Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 15 March 2008 09:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By JWG In speaking in passing to someone, they have been served with abatement orders for nuisance noise and light. It's due to complaints form neighbours about their FLTs reversing siren and flashing light and have been told they must not be used, and the Environmental Health lot insisted they be disconnected whilst they were there. The company in question has been there for many years and the neighbours are in new built houses. In my opinion, due to the environment the FLT is used, the siren and flashing light are justified in the interest of safety, and has been identified as such in their risk assessments. What is more inportant, preventing a NUISSENCE or SERIOUS INJURY?? Comments welcome...
Admin  
#2 Posted : 15 March 2008 10:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham My response to the person requiring the lights and siren to be switched off would be to insist that they provided written instructions to this effect and that these included their acceptance of any liability due to an accident arising out of their instructions. I think that this would perhaps have resulted in a slightly different outcome! Chris
Admin  
#3 Posted : 15 March 2008 10:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis There is no firm answer to this. The firm in question needs to appeal this and apply for a section 60 consent. This will then provide an agreed limit for the noise and permitted times of the emmission of such noise. The levels are generally around the best practicable means. Noise after around 8pm will almost certainly be curtailed. They should havbe taken action however at the planning stage to truly fully protect their position. Better late than never though. Give me a call on Monday for fuller discussion offline. Bob
Admin  
#4 Posted : 15 March 2008 10:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Edward Shyer When you say the Environment lot do you mean the Environment agency or the local Environment Health Officer as this can have a major bearing on the problem you have. What kind of industry are you and who is the Enforcing agency for safety is it the HSE or the local authority. Find out who this is and take their lead on the situation. Could turn out very interesting Prohibition if you DO and prohibition if you Don't. Regards Ted
Admin  
#5 Posted : 15 March 2008 12:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard Altoft The nuisance is created at the houses and then only at evenings, nights and weekends but to be effective the siren and flashing light only need to be noticeable immediately adj to the FLT. So shield the lights and calm down the sirens. Or be selective about working hours nearest the houses or erect acoustic barriers. All are reasonably practicable options. Better still get all pedestrians out of the FLT working areas and then sirens etc not needed at all. Hierarchy of controls applies. Simple enough.There is no precedence of environmental law over H&S Law they are both equal and both have to be complied with. With all the options available to make H&S effective without creating a nuisance I would not rely on H&S as a defence if you do get prosecuted. R R
Admin  
#6 Posted : 15 March 2008 14:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By JWG Thanks for your comments. I don't know why I put president instead of precedence. Just to clarify: - their working hours are generally 8-5 and not weekends. - it was the local Environment Health Officer who enforced it. - I do believe they still need an alarm due to the design of the building, the frequent travel to the yard and with passing pedestrians. There is a high fence between the workplace and the neighbours. Taking into consideration the above comments I may suggest damping down the siren and obscuring part of the flashing light so it does not emit the light upwards. I think they will have to get approval from the Environment Health Officer first because they were informed strictly to disconnect them. Thanks
Admin  
#7 Posted : 16 March 2008 07:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp An interesting case and if appealed I suspect that the proprietor would get a more sympathetic perspective in the courts. One of the reasons is that because the houses have been built in the area where the company has operated for some time. There is some case law but finding a particular case that fits the circumstances is always very difficult in nuisance law. However the principle is that the interference must be substantial (not trivial) and in deciding whether it is the court must weigh up two conflicting interests. The right of the claimant to peaceful enjoyment of their property and the right of the defendant to use their property in a reasonable way. I suggest the latter with the emphasis on safety would weigh very strongly if favour of the proprietor. Ray
Admin  
#8 Posted : 16 March 2008 10:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete48 How interesting that an enforcement officer has "instructed" a company to operate without these warning devices. I could understand a restriction on use but I am puzzled by the instruction to remove the warning devices. Are you sure that is exactly what the EHO required or just a local management interpretation? If it is not in writing, I would request it to be so before making any changes to my operating procedures.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 16 March 2008 11:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adrian Watson The simple answer is that neither takes precedence; Where there is a need to comply with more than one piece of legislation, all must be complied with in their entirety! Bob, Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 does not appear to be of relevance as it applies only to construction works. Regards Adrian Watson
Admin  
#10 Posted : 17 March 2008 08:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Sorry Adrian - Keep slipping into construction thinking which is my major bread and butter. There are however equivalent consents for factories, quarries etc and I cannot put my finger on them at the moment. The EHO actually have no authority to insist on zero noise but must rely on the use of BPM. The light issue is rather a red herring considering the hours of work - it should never really be a problem except for perhaps an hour in winter. The first action however must be the same - wait for the notice in writing and appeal it immediately. I have encountered this try on before and it usually falls when contested vigorously. Bob
Admin  
#11 Posted : 17 March 2008 08:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis A sudden thought that has just occurred is to ask under what legislation the abatement notice has been issued. If it is under the Noise Act 1996 I seem to think this only applies to nightime nuisances. Whatever the window for appeal is very narrow. Bob
Admin  
#12 Posted : 17 March 2008 10:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mitch JWG, If the houses are new the precedence will be they have to accept the established customs and practises, therefore you can continue to use the warning equipment on the FLT's. This precedence is established by such cases as people complaining about church bells etc when moving into an area.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 17 March 2008 11:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Heather Collins Mitch Sorry but this isn't correct. I used to work on a site that had been there for 100 years. When newer houses were built right against the site boundary it was us that were expected to change. Being a long-term industrial occupier gives you no additional rights in my experience.
Admin  
#14 Posted : 17 March 2008 11:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mitch Heather, I stand corrected, I had some limited experience when working in industrial noise control and the only companies that responded to these complaints did so out of goodwill and not because of legislative requirements, I would certainly think that it is the easiest avenue to explore given the circumstances, FLTs for goodness sakes, it's not power presses, granulators, generators etc. Mitch
Admin  
#15 Posted : 17 March 2008 12:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson All must be complied with! I'm with Adrian here. There is NO DEFENCE in law to say that you came to a nuisance as what may be nuisance to one person may not be to another, the man on the Clapham omnibus and all that If memory recalls I think there is a BS 4142 rating of industrial noise or something like that which may be of help in this area.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.