new regulations would prescribe the same items, prohibited times and exemptions, as outlined in section 2.2.2 above. Local government and police would continue to use the regulations to determine what is considered unreasonable residential noise and issue directions under the EP Act and regulations. Under this option, EPA would take the opportunity to make some minor editorial amendments to update the drafting. These amendments would have no substantive impacts. Assessment of options The benefits and costs associated with Option 1 are outlined in Table 9 below. Table 9 Costs and benefits of Option 1: Remake the current regulations Benefits In some situations, noise that is There would be a well understood tool as defined by the for managing unreasonable night-time “unreasonable” current regulations may not be noise considered unreasonable if the Police and local government officers principles contained in the EP Act were would retain the ability to apply the used to assess the situation. This regulations where the PH&W Act is not impinges on people’s rights by appropriate constraining how they use certain items Police and local government officers at certain times of the day, which may would have clear guidance available to impose financial and non-financial costs them as to what constitutes Inflexibility in addressing residential unreasonable noise that covers many of noise issues when these issues could the most commonly encountered be addressed on a case-by-case basis enforcement issues Specifying the items and times at which Police and local government officers they cannot be used to clarify what is would not have to rely on the subjective meant by means that the ‘unreasonable’ definitions of unreasonable noise regulations/definition can become contained in the EP Act or the equally outdated as circumstances change (e.g. subjective nuisance provisions of the sources of noise emerge) ‘new’ PH&W Act Prescribed items and prohibited hours Avoid time consuming, more may be out of step with current inconsistent and potentially less community expectations and tolerances effective enforcement activity to noise Aligns with feedback from police and Inefficiencies or inequities may local government officers that the because some noisy items are regulations are widely used prescribed in the regulations while other Will help address the forecasted equally (or more) noisy sources may not increase in the residential noise be problem due to reduced tolerance and an increase in medium/high density living
new regulations would prescribe the same items, prohibited times and exemptions, as outlined in section 2.2.2 above. Local government and police would continue to use the regulations to determine what is considered unreasonable residential noise and issue directions under the EP Act and regulations. Under this option, EPA would take the opportunity to make some minor editorial amendments to update the drafting. These amendments would have no substantive impacts. Assessment of options The benefits and costs associated with Option 1 are outlined in Table 9 below. Table 9 Costs and benefits of Option 1: Remake the current regulations Benefits In some situations, noise that is “unreasonable” as defined by the current regulations may not be considered unreasonable if the principles contained in the EP Act were used to assess the situation. This impinges on people’s rights by constraining how they use certain items at certain times of the day, which may impose financial and non-financial costs Inflexibility in addressing residential noise issues when these issues could be addressed on a case-by-case basis Specifying the items and times at which they cannot be used to clarify what is meant by ‘unreasonable’ means that the regulations/definition can become outdated as circumstances change (e.g. ‘new’ sources of noise emerge) Prescribed items and prohibited hours may be out of step with current community expectations and tolerances to noise Inefficiencies or inequities may because some noisy items are prescribed in the regulations while other equally (or more) noisy sources may not be There would be a well understood tool for managing unreasonable night-time noise Police and local government officers would retain the ability to apply the regulations where the PH&W Act is not appropriate Police and local government officers would have clear guidance available to them as to what constitutes unreasonable noise that covers many of the most commonly encountered enforcement issues Police and local government officers would not have to rely on the subjective definitions of unreasonable noise contained in the EP Act or the equally subjective nuisance provisions of the PH&W Act Avoid time consuming, more inconsistent and potentially less effective enforcement activity Aligns with feedback from police and local government officers that the regulations are widely used Will help address the forecasted increase in the residential noise problem due to reduced tolerance and an increase in medium/high density living
1694_RIS_Residential_Noise_Regs_with_Regs_exposure_draft.docx