Re: Submitted by email

Living in Horfield my area was farmland until 1950’s. It’s verdant suburban character reminds me of living in a semi rural village, yet it’s close to the benefits of the main A38 but out of earshot buffered by a large building. Council consultation (Feb 2008) indicated peace and quiet in this residential area as one it’s greatest attractions. In 2005, the popular Horfield Leisure Centre was built, followed by April 2008 approval for a 300 unit housing estate and 2009 when redevelopment of Southmead Hospital was granted. While new developments offer benefits, an unwelcome impact for locals, is the perceived erosion of character of the area as we witness transition from a quiet suburban oasis, to a more urbanised environment with unwelcome noise and diesel fumes from construction noise and traffic, and what will be considerable increase in demand for transport in the area. I respectfully recommend council must show it’s being proactive in identifying opportunities to monitor, mitigate and control noise impacts prior to approval of development at planning committees. Having asked planning committee to apply noise receptors on routes where noise from heavy traffic would occur during and after large construction projects, officers of the council failed to support siting of monitoring equipment. This approach lacks the rigour I’d anticipate from an administration claiming to be at the heart of a “Science City”. Another incident in 2007 concerns the Horfield Memorial Stadim where prior to planning committee decision, essential site perimeter road traffic noise reports were not provided. All this puts the council in a very poor position from which to negotiate mitigation strategies. Noise and street safety While noise of an engine serves as a warning of danger for bicycles and pedestrians, the current level of noise from traffic at present is unacceptable to the extent the following impacts occur: Phone calls in the street can be inaudible due to background traffic. If an emergency situation required necessity to summon assistance quickly, traffic noise could compromise effective communication, compromising safety. Pedestrians can’t hold a conversation in the street, without raising voices, at times this is also true whilst travelling within a bus where engine noise is so deafening. Traffic noise can mask other noises, disguising, for example, burglary or other criminal activity. Noise from peak hour traffic can interfere with sleep patterns especially for shift workers, with consequences for health and wellbeing over the longer term. Though a “noise map” would be a welcome start, I noted Steve Crawshaw, BCC officer’s comments on air quality, on the Viewfinder and recommend council considers, in addition to the noise mapping project, making better use of resources from the Air Quality Management Resource Centre (AQMRC) based locally at UWE. AQMRC published “Steps to Better Practice – Guidance for Local Authorities on LAQM consultation” (2007) which I highlighted in a statement in summer 2007 hasn’t resulted in recommendations to produce the background database on air pollution necessary to help residents/planners/council in determining future decisions – I believe there may be parallels between traffic noise impact and air pollution impacts. However, I must make one exception, which is, the slower the traffic, the lower the noise impact, but the worse the air pollution would be as idling vehicles don’t disperse the pollution as widely as faster moving vehicles would. Aside from encouraging less noisy/polluting public transport vehicles and lorries, I’d support the planting of more street trees and green buffering wherever possible to help mitigate noise, air pollution also to help absorb carbon dioxide emissions, keeping the city looking green. Significant effort may be worthwhile to persuade public transport providers to provide lower noise and emission vehicles, to help make the experience more attractive to potential service users