María Jesús Cruz, a 53-year-old cleaning worker, was allegedly murdered by her neighbor in Vigo because that man “made him nervous” by the noises the woman made in his house. It happened in October 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, La Vanguardia) is an extreme example taken from this large drawer of conflicts or damage to health due to noise pollution.
With the return to normality after the pandemic – the world stopped because of that virus and silence took over the streets for months – “there has been an increase in complaints and legal claims for excessive noise”, confirms Yomara García Viera , president of Jurists against the Noise. Mainly, what enters through windows and balconies (vehicle engines, voices from terraces, shouts in schoolyards, music from venues and concerts…).
“Knowing the silence in the big cities during confinement has not been a gift, nor has it been a good thing,” says Lluís Gallardo, lawyer for the Catalan Association Against Acoustic Pollution. That obligatory experience “has made us 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 complaints in Barcelona about noise in schoolyards – a cocktail of screams, laughter and crying – were anecdotal (one or two a year). Now there are once or twice a month.” The second example: “People who have a terrace under their house, which on very few occasions caused them discomfort, now say that the noise from these businesses disturbs them daily”.
This hypersensitivity to noise explains, says Yorama García, the fact that “little by little there is progress in education and awareness regarding the sound quality of our lives”. This is corroborated by Lluís Gallardo. “Society – he says – is gradually becoming aware of the harm (not just discomfort) of noise for our health and well-being”. And he continues: “Today we no longer see faces of surprise when the term noise pollution is used, the meaning of which was ignored by the majority just a few years ago and is reported more”.
But the situation, according to those who look after our sound health, is still far from being able to sing victory. “There are small advances, yes, but much remains to be done”, repeats Yomara García Viera. Despite the progress in this matter, he regrets that “education and awareness around noise and sound quality is less rooted and widespread than other environmental issues, such as air pollution, water, waste, climate change, biodiversity , mobility or sustainability in general”.
The recipe to end conflicts? “Continue working from 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 in their own flesh”. This letter lists many misconceptions on the subject, “because 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 in your home or in the city. But there are day and night limits.”
The judges are also getting angry with noise pollution, which generates many more conflicts than you think. “Denunciations, finally, are flourishing and, if there is a foundation and the immissions are proven, it is condemned”, reveals this lawyer. Gallardo puts, nevertheless, a but to this judicial viacrucis of the complainants. “The judges took longer to react than public awareness, although we can say that a 2002 ruling by the TSJC paved the way for considering noise as guilty of injuries to fundamental rights, health and privacy.”
Paradoxically, after this great step, from 2010 “the broad prosoroll interpretation has been restricted or made more restrictive. Now it is costing a lot more, which collides with an increase in complaints, to get judicial affairs on track in Catalonia. It is more difficult to win”, reveals this lawyer.
Because? “Because of a new regulation of the Generalitat – he answers – which requires more precise and complicated tests to obtain so that a citizen can prove that noise causes problems in his health”. In Catalonia, continues Gallardo, “without a sonometric test (which costs around 700 euros) a lawsuit cannot be initiated. It is clear that the Administration is, therefore, in favor of the offender with so much hindrance to the citizen to take matters to court”.
The president of Jurists against the Noise is forceful when she points out the administrations. “They are not up to the task, they are not agile, there are no human or technical means, [the noise levels] are not measured at night”, he complains. And he adds: “Inspections are either not carried out or are scheduled too late. We frequently observe municipal inaction and fatal efficiency and speed in the 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 the fines is cheap”. He gives an example of this reality: “When we see a vehicle speeding down the road, we stop it, and if it also hits someone, we proceed to the arrest. On the other hand, when the noise levels are exceeded, which are often industrial levels, people look the other way, even though the damage to health is terrible. Noise pollution kills”.
