Secure planning approval first time with a robust, defensible noise impact assessment. Allegro Acoustics delivers baseline noise surveys, predictive noise modelling and clear EIAR noise chapters that satisfy planning authority requirements and withstand regulatory scrutiny.
A noise impact assessment predicts how much noise a proposed development will generate, compares that against the existing noise climate and the limits the planning authority applies, and sets out mitigation where it is needed. Allegro Acoustics prepares noise impact assessments for planning applications across Ireland and the UK, from a single acoustic report for planning through to full EIAR noise and vibration chapters.
Our team understands what Irish and UK planning authorities expect. We align our methodology with EPA guidance, local development plan policies and An Bord Pleanála requirements ensuring clients can progress their projects with confidence.
Most planning authorities will ask for a noise assessment for planning where a development either introduces a new noise source near existing residents, or introduces new residents near an existing noise source. Data centres, substations, wind and solar farms, wastewater treatment plants, manufacturing extensions, sports and leisure facilities and mixed use residential schemes all commonly attract the requirement.
The condition is sometimes explicit in the development plan and sometimes only appears once the application is lodged. Commissioning the noise impact assessment early is almost always cheaper, because the survey has to capture a representative baseline and that cannot be compressed to suit a deadline. Our guide to noise impact assessments sets out the methodology and the regulatory framework in full.
Everything downstream rests on the baseline. A noise survey for planning establishes the existing background sound level at the nearest noise sensitive locations, measured across representative daytime, evening and night time periods and long enough to show how the site behaves rather than how it behaved on one quiet afternoon.
We use Class 1 instrumentation, log the meteorological conditions alongside the acoustic data, and exclude periods where wind or rain would make the measurement unrepresentative. Where the assessment will be made under BS 4142, the distinction between the background level and the ambient level matters a great deal, and getting it wrong is one of the more common reasons an acoustic report for planning is challenged.
Once the baseline is established, predictive noise modelling shows what the development will sound like before it is built. We build the site in three dimensions, including terrain, buildings, screening and ground absorption, apply measured or manufacturer sound power data to each plant item, and calculate levels at every receptor of interest.
The value of acoustic modelling is not the contour map. It is that mitigation can be tested in the model, at no cost, until the combination that works is found. A barrier moved five metres, an attenuator added to one louvre or a plant deck rotated through ninety degrees can each be worth several decibels, and finding that out in the model is considerably cheaper than finding it out on site. Our guide to noise modelling and noise mapping explains how the models are built and validated.
Where the development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, the noise and vibration chapter has to do more than report numbers. It has to describe the receiving environment, characterise the construction and operational phases separately, assess significance against a stated methodology, describe mitigation and then state the residual impact. We write chapters that read as part of the EIAR rather than as an acoustic report bolted into it, and we coordinate with the wider design team so that the mitigation described is the mitigation that has actually been designed.
Construction noise and vibration is assessed separately because the criteria are different, the duration is limited and the mitigation is largely managerial. Piling and rock breaking usually drive both the noise and the vibration case, and vibration limits for cosmetic building damage and for human comfort are reached at very different levels. Setting realistic limits at the assessment stage avoids a construction phase condition that cannot practically be met.
A Request for Further Information on noise grounds is usually one of three things. The baseline was too short or taken in the wrong place, the assessment methodology was not stated clearly enough for the authority to follow it, or the mitigation was described in principle rather than specified. All three are recoverable, and we take on RFI responses on schemes we did not originally assess.
Where a further survey is needed we will say so plainly rather than attempt to argue around the gap, because an RFI response that does not answer the question simply produces a second one and costs another cycle of programme.
A mitigation measure that appears in an assessment becomes a condition, and a condition has to be delivered and demonstrated. We specify mitigation that can actually be built and later verified by measurement, and we size it with margin so that ordinary construction tolerance does not put the completed scheme into breach. Where the scheme goes on to need engineered attenuation, the same modelling carries directly into industrial noise control design and installation.
Recent planning work includes the ESBi North South 400kV Interconnector, the Limerick Dock Data Centre and a series of solar developments including Greenvolt Solar Farm in County Limerick. The full picture of how noise is handled through the consenting process sits on our planning and construction page.
Most planning authorities ask for one where a development either introduces a new noise source near existing homes, or introduces new homes near an existing noise source. Data centres, substations, wind and solar farms, wastewater plants, manufacturing extensions and mixed use residential schemes all commonly attract the requirement.
Long enough to represent how the site actually behaves, which normally means measurement across daytime, evening and night time periods rather than a single visit. The duration is driven by the assessment method and the character of the area. It cannot be compressed to suit a deadline, which is why commissioning early is usually cheaper.
Usually one of three things. The baseline was too short or taken in the wrong place, the methodology was not stated clearly enough for the authority to follow it, or the mitigation was described in principle rather than specified. All three are recoverable, and we take on RFI responses for schemes we did not originally assess.
A standalone assessment answers the noise question for a planning application. An EIAR noise and vibration chapter sits inside a wider Environmental Impact Assessment Report, describes the receiving environment, assesses construction and operational phases separately against a stated methodology, and states the residual impact after mitigation.
Your enquiry is on its way. We'll be in touch shortly.
