Debated in Parliament on 10 Jan 2018.
Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the tempo and siting of land development allocation considers the cumulative effect of continuous noise on nearby residents arising from successive construction developments in close proximity; and (b) what measures are being used to incentivise the minimisation of noise arising from public or private sector developments especially when there are residential areas nearby.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in the planning of public and private development projects, agencies take into account several considerations, which will include the impact of construction works on nearby residents. However, given our built-up urban environment and land constraints, it is not always possible to totally avoid noise-generating activities such as construction works.
In areas that are being developed fairly rapidly such as new housing estates, residents who moved into the area earlier may go through the experience of several nearby upcoming developments being constructed subsequently.
Nevertheless, public sector agencies are committed to reducing construction noise levels. For instance, the Land Transport Authority takes reference from the National Environment Agency (NEA)’s guidelines when implementing road and rail infrastructure projects. Housing and Development Board’s contractors also include measures like the staggering of noisy activities, using quieter equipment and construction methods, shielding of noise sources and restricting the duration of noisy activities like piling, to minimise inconvenience to residents during the development process.
During the construction process, noise limits are imposed on construction sites under the Environmental Protection and Management Act. Construction companies which violate these limits are liable to enforcement action by NEA, which could include a fine of up to $40,000 upon conviction, and a "stop-work order" may also be imposed on repeat offenders.
A "no-work rule" has also been in place since September 2011 which prohibits noisy work activities on Sundays and public holidays at construction sites within 150 metres of residential premises and noise-sensitive premises.
I thank the Minister for his answer. I would like to ask one supplementary question. Can the Minister reassure us that the agencies will be proactive in minimising noise, especially in built-up estates, mature estates, like Clementi? I ask this because I have had residents' feedback that for some developments, especially where there was concurrent demolition going on, large pieces of debris were being broken down on-site rather than transported elsewhere to be broken down, with ensuing noise disamenities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the agencies are already paying attention to this and they would continue to do their best in, firstly, staging the projects so that we manage the tempo of the projects as the Member had asked, and then subsequently, even when the projects are being implemented, working their best to manage activities on-site – and that would include complying with NEA's noise limits, but even going beyond that. We know there are more advanced construction methods that allow for construction to be done more productively, and importantly, in a quieter fashion. In fact, NEA also has a Quieter Construction Fund which co-funds construction activities that may be more expensive, but can do things in a quieter way.
PAPERCUTS