Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I support this Bill and, in the time available to me, wish to focus on a number of aspects of the Bill, as well as some matters that are not covered by it. As society becomes more highly organised, more standards must be set on issues such as noise pollution. While higher density housing has merit from the perspective of having a critical population mass to make public transport more economic, essentially higher densities signify a change in the housing mix. Although duplexes, triplexes and apartments are now a fact of life, they have resulted in noise being a more significant problem than heretofore. People live in closer proximity and the question of whether it is tolerable to live in an apartment often can depend on the kind of floor covering used in the apartment above. Sound-proofing, which is often inadequate, must be considered in the context of building regulations.

People with children frequently do not wish to live in apartments and people living in apartments may not wish to live beside children. This begins to dictate the social mix of people, which is not always in the interest of urban areas. This also concerns public spaces beside apartment blocks, in which one should be able to enjoy some tranquillity. One should not lose the community element of having a green space such as one would have were one to live in a housing estate.

In Germany, which has a strong urban profile, one is not allowed to use a washing machine or dishwasher later than the early evening. While I am unsure whether Members would wish to go so far, this is an issue for some people who live in apartments. This Bill is concerned with anticipating problems that will be created and recognising current needs, rather than waiting until they begin to build up a head of steam. Hence, this initiative is welcome.

One size does not fit all and there is a world of difference between how one should legislate for apartment block dwellers and those who live in cottages on mountain sides. Undoubtedly, there is a difference.

I wish to raise the issue of daytime noise. Although most people work by day and sleep by night, shift work means the environment is changing. For example, I live close to both Intel and Hewlett-Packard and not only do the plants operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, they work for 365 days a year. That is true in many cases. The environment is changing and issues such as barking dogs or ringing alarms become real nuisances. The right to own a dog or have a house alarm must be balanced with the responsibility to ensure that neither becomes a serious nuisance either by day or by night. This issue can become a serious problem by day. While people may accept that a practice is unacceptable by night, often it is also unacceptable during the daytime.

I wish to raise an issue that is not covered by the Bill and which was a subject of recent legislation. I refer to an issue raised by Deputy Gormley, namely, aircraft noise. The recent legislation was confined to commercial aircraft and was an EU requirement. To those who live below aircraft noise, it makes little difference who owns the aircraft — whether it is commercial, a hobby or whatever, it still makes the same noise. Indeed, some light aircraft are even noisier as they are not fitted with noise abatement measures. It is akin to having a lawn mower pass over one's house on a constant basis.

I live under the flight path of a local airfield and the noise can become intolerable. Last summer, I met people who told me they were thinking of moving because they were unable to use their back gardens or hold a conversation with the window open. I receive complaints from a wide area in this regard and it requires legislation. The problem is not limited to one airfield as the flight paths for Casement Aerodrome and Dublin Airport also cross the area in question. Moreover, a €3,000 noise abatement system would resolve some of these problems.

The kind of complaints I get are also from people living beside building sites in an area where there is much building activity. For example, stone-crushing machines, which are environmentally friendly in getting rid of waste, are fairly difficult to live beside for six or eight weeks. Such work, together with 24-hour shopping, are matters which one cannot ignore in a modern environment and which need to be legislated for. I wanted to touch on them because they are the kind of complaints I receive on noise pollution.

See this speech in context