‘Councils empowered to control noise’

Press, 11 May 1979, Page 4

‘Councils empowered to control noise’

Local bodies should and could limit the noise coming from discotheques and night clubs, said an acoustics consultant, Mr R. J. Wakelin, in Christchurch yesterday. Mr Wakelin, a speaker at a two-day conference of the New Zealand Acoustical Society, said that local bodies had no rights to set noise levels inside these buildings, but needed to stipulate noise levels at section boundaries. Councils should ensure that discotheques and night clubs were not housed in flimsy premises. Regardless of the cost to the owner, buildings should be of heavy materials, and power-ventilated; there should be no open windows. Distance of the building from the boundary should be regulated. Noise levels inside discotheques were reaching 115 decibels, Mr Wakelin said. I In the neighbourhood of discotheques levels could reach 70dBA.

A reasonable level at a discotheque boundary at 11 p.m., given a typical 30dBA background noise, would be 35dBA. At any time, noise levels should not be permitted to reach beyond SdBA above background noise. Hearing was being damaged at 115dBA inside premises, Mr Wakelin said, but this could not be controlled by legislation. Ignorance and selfishness which spread excess noise to the exterior, however, affected the rights of the community, and should be controlled.

An Auckland consultant, Mr M. K. Grainger, said local bodies did not seem to feel that the present means of controlling noise were inadequate. Mr Grainger surveyed more than half of New Zealand’s local bodies late last year. Almost half of these used by-laws to set excessive noise levels at anything “loud, disturbing, and unnecessary.” About 40 per cent were planning to bring in ordinances, specifically setting noise levels in certain zones; only 12 per cent already used that method. The survey showed that most confrontations over noise were dealt with at the complaint level. Noises governed by ordinances were all settled out of court; only 13 per cent of by-law battles found their way into courts. Although “loud, disturbing, and unnecessary” were gen-

eral terms, an Auckland judge had found a discotheque owner guilty on a definition of necessary noise as “essential maintenance and emergency work,” Mr Grainger said. The council was able to prove the noise was loud, and residents proved that it was disturbing.

Mr Grainger said that Parliament could not sensibly legislate to control noise, but a joint paper by two senior health inspectors of the Christchurch City Council, Messrs T. Moody and A. S. Whitteker, said that some statute was necessary. It should properly define noise, exemptions for excess noise, lay down practicable means of reducing noise, delineate the responsibilities of various controlling authorities, and define matters which could be dealt with by regulation.