Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
www.machacoustics.com | 0117 944 1388
Page 1 of 11
Monoworld Limited
Revision
Description
Issued by
Issue date
First issue
Patrick Shuttleworth
15/10/2014
Patrick Shuttleworth
17/10/2014
Minor Amendments
Patrick Shuttleworth
17/10/2014
Consultants
Finance
Andrew Rickard
Chris Jones
Kyran Ebanks
Jeremie Dufaud
Josh Childs
Max Reynolds
Miguel Blanco
Phil Jordan
Patrick Shuttleworth
Stefan Hannan
Ze Nunes
Tracy Toal
andrew@machacoustics.com
chris@machacoustics.com
kyran@machacoustics.com
jeremie@machacoustics.com
josh@machacoustics.com
max@machacoustics.com
miguel@machacoustics.com
phil@machacoustics.com
patrick@machacoustics.com
stefan@machacoustics.com
ze@machacoustics.com
tracy@machacoustics.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
3.0
NOISE SURVEY...................................................................................................................................... 2
4.0
3.1
3.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................... 8
1
www.machacoustics.com | www.machtesting.com | www.machproducts.com
1.0
INTRODUCTION
MACH Acoustics have been appointed by Monoworld Limited to undertake an environmental noise survey at
Sanders Lodge, Rushden, Northamptonshire. A new building is proposed on the existing site, which will
incorporate equipment for processing recycling. It has been stated that the proposed machinery may operate
over a 24 hour period.
The purpose of the assessment is to determine the existing ambient background noise level representative
of the worst affected receivers to the proposed development. Based on this level, the likelihood of complaints
as a result of the proposed development can be assessed. To undertake the assessment, an environmental
th
th
noise survey was carried out on site between the 9 and 10 of October 2014. Computer based noise
mapping has then been used to provide predictions for noise propagation from the proposed noise source.
In order to establish the likelihood of complaints, the assessment has been carried out in line with BS 4142:
1997 Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas.
2.0
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site at Monoworld is situated in relatively close proximity to sensitive receivers, with residential buildings
to the east of the proposed site, and other industrial uses on all sides. The Monoworld site in relation to its
surroundings is shown in the map and aerial photograph in Figure 2.1 below.
Page 1
3.0
NOISE SURVEY
In order to establish existing background noise levels on site, continuous 5-minute samples of the acoustic
th
th
parameters LAeq, T, LA90, T, and LAmax,T were measured from the 9 to the 10 October 2014 at a fixed
microphone position (designated F1) on site. This measurement position has been implemented in order to
establish noise levels representative of residential dwellings on and around Palm Road. A second fixed
th
microphone (designated F2) was implemented on the 9 October 2014, in order to establish noise levels at
the worst affected receivers within the industrial area.
As the proposed new machinery may operate during the day and night, fixed position F1 has been
implemented over a 24 hour period. As receivers within the industrial area will only be affected during
working hours, an attended day time survey has been conducted at fixed position F2.
In line with the provisions of BS4142, measurement of the lowest background noise level at a particular
location leads to the most robust assessment. This is due to the fact that the proposed noise source is
compared to a lower benchmark. In order to provide this, data from position F1 has been used to extrapolate
the lowest LA90 (dB) for both the day and night periods. Measurement position F2 has been implemented in
the middle of the day, in order to avoid measurement of busy times at Monoworld and peak traffic.
F2
F1
Page 2
3.1
Measurement Equipment
The measurement equipment illustrated in Table 3.1 was used during the survey, all equipment complies
with BS EN 60942:2003 i.e. a class 1 device.
Serial
Number
Last
Calibrated
Calibration
Due
30562
Aug-13
Aug-15
30249
Aug-13
Aug-15
57530
Aug-13
Aug-15
32090
Aug-13
Aug-15
Name
Weather Conditions
The above weather conditions are suitable for the measurement of environmental noise in accordance with
BS7445 Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise.
Page 3
4.0
4.1
The following graph and table show measured noise levels at the fixed measurement location F1. All
measurements are shown in dB(A). The complete set of measurement data is available on request. The
graph in Figure 4.1 below provides the LAmax, LAeq and LA90 levels measured over the operational period of
the site.
100
90
80
70
60
50
LAeq
40
LAmax
30
LA90
20
10
0
Time
Figure 4.1: Graph of on-site environmental noise measurements - Location F1
Measurement
Maximum
Minimum
Average
LAeq
68
45
59
LA90
62
42
51
LAmax
86
51
76
Maximum
Minimum
Average
LAeq
66
38
56
LA90
59
35
47
LAmax
86
47
74
Page 4
4.2
The following graph and table show measured noise levels at the fixed measurement location F2. All
measurements are shown in dB(A). The complete set of measurement data is available on request. The
graph in Figure 4.2 below provides the LAmax, LAeq and LA90 levels measured over the operational period of
the site.
90
80
70
60
50
LAeq
40
LAmax
30
LA90
20
10
0
Time
Figure 4.2: Graph of on-site environmental noise measurements - Location F2
Measurement
Maximum
Minimum
Average
LAeq
64
56
60
LA90
56
52
54
LAmax
83
72
78
4.3
For purposes of assessment, MACH Acoustics have selected the minimum measured LA90 during the
operational hours of the proposed noise source. For fixed measurement position F1, these levels are
indicated in Table 4.1. For fixed measurement position F2, the minimum measured LA90 is indicated in
Table 4.2.
Page 5
4.4
Measurements have been obtained in order to quantify noise from the proposed equipment. The results of
spot measurements are presented in Table 4.2 below. All data correlates to 1 minute measurement periods.
Noise Source
LAeq
Lfmax
84 dB
89 dB
72 dB
75 dB
66 dB
76 dB
Forklift in operation
74 dB
93 dB
BS 4142 CRITERIA
BS 4142 describes a method of determining the level of noise of an industrial nature, together with the
procedures for assessing whether the noise in question is likely to give rise to complaints from persons living
in the vicinity. As such, an assessment to BS 4142 is typically called for within planning conditions.
The likelihood of complaints in response to a noise depends on various factors. BS 4142 assesses the
likelihood of complaints by considering the margin by which the noise in question exceeds the background
noise level. This standard also allows for an appropriate correction for the acoustic features present in the
noise.
BS 4142 states that:
A 5 dB correction should be added if one or more of the following features (see the list below), are present
within the noise sources in question.
The noise contains a distinguishable, discreet, continuous note (whine, hiss, screech, hum);
The noise contains distinct impulses (bangs, clicks, clatters, or thumps);
The noise is irregular enough to attract attention.
As the proposed noise source may contain discrete and impulsive sounds, a +5dB acoustic feature
correction has been included in the assessment calculations. MACH Acoustics have calculated the
propagation of noise from the proposed development using CadnaA noise prediction software. The noise
modelling assessment is covered in more detail in Section 6.0 below.
Page 6
6.0
NOISE MAPPING
In order to accurately assess propagation of noise from the proposed development in to the surrounding
area, MACH Acoustics noise survey data has been used to calibrate a detailed noise model. The model has
been created using CadnaA noise prediction software. CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) is the
leading software for calculation, presentation, assessment and prediction of environmental noise. The
software allows for detailed and accurate modelling of the propagation of sound over large areas. The
measurement data presented in Table 4.3 been used to calibrate the noise model. Two forklifts have been
included in the calculation. The site topography has not been included in the noise model, as it is complex to
approximate. As a result of this, noise levels may be lower than those calculated, due to screening. In line
with the provisions of BS4142, receivers have been placed within the model at locations representative of
the nearest noise sensitive windows.
Page 7
7.0
BS 4142 ASSESSMENT
The noise contribution of the proposed development is calculated to be 34 dB LAeq at the worst affected
residential receiver. At the worst affected receivers within the industrial area, the noise contribution of the
proposed development is calculated to be 50 dB LAeq. In accordance with BS4142 a 5 dB acoustic feature
correction has been included within these calculations. MACH Acoustics assessment is summarised in Table
5.1 below.
Measured
Background
(LA90)
Noise
Contribution
(LAeq)
Acoustic
Feature
Correction
Rating
Level
(LAeq)
Assessment
Outcome
Day
42 dB
29 dB
+ 5 dB
34 dB
-8
Night
35 dB
45 dB
+ 5 dB
34 dB
-1
Day
52 dB
45 dB
+ 5 dB
50 dB
-2
Sensitive
Receiver
Time
Period
Residential
Receivers
Industrial
Receivers
CONCLUSION
MACH Acoustics have been appointed by Monoworld Ltd to undertake an assessment for the proposed
development at Sanders Lodge, Rushden, Northhamptonshire. A new building is proposed on the existing
site, which will incorporate equipment for processing recycling.
In order to assess the impact of the proposed development on the nearest sensitive receivers, MACH
Acoustics have conducted an assessment using CadnaA Noise Prediction Software, based on measured
data obtained on site.
The output of MACH Acoustics noise model has been used to conduct an assessment in line with BS4142.
The assessment has indicated that the proposed development is compliant for a worst case, and therefore it
is seen that permission should not be withheld on the grounds of noise.
Page 8