Absolutely unprofessional worst company…
Absolutely unprofessional worst company I have had the misfortune to deal with, take your money turn up for 5 minutes and don’t even take the correct information they were supposed to.
Their guy turned up and tried to leave within 5 minutes even though they were told measurements had to be taken at various points for a planning application our organisation made through our local authority.
Zero distance measurements were taken, and when it was brought to their attention by our architect and ourselves they never responded to our emails, never answered the phone.
If you want a company that will make sure things are done correctly DEFINITELY DONT USE THIS COMPANY.
This is what the planners said about their report.
All information that was required is missing and they won’t respond to why it’s missing or what they will do to rectify it.
£800 for a report that’s completely useless
“ Please see below the comments made by the EH Officer in regards to the noise.
The plan set out in the report shows the measurement location and the relevant noise sensitive receptors. However, there is no information on the distance between the measurement location and the noise source during the assessment.
The report only presents the final LAeq and the LAFMax. There is no trace or further data from the monitoring period available for examination.
Under the section Assessment of Dog Training Noise, the consultant has stated, “The noise has been distance corrected and includes the barrier attenuation assumed as complete blockage of the line of sight respectively between source and receiver as per ‘BS5228-1:2009 – Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites’ pg. 130”.
BS 5228 states that “It is not usually advisable to combine the effects of screening and soft ground attenuation. Take either the attenuation from screening and hard ground attenuation, or the attenuation of soft ground, whichever is the greater”. The land between the proposed development and NSR1 is largely soft ground with a road. There has been no adjustment that I can see to account for the proportion of soft ground present as the consultant has simply used the hard ground equation. Additionally, the land between the proposed development and NSR2 is soft ground but the hard ground equation has been used. The consultant should provide the rationale for this.
The report provides an equation for hard ground attenuation but there is no working to review.
There is no calculated outcome at the receptors. The report simply predicts that noise will be inaudible at the receptors. Given that the reason for a request for a report to be submitted with the application was because Environmental Protection had previously received complaints about noise from dog barking at the facility, this prediction does not tally with experience.
The report provides a LAFMax value but offers no consideration of the impact of these peaks in sound on noise sensitive receptors. Given that the concern for amenity relates to noise from barking, I would have expected to see assessment of the impact of the absolute levels as well as the psychoacoustic response to the character of the noise. Assessing such noise sources using an average sound level will smooth out the data and, therefore, not reflect the impact of this noise source adequately.