Are The Current Noise Regulations Good Enough?

Feb. 24, 2012 - PRLog -- Witney, Oxfordshire, 24th February, 2012 – Prior to July 2003 the Part E "Resistance to the Passage of Sound" regulations were very lax and lead to many multi-occupied properties not benefitting from the correct level of noise control.  Until then, all construction companies constructing new build multi-occupied dwellings or the result of a change of use had to do was produce test certification to prove that their separating walls and floors met compliance.

Compliance at that time was that separating floors and walls had to meet the following specifications.

                     New Build      Change of use
Floors   Airborne min.        45dB                 43dB
          Impact max.         60dB                  65dB

Walls     Airborne min.           45dB                  43dB

Since July 2003 the rules changed and the new noise control specifications that separating walls and floors had to meet changed to the following.

                           New Build      Change of use
Floors     Airborne min.      45dB         43dB
      Impact max.               61dB         64dB
Walls   Airborne min.       45dB         43Db

The problem with the old system, which is one reason why there was a decision to implement changes, is that although old test data could be produced that said the type of construction had been previously tested and met compliance with Part E, the new or converted structures often did not meet the required sound insulation levels.  Usually this was down to the wrong materials being used, or installed incorrectly.  So when the rules changed in 2003, one of the changes to take place was that a proportion of all separating walls and floors regardless whether they were new build or converted had to be pre-completion tested to prove compliance.  This meant that the structures had to be independently tested to a pre-determined country-wide specification by an independent body using specialised equipment to determine the true sound insulating value of the walls and floors being tested.  This scheme was brilliant because it meant that in future, all newly constructed multi-occupied buildings will have the correct level of noise control with their neighbours.  If a structure failed the test and did not meet the minimum noise control requirements, then it would have to be put right and re-tested before it could be signed off by Building Control.

However, in their wisdom, the government decided to allow an additional body to control the correct construction of these properties and that is the Robust Detail system.  In theory the Robust Detail system is fine because it works on the premise that all multi-occupied buildings built to the RD system will be constructed to a superior Part E standard.  

That means that to achieve RD status, the construction of the separating floor or wall will have been extensively tested in different locations and should have a proved pass rate that is well in excess of the minimum requirements.

Now this is where it all goes wrong again.  In practice the new RD system goes back to how it was prior to 2003 and many so called RD constructions are proving not to meet even the minimum compliance of Part E due to again, wrong materials being used or sloppy workmanship.  I have to question why it was felt that the Robust Detail option would be a good idea because to my mind, incorrect installation will always be a problem unless the structure is tested to prove compliance.  

My view is that RD should never have been introduced and all newly constructed or converted multi-occupied dwellings should be independently tested to prove compliance.  That way there should never be noise issues from neighbours unless they are producing loud, anti-social noise that is an environmental issue and these cases should be addressed by the local authority.

The existing Part E "Resistance to the Passage of Sound" regulations in my view are adequate although the minimum requirements of sound insulation could be increased.  The main problem these days is that there are too many separating floors and walls that do not meet compliance and therefore creates unnecessary nuisance and distress to neighbours due to the RD system.  It would be more beneficial if the RD system was abolished.  


*** ENDS ***


Learn more about Robust Details here http://www.robustdetails.com and PART E here http://www.soundservice.co.uk/Part_E_Explained.htm

About Sound Service (Oxford) Ltd
The company was established in 1969. During the last four decades they have been continually adding to and developing their range of soundproofing materials and now boast an extensive range of products. They have become well known by professionals and specifiers from institutions both large and small including: colleges and universities, NHS hospitals, local authorities including the Port of London Authority, Royal Mail, Bristol Cars, NATO and most nationwide builders merchants, insulation suppliers and construction companies, etc.

They pride themselves on offering a personalised service with free technical support available to all.

Unlike other soundproofing suppliers they stock 90% of the products they sell at their West Oxfordshire warehouses and are able to deliver anywhere in the UK on a next day service.

For further information please call, 0845 363 7131 or email marketing@soundservice.co.uk