What do Eurostat, WHO and Minister for the Environment José Herrera have in common? They are convinced (who isn’t?) that the noise from Tal-bigilla, Tad-doughnuts, or the LPG vendors is just a fraction of Malta’s environment noise pollution.
Noise pollution is excessive in the urban sprawl that extends from Pembroke to Marsascala and Mosta to Birżebbuġa. This urban sprawl is 98km2 with a population of 260,000. Due to the rapid and unplanned development, residential areas are located side by side with industrial, commercial and catering establishments, with ongoing construction works and a perpetual traffic flow.
Noise sources include industrial estates, hospitals, hotels, restaurants, bars, an airport, the Freeport, ship-repair yards, several harbours, universities, colleges, government and private schools, language schools and urban peak traffic of 20,000 vehicles an hour. This inventory excludes churches, clubs, wedding halls, workshops, supermarkets and other sources that somehow contributes to the noisescape.
There are 10 pieces of ordinance intended to control noise pollution. These are managed by seven regulatory authorities responsible to five ministers; nevertheless, there is no specific institutional mechanism for coordination on the matters related to noise management.
Hence, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who have to apply them. Therefore, if the noise regulations and prohibitions are not clearly defined, these must be revised to serve the purpose.
Due to rapid and unplanned development, residential areas are located side by side with industrial, commercial and catering establishments
Furthermore, noise legislation allows an official to decide how loud the sound is received by the complainant without recourse to sound measurements and without regard for the specific sound power generated by the source.
Noise regulations were never our legislator’s forte. In fact, our legislation is bare of noise emissions and community noise assessment and control regulations.
Nonetheless, the regulator is bound by law to monitor and enforce the ordinance or regulations. Yet, the enforcing agency may not have adequate resources or personnel to enforce the laws. If understaffed agencies have to make choices about which violations they’ll enforce.
Violations might be known, but enforcing them might be seen as too damaging to the economy, or too politically risky. Agencies might be trying to enforce the law, but violators might not care.
Often the penalties for flouting laws - environmental laws particularly - are simply not serious enough to make obedience worth it to the violators. Noise nuisance complaints are rarely, if ever, investigated by the authorities after office hours. Hence, these are examined by rota, time permitting.
There are times when the authorities ask the police for assistance to enforce the noise regulations; mostly related to loud activities from catering establishments. More often than not, the process is long-drawn and rarely provides a definite solution.
If all fails, the last hope is a court injunction for a reprieve from noise pollution. Nevertheless, none can bring a just-in-time solution.
Can the police close down an establishment? Yes and no.
There were instances when the court overruled the executive action by the police. While on other occasions, especially recently, the court urged the authorities to enforce the law.
Trading Licence Reg. 38 (2-e) empowers the police to close an establishment if the operator fails to comply with the regulations. The Criminal Code -Article 377 (5) - authorises the police to confiscate the equipment that causes the nuisance at the expense of the offender and Article 338 (m) protects the residents’ repose during night time. The Code of Police law - Article 41 and Article 153 - relate to the abatement of noise nuisance.
John Fenech is chairman of the Noise Abatement Society of Malta.