The regulation of neighbourhood noise as a nuisance and source of pollution

Abstract

Like all pollutants, noise harms the environment, and poses significant health threats to humans. The local legal framework is fragmented. Reference to “noise” is in limited occasions direct and more commonly, indirect, through the setup of rules on business hours, time frames and safety distances. This situation does not do justice to aggrieved parties and raises several doubts on the effectiveness of our legal regime on noise. Our Civil and Criminal Courts remain the most popular route to challenge noise issues from various sources. Nevertheless, judgments show discrepancy, as at times the courts take a subjective approach and at others they make reference to international standards such as the WHO guidelines on community noise. A prohibitory injunction is possible only in grave cases where the continuance of the act giving rise to noise would lead to the serious prejudice. An action for damage can be successful, when characterised by financial loss. On the other hand, damages for noise-induced health effects are more difficult to obtain. The appointment of experts is not an ad validatem condition to legal proceedings but invaluable to the court in complex cases. The legislator must strive to encourage the adoption of noise abatement measures to minimise noise within the neighbourhood. The proposed White Paper in 2012 was a step ahead in acknowledging the need to regulate noise. Unfortunately, four years later we still await concrete legislative rules. As a result, Malta remains deficient in regulating noise especially when compared with other European countries and the United States who have been more pro-active in regulating noise as a pollutant and a nuisance. This lack of concrete legislative rules on noise, can possibly lead to more cases before the European Courts of Human Rights against Malta for violation of fundamental human rights.