EWJ Dec 2023 - Journal - Page 82
The Institute of Acoustics is Indulging its
Lax Expert Members whilst the Courts
are Meekly Surrendering to Them
Opinion by Andrew Rostron B.Sc (Hons)(Nottingham)
A personal experience of a litigant in persons’ experience with the court and expert witnesses
It was about 3.30 pm on a hot sunny day in early
August 2021 in a quiet village located on the
Northumberland coast with its beautiful beaches.
Something was occurring in the layby across the road
from my bungalow so I went to investigate. There was
a guy there hovering around the six glass recycling
bins who appeared to be setting up some sort of noise
monitoring equipment. He was wearing shorts,
sleeveless t-shirt, trainers (no socks) and a pair of sunglasses perched on the top his head – is that what
passes for professional attire these days when interacting with members of the public ? Why did he not
turn up earlier?
number of bins had increased from one to six and the
collections doubled to twice a week (Fig. 1). I had tried
my utmost to engage with NCC about the issue but it
became obvious that they would never contemplate
the relocation of the site (and admitted as much).
Strange that, as in 2017 they had searched in vain to
find another site within the village having come to realise the layby was no longer a suitable location. That
was probably because they had just built some social
housing (including mp1) (Fig. 1) on land they owned
directly abutting the layby and do not appear to have
carried out a noise impact assessment as part of the
planning process - an innocent oversight?
Anyway, he positioned a tripod and microphone at
the boundary of the nearest adjacent property (mp1,
approx. 18m distant) and later at the boundary of my
garden opposite (mp2, approx. 28m distant). Then
he did something a tad strange - he dragged a lidless
wheelie bin and positioned it approximately 3 metres
in front of the six recycling bins and precariously
balanced an expensive looking noise meter on the rim
- had he only brought one tripod?
So, the guy in question was the acoustics expert
appointed by NCC to assess the site and report on the
noise levels being generated and prepare a report to
be used as evidence in Court.
On 9th July 2021 a case management hearing took
place at Newcastle Magistrates Court at which certain
protocols were defined and agreed. The lawyer acting for NCC informed the Court that their one and
only piece of evidence would be a written noise assessment from an acoustics expert. For my part, in addition to documents, emails, witness impact statements
etc., I would be permitted to play recordings of the
noise emanating from the site. Although commissioned under instruction from NCC, their lawyer assured me and the magistrates that the report would be
independent and totally impartial and on the basis of
that pledge I informed the Court that I considered it
to be unnecessary to engage my own acoustics expert
- BIG MISTAKE!
Another strange thing - he started to fill a plastic bin
liner with approximately 25 bottles and, having
opened the lids, dropped it into each of the bins in
turn and then repeated the drops a second time (12
drops in total). Halfway through this exercise most of
the bottles had smashed and started to pierce through
the plastic, requiring more bin liner bags to contain
the glass. Now, admittedly, I am not a noise expert but
how can already smashed bottles confined within a
bag in any way replicate the noise characteristics of a
cascade of glass tipped from a trug or crate into an
open bin? It's not as if there was a shortage of bottles
at hand to conduct a valid test!
On 13th August 2021 the expert's BS4142 report
duly landed in my inbox. Its conclusion was a noise
rating level of +9, 1 short of the +10 rating which
would indicate a significant and unacceptable adverse
impact on the residents. This did not ring true to me
and the more I read the report the more I was convinced that the rating was understated. I downloaded
the Standard and also found an exemplar BS4142 report from e3p (Acoustics Consultants, Manchester) in
respect of a planning application to extend Great
Billing recycling facility - this was relevant as the specific sound source was intermittent and similar in dB
levels to the bottle bank and the predominant background noise was similarly road traffic related. It soon
became obvious that the NCC's expert report was anything but an exemplar one - far from it.
After approximately 2 hours in total he had upped
and left. Because he'd been there so briefly, I assumed
that before he left the site he had rigged up some sort
of unattended monitoring equipment but evidently
not - that was it, survey done and dusted!
You may be wondering why I was taking a particular
interest in these proceedings. Well, in May 2021 I had
requested that the Court issue a summons against
Northumberland County Council for a Noise Abatement Order to be imposed (Section 82, Environmental Protection Act 1990) vis a vis the unacceptable
noise levels emanating from the bottle bank. This has
been in situ for a number of years but over time the
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
80
DECEMBER 2023