteria determined in BS4142 the assessment would provide a ‘positive indication that complaints are unlikely’ to occur as a result of the operation of these plant items

It is understood that whilst the static plant would typically operate between 11:00 and 23:00, there may be a requirement to extend this operational period beyond this time as and when necessary. As such, in order to present a robust assessment it has been considered pertinent to consider the static plant during the overnight period also.

The assessment presented within Table 7-6 indicates that the static plant would operate at between -7dB and -12dB below the measured background (LA90) level. The corresponding impact rating, in accordance with BS4142 would indicate an impact significance which is significantly ‘less than marginal significance’ tending toward a situation which would be considered a positive indication that ‘complaints are unlikely’ to occur.

8.4 Vehicle Movements

Assessment of noise associated with vehicle movements has been considered covering the following:

Scenario 1: HGV and Car park movements: Weekday and weekend (Saturday) periods.

Scenario 2: Car movements only: Weekday and weekend (Saturday and Sunday) periods

Consideration was given to 3 receptors in the area as detailed on Figure 4. Receptors 1 and 2 will be discussed together due to the presence of external living space and Location 3 considered separately as it is a flat, with no external amenity space.

With regard to Locations 1 and 2, on the rare occasions where HGV deliveries and peak car park activities coincide impacts of at worst Marginal Significance would be expected. When only car park activity is evident, which would account for the majority of the time impacts of at worst Marginal Significance would again be expected.

With regard to Location 3, it is noted that as this property has no external amenity space assessment to BS4142 is not appropriate. Consideration of internal noise levels, assuming open windows however, demonstrates acceptable levels would prevail under both scenarios considered.



© Enzygo Ltd 2012 44 SHF.1014.003.R.001.C

8.5 Patron Noise

Consideration has been given to Patron generated noise in external spaces to the pub and the conclusion drawn that this can not be robustly modelled or assessed. The only and best option for control of this aspect of the pub would be through management procedures, examples of the issues to be considered are presented within Section 7.6.

8.6 General Conclusion

In summary, it is considered that whilst a public house has the potential to result in adverse impacts with relation to noise in an area, the control of these impacts is wholly within the sphere of the site owners/operator. Management procedures and considerations coupled with appropriate planning conditions can be successfully used to ensure that a pub of this type co-exists with the local community without resulting in undue impacts.

Based upon the assessments undertaken within the scope of this report and the assumptions made therein, it is considered that whilst some impacts may present themselves from the operation of the pub, these are wholly in accordance with appropriate standards. As such, there are considered to be no significant issues relating to noise that could not be controlled by suitable planning conditions and would restrict the application from being granted planning permission for the development herein proposed.



REFERENCES

Department for Communities and Local Government – National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Noise Policy Statement for England, March 2010.

Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise 1994

British Standards Institution. British Standard 4142: Noise reduction and sound insulation for buildings – Code of practice’, 1999.

British Standards Institution. British Standard 8233: Noise reduction and sound insulation for buildings – Code of practice’, 1999.

Institute of Acoustics(IOA): Good Practice Guide to the Control of Noise from Pubs and Clubs: 2003

British Beer and Pub Association: Effective Management of Noise from Licenced Premises. 2003

Noise from Pubs and Clubs Phase 1 report. Davis, Hepworth, Moorhouse and Oldfield. Defra 2005

British Standards Institution. British Standard 7445: Pt 2; Description and measurement of environmental noise. Guide to the acquisition of data pertinent to land use: 1991

British Standards Institution. British Standard 5228: Code of practice for noise and vibration control and open sires – part 1 : Noise, 2009

International Organisation for Standardisation 9613 Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors, 1993



APPENDIX 1

Noise Monitoring Data

Project Bannerbrook, Coventry – Noise Assessment

Job number SHF.1014.003

Location Location Weekday Evening/Nightime

Start Date 31st August 2012 End Date 2nd September 2012

Start Time 18:00 End Time 17:00

Calibrated 94.0 File 061718_120831_180116000 061718_120901_060150000 061718_120902_133422000 061718_120902_151625000

Equipment Manufacturer Type Serial Number

Meter 01dB Blue Solo 61718

Calibrator Cirrus CR:515 59522

Noise Monitoring Data

Period start Leq L90 L10 Lmax

31/08/2012 18:00 55.3 44.1 59.1 85.0

31/08/2012 18:15 53.8 44.7 57.3 71.9

31/08/2012 18:30 54.9 43.6 57.6 73.0

31/08/2012 18:45 52.6 42.7 56.2 74.3

31/08/2012 19:00 57.9 43.8 56.3 87.0

31/08/2012 19:15 52.1 41.4 52.7 72.9

31/08/2012 19:30 55.7 42.4 58.9 76.0

31/08/2012 19:45 54.9 43.6 56.0 76.5

31/08/2012 20:00 51.8 42.0 54.0 69.5

31/08/2012 20:15 53.0 41.1 56.3 74.0

31/08/2012 20:30 53.8 41.6 56.2 76.4

31/08/2012 20:45 51.5 39.7 52.0 76.0

31/08/2012 21:00 51.0 37.7 55.6 67.1

31/08/2012 21:15 51.7 36.6 55.1 69.9

31/08/2012 21:30 45.5 34.9 47.2 66.6

31/08/2012 21:45 51.1 36.2 50.5 81.6

31/08/2012 22:00 50.2 36.8 51.4 67.6

31/08/2012 22:15 56.6 33.8 53.9 79.4

31/08/2012 22:30 44.8 34.6 46.5 64.0

31/08/2012 22:45 53.4 34.9 50.0 78.1

31/08/2012 23:00 52.4 38.1 55.1 69.0

31/08/2012 23:05 56.4 35.1 51.5 75.6

31/08/2012 23:10 48.4 33.3 45.4 67.4

31/08/2012 23:15 39.9 31.8 43.9 57.7

31/08/2012 23:20 47.6 31.3 48.2 68.4

31/08/2012 23:25 48.4 34.8 50.1 66.9

31/08/2012 23:30 48.7 35.8 46.5 69.8

31/08/2012 23:35 39.4 33.4 43.2 50.2

31/08/2012 23:40 42.6 34.5 46.5 54.3

31/08/2012 23:45 45.9 31.9 44.9 65.9

31/08/2012 23:50 40.7 32.3 45.2 54.8

31/08/2012 23:55 43.9 32.3 45.5 60.7

01/09/2012 00:00 48.4 33.6 51.2 64.1

01/09/2012 00:05 44.0 32.4 44.2 62.6

01/09/2012 00:10 36.2 31.2 39.4 48.4

01/09/2012 00:15 43.9 31.6 46.9 60.5

01/09/2012 00:20 50.9 32.3 52.2 70.9

01/09/2012 00:25 41.2 32.5 44.2 58.2

01/09/2012 00:30 41.6 32.6 44.8 57.1

01/09/2012 00:35 37.2 33.4 40.1 48.2

01/09/2012 00:40 45.2 33.0 43.4 63.6

01/09/2012 00:45 41.7 32.6 42.2 61.7

01/09/2012 00:50 51.1 33.2 45.1 73.4

01/09/2012 00:55 36.0 33.0 37.4 47.1

01/09/2012 01:00 44.8 33.6 46.0 63.5

01/09/2012 01:05 49.1 33.4 46.3 71.1

01/09/2012 01:10 35.9 32.9 37.3 47.2

01/09/2012 01:15 43.4 32.7 48.0 60.7

01/09/2012 01:20 42.3 29.4 40.8 63.2

01/09/2012 01:25 31.6 29.1 32.6 46.8

01/09/2012 01:30 30.9 29.6 31.8 37.7

01/09/2012 01:35 35.3 30.3 36.6 50.3

01/09/2012 01:40 33.9 30.3 34.5 48.1

01/09/2012 01:45 30.7 29.5 31.5 45.1

01/09/2012 01:50 30.6 29.5 31.5 34.9

01/09/2012 01:55 31.6 27.9 32.0 46.0

01/09/2012 02:00 34.3 27.7 36.7 50.2

01/09/2012 02:05 34.2 28.6 36.6 48.6

01/09/2012 02:10 34.5 27.3 39.1 46.8

01/09/2012 02:15 27.6 25.9 30.2 35.1

01/09/2012 02:20 36.6 27.6 39.9 47.9

01/09/2012 02:25 44.1 26.5 41.3 62.4

01/09/2012 02:30 31.7 27.0 35.3 46.4

01/09/2012 02:35 35.7 27.4 31.2 52.4

01/09/2012 02:40 37.8 29.5 41.8 59.6

01/09/2012 02:45 37.3 28.9 39.9 58.0

01/09/2012 02:50 34.1 28.8 36.0 49.3

01/09/2012 02:55 32.7 28.0 34.6 48.4

01/09/2012 03:00 35.0 28.4 36.0 52.3

01/09/2012 03:05 33.9 27.1 35.9 50.5

01/09/2012 03:10 31.8 27.0 32.6 48.4

01/09/2012 03:15 31.7 26.9 33.3 46.6

01/09/2012 03:20 31.2 26.4 31.8 48.4

01/09/2012 03:25 37.3 28.2 41.5 49.1

01/09/2012 03:30 33.3 27.3 34.4 50.7

01/09/2012 03:35 28.9 27.5 29.6 31.9

01/09/2012 03:40 29.9 28.8 31.1 33.7

01/09/2012 03:45 31.9 29.4 31.9 45.9

01/09/2012 03:50 31.0 28.5 31.3 43.9

01/09/2012 03:55 33.1 27.1 32.4 51.6

01/09/2012 04:00 30.3 26.3 29.7 46.7

01/09/2012 04:05 29.4 26.2 30.1 43.1

01/09/2012 04:10 28.9 27.2 30.3 33.5

01/09/2012 04:15 43.0 26.7 37.2 69.0

01/09/2012 04:20 31.5 26.9 31.5 48.9

01/09/2012 04:25 41.1 26.5 43.9 67.2

01/09/2012 06:00 52.6 30.4 39.6 72.8

01/09/2012 06:05 45.8 31.3 43.6 63.7

01/09/2012 06:10 44.0 32.8 43.5 62.4

01/09/2012 06:15 39.4 34.0 42.2 50.4

01/09/2012 06:20 45.7 32.5 50.5 57.8

01/09/2012 06:25 41.5 35.1 45.2 49.9

01/09/2012 06:30 38.7 32.9 42.2 48.4

01/09/2012 06:35 51.5 32.9 51.8 72.7

01/09/2012 06:40 46.0 33.0 44.7 63.8

01/09/2012 06:45 47.1 35.7 48.9 62.8

01/09/2012 06:50 43.9 35.1 46.9 56.2

01/09/2012 06:55 62.5 39.3 60.8 81.7

01/09/2012 07:00 49.4 37.1 51.4 78.3

01/09/2012 07:15 50.1 36.8 53.0 69.9

01/09/2012 07:30 55.1 41.1 57.5 79.3

01/09/2012 07:45 52.7 41.3 55.6 71.4

02/09/2012 13:35 56.6 43.7 56.4 80.4

02/09/2012 13:45 52.6 43.6 55.6 70.1

02/09/2012 14:00 55.3 44.8 54.7 83.9

02/09/2012 14:15 52.8 43.3 54.5 72.2

02/09/2012 14:30 55.0 43.5 58.3 71.8

02/09/2012 14:45 52.4 43.8 54.7 80.0

02/09/2012 15:15 52.9 43.9 53.6 82.8

02/09/2012 15:30 51.1 44.2 53.1 69.9

02/09/2012 15:45 51.8 43.1 55.3 70.4

02/09/2012 16:00 51.3 43.5 52.9 70.7

02/09/2012 16:15 52.4 44.2 56.4 68.6

02/09/2012 16:30 50.5 43.8 52.4 68.4

02/09/2012 16:45 49.2 43.9 49.9 65.1

Property and Sites

Environmental Planning

Waste Technologies

Waste Planning

Waste Contract Procurement

Hydrology and Flood Risk

Noise and Vibration

Environmental Co‐ordination

Landscape Architecture

Minerals Planning

PPC – Permitting

BRISTOL

The Granary

Woodend Lane, Cromhall

Gloucestershire GL12 8AA

Tel: +44(0) 1454 269 237

Fax: +44(0) 1454 269 760

SHEFF IELD

STEP Business Park

Wortley Road, Deepcar,

Sheffield S36 2UH

Tel: +44(0)114 290 3677

Fax: +44(0)114 290 3688

www.enzygo.com

SHF 1014 003 R 001 C - Bannerbrook...

Documents

Transcript of SHF 1014 003 R 001 C - Bannerbrook...