Fragmentation of institutional responsibilities appears to be amongst the main drawbacks that hinder the authorities from regulating noise more effectively. At present, responsibilities for regulating noise are divided amongst 10 regulatory bodies and there is no specific institutional mechanism for coordination on matters related to noise..

 

Another problem lies in the fact that the present legal system largely treats noise as nuisance, and tends to favour remedial, as opposed to a preventive approach to noise. Due to the subjective nature of nuisance, it is difficult for an aggrieved party to prove the fact of nuisance in the courts of law in the absence of objectively verifiable noise limit thresholds, which are largely absent from the present legislation. Needless to say, that the above shortcomings often manifest themselves through public frustration over the apparent inability of authorities to deal with their complaints related to noise effectively.

 

Are the Local noise regulations fit for the purpose?

The goal of noise management is to maintain low noise exposures, such that human health and well-being are protected. To achieve this goal, noise have to be measured and the risk evaluated.

The legislation does not incorporate standards for the measurement of ambient noise. Nor standards or guidelines for noise risk assessment. Noise is assessed subjectively. How loud is too loud?

 

​

​