Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

The Labour Party supports the Bill. I compliment my constituency colleague, Deputy Cuffe, for bringing it before the House. It is not the first time this has been debated here. I recall a number of occasions during debates on planning and environmental protection Bills when amendments were proposed to provide for some form of regulation of noise pollution. My most recent efforts were on Committee Stage of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006, when I proposed an amendment which would have brought noise under planning control. In response to that amendment, I recall the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government promised he would bring forward regulations on noise pollution. I have not seen them yet and I would be interested to see what progress has been made on that commitment.

We need to parse the different forms of noise pollution that arise. I compliment the Green Party and Deputy Cuffe for the comprehensive range of noise addressed in the Bill. However, different solutions are required for different types of noise. For example, noise arising from a motorway requires a particular response, such as the provision of double glazing for households that are affected by its construction. The way in which noise is examined must also be considered. When motorway schemes are examined, the only issue is the decibel level above which noise may not go, which I believe is 98 decibels. The problem with that limited examination is that a household can suffer a monotonous hum of traffic which constitutes noise pollution, but in this case the decibel level does not rise. The occasional vehicle with a faulty exhaust passing by late at night can also create a noise problem that is not encompassed by the overall decibel level.

Refrigeration units at the rear of shopping centres, industrial plant and so on represent situations where noise can become a problem for local communities. These areas should be dealt with under planning legislation or environmental protection legislation. Noise in agricultural activity needs to be addressed, such as noise that comes from some forms of agricultural machinery, or from simulated shotgun blasts used to frighten away birds in tillage areas. Noise from construction activity must also be addressed. The constant hammering, drilling and even rock blasting should be dealt with by planning control. We regularly hear of places of entertainment that produce excessive noise which should also be dealt with in a different way. All these types of noise can be dealt with by regulation, by legislation and by the type of rule regime that we normally examine when we enact Bills.

However, I am not sure I warm to the solution proposed in the Bill by the Green Party to the problems created by noise from private sources, such as activated burglar alarms, excessive partying, loud music in apartment blocks and so on. There is something Orwellian about noise control officers being sent out by the local authority to check whether a party is too loud and too late. I am inclined to agree with the approach suggested by Deputy O'Connor. These are neighbourhood problems and they require a new legislative approach providing a framework whereby good neighbourliness, common sense and respect for others are encouraged, and if somebody decides to take advantage of his or her own community, he or she is appropriately penalised.

These problems are not confined to noise. One neighbour will not want the kids playing football on the lawn and wants a sign put up preventing it, while other neighbours want the opposite and world war three will break out if the sign goes up. A problem can arise between neighbours over a boundary wall, or the trees growing in the back garden that extend into someone else's vegetable plot. A problem can arise over rows between children on the street. Some neighbour might be inappropriately storing waste, which is occurring quite often given the charging regime currently in operation.

Good neighbourhood practices need to be developed and there is a role in this for local government. Local government can put in place the kind of mediation approach that Deputy O'Connor mentioned. It may have to put in place something analogous to the small claims courts, although not formally within the court system. If somebody was seriously aggrieved by another person who was constantly playing loud music or leaving on the burglar alarm, there should be a way in which that person can seek restitution. If someone loses a day's work because he or she has been kept awake all night by some inappropriate activity on the part of his or her neighbours, there should be a means by which that person can seek to have the day's pay restored by the offending party.

We do not need an approach whereby a noise control officer comes out from the local authority and brings people to court. We need an approach whereby the aggrieved party can have some form of restitution made. I came across a case in which somebody was doing exams on a Monday and because of noise in the area over the weekend, the person had to check into a hotel to study for the exams. In such a situation, there should be some means whereby the person can get the offending party to pay the hotel bill.

See this speech in context