MNB Chapter 10 Noise Final - Northumberland... · 2016. 11. 29. · AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB –...

Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration

AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB – Environmental Impact Assessment – Part 2: Environmental Statement 10-2

10.1 INTRODUCTION

NCC proposes to create a bypass that passes Morpeth to the north, connecting the A197 to the east with the A1

trunk road to the west. The route passes through gently undulating agricultural land interspersed with trees, crossing

the Cotting Burn and How Burn on embankment and passing close by an Ancient/Semi-Ancient Woodland. The

scheme generally comprises a grade separated junction with the A1 trunk road along with associated slip roads and

a dumbbell roundabout arrangement, which connects to a new 7.3m wide single ‘A’ road standard carriageway,

3.8km in length. Associated highway features include a 2.5m wide separate cycle/pedestrian route, located on the

south side of the new alignment, a 2m wide equestrian facility running parallel with the cycle/pedestrian route, at-

grade priority roundabouts at the A192 road and St. George’s, earthworks cuttings and embankments of varying

depth and height, variable width verges, several highway structures, and associated highways drainage work.

This chapter considers the noise and vibration impacts as a consequence of the construction and operation of the

proposed bypass.

The assessment of noise and vibration impacts has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the

DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (henceforth referred to as HD 213/11 (The Highways Agency et al, 2011)

Detailed Assessment methodology. Road traffic noise levels have also been predicted in accordance with the

guidance contained in the Department of Transport, Welsh Office publication Calculation of Road Traffic Noise,

1988 (CRTN) (Department of Transport, 1988) and, where appropriate, supplemented with the additional guidance

contained in Annex 4 of HD 213/11 (The Highways Agency et al., 2011).

10.1.1 Scope of Assessment

The objective of this chapter is to assess the noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed bypass on

Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSRs). This report will provide a qualitative and quantitative description of the existing

noise climate in the area likely to be affected by the proposed bypass.

A schematic of the local area showing the proposed route of the proposed bypass, including existing roads, the

study area and the Calculation Area is provided in Figure 10.1.

10.1.2 Consultation

During the scoping assessment the local authority Environmental Health Department (EHD) was consulted

regarding the existing noise climate and existing sources of noise. They confirmed that there are currently no noise

complaints in the area. Their main concerns are that the new road will transform the existing tranquil setting into a

potentially noisy environment. They made particular reference to the potential impact on residents at Fulbeck, as the

proposed road will pass relatively close to some properties at Fulbeck. However, as explained to the local authority,

the latest road plans show that the Fulbeck Grange stretch of the proposed road will be further extended into a false

cutting that shall reduce the potential noise impacts. They agreed that this was a way of mitigating noise impacts.

Prior to the additional noise monitoring that occurred in October 2009, Mr Steve Cleworth, Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner at NCC was contacted, he commented that ‘there seems to be residential premises quite close to

the line of the road which were not included in the proposed additional noise monitoring locations. As these are

located in rural settings I am going to presume that the levels will be similar to the lowest you measure on the sites

you have chosen’. It was explained to Mr Cleworth that noise monitoring has already been carried out at the

nearest residential properties.

The Highways Agency provided the following comments during the scoping assessment:

‘The proposed methodology for a detailed assessment would seem appropriate. However we would wish to request

the details of any predicted extra traffic on A1, to enable us to be assured that any resulting increase of traffic noise

will not impact on our requirements, e.g. to provide mitigation under Noise Insulations Regulations at a future time.

Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration


Similarly, we would also wish to be informed of any likelihood of proposals affecting identification of areas within our

network as part of DEFRA’s future noise action plans.’

Following receipt of revised traffic data and the final scheme layout of the proposed earthworks in June 2011, the

EHD at Northumberland County Council was contacted and was advised the noise assessment will be updated with

revised data and that noise and vibration impacts would be assessed in accordance with DMRB HD 213/11,

published in February 2011. The EHD has confirmed that the proposed methodology is acceptable to the local

authority and has provided a copy of NCC’s noise limits for construction activities.

10.1.3 The Study and Calculation Areas and the Wider Study Area

Paragraph A1.11 of the DMRB defines the process for defining the Study and Calculation Areas. The study area

extends one kilometre from existing routes that are being improved or bypassed, and any proposed new routes. The

Calculation Area is then defined as being the area that extends 600m from affected routes within the study area,

where an affected route is defined as those routes predicted to experience a 1dB or more change in noise levels as

a consequence of the proposed scheme in the Baseline Year. Roads where a change of at least 1dB are predicted

to occur can be determined by considering changes in traffic flow; where a 25% increase equates to an increase in

noise of 1dB and a 20% decrease in traffic flow equates to a 1dB decrease in noise level.

The area outside the study area is known as the wider study area. The assessment of noise impacts in the wider

study are based on the CRTN Basic Noise Level prediction methodology.

Figure 10.1 shows the full extent of the Study Area and Calculation Area and presents the road traffic network for which road traffic data was made available within the Calculation Area. The wider study area can be seen in Figure 10.2.

10.1.4 Legislation and Policy This assessment has been carried out with reference to the following documents:

� DMRB HD 213/11 (The Highways Agency et al., 2011); � Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) (Department of Transport, 1988); � The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988) � World Health Organisation, (WHO), Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999; � BS 5228:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites; and � Environmental Noise (England) Regulations (2006) as amended, 2008,2009

The North East of England Plan, Regional Strategy to 2021 (Government Office for the North East), Northumberland

Consolidated Planning Policy Framework, May 2011 and Castle Morpeth District Local Plan 1991-2006 have been

reviewed. There are no noise constraints arising from these documents in relation to the proposed bypass.

10.2 METHODOLOGY

This section describes the predicted noise and vibration impacts at properties in the vicinity of the proposed bypass

during its operation, including changes in noise and vibration levels, and where appropriate, the perceived noise and

vibration nuisance as defined in HD213/11. Mitigation proposals to control noise and vibration impacts due to

construction is also provided.

The traffic noise and vibration assessments have been carried out taking into account the relevant guidance

contained within HD213/11. To assist in the understanding of the noise assessment it is useful to consider how

noise is described quantitatively and what causes noise and vibration from road traffic vehicles.

Sound is measured in terms of decibels (dB). The decibel is not an absolute unit of measurement. Instead it is a

ratio of a measured quantity to an agreed reference level. The measured quantity is the variation in atmospheric


pressure and the reference level is taken as the lowest pressure to which the average healthy human ear can

respond i.e. 2 x 10-5

Pa. Moreover, although the audible frequency range extends from 20Hz to 20,000Hz, the ear

does not respond equally across this frequency range and therefore, corrections or “weightings” are applied to the

measured linear levels to simulate the response of the ear. The A-weighting is used to simulate the response of the human ear, and is generally used to measure environmental noise in terms of dB LA.

As noise is assessed as a logarithmic ratio of pressure levels (i.e. decibels), it is sometimes helpful to consider the

relationship between the subjective and objective evaluation of noise levels. The noise levels and corresponding

descriptions shown in Table 10.1 may provide some assistance in understanding this relationship.

Table 10.1 Typical Noise Levels and Subjective Evaluation

Noise Level dB LA Description

120 Threshold of pain

95 Pneumatic drill (unsilenced); 7m distance

83 Heavy diesel lorry (40km/h at 7m distance)

81 Modern twin-engine jet (at take-off at 152m distance)

70 Passenger car (60km/h at 7m distance)

60 Office environment

50 Ordinary conversation

40 Library

35 Quiet bedroom

0 Threshold of hearing

When considering noise levels, it may be of assistance to note that doubling or halving of an otherwise similar traffic flow is equivalent to a change in noise level of approximately 3dB LA, and a subjective doubling of loudness,

generally corresponds to a noise level increase of 10dB LA.

10.2.1 Road Traffic Noise

Road traffic noise can be separated into two components. The first is generated by the engine, exhaust system and

transmission and is the dominant noise source when traffic is not freely flowing. This is particularly apparent from

heavy vehicles, when accelerating, braking, or changing of gears, and this contributes a significant proportion of low

frequency noise. The second component of road traffic noise is generated through the interaction of vehicles tyres

with the road surface. This is the dominant noise source under free flow traffic conditions at moderate to high road

speeds and contributes a significant proportion of higher frequency noise.

The sound from a stream of traffic at a reception point is an aggregation of noise from each of a number of vehicles

at various distances. The factors that influence the noise level experienced by a listener include the volume of traffic,

vehicle speed, the composition of the traffic (i.e. the percentage of heavy goods vehicles - HGV’s), the gradient, and

the surface characteristics of the carriageway.

In addition to the aforementioned variables, there is the actual propagation of the sound from the source to the

receiver that needs to be considered. The propagation of sound is affected by characteristics such as the distance

from the receptor to the source, the topography, the characteristics of the ground between the source and receptor,

the presence of any screening or barrier impacts, and wind strength and direction.


10.2.2 Measurement of Road Traffic Noise

Noise from traffic on a road will change as traffic flows change during the day and will also fluctuate within shorter

time periods as vehicles pass the reception point. In order to compare situations with different traffic noise levels it is

necessary to use a noise metric that provides a single figure estimate of the overall road traffic noise level. The noise metric used for road traffic noise is the LA10,18hr, which is the mean arithmetic value of the ‘A’ weighted noise

levels, which are exceeded for 10% of the time in each of the 18 one hour periods between 06:00 hours and 00.00 hours (midnight). A good correlation has been shown to exist between traffic noise levels expressed in LA10,18hr and

residents’ dissatisfaction with the noise over a wide range of values. In general, environmental noise is described in terms of the equivalent continuous sound pressure level LAeq,T.

10.2.3 Traffic Induced Vibration

Traffic induced vibration is a low frequency disturbance, which can be transmitted through the air or ground.

Airborne vibration from traffic is produced by the drive-train of the vehicle, the engines and exhausts, whereas

groundborne vibration is produced by the interaction between rolling wheels and the road surface.

There are two impacts of traffic vibration that need to be considered, these being the impacts on buildings and the

disturbance caused to occupiers of properties. Extensive research has been carried out on a range of buildings of

various ages and types and no evidence has been found to support the theory that traffic-induced groundborne

vibration is a source of significant damage to buildings (Department of Transport, 1988). Groundborne vibration is

also much less likely to be the cause of disturbance to occupiers than airborne vibration (Baughan & Martin. 1981)

and (Watts, G.R. 1984). HD213/11 states that:

‘Normal use of buildings such as closing of doors, walking on suspended wooden floors and operating domestic

appliances can generate similar levels of vibration to that from traffic.’

Furthermore, there is no evidence that traffic induced airborne vibration can cause even minor damage to buildings.

However, it can be a source of annoyance to people, causing vibrations of flexible elements within the building, such

as doors, windows and, on occasions, floors of properties close to the carriageway. Accordingly, the issue of

vibration nuisance at properties is also addressed in this chapter.

10.2.4 Requirements of a DMRB Detailed Assessment

To assess the potential noise and vibration impacts for the DMRB Detailed Assessment, it is necessary to compare

the following scenarios for both the day and night-time periods:

� Do Minimum scenario in the Baseline Year (2015 DM) versus the Do Minimum scenario in the Future Year (2030 DM);

� Do Minimum scenario in the Baseline Year (2015 DM) versus the Do Something Scenario in the Baseline Year (2015 DS); and

� Do Minimum scenario in the Baseline Year (2015DM) versus the Do Something scenario in the future assessment year (2030 DS).

The detailed assessment also assesses both the change in noise nuisance and traffic induced vibration.

10.2.5 Base Noise Level Survey

To obtain an overview of the existing ambient noise climate, eight properties as identified in Table 10.2 were

selected as sample receptors for the base measurement. These receptors were selected because they were either

representative of properties within their vicinity or they represent sensitive properties such as residential, schools

and hospitals. Schematics of the local area, with the eight baseline monitoring locations, are presented in Figure

10.1. The measurement results of the baseline monitoring are summarised in Section 10.4 and site notes,

measurement results, and photographs can be found in Appendix 10.1


Table 10.2 Baseline Monitoring Locations

Location Number

Property Address

Short-term Attended Monitoring

1 Northgate Hospital Northgate Hospital, Northgate, Morpeth, NE613BP

2 East Shield Hill Farm Cottages

The Old Farmhouse Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 3LD

3 Glendene Fulbeck Glendene Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 3JU

4 King Edward VI School Caretakers House, King Edward VI School, Cottingwood Lane, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1DN

5 St. George’s Hospital Otterburn House, St. George’s Hospital, Drive From Cottingwood Lane To St. George’s Hospital ,Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 2NU

Long-term Unattended Measurements

6 Kater Dene Kater Dene, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JX

7 Rosebank Rosebank, Track From The Great North Road To East Lane End Garage, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 3JS

8 Fernbank Fernbank, River View, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1JU

In addition to the sample measurement locations, all properties within the study area have been identified and their

usage assigned using address data provided by NCC. The main property usages have been categorised as follows:

� Residential; � Industrial/Commercial; � Industrial, � Commercial; � Educational; � Health; � Religious; and � Amenity.

The identified health and educational buildings, their address and approximate easting and northing are detailed in Table 10.3. A graphic detailing the locations of the health and educational establishments is presented as Figure 10.3.


Table 10.3 (1 of 2) List of Health and Educational Establishments Within Calculation Area

ID Name Address Number of Properties

Description Easting Northing

1 Greystoke Surgery

Greystoke Surgery, Kings Avenue, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1JA 1

Health 419879 586319

2 Chantry Middle School

Chantry Middle School, Mitford Road, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1RQ 1

Educational 419227 586408

3 Wellway Medical Group

Wellway Medical Group, Wellway, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1BJ 1

Health 419896 586205

4 King Edward VI School

Caretakers House King Edward VI School, Cottingwood ne, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1DN 3


5 Lindisfarne House St. George’s Hospital

Lindisfarne House, St. George’s Hospital, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 2NU 1

Health 419925 587144

6 East Riding Clinic East Riding Clinic, Track From Whorral Bank To East Riding Clinic, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 3AA 1

Health 420537 586584

7 All Saints C Of E Aided First School

Morpeth All Saints C Of E Aided First School, Pinewood Drive, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 3RD 1


8 Otterburn House St. George’s Hospital

Otterburn House, St. George’s Hospital, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 2NU 2

Health 419681 587100

9 Newminster Middle School

Newminster Middle School, Mitford Road, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1RH 1


10 Bolland House Bolland House, Bullers Green, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1DE 1


11

St. George’s Hospital (Cottingwood Lane)

St. George’s Hospital, Drive From Cottingwood Lane To St. George’s Hospital, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 2NU 1

Health 420127 586959

12 19B Newgate Street

Second Floor, 19B Newgate Street, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1AW 1

Health 419786 586041

13 Abbeyfields County School

Abbeyfields County School, Abbots Way Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 2LZ 1


14 St. Roberts First School

St. Roberts First School, Oldgate, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1QF 2



Table 10.4 (2 of 2) List of Health and Educational Establishments Within Calculation Area

ID Name Address Number of Properties

Description Easting Northing

15 Morpeth First School

Morpeth First School, Goose Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1TL 1


16 South Northgate Hospital

South Northgate Hospital, Northgate Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 3BP 1

Health 418708 587630

In addition, where possible, noise sensitive community facilities/areas have been identified from OS MasterMap and

other sources. The list of these community facilities/areas is shown in Table 10.5 and their locations can be viewed

in Figure10.4. Included in the table is the approximate total area covered by each amenity space, its general

location and the approximate Easting and Northing of its centre.

Table 10.5 List of Community Facilities/Areas with Location and Total Area

ID Description Location Easting Northin

g Total

Area (m2)

1 Existing Woodland Near Benridge Bridge 417727 587402 6342

2 Existing Woodlands St. Leonard's Lane 417682 586739 3276

3 Open Space Open space, both sides of A1 418175 587792 22473

4 Existing Woodlands East of Northgate Hospital 418902 587823 39180

5 Existing Woods Kater Dene 418713 587579 24322

6 Existing Woodlands South of Cotting Burn Bridge 418911 587173 18843

7 Existing Woodlands Fulbeck Grange 419149 587250 29016

8 Ancient/Semi-Ancient and Existing Woodland

Scotch Gill Wood 418361 586131 126063

9 Park Lancaster Park 418564 586526 16241

10 Existing Woodlands Scotch Gill Wood 418726 586175 7288

11 Playing Field Chantry Middle School 418996 586266 92159

12 Ancient/Semi-Ancient Woodland

Scotch Gill Wood, North of Chantry Middle School

419087 586502 68150


Cottingwood Lane 419414 586876 43078

14 Golf Club Longhirst Hall Golf Club 420968 588071 336224


Howburn Wood, North of A197 (Whorral Bank Road)

420373 587448 294281

16 Existing Woodland South of St. George’s Hospital 420251 586620 6699


Howburn Wood, South of A197 (Whorral Bank Road)

420972 586826 28116


South of Ford House 420955 586456 23620


10.2.5.1 Impact Assessment Methods

To assess the potential noise impacts of the scheme, various scenarios were compared. The Do Minimum Scenario

refers to the road network as it would exist without the proposed new road scheme, and the Do Something scenario

refers to the road network with the proposed scheme in place. In accordance with the DMRB detailed assessment

methodology the three scenarios described in Section 10.2.4 have been assessed.

Magnitude of Road Traffic Noise Impact

When considering two sounds with similar acoustic properties (i.e. similar spectral and temporal characteristics) a change of more than 3dB LA is regarded as being just perceptible to the human ear. It is generally accepted that

changes in road traffic noise levels of up to 3dB are not widely perceptible, confirmed in Department for Transport

document Transport Analysis Guidance Unit 3.3.2 (Department of Transport, 2007).

“For freely flowing traffic, a difference of about 3dB in noise level is required before there is a statistically significant

change in the average assessment of nuisance. The assessment of nuisance however could still be affected even if

there is only a 1dB change in the noise level if the change is associated with changes in the view of traffic, or if the

change occurs suddenly.”

This highlights that people are more sensitive to abrupt changes in traffic noise associated with new road schemes

than would be predicted from the steady state evidence.In the period following a change in traffic flow, people may find benefits or dis-benefits when the noise changes are as small as 1dB LA.’

The magnitude of traffic noise impacts from a road project should be classified into levels of impact in order to assist

with the interpretation of the road project. The DMRB states:

‘A change in road traffic noise of 1dB in the short term (e.g. when a project is opened) is the smallest that is

considered perceptible. In the long term a 3dB changes is considered perceptible. The magnitude of impact should,

therefore be considered different in the short term and long term.’

The magnitude of noise impacts is assessed by comparing the increase or decrease in noise levels between

scenarios described in Section 10.2.4. The magnitude of noise impacts associated with road traffic noise is defined

in DMRB HD213/11 (Table 3.1 and 3.1); and reproduced in Table 10.5 (short term) and Table 10.6 (Long Term).

Changes in noise level can either be increases or decreases.

Table 10.5 Magnitude of Noise Impacts due to Changes in Road Traffic Noise (short term)

Noise Level Change dB LA10,18h Magnitude of Impact

0 No change

0.1 – 0.9 Negligible

1 – 2.9 Minor

3 – 4.9 Moderate

5 + Major


Table 10.6 Magnitude of Noise Impacts due to Changes in Road Traffic Noise (Long term)

Noise Level Change dB LA10,18h Magnitude of Impact

0 No change

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible

3 – 4.9 Minor

5 – 9.9 Moderate

10 + Major

Predicting Noise Levels

All predicted road traffic noise levels have been calculated using the CadnaA© noise prediction software, which

predicts the LA10,18hr traffic noise level at receptor locations in accordance with the Department of Transport

publication ‘Calculation of Road Traffic Noise’ (CRTN) (Department of Transport ,1988) and the additional advice

provided in HD 213/11. CadnaA© models have been built for the Do Minimum and Do Something Scenario for the

base year, Baseline Year (2015) and Future Year (2030). Mitigation, except for any existing proposed earthworks,

has not been included in the calculations. All calculations are based on the predicted traffic flows and associated

variables as supplied by AECOM Transportation in the form of 18 Hour Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWT)

for the baseline year, and future years (2007, 2015 and 2030, respectively). Additional input data included annual

average speeds (km/hr) and HGV percentages.

Historically, the fact that there is much less traffic at night has meant that night-time noise assessments have not

been undertaken as part of the DMRB assessment process. However, due to the increasing use of the strategic

road network by long distance goods traffic during night-time hours and the associated potential to increase the level

of noise and the perception of nuisance at night, a night-time noise impact assessment is now to be considered as part of the DMRB assessment process where an Lnight, outside noise level is greater than 55 dB in any scenario.

The TRL report ‘Converting the UK traffic noise index LA10,18h to EU noise indices for noise mapping’(Abbott &

Nelson, 2002) has been used to derive the night-time noise levels for each scenario. AECOM Transportation has

confirmed that the diurnal traffic pattern for both the proposed bypass and affected roads would be typical for these roads. Therefore, Method 3 of the TRL report has been used to convert the predicted daytime noise levels (LA10,18h)

to equivalent Lnight,outdoors noise levels.

The detailed ground elevation data provided was limited to the project area of the proposed new roads (road and

earthworks), and to local survey data. The area covered by the new road design and earthworks, and the survey

data are as shown in Figure 10.1. Outwith these areas Ordnance Survey’s 10m contour data was used.

Noise Nuisance assessment

Noise nuisance is often defined as ‘a feeling of displeasure evoked by noise’ (for example, the World Health

Organisation ’Guidelines for Community Noise’ (World Health Organisation, 1999)). The response to noise by

individuals varies widely. However, the average or community response to noise is deemed relatively stable, with

community average degree of annoyance associated with long-term average exposure. Consequently, change in

average noise emission levels between assessed scenarios, together with estimates of population density, based on

residential property counts and assumptions on the numbers of residents per property, enable changes in estimated

populations annoyed to be determined.

HD213/11 states that the following noise nuisance assessments should be undertaken:

� Do Minimum scenario in baseline year versus Do Minimum scenario in the future assessment year; and


� Do Minimum scenario in the baseline year versus the Do Something scenario in the future year assessment

year.

HD213/11 states that the change in noise nuisance should be carried out for each property where noise calculations

have been undertaken. Due to variability in individual responses, HD213/11 recommends that community

annoyance ratings are used for each noise level. It is therefore important to note that the results of the HD213/11

nuisance assessment should not be related to individual annoyance responses.

The term ‘nuisance’ in HD213/11 means the percentage of people bothered by traffic noise (i.e. those who say they

are ‘very much’ or ‘quite a lot’ bothered on a four point worded scale). The DMRB method of assessing traffic noise

and vibration nuisance is outlined in Annex 6 of HD 213/11.

10.2.5.2 Vibration

The DMRB detailed assessment requires an assessment of traffic induced vibration, including the assessment of

the numbers of people bothered by airborne vibration. It should be appreciated that the vibration assessments are

for comparison only and, as such, are not indicative of an individual’s responses. Also, only properties within

approximately 40m of the centre line of the road which have predicted or measured noise levels greater than 58dB LA1018hr have been assessed. This is because the DMRB vibration bother relationship is only validated up to a

distance of 40m.

HD 213/11 requires the following vibration assessments should be undertaken:

� Do Minimum scenario in baseline year versus Do Minimum scenario in the future assessment year; and

� Do Minimum scenario in the baseline year versus the Do Something scenario in the future year assessment

year.

With regard to groundborne vibration, this should be assessed if considered to be a potential problem adjacent to

existing roads. TRL Report 246 indicates that groundborne vibration should not be a problem for residents located

adjacent to smooth and well maintained road surfaces free of discontinuities and potholes. Within the vicinity of the

proposed scheme there are no known complaints of road traffic groundborne vibration. Moreover, should

groundborne vibration complaints arise in the future, it is likely that following suitable carriageway repairs these will

desist. Hence, road traffic induced vibration is not considered to be an issue for the proposed scheme and will be

assessed further.

10.2.5.3 Construction Noise Impact Assessment Methodology

Noise levels generated by demolition and construction activities are regulated by The Control of Pollution Act 1974

and therefore subject to Local Authority control. Advice on construction noise is contained within British Standard

(BS) 5228: 2009 ‘Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites’ which came into force on 1st

January 2009, but as yet it has not been statutorily approved, although it can be regarded as providing current

thinking on best practice.

BS 5228 -1:2009 contains a database on the noise emission from individual items of equipment and activities and

methods for the prediction of noise at receptors due to demolition and construction activity. The prediction method

gives guidance on the impacts of different types of ground coverage, barrier attenuation and how to assess the

impact of fixed and mobile plant.

BS 5228:2009 also provides guidance on the potential significance of impact thresholds at dwellings (Page 117).

Based on this guidance, Table 10.7 presents the significance of construction noise impacts used in the assessment

of likely construction impacts.


Table 10.7 Construction Impact Definitions (Daytime)

Impact Criteria

Negligible Generation of daytime facade noise levels that are below 55dB LAeq,10hour

Slight Generation of daytime facade noise levels in the range of 55 to 65dB LAeq,10hour

Moderate Generation of daytime facade noise levels in the range of 65 to 75dB LAeq,10hour

Major Generation of daytime facade noise levels that are above 75dB LAeq,10hour

NCC has noise limits of construction of highways, which are shown in Appendix 10.2.

10.2.5.4 Assumptions or Limitations The following describes the assumptions and limitations used in this chapter:

� The traffic noise levels have been based on the 18hr AAWT Flows provided by AECOM Transportation;

� The Do Minimum noise models assume that the Do Minimum road surfaces are standard hot rolled asphalt

surface;

� The Do Something noise models assume that ‘Low Noise’ surfaces such as Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) or

similar material will be used on all new roads;

� The night-time traffic flows are based on Method 3 of the TRL report ‘Converting the UK traffic noise index (LA10,18h) to EU noise indices for noise mapping’. It has been confirmed by AECOM Transportation that the diurnal pattern of the proposed bypass is typical.

- A default building height of 8 m has been used for all properties in the noise models; and

- The detailed ground elevation data provided was limited to the project area of the proposed new roads

(road and earthworks), and to local survey data. The area covered by the new road design and

earthworks, and the survey data are as shown in Figure 10.1. Outwith these areas Ordnance Survey’s

10m contour data was used.

10.3 BASELINE CONDITIONS

10.3.1 Existing Environment

Monitoring locations were selected at the nearest Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSRs) in close proximity to the

proposed bypass. The proposed route passes south of Northgate Hospital across the north of the town of Morpeth.

Both short-term and long-term monitoring has been carried out at numerous points in the area surrounding the

proposed route.

10.3.2 Short-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring

The short-term ambient noise levels were established by undertaking a baseline noise survey between the 12th and

13th October 2009. Monitoring locations are described below (more detail is provided in Appendix 10.1) and visually

identified in Figure 10.1.

Location One – Northgate Hospital

The measurement position was located at the most southerly location of the hospital, Woodside 16, where there were sleeping quarters, which are located, north of the proposed bypass.


Location Two – East Shield Hill Farm Cottages

The measurement position was located on the farm track next to the farm properties, north of the proposed bypass.

Location Three – Glendene Fulbeck

The measurement position was located next to the road outside property, approximately 150m south of the proposed bypass.

Location Four – King Edward VI School

The measurement position was located outside the northern most building, south of the proposed route.

Location Five – St. George’s Hospital

The measurement position was located outside the most northerly building, where there are sleeping amenities, south of the proposed route.

At location one, the main noise source was background road traffic noise from the A1. Other contributors to the

acoustic environment were birdsong, tractors moving in the surrounding fields, aircraft overhead and occasional

breakout noise from Woodside 16, at the hospital.

At location two, the main noise source was traffic noise from the existing A1 and surrounding roads in the locality.

There was also impact from tractors operating in the surrounding fields, birdsong, horses in the fields and geese.

At location three, the main noise sources were background noise from the A1, birdsong and some impact from the

slight breeze in the trees and occasional aircraft overhead. There was also the occasional car passing during the

monitoring period.

At location four, the main noise sources were those from traffic on the surrounding roads, children on the nearby

playing fields and birdsong.

At location five, the main sources of noise were traffic on the surrounding roads, birdsong and activities in the

surrounding fields. During the evening monitoring, there was an unknown low frequency hum that appeared to

emanate from a location that was distant from the measurement location.

10.3.3 Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring

The long-term ambient noise levels were established by undertaking a baseline noise survey between 1st and 5

th

September 2008. Monitoring locations are described below (more detail is provided in Appendix 10.1) and visually

identified in Figure 10.1.

Location Six – Kater Dene

The measurement position was located at the farm dwelling, approximately 58m north of the proposed route.

Location Seven – Rosebank

The measurement position was located outside this property, which is adjacent to the A192.

Location Eight – Fernbank

The measurement position was located in the front garden of the property Fernbank.

At location six the main noise source was background noise from vehicles on the A1 and noise from traffic on local roads.

At location seven, the main noise source was that of road traffic along the A192.

At location eight, the main noise source was road traffic noise on the A197.


The calibration of the equipment was checked before and after each set of measurements and found to be within

specified limits. All staff involved with noise measurements were competent, either being Members of the Institute of

Acoustics or holding a Certificate of Competence in Environmental Noise Measurement.

Weather conditions during the monitoring period had no significant impact on the results obtained and were

conducive to representative environmental noise measurements, with generally fair conditions, overcast with low

wind speeds.

The survey results are summarised in Table 10. and Table 10.9.


Table 10.8 Short-term Ambient Noise Monitoring

ID Measurement Location

Start Date 15 Minute Sound Pressure Level, dB

LAeq LA10 LA90 LAMAX

1 Northgate Hospital

13:15 12/10/09 48 50 44 61

13:31 12/10/09 47 49 44 68

19:54 12/10/09 42 45 38 58

20:11 12/10/09 41 44 35 57

08:37 13/10/09 53 55 50 61

08:53 13/10/09 52 55 49 67

2 East Shield Hill Farm

Cottages

13:58 12/10/09 46 50 36 69

14:14 12/10/09 53 59 37 65

19:07 12/10/09 38 41 31 63

19:24 12/10/09 35 38 29 52

07:53 13/10/09 47 48 45 68

08:10 13/10/09 47 50 44 59

3 Glendene Fulbeck

14:41 12/10/09 53 47 36 75

14:56 12/10/09 58 57 36 79

20:35 12/10/09 45 42 35 69

20:51 12/10/09 49 43 35 74

09:18 13/10/09 60 52 42 87

09:33 13/10/09 53 47 40 75

4 King Edward VI

School

10:00 13/10/09 48 50 41 65

10:17 13/10/09 49 52 42 64

5 St. George’s Hospital

15:33 12/10/09 43 43 35 59

15:49 12/10/09 45 48 35 66

21:10 12/10/09 55 37 28 75

21:36 12/10/09 29 30 26 48

10:41 13/10/09 49 45 36 71

11:01 13/10/09 40 43 37 55

Notes: All values are in dB re 20 µPa, Free-field, fast time-weighting


Table 10.9 Long Term Monitoring

ID Location Date LAeq,16hr LAeq,8hr LAmax,8hr LA10(18-hour)

6 Kater Dene

2/9/08 51 43 75 50.6

3/9/08 53 44 78 51.2

4/9/08 53 43 77 53.0

7 Rosebank

2/9/08 61 53 77 64.5

3/9/08 63 54 83 65.7

4/9/08 63 54 77 65.6

8 Fernbank

2/9/08 65 52 76 64.7

3/9/08 63 55 85 64.5

4/9/08 62 53 73 63.8

Notes: All values are in dB re 20 µPa, Free-field, fast time-weighting

10.3.4 Existing Vibration Assessment

The estimates of the percentage of people bothered “very much” or “quite a lot” by vibration from the existing road traffic conditions are shown in Table 10.10. It should be noted that as HD213/11 states that ‘on average, traffic

induced vibration is expected to affect a very small percentage of people at exposure levels below 58dB and

therefore zero percent should be assumed in these cases’, measurement locations reported in Table 10.8 and


Table 10.9 at a distance greater than 40m from a road with measured levels less than 58dB have been omitted from

Table 10.

Table 10.10 Existing Vibration Assessment

Measurement Location Measured LA10(T) dB Estimation of % of people bothered by

Traffic Induced Vibration

Rosebank

64.5 10.7

65.7 13.1

65.6 13.0

Fernbank

64.7 11.1

64.5 10.7

63.8 9.4


10.4 ASSESSMENT OF NOISE IMPACTS

10.4.1 Noise

It should be noted that with the introduction of the scheme one household will be demolished. The address of this

property is Rose Cottage, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 3JX. This property has not been included in

the noise impacts assessment. The magnitude of impacts (based on Table 10.5 and Table 10.6) has been predicted

for all remaining properties within the Calculation Area.

10.4.2 Sample Receptor Locations.

For each sample receptor location the Do Minimum and Do Something noise levels have been predicted for the

Baseline Year and Future Year for both daytime and night-time period.

The noise levels for the Do Minimum Baseline Year (2015) and the Do Minimum Future Year (2030), with

associated magnitude of noise impacts, are presented in Table 10.11 at the ground floor and Table 10.12 for the

first floor. The night-time assessment results are shown in Tables 10.13 and 10.14. The magnitude of noise impacts

is based on the long term impacts as shown in Table 10.6.

Table 10.11 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) Versus Do Minimum Future Year (DM FY)

Magnitude of Noise Impacts at the Ground Floor- Day-time

ID Property DM BL LA10,18hr

(Façade) DM FY LA10,18hr

(Façade) Magnitude of Impact

1 Northgate Hospital 54.8 55.3 Negligible Adverse

2 East Shield Hill Farm Cottages 39.1 39.7

Negligible Adverse

3 Glendene Fulbeck 51.6 52.2 Negligible Adverse

4 King Edward VI School 41.5 42.2 Negligible Adverse

5 St. George’s Hospital 41.2 41.9 Negligible Adverse

6 Kater Dene 47.6 48.2 Negligible Adverse

7 Rosebank 55.2 55.8 Negligible Adverse

8 Fernbank 66.2 66.8 Negligible Adverse


Table 10.12 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) and Do Minimum Future Year (DM FY) and

Associated Magnitude of Noise Impacts at First Floor- Day-time






Negligible Adverse







Table 10.13 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) Versus Do Minimum Future Year (DM FY)

Magnitude of Impact at the Ground Floor- Night-time






Negligible Adverse








Table 10.14 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) and Do Minimum Future Year (DM FY) and

Associated Magnitude of Impact at First Floor- Night-time






Negligible Adverse







The noise levels for the Do Minimum Baseline Year (2015) and the Do Something Baseline Year (2015), with

associated magnitude of impacts, are presented in Table 10.15 at the ground floor and Table 10.16 for the first floor.

The night-time assessment results are show in Tables 10.17 and 10.18. The magnitude of impacts is based on the

short term impact as shown in Table 10.5.

Table 10.15 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) Versus Do Something Baseline Year (DS BL) Magnitude of Impact at Ground Floor- Day-time


(Façade)

DS BL LA10,18hr (Façade)

Magnitude of Impact

1 Northgate Hospital 46.9 48.4 Minor Adverse

2 East Shield Hill Farm Cottages 39.1 45.3 Major Adverse

3 Glendene Fulbeck 37.6 41.1 Moderate Adverse

4 King Edward VI School 37.4 38.9 Minor Adverse

5 St. George’s Hospital 36.1 38.9 Minor Adverse

6 Kater Dene 38.4 47.8 Major Adverse


8 Fernbank 66.2 65.9 Negligible Beneficial


Table 10.16 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) and Do Something Baseline Year (DS BL) and Associated Magnitude of Impact at First Floor- Day-time


(Façade)

DS BL LA10,18hr (Façade)

Magnitude of Impact







7 Rosebank 46.9 46.6 Negligible Beneficial


Table 10.17 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) Versus Do Something Baseline Year (DS BL) Magnitude of Impact at Ground Floor- Night-time


(Façade) DS BL LA10,6hr (Façade)

Magnitude of Impact










Table 10.18 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) Versus Do Something Baseline Year (DS

BL) Magnitude of Impact at First Floor- Night-time


(Façade) DS BL LA10,6hr




3 Glendene Fulbeck 32.4 35.1 Minor Adverse




7 Rosebank 38.4 38.2 Negligible Beneficial


The noise levels for the Do Minimum Baseline Year (2015) and the Do Something Future Year (2030), with

associated magnitude of impacts, are presented in Table 10.19 at the ground floor and Table 10.20 for the first floor.

The night-time assessment results are show in Tables 10.21 and 10.22. The magnitude of impacts is based on the

long term impact as shown in Table 10.6.

Table 10.19 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) Versus Do Something Future Year (DS FY) Magnitude of Impact at Ground Floor- Day-time


(Façade) DS FY LA10,18hr (Façade)

Magnitude of Impact


2 East Shield Hill Farm Cottages 39.1 46.0 Moderate Adverse




6 Kater Dene 38.4 48.3 Moderate Adverse




Table 10.20 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) and Do Something Future Year (DS FY)

and Associated Magnitude of Impact at First Floor- Day-time


(Façade)

DS FY LA10,18hr (Façade)

Magnitude of Impact









Table 10.21 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) Versus Do Something Future Year (DS FY) Magnitude of Impact at Ground Floor- Night-time


(Façade) DS FY LA10,6hr (Façade)

Magnitude of Impact










Table 10.22 Sample Property Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) and Do Something Future Year (DS FY)

and Associated Magnitude of Impact at First Floor- Night-time


(Façade) DS FY LA10,6hr










The information shown in Tables 10.11-10.22 is also illustrated in Figures 10.5 to 10.8.

Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year versus Do Minimum scenario in the Future Year

Summaries of the magnitude of noise impacts at all dwellings within the Calculation Area for the Do Minimum

Baseline Year versus the Do Minimum Future Year, at the ground floor level are presented in Table 10.23 and the

first floor summary is presented in Table 10.24.


Table 10.23 Summary of Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year Versus Do Minimum Scenario in the

Future Year Magnitude of Noise Impacts for the Ground Floor

Project: MNB

Scenario/ Comparison: Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year Versus Do Minimum scenario in the Future Year

Change in Noise Level, dB

Magnitude of Impact

Daytime Night-Time

No. of Dwellings

No. of Other

Sensitive Receptors

Number of Dwellings

Number of Dwellings

(Do Minimum

Baseline < 55dB, Do

Something Baseline

>= 55dB )

Number of Dwellings

(Do Minimum Baseline >= 55dB,

Do Something Baseline >= 55dB)

Number of Dwellings


Do Something Baseline <

55dB)

Increase (adverse) in noise

level, LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 2495 30 2495 33 397 N/A

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

10 + Major 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

No Change 0 No Change 2 0 2 0 0 0

Decrease (beneficial)

in noise level,

LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

10 + Major 0 0 0 N/A 0 0


Table 10.24 Summary of Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year Versus Do Minimum Scenario in the

Future Year Magnitude of Noise Impacts for the First Floor

Project: MNB

Scenario/ Comparison: Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year Versus Do Minimum scenario in the Future Year


Magnitude of Impact

Daytime Night-Time

No. of Dwellings

No. of Other

Sensitive Receptors

Number of Dwellings

Number of Dwellings

(Do Minimum

Baseline < 55dB, Do

Something Baseline

>= 55dB )

Number of Dwellings



Number of Dwellings



55dB)

Increase (adverse) in noise

level, LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 2494 30 2494 23 489 N/A

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

10 + Major 0 0 0 0 0 N/A


Decrease (beneficial)

in noise level,

LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

10 + Major 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

Graphics illustrating the noise level changes, at the ground floor level, within the Calculation Area, for the Do

Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Minimum Future Year scenario can be found in Figure 10.9, and similarly for the

first floor noise level changes can be viewed in Figures 10.10. The night-time noise level changes for the ground

and first floor can be seen in Figures 10.11 and 10.12 respectively.

Do Minimum scenario in the Baseline Year versus Do Something scenario in the Baseline Year


Baseline Year versus the Do Something Baseline Year, at the ground floor level are presented in Table 10.25 and

the first floor summary is presented in Table 10.26.


Table 10.25 Summary of Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year Versus Do Something Scenario in the

Baseline Year Magnitude of Noise Impacts for the Ground Floor

Project: MNB

Scenario/ Comparison: Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year Versus Do Something scenario in the Baseline Year


Magnitude of Impact

Daytime Night-Time

No. of Dwellings

No. of Other

Sensitive Receptors

Number of Dwellings

Number of Dwellings

(Do Minimum

Baseline < 55dB, Do

Something Baseline

>= 55dB )

Number of Dwellings



Number of Dwellings



55dB)

Increase (Adverse) in noise

level, LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 625 15 634 1 9 N/A

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 32 7 24 1 1 N/A

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 2 0 1 0 0 N/A

10 + Major 6 0 6 0 0 N/A


Decrease (Beneficial)

in noise level,

LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 1363 3 1404 N/A 68 5

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 185 2 144 N/A 21 3

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

10 + Major 0 0 0 N/A 0 0



Baseline Year Magnitude of Noise Impacts for the First Floor

Project: MNB

Scenario/ Comparison: Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year Versus Do Something scenario in the Baseline Year


Magnitude of Impact

Daytime Night-Time

No. of Dwellings

No. of Other

Sensitive Receptors

Number of Dwellings

Number of Dwellings

(Do Minimum

Baseline < 55dB, Do

Something Baseline

>= 55dB )

Number of Dwellings



Number of Dwellings



55dB)


level, LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 593 18 595 0 14 N/A

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 17 4 16 0 2 N/A

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 5 0 4 0 0 N/A

10 + Major 3 0 3 0 0 N/A



in noise level,

LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 1441 3 1468 N/A N/A 7

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 177 2 150 N/A N/A 0

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0

10 + Major 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0

Graphics illustrating the noise level changes, at the ground floor level, within the Calculation area, for the Do

Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Something Baseline Year scenario can be found in Figure 10.13, and similarly

the first floor noise level changes can be viewed in Figures 10.14. The night-time noise level changes for the

ground and first floor can be seen in Figures 10.15 and 10.16 respectively.

Do Minimum scenario in the Baseline Year versus Do Something in the Future Year


Baseline Year versus the Do Something Future Year, at the ground floor level are presented in Table 10.27 and the

first floor summary is presented in Table 10.28



Future Year Magnitude of Impacts for the Ground Floor

Project: MNB

Scenario/ Comparison: Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year Versus Do Something scenario in the Future Year


Magnitude of Impact

Daytime Night-Time

No. of Dwellings

No. of Other

Sensitive Receptors

Number of Dwellings

Number of Dwellings

(Do Minimum

Baseline < 55dB, Do

Something Baseline

>= 55dB )

Number of Dwellings



Number of Dwellings



55dB)


level, LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 1669 24 1669 21 256 N/A

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 3 3 3 0 0 N/A

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 6 0 6 0 0 N/A

10 + Major 0 0 0 0 0 N/A



in noise level,

LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 633 2 633 N/A 108 0

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

10 + Major 0 0 0 N/A 0 0



Future Year Magnitude of Impacts for the First Floor

Project: MNB

Scenario/ Comparison: Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year Versus Do Something scenario in the Future Year


Magnitude of Impact

Daytime Night-Time

No. of Dwellings

No. of Other

Sensitive Receptors

Number of Dwellings

Number of Dwellings

(Do Minimum

Baseline < 55dB, Do

Something Baseline

>= 55dB )

Number of Dwellings



Number of Dwellings

(Do Minimum

Baseline >= 55dB, Do

Something Baseline <

55dB)


level, LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 1656 27 1658 7 298 N/A

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 4 0 5 0 0 N/A

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 6 0 3 0 0 N/A

10 + Major 0 0 0 0 0 N/A



in noise level,

LA10,18h

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 658 2 658 N/A 118 0

3.0 – 4.9 Minor 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

10 + Major 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

Graphics illustrating the noise level changes, at the ground floor level, within the Calculation area, for the Do

Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Something Future Year scenario can be found in Figure 10.17, and similarly for

the first floor noise level changes can be viewed in Figures 10.18. The night-time noise level changes for the

ground and first floor can be seen in Figures 10.19 and 10.20 respectively.

With regard to the day-time magnitude of noise impacts it can be seen that in the short term there will be an

increase in the magnitude of noise impacts for 625 dwellings where the increase in noise level is less than 1dB and

there is predicted to be 32 Minor Adverse impacts and 2 Moderate Adverse impacts. However, there will also be

1363 decreases in noise level of less than 1dB and 185 properties will experience a Minor Beneficial noise impact.

In the long term, there are 826 fewer adverse noise level increases for the Do Minimum Baseline Year versus the

Do Something Future Year scenario than for the Do Minimum Baseline year versus the Do Minimum Future year


scenario. Also, for the Do Minimum Baseline versus the Do Something Future scenario there are 633 dwellings

where the magnitude of noise impacts will decrease, whereas for the Do Minimum Baseline versus the Do Minimum

Future scenario there are predicted to be no dwellings where a decreases in the magnitude of noise impacts will

occur.

With regard to the night-time noise, when comparing the Do Minimum Baseline versus the Do Something Future

Year scenario with the Do Minimum Baseline versus the Do Minimum Future Year scenario there are 11 fewer

dwellings that are predicted to experience noise increase such that noise level increase to above LAeq,16hr 55dB and

141 dwellings where the noise level increases from a level that exceeded LAeq,16hr 55dB for the Baseline Do

Minimum Scenario. Similar noise impacts are predicted to occur at the first floor level.

However, although the foregoing analysis would indicate that the proposed scheme would, generally, be beneficial

in terms of noise there are 9 properties where the long term noise level increases are at least 3dB, for which noise

mitigation may be required. Mitigation is discussed in Section 10.6.

10.4.3 Health and Educational Establishments

Figure 10.3 identifies the location of health and educational establishments. For each of the health and educational

buildings, the ground floor noise levels for the Do Minimum Baseline Year (2015) and the Do Minimum Future Year

(2030), with associated magnitude of impacts, is presented in Table 10.29, the Do Minimum Baseline Year (2015)

and Do Something Baseline Year (2015), with associated magnitude of impacts are presented in Table 10.30 and

the Do Minimum Baseline Year (2015) and the Do Something Future Year (2030), with the associated magnitude of

impacts are presented in Table 10.31.

Table 10.29 (1 of 2) Table of Health and Educational Establishment Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) Versus Do Minimum Future Year (DM FY) Magnitude of Impact

ID Name DM BL LA10,18hr

(Façade)

DM FY LA10,18hr

(Façade) Magitude of Impact

1 Greystoke Surgery 45.8 46.5 Negligible Adverse

2 Chantry Middle School 47.3 47.8 Negligible Adverse

3 Wellway Medical Group 66.4 67.5 Negligible Adverse


5 Lindisfarne House St Georges Hospital 41.0 41.7 Negligible Adverse

6 East Riding Clinic 53.7 54.4 Negligible Adverse

7 All Saints C Of E Aided First School 45.1 45.7 Negligible Adverse

8 Otterburn House St. George’s Hospital 41.2 41.9 Negligible Adverse

9 Newminster Middle School 46.1 46.6 Negligible Adverse

10 Bolland House 73.1 73.6 Negligible Adverse

11 St. George’s Hospital (Cottingwood Lane) 65.3 66.4 Negligible Adverse

12 19B Newgate Street 44.6 45.0 Negligible Adverse

13 Abbeyfields County School 46.3 46.8 Negligible Adverse

14 St. Roberts First School 44.2 44.7 Negligible Adverse

15 Morpeth First School 62.0 62.7 Negligible Adverse


Table 10.29 (2 of 2) Table of Health and Educational Establishment Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) Versus Do Minimum Future Year (DM FY) Magnitude of Impact

ID Name

DM BL LA10,18hr

(Façade)

DM FY LA10,18hr

(Façade) Magitude of Impact

16 South Northgate Hospital 54.8 55.3 Negligible Adverse

Table 10.30 Table of Health and Educational Establishment Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) Versus Do Something Baseline Year (DS BL) Magnitude of Impact


(Façade)

DS BL LA10,18hr


1 Greystoke Surgery 65.3 65.0 Negligible Beneficial

2 Chantry Middle School 41.4 41.3 Negligible Beneficial

3 Wellway Medical Group 53.5 52.8 Negligible Beneficial


5 Lindisfarne House St. George’s Hospital 34.6 37.2 Minor Adverse



8 Otterburn House St Georges Hospital 36.1 38.9 Minor Adverse


10 Bolland House 48.5 47.1 Minor Beneficial


12 19B Newgate Street 44.5 43.4 Minor Beneficial


14 St. Roberts First School 66.6 66.6 No Change

15 Morpeth First School 62.0 62.0 No Change

16 South Northgate Hospital 46.9 48.4 Minor Adverse


Table 10.31 Table of Health and Educational Establishment Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BL) Versus Do

Something Future Year (DS FY) Magnitude of Impact


(Façade)

DS FY LA10,18hr


1 Greystoke Surgery 45.8 46.1 Negligible Adverse

2 Chantry Middle School 40.4 40.7 Negligible Adverse

3 Wellway Medical Group 58.2 58.2 No Change


5 Lindisfarne House St Georges Hospital 34.6 37.8 Minor Adverse



8 Otterburn House St. George’s Hospital 36.1 39.5 Minor Adverse


10 Bolland House 48.5 47.6 Negligible Beneficial


12 19B Newgate Street 44.7 44.0 Negligible Beneficial


14 St. Roberts First School 66.3 66.5 Negligible Adverse

15 Morpeth First School 62.0 62.1 Negligible Adverse

16 South Northgate Hospital 46.9 48.9 Negligible Adverse

Without the development in place (Do Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Minimum Future Year) all 16 buildings are

predicted to experience a noise increase and thus experience an adverse impact, whereas with the development in

place (Do Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Something Future Year) only 13 locations are predicted to experience

an increase in noise level; 2 locations are predicted to experience a decrease in noise level and one will experience

no change.

10.4.4 Amenity Areas

With regard to amenity/recreational areas and other sensitive areas, a map has been produced to show their

locations, this can be viewed in Figure 10.4, There are no community facilities/areas predicted to experience a

change in noise level of at least 3dB when comparing the Do Minimum Baseline Year with the Do Minimum Future

Year. Whereas for the Do Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Something Future Year comparison there are 4

community facilities/areas where an increase of at least 3dB is predicted to occur, and 1 where a decrease of at

least than 3dB is predicted to occur over more than 10% of the amenity area. In summary, for identified

amenity/recreational areas, should the introduction of the bypass proceed, there will be adverse impacts at 4 of the

19 amenity/recreational areas and a benefit in 2 (see Table 10.32). However, if the proposed bypass was not to

proceed there would be no adversely affected areas for the Do Minimum Baseline Year versus the Do Minimum

Future Year.


Table 10.32 provides details of these comparisons and graphics illustrating the noise level changes at community

facilities, for the Do Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Minimum Future Year scenarios, Do Minimum Baseline Year

versus Do Something Baseline Year and Do Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Something Future Year can be

found in Figures 10.21, 10.22 and 10.23 respectively.

Table 10.32 Community Areas Experiencing Changes in Noise Levels of at Least 1dB for the Do Minimum Baseline Year Versus the Do Minimum Future Year (DM BL vs DM FY), Do Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Something Baseline Year and Do Minimum Baseline Year Versus Do Something Future Year (DM BL vs DS FY)

ID LOCATION

DM BL vs DM FY DM BL vs DS BL DM BL vs DS FY

To

tal A

rea (

m2)

% A

rea W

ith

In

cre

ase

>3d

B

% A

rea W

ith

D

ecre

as

e >

3d

B

% A

rea W

ith

<

1d

B C

han

ge

% A

rea W

ith

In

cre

ase

>1d

B

% A

rea W

ith

D

ecre

as

e >

1d

B

% A

rea W

ith

<

1d

B C

han

ge

% A

rea W

ith

In

cre

ase

>3d

B

% A

rea W

ith

D

ecre

as

e >

3d

B

% A

rea W

ith

<

1d

B C

han

ge

1 Near Benridge Bridge 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 6342

2 St. Leonard's Lane 0 0 100 100 0 0 23 0 77 3276

3 Open space, both sides of A1 0 0 100 70 6 24 23 1 76 19504

4 East of Northgate Hospital 0 0 100 77 0 23 0 0 100 35137

5 Kater Dene 0 0 100 91 0 9 0 0 100 24322

6 South of Cotting Burn Bridge 0 0 100 89 0 11 0 0 100 18843

7 Fulbeck Grange 0 0 100 87 0 13 11 0 89 29016

8 Scotch Gill Wood 0 0 100 94 0 6 0 0 100 77778

9 Lancaster Park 0 0 100 99 0 1 0 0 100 201

10 Scotch Gill Wood 0 0 100 1 0 99 0 0 100 92054

11 Chantry Middle School 0 0 100 5 0 95 0 0 100 68150

12 Scotch Gill Wood, North of Chantry Middle School

0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 43078

13 Cottingwood Lane 0 0 100 0 64 36 0 13 87 23876

14 Longhirst Hall Golf Club 0 0 100 82 0 18 56 0 44 294281

15 Howburn Wood, North of A197 (Whorral Bank Road)

0 0 100 0 14 86 0 0 100 6699

16 South of St, George’s Hospital 0 0 100 58 1 41 0 0 100 28116

17 Howburn Wood, South of A197 (Whorral Bank Road)

0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 23620

18 South of Ford House 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 6342


10.4.5 Noise Nuisance

The predicted noise nuisance for the Do Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Minimum Future Year, and the Do

Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Something Future Year have been determined, and summarised in Tables 10.33

and 10.34 aforementioned scenarios at the ground floor and first floor levels, respectively.

Table 10.33 Summary of Traffic Noise Nuisance for the Ground Floor

Project: MNB

Scenario/ Comparisons: Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year Versus Do Minimum Scenario in the Future Year

and Do Minimum Scenario in the Baseline Year Versus Do Something Scenario in the Future Year

Change in Nuisance Level Do Minimum Do Something

No. of Dwellings No. of Dwellings

Increase(Adverse) in nuisance level

< 10% 2304 884

10 < 20% 0 452

20 < 20% 0 37

30 < 40% 0 7

> 40% 0 1

No Change 0% 193 758

Decrease (Beneficial) in nuisance level

< 10% 0 358

10 < 20% 0 0

20 < 20% 0 0

30 < 40% 0 0

> 40% 0 0


Table 10.34 Summary of Traffic Noise Nuisance at the First Floor

Project: MNB






< 10% 2111 619

10 < 20% 0 246

20 < 20% 0 2

30 < 40% 0 1

> 40% 0 0

No Change 0% 386 1425


< 10% 0 204

10 < 20% 0 0

20 < 20% 0 0

30 < 40% 0 0

> 40% 0 0

As can be seen in Table 10.33, there are less increases in noise nuisance for the Do Something scenario compared

with the Do Minimum. Indeed, in the long term, following the introduction of the scheme there are 358 dwellings that

are predicted to experience a noise nuisance reduction at the ground floor, whereas there are none for the Do

Minimum Scenario.

However, for the Do Something scenario there are 8 dwellings at the ground floor that are predicted to experience a

change in noise nuisance of at least thirty percent. These dwellings are shown in Table 10.35, along with their Do

Something percentage change in annoyance, and the Do Minimum Baseline noise levels and the Do Something

noise levels. As can be seen, although the change in percentage annoyance is predicted to increase by more than

thirty percent the resultant absolute noise levels are all predicted to be less than LA10,18hr 49dB. Indeed, the steady

state annoyance for an LA10,18hr of 49dB is only approximately three percent of the population. Accordingly, it should

be appreciated that the reported level of noise annoyance for these dwellings is simply as a consequence of the low

initial Baseline Do Minimum road traffic noise level.


Table 10.35 Dwellings Predicted to Experience Noise Nuisance in Excess of 30% for the Do Something

Scenario

Address Do Something Change in % Annoyance

DO Minimum Baseline

(LA10,18hr dB)

Do Something Future Year (LA10,18hr dB)

1 East Shield Hill Farm Cottages Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill Morpeth Northumberland NE61 3LD

37.5 40.5 47.0

The Old Byre Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill Morpeth Northumberland NE61 3LD

36.9 37.6 43.8

Glendene, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JU

31.8 37.6 41.7

Kater Dene, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JX

44.0 38.4 48.3

The Granary Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill Morpeth Northumberland NE61 3LD

36.9 37.6 43.8

Stable Cottage Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill Morpeth Northumberland NE61 3LD

38.3 36.8 43.7

Fulbeck Grange, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JU

36.9 40.3 46.4

Conewood, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JU

30.2 40.1 43.7

10.4.6 Vibration Nuisance

When determining vibration nuisance Figures A6.1 and A6.2 of HD213/11 have been used to determine the

percentage of people bothered by traffic vibration, based on the predicted noise levels where the percentage of

people bothered very much, or quite a lot, by vibration is 10% lower than the corresponding figure for noise

nuisance. The predicted vibration nuisance for the Do Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Minimum Future Year, and

the Do Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Something Future Year have been determined, and summarised in

Tables 10.36 and 10.37, at the ground and first floors, respectively, for all properties that are within 40m of affected roads with a predicted noise level greater than 58dB LA10,18hr.


Table 10.36 Summary of Traffic Induced Airborne Vibration Nuisance for the Ground Floor

Project: MNB






<10% 221 175

10 <20% 0 10

20 <20% 0 2

30 <40% 0 0

> 40% 0 0



<10% 0 30

10 <20% 0 0

20 <20% 0 0

30 <40% 0 0

> 40% 0 0


Table 10.37 Summary of Traffic Induced Airborne Vibration Nuisance for the First Floor

Project: MNB






<10% 217 104

10 <20% 0 0

20 <20% 0 0

30 <40% 0 0

> 40% 0 0



<10% 0 21

10 <20% 0 0

20 <20% 0 0

30 <40% 0 0

> 40% 0 0

With regard to airborne traffic induced vibration, when comparing the Do Something Scenario with the Do Minimum

Scenario there are 46 fewer properties within 40m of affected roads predicted to experience an increase in vibration

nuisance in the long term. Moreover, the Do Something Scenario results in 30 dwellings predicted to experience a

reduction in airborne induced traffic vibration. Similar results occur at the first floor.

With regard to the occurrence of groundborne vibration, it is necessary to have defects in the road surface. Since it

must be assumed that the new road will initially have a surface that is of a high standard without defect, it can be

assumed that on opening groundborne vibration will not be an issue. However, should the road surface condition

deteriorate sufficiently that road surface defects occur then, as vehicles traverse over these defects groundborne

vibrations will be generated. To mitigate against the potential adverse impacts that may arise because of defective

road surfacing on the proposed roads, it is recommended that the authority responsible for the upkeep of the road

maintain it in good repair. Accordingly, should the new road be maintained in good repair groundborne vibration is

not likely to be an issue.

With regard to groundborne vehicle induced vibration on existing roads, it is likely that if peak particle velocities

equal to, or in excess of, 0.3mm/s were currently being experienced by residents, that complaints to appropriate

authorities would have been registered by residents exposed to this level of vibration. There are no known


complaints arising due to groundborne vibration. Accordingly, groundborne vibration from existing roads in the

vicinity of the proposed route options is not considered to be an issue. Moreover, in the future, should groundborne

vibration become an issue, remedial action, in the form of road surface repairs, can be undertaken to return the road

surface to a state of repair such that complaints cease.

10.4.7 Wider Study Area

DMRB guidance indicates that an assessment of the impacts upon the wider network (i.e. properties that are within

50m of roads outside the Calculation Area, that are predicted to experience a +/- 1dB change in noise as a result of

changes in the traffic flow between the Do Minimum Baseline Year and Do Something Future Year scenarios).

Table 10.38 details the roads which are predicted to have at least a +/- 1dB change in noise level as a consequence

of changes in flow in the Baseline Year (Do Minimum Versus Do Something). Figure 10.2 shows graphically the

roads where there are 1dB changes in the wider study area.

Table 10.38 Roads outside the Calculation Area which are predicted to have at least +/- 1 dB change

Road Name(s) No. of Buildings Within

+/- 1dB change 50m of Road

Hebron Road 11 Decrease

A1068 63 Increase

Springfield Walk, Spelvit Lane, St. Mary's Field 252 Decrease

As can be seen in Table 10.37, for the Wider Study Area there are predicted to be noise level decreases of at least

1dB at approximately 263 dwellings located on Hebron Road, Springfield Walk, Spelvit Lane and St. Mary's Field,

whereas noise level increase of at least 1dB are predicted to occur at 63 properties located within 50m of the

A1068.

10.4.8 Construction Impacts

Although temporary, construction-related impacts can be significant due to the increase in noise and vibration

Construction work of any type that involves heavy plant activity will generate noise, which may result in complaints if

sensitive scheduling and control of works is not exercised. The noise levels generated by construction activities and

experienced by nearby sensitive receptors, such as residential properties, depends upon a number of variables, the

most significant of which are:

� The noise generated by plant or equipment used on site, generally expressed as sound power levels (SWL); � The periods of operation of the plant on the site, known as its ‘on-time’; � The distance between the noise source and the receptor; and � The attenuation of sound due to ground absorption, air absorption and barrier impacts.

In general, in order to evaluate noise impacts during the demolition (e.g. of Rose Cottage only) and construction

phase, it is necessary to have knowledge of the various activities that will be undertaken. Demolition and

construction contractors may use different working methods and plant to achieve the same ends. An accurate

demolition and construction noise and vibration impact assessment is not normally possible until appointment of the

approved contractor, with knowledge of the exact working routine and plant schedule. However, during the

construction phase the use of plant, and the likely noise impact thereof, should be determined following the

guidance detailed in BS 5228 and, where necessary, mitigation should be provided. Moreover, should complaints be

received from local residents, the Local Authority would determine whether the best practicable means is being

applied. Should this not be the case, action under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 may be taken. Therefore, best

practicable means will be employed to ensure that noise levels are minimised. Outline mitigation measures to

minimise construction impacts can be found in the Mitigation Section (Section 10.6).


To provide an indication of the likely construction noise levels for various road construction activities, noise

predictions were made at various distances from these activities based on a representative distances between

construction activities and NSR.

Table 10.39 provides a summary of the predicted LAeq,10hr at various distances from construction activity. Note that

each of the activities will be a composite of various events and that each of these events may occur for differing

durations of times. See Appendix 10.3 for calculation details.

Table 10.39 Summary of Unmitigated Construction Noise Predictions

Construction Activity

Predicted Worst Case Noise Levels, Closest Approach dB LAeq,10h

15m 25m 50m 100m

Vibrating Roller 72.5 70.0 66.0 60.0

Road Roller 72.5 70.0 66.0 60.0

Backhoe Mounted Hydraulic Breaker 80.5 78.0 74.0 68.0

Road Planer 74.5 72.0 68.0 62.0

Removing Broken Surface-Wheeled Excavation

65.5 63.0 59.0 53.0

Asphalt Paver 69.5 67.0 63.0 57.0

Note: Major impacts are identified by BOLD typeface

The predicted construction noise levels represent a worst case assessment, as they are based on noise levels at

representative distances without the consideration of potential mitigation measures. Dependent upon the activity,

without mitigation measures, there may be major adverse impacts at residential properties located within 25m of the

construction works. Indeed, there are two properties that are within 25m of the boundary of the proposed scheme

(including proposed earthworks). These are Kater Dene, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JX (building ID

1378) and Sharrow Vale, Fairmoor, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JJ (Building ID 1337)

In practice, the worst-case nature of this construction noise impact assessment (with all plant working at the same

time and at the closest approach to NSR) means that in reality the actual levels are likely to be lower. Furthermore,

these levels of noise will not exist throughout the duration of a working day due to the mobility of working, breaks

and fluctuations in the work cycle. In addition, the impacts are non-permanent and the mitigation measures outlined

in Section 10.6 will help to minimise the identified potential impacts.

It is considered that the potentially worst affected properties affected by construction noise would be those located

directly adjacent to the proposed scheme. Disturbance due to construction noise from a scheme of this sort,

although it may be significant, is usually short term since the period of noisy construction work is relatively limited

and normally reversed once the noisy parts of the construction phase are completed.

Concern is often expressed by local residents that vibrations from construction activities will cause structural

damage to their properties. However, it has been shown that vibrations experienced indoors that cause anxiety are

often smaller than would be needed to cause structural damage.


10.5 MITIGATION

10.5.1 Operation

The results of the noise impact assessment, as detailed above, are based on the noise models without mitigation

measures included, other than the existing proposed earthworks. The DMRB states that a change of 3dB is

considered perceptible in the long term and that if a 3dB or more increase is predicted to occur at dwellings, when

comparing the Do Minimum Baseline Year with Do Something Future Year then, where possible, mitigated should

be offered.

There are a total of 9 properties that are predicted to experience an increase in noise level of at least 3dB, these are

listed in Table 10.40 with their associated Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BY) and Do Something Future Year

predicted LA10,18hr noise levels and their change.

Table 10.40 Properties with Increase in Do Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Something Future Year noise of More Than 3dB

Property Address DM BL LA10,18hr

(Façade)

DS FY LA10,18hr

(Façade)

DM BL Vs

DS FY

Conewood, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JU 40.6 43.7 3.1

1 East Shield Hill Farm Cottages, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth Northumberland NE61 3LD 41.0 47.0 6.0

2 East Shield Hill Farm Cottages, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth Northumberland NE61 3LD 46.1 49.1 3.0

Kater Dene, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JX 38.9 48.3 9.4

The Old Farmhouse, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth Northumberland NE61 3LD 39.7 46.0 6.3

The Old Byre, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3LD 38.1 43.8 5.7

Glendene, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JU 38.2 41.7 3.5

Stable Cottage, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3LD 37.3 43.7 6.4

Fulbeck Grange, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JU 40.8 46.4 5.6

It is likely that the noise levels at these properties could be mitigated through the use of acoustic barriers and/or

additional earthworks/bunding.

For guidance on onset of impacts, reference was made to the current WHO document entitled ’Community Noise‘

(WHO, 1999). This document does not contain recommendations, but provides guideline values based on the

precautionary principle. The WHO document states that ’To protect the majority of people from being seriously

annoyed during the daytime, the outdoor sound level from steady, continuous noise should not exceed 55dB LAeq on

balconies, terraces and in outdoor living areas. To protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed

during the daytime, the outdoor sound level should not exceed 50dB LAeq. Where it is practical and feasible, the

lower outdoor sound level should be considered the maximum desirable sound level for new development’.

The WHO refers to a daytime time base of 16 hours (LAeq(16hr), and CRTN predictions are in terms of LA10(18hr). To

translate the WHO LAeq(16hr) to LA10(18hr) a correction of approximately +2dB is therefore required, with a further


+2.5dB necessary to translate into façade levels. This translation applied to 55dB LAeq,16hr gives an equivalent

threshold façade level of 59.5dB LA10(18hr).

Hence, since for all nine properties, the predicted noise levels with the scheme in place are already below the WHO

guideline level, mitigation may be deemed unnecessary for these properties.

Moreover, it should be appreciated that when modelling the new roads it has been assumed that quieter road

surfaces such as Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) or similar material will be used on all new roads. As a consequence the noise level will be reduced by approximately 2.5 dB LA10,18hr when compared with conventional hot rolled asphalt

surfacing. This benefit is related to the speed of the traffic on the road and is likely to be significant at speeds above

approximately 50kph.

10.5.2 Construction

‘Best Practicable Means’ will be adopted in order to mitigate against the construction phase noise and vibration

impacts at local NSR. Examples of such measures and techniques include:

� Low noise emission machinery to be used where feasible; � Plant should be orientated away from the NSR where possible; � Machines which are used intermittently should be shut down between periods of activity; � Any ancillary pneumatic percussive tools should be fitted with mufflers or silencers of the type recommended by

the manufacturers. � All machinery should be well-maintained (abnormal increases of noise are often associated with wear and tear,

indicative of mechanical failure); and � All construction work should be undertaken in accordance with codes of practice for construction work and

piling, as outlined in BS 5228.

In general, good public relations and extensive consultation with local EHO will be essential to help to minimise the

impact of construction work. Local residents in particular will need to be persuaded that any higher levels of noise

will only be for a short period of time and so it will be necessary to publicise and adhere to a stated works schedule.

NCC require that a letter is issued in advance of works starting to all properties within 250 metres of the site,

including: description of works; expected duration; machinery; working hours; contact information if further advice

required or special requirements.

In order to minimise the likelihood of complaints, the local council and affected residents will be kept informed of the

works to be carried out, and of any proposed work outside normal hours, especially night-time works. The

Contractor, throughout the construction phase, should operate a complaints procedure. This process should ensure

that any complaints or queries raised by residents are promptly addressed.

It is recommended that there be a dedicated contact number for local residents to phone should they have any

queries or complaints. A log must be kept of all complaints, along with the actions taken to resolve these.

NCC would require a Section 61 Consent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 for the construction of new roads

to limit the potential impact from construction work. Section 61 then places responsibility for controlling construction

noise onto the appointed contractor via restricting certain activities, timescales and type of construction. These

agreements form part of the legal contract between the Local Authority and the contractor.

Noise monitoring will be undertaken during the construction phase to ensure that the noise levels stated in Appendix

10.2 are met. The construction noise monitoring locations and programme will be agreed with the local EHO prior to

construction commencing.

The responsibility for seeking final approval for noise control should lie with the contractor, with final approval itself

resting with the Environmental Health Officer and should be established prior to the commencement of works.


If after all practicable noise mitigation measures have been investigated, noise levels exceeding 70dB LAeq,1hr are still

predicted at the nearest residential properties, then the duration of the excess would need to be considered. If the duration of the excess above 70dB LAeq,1hr is considered unacceptable, then it may be necessary to consider the

provision of noise insulation to the affected residential properties under the provisions of the Noise Insulation

Regulations or temporary re-housing based on the criteria stated in BS 5228:2009.

10.6 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

Without any additional noise sensitive receptor specific noise and/or vibration mitigation, the residual impacts are

identical to the initial impacts, as detailed above.

10.6.1 Cumulative Impacts

There is the potential for cumulative noise impacts of the proposed development in conjunction with other

concurrent projects in the vicinity arising from simultaneous demolition and construction works. However, if each

development follows the guidance contained within BS 5288:2009: ‘Code of Practice for Control of Noise from

Construction and Open Sites’ and given the localised nature of noise impacts associated with the construction and

operation of each development, it is unlikely that cumulative impacts will occur.

The traffic data provided for this assessment includes known committed developments.

The DMRB states ‘Where planning permission for a residential development or any other sensitive receptor has

been granted but for which construction has not started, the potential impacts on these locations should be

estimated and reported separately.’

The known committed residential developments or any other sensitive receptor has been identified and are shown

on Figures 10.24-10.26. The potential impacts of the committed development sites which lie within the Calculation

Area have been assessed. Table 10.41 shows the percentage of each committed development area that is less

than LAeq,16hr 55dB and that which is at least 55dB or greater for the Do Minimum Baseline Year, Do Minimum Future

Year, Do Something Baseline Year and Do Something Future Year. Thus the area that lies within the LAeq,16hr 55dB

meets with WHO external free field noise guideline levels, and PPG 24 NEC A categorisation. Clearly, those areas

the that exceed the LAeq,16hr 55dB noise level would normally require mitigation to achieve NEC A and thus suitable

for residential development.


Table 10.41 Committed Developments within the Calculation Area

ID Name Total Area (m

2)

Do Minimum Baseline

Do Minimum Future

Do Something Baseline

Do Something

Future

Percentage of Area Exposed to Noise Levels (LAeq,16hr (dB))

< 55 ≥ 55 < 55 ≥ 55 < 55 ≥ 55 < 55 ≥ 55

1 Land West of Lancaster Park (Mitford Estates)

311035 75 25 70 30 61 39 58 42

2 Land North of Lancaster Park 315707 55 45 47 53 39 61 34 66

3 Land South of the proposed Bypass, North of Fulbeck

204767 78 22 76 24 54 46 50 50

4 Fairmoor (Northgate) 100781 73 27 68 32 66 34 59 41

5 Northgate Hospital 143303 100 0 100 0 97 3 95 5

6 Peacock Gap, Morpeth 87899 75 25 72 28 71 29 68 32

7 Goose Hill Factory site 1352 78 22 73 27 22 78 14 86

8 Dungait Ownership South of Bypass≥

73022 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0

9 St. George's Phase 3 334163 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0

10 St. George's Phase 2 319095 99 1 99 1 99 1 99 1

11 St. George's Hospital (Phase 1) 114055 93 7 93 7 93 7 93 7

12 Pegswood Moor, Pegswood 767736 92 8 91 9 80 20 79 21

13 Pegswood North Farm 65661 93 7 92 8 90 10 89 11

10.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

During the construction of the bypass, one property, Rose Cottage at Fulbeck, would be demolished to allow for the

passage of the scheme.

Summaries of the magnitude of impacts were presented in Tables 10.23 through to 10.28. In summary, with regard

to the day-time magnitude of noise impacts, it can be seen that in the short term there will be an increase in the

magnitude of noise impacts for 625 dwellings where the increase in noise level is less than 1dB and there is

predicted to be 32 Minor Adverse impacts and 2 Moderate Adverse impacts. However, there will also be 1363

decreases in noise level of less than dB and 185 properties will experience a Minor Beneficial noise impact.

In the long term, there are 817 fewer adverse noise level increases for the Do Minimum Baseline versus the Do

Something Future scenario than for the Do Minimum Baseline versus the Do Minimum Future scenario. Also, for the

Do Minimum Baseline versus the Do Something Future scenario there are 633 dwellings where the magnitude of

noise impacts will decrease, whereas for the Do Minimum Baseline versus the Do Something Future scenario there

are predicted to be no dwellings where a decreases in the magnitude of noise impacts will occur.


With regard to the night-time noise, when comparing the Do Minimum Baseline versus the Do Something Future

Year scenario with the Do Minimum Baseline versus the Do Minimum Future Year scenario there are 11 fewer

dwellings that are predicted to experience noise increase, such that noise level increase to above LAeq,16hr 55dB and

141 dwellings where the noise level increases from a level that exceeded LAeq,16hr 55dB for the Baseline Do Minimum

Scenario. Similar noise impacts are seen to occur at the first floor level.

However, although the foregoing analysis would indicate that the proposed scheme would, generally, be beneficial

in terms of noise there are 9 properties where the long term noise level increases are at least 3dB, for which noise

mitigation may be required.

With regard to noise mitigation, there are a total of 9 properties that are predicted to experience an increase in noise

level of at least 3dB, these are listed in Table 10.42 with their associated Do Minimum Baseline Year (DM BY) and

Do Something Future Year predicted LA10,18hr noise levels and their change.

Table 10.42 Properties with Increase in Do Minimum Baseline Year versus Do Something Future Year noise of More Than 3dB

Property Address DM BL LA10,18hr

(Façade)

DS FY LA10,18hr

(Façade)

DM BL Vs

DS FY

Conewood, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JU 40.6 43.7 3.1

1 East Shield Hill Farm Cottages, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3LD 41.0 47.0 6.0

2 East Shield Hill Farm Cottages, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3LD 46.1 49.1 3.0

Kater Dene, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JX 38.9 48.3 9.4

The Old Farmhouse, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3LD 39.7 46.0 6.3

The Old Byre, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3LD 38.1 43.8 5.7


Stable Cottage, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3LD 37.3 43.7 6.4

Fulbeck Grange, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JU 40.8 46.4 5.6

The DMRB states that a change of 3dB is considered perceptible in the long term and that if a 3dB or more increase

is predicted to occur at dwellings, when comparing the Do Minimum Baseline Year with Do Something Future Year

then, where possible, mitigation should be offered

For guidance on onset of impacts, reference was made to the current WHO document entitled ’Community Noise‘

(WHO, 1999). This document does not contain recommendations, but provides guideline values based on the

precautionary principle. The WHO document states that ’To protect the majority of people from being seriously

annoyed during the daytime, the outdoor sound level from steady, continuous noise should not exceed 55dB LAeq on

balconies, terraces and in outdoor living areas. To protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed

during the daytime, the outdoor sound level should not exceed 50dB LAeq. Where it is practical and feasible, the

lower outdoor sound level should be considered the maximum desirable sound level for new development’.


The WHO refers to a daytime time base of 16 hours (LAeq,16hr), and CRTN predictions are in terms of LA10,18hr. To

translate the WHO LAeq,16hr to LA10,18hr a correction of approximately +2dB is therefore required, with a further +2.5dB

necessary to translate into façade levels. This translation applied to 55dB LAeq16hr gives an equivalent threshold

façade level of 59.5dB LA10(18hr).

Hence, since for all nine properties, the predicted noise levels with the scheme in place are already below the WHO

guideline level, mitigation may be deemed unnecessary for these properties.

As presented in Table 10.33, above, there are less increases in noise nuisance for the Do Something scenario

compared with the Do Minimum. Indeed, in the long term, following the introduction of the scheme there are 358

dwellings that are predicted to experience a noise nuisance reduction at the ground floor, whereas there are none

for the Do Minimum Scenario.

However, for the Do Something scenario there are 8 dwellings at the ground floor that are predicted to experience a

change in noise nuisance of at least thirty percent. These dwellings are shown in Table 10.43, along with their Do

Something percentage change in annoyance, and the Do Minimum Baseline noise levels and the Do Something

noise levels. As can be seen, although the change in percentage annoyance is predicted to increase by more than

thirty percent the resultant absolute noise level are all predicted to be less than LA10,18hr 49dB. Indeed, the steady

state annoyance for an LA10,18hr of 49dB is only approximately three percent of the population. Accordingly, it should

be appreciated that the reported level of noise annoyance for these dwellings is simply as a consequence of the low

initial Baseline Do Minimum road traffic noise level.

Table 10.43 Dwellings Predicted to Experience Noise Nuisance in Excess of 30% for the Do Something

Scenario

Address Do Something Change in % Annoyance

DO Minimum Baseline

(LA10,18hr dB)

Do Something Future Year (LA10,18hr dB)

1 East Shield Hill Farm Cottages, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3LD

37.5 40.5 47.0

The Old Byre, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3LD

36.9 37.6 43.8


Kater Dene, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JX

44.0 38.4 48.3

The Granary, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3LD

36.9 37.6 43.8

Stable Cottage, Track From U6010 To East Shield Hill, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3LD

38.3 36.8 43.7

Fulbeck Grange, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JU

36.9 40.3 46.4

Conewood, Fulbeck, Morpeth, Northumberland NE61 3JU

30.2 40.1 43.7

With regard to airborne traffic induced vibration, when comparing the Do Something Scenario with the Do Minimum

Scenario there are 46 fewer properties within 40m of affected roads predicted to experience an increase in vibration


nuisance in the long term. Moreover, the Do Something Scenario results in 30 dwellings predicted to experience a

reduction in airborne induced traffic vibration. Similar results occur at the first floor.

With regard to the occurrence of groundborne vibration, it is necessary to have defects in the road surface. Since it

must be assumed that the new road will initially have a surface that is of a high standard without defect it can be

assumed that on opening groundborne vibration will not be an issue. However, should the road surface condition

deteriorate sufficiently that road surface defects occur then, as vehicles traverse over these defects groundborne

vibrations will be generated. To mitigate against the potential adverse impacts that may arise because of defective

road surfacing on the proposed roads, it is recommended that the authority responsible for the upkeep of the road

maintain it in good repair. Accordingly, should the new road be maintained in good repair groundborne vibration is

not likely to be an issue.

With regard to groundborne vehicle induced vibration on existing roads, it is likely that if peak particle velocities

equal to, or in excess of, 0.3mm/s were currently being experienced by residents that complaints to the appropriate

authorities would have been registered by residents exposed to this level of vibration. There are no known

complaints arising due to groundborne vibration. Accordingly, groundborne vibration from existing roads in the

vicinity of the proposed route options is not considered to be an issue. Moreover, in the future, should groundborne

vibration become an issue, remedial action, in the form of road surface repairs, can be undertaken to return the road

surface to a state of repair such that complaints cease.

Date post:	15-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

MNB Chapter 10 Noise Final - Northumberland... · 2016. 11. 29. · AECOM A1-SENSLR: MNB –...

Documents