María Jesús Cruz, a 53-year-old cleaning employee, was allegedly murdered by her neighbor in Vigo because the man “was nervous” about the noises the woman made in his house. It happened in October of last year, and the trial will be held in a couple of weeks. The case of María Jesús (her family speaks for the first time about this crime with a media outlet and does so with La Vanguardia) is an extreme example taken from that great drawer of conflicts or damage to health due to noise pollution.
With the return to normality after the pandemic – the world stopped due to this virus, and silence took over the streets for months – “there has been an increase in complaints and legal claims due to excessive noise,” confirms Yomara García Viera, president of Jurists against Noise. Mainly what enters through windows and balconies (vehicle engines, voices from terraces, screams in schoolyards, music from venues and concerts…).
“Knowing the silence in big cities during confinement has not been any gift, nor anything good,” says Lluís Gallardo, lawyer for the Catalan Association Against Noise Pollution. This obligatory experience “has made us people more hypersensitive to noise.” “There has been – he adds – a change in the social psychology of the perception of environmental problems.” Gallardo gives a couple of examples: “Before the pandemic, complaints or claims in Barcelona about schoolyard noise – a cocktail of screams, laughter and crying – were anecdotal (one or two a year). Now it’s one or two a month!” The second example: “People who have a terrace under their house, which on very rare occasions caused them discomfort, now claim that the noise from these businesses disturbs them daily.”
This hypersensitivity to noise explains, Yorama García believes, the fact that “little by little progress is being made in education and awareness in everything related to the sound quality of our lives.” Lluís Gallardo corroborates this. “Society – he states – is gradually becoming aware of the harm (not just annoyance) of noise for our health and well-being.” And he continues: “Today we no longer see surprised faces when the term ‘noise pollution’ is used, the meaning of which was ignored by the majority just a few years ago, and is more denounced.”
Although the situation, according to those who look after our sound health, is still a long way off before being able to claim victory. “There are small advances, yes, but there is still a lot to do,” repeats Yomara García Viera. Despite the progress in this matter, he regrets that “education and awareness around noise and sound quality are less rooted and widespread than some other environmental issues, such as air pollution, water, waste, climate change, biodiversity, mobility or sustainability in general.”
The recipe to end conflicts? “Continue working through pedagogy, education, awareness, sensitization and environmental participation, as well as in the prevention, planning, management, control and inspection of polluting activities,” he adds.
García Viera criticizes that the noise problem “is still minimized” and many citizens are not aware of this drama “until they suffer it firsthand.” This lawyer lists many misconceptions on the subject, “such as that a city with noise is a living city, when it is just the opposite, it is a sick city; or that you can make all the noise you want at home or in the city. But there are limits both during the day and at night.”
Judges are also getting excited about noise pollution, which generates many more conflicts than you think. “The complaints are finally succeeding: if there are grounds and the accusations are proven, they are condemned,” reveals this lawyer. Gallardo, however, puts a but to this judicial ordeal of the complainants. “The judges took longer to react than citizen awareness did, although we can say that a 2002 ruling by the TSJC paved the way for considering noise as the culprit of injuries to fundamental rights, health and privacy.”
Paradoxically, after this great step, since 2010 “the broad pro-noise interpretation has been restricted or made more restrictive. Now it is costing much more, which clashes with an increase in complaints, to get judicial matters on track in Catalonia. It is more difficult to win,” reveals this lawyer.
Because? “Due to a new regulation of the Generalitat – he responds – that requires more precise and complicated evidence to obtain so that a citizen can demonstrate that a noise causes health problems.” In Catalonia, Gallardo continues, “without a sonometric test (which costs around 700 euros) a case cannot be initiated. It is clear that the Administration is, therefore, taking the side of the offender with so much difficulty for the citizen to take matters to court.”
The president of Jurists against Noise is forceful when pointing out the administrations. “They are not up to the task, they are not agile, there are no human or technical resources, [the noise level] is not measured at night,” she denounces. And she adds: “Inspections are either not carried out or they are scheduled too late. We frequently observe municipal inaction and fatal efficiency and speed in procedures.”
García criticizes that, “in the name of the economy, there is a certain tolerance for polluting activity, to the detriment of people’s health.” He reveals that “for some activities, paying fines is cheap.” He gives an example of this reality: “When we see a vehicle speeding on the road, we stop it, and if it also runs over someone, we proceed to arrest it. On the other hand, when noise levels are exceeded, which in many situations are industrial levels, people look the other way, even when the damage to health is terrible. Noise pollution kills.”
