PEOPLE have been complaining about noise pollution for almost a thousand years.

The earliest recorded example of building control was in 1189 in the Fitz Alwynne Assize, which demanded party walls be constructed from stone at least three feet thick. Although no specific reference was made to sound insulation the record shows one of the reasons for that requirement was “for appeasing contentions which sometimes arise between neighbours”.

Fortunately, that particular requirement has not been retained. Perhaps of more concern may be the underpinning assumption, based on the perceived wisdom of the legislators. Some might argue it has not changed enough in the intervening years.

Recent Building Acoustic Regulations

So how is the industry “bedding down” with the latest revision to Part E of the Building Regulations1 and BB932, and were they really necessary?

Pay your money and take your choice - PCT v RD

ADE set airborne sound insulation and impact isolation standards for both new build and conversions.

It also introduced the requirement for Pre-Completion Testing (PCT) in order to demonstrate compliance with the standards. These tests, typically ten per cent of the premises, are at the behest of the building inspector. Any failure should necessitate a rework and repeat testing to prove the required standard has been satisfied.

However, prior to finalisation of ADE, the House Builders Federation lobbied successfully for an alternative to PCT. As a result the concept of Robust Detail (RD) was introduced. The intention was to establish a set of construction details for walls and floors which, when installed, would reliably and repeatedly meet a higher sound insulating performance standard. In so doing, the developer believed they would be relieved of any additional testing requirements and costs.

However, it seems the reality of site conditions, often with inadequate if not non-existent quality control, has led to increasing pressure from building control departments for proof by testing that RD constructions are in fact as good as they are claimed.

This, for the moment, is undermining the main argument in favour of the RD route. Without the implied cost savings of this alternative, more and more developers may find the less prescriptive PCT route, with its greater opportunities for innovative constructions, more attractive.

Is economic compliance possible?

What a builder or developer does not need is a failed PCT test or, even worse, a failed robust detail construction. What basic steps should they follow to minimise these risks? The market place for acoustic products and advisory and testing services has grown significantly since the introduction of the latest set of prescriptive regulations.

Some are good, offering well-researched, developed and performance-certified products.

Unfortunately, others with minimal experience have spotted an opportunity in the market place to promote cheaper products that make some outrageous performance claims, which, if challenged, would be impossible to substantiate.

A few basic rules to minimise failure risk are, firstly, to ensure proper specification of the correct acoustic solution and products, secondly, not to overlook the importance of installation detailing and the impact of flanking transmission paths and, thirdly, to ensure that rigorous and knowledgeable site quality assurance procedures are followed.

It is certainly not easy but with the correct products and advice success can be assured.

---