Westminster Open Spaces Noise Study 2008 Final Report

Westminster Open Spaces Noise Study2008For Westminster City CouncilFinal ReportD121316/R1/02March 2009Scott Wilson Ltd

Westminster Open Spaces Noise Study2008Final ReportIssue NoCurrentStatus02 Final 13/03/09Date Prepared by Reviewed by Approved byShibani Bose&Chris SkinnerStuart Woodin&Alf ManeylawsPaul ShieldsThis document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's appointment with its client and is subject tothe terms of that appointment. It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. ScottWilson accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it wasprepared and provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of thisdocument, without the prior written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions, orrecommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. Thecontents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion.© Scott Wilson Ltd 2009.Scott Wilson Ltd12 Regan WayChetwynd Business ParkChilwellNottinghamNG9 6RZPhone: +44 (0)115 907 7000Fax: +44 (0)115 907 7001www.scottwilson.com

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportTABLE OF CONTENTSPage No.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................... I1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 11.1 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 11.2 TRANQUILLITY..................................................................................................................... 11.3 PILLARS OF URBAN TRANQUILLITY – A HYPOTHESIS .............................................................. 22. METHODOLOGY AND DATA PROCESSING......................................................................... 32.1 SITES ................................................................................................................................. 32.2 SURVEY MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY............................................................................. 32.3 ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY.......................................................................... 42.4 ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENT DATA PROCESSING .................................................................... 42.5 QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................................. 52.6 DATA GATHERING METHOD................................................................................................. 62.7 SAMPLING........................................................................................................................... 82.8 NOTE ON TYPOLOGIES ........................................................................................................ 83. CREATION OF TOOLKITS .................................................................................................... 113.1 TOOLKITS ......................................................................................................................... 113.2 DATA INPUT, ANALYSIS AND WEIGHTING............................................................................ 113.3 USE OF WEIGHTING .......................................................................................................... 123.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD............................................................................................ 134. USING THE TOOLKIT – ASSESSMENT OF SITES.............................................................. 144.2 TRANQUILLITY CAPTURE FORM ......................................................................................... 144.3 INTERPRETATION OF SCORES............................................................................................ 175. FINDINGS............................................................................................................................... 185.1 FINDINGS FROM ACOUSTICS MEASUREMENTS.................................................................... 185.2 OTHER NOISE INDICATORS................................................................................................ 225.3 COMPARISON WITH NOISE MAPS ........................................................................................ 255.4 FINDINGS FROM ATTITUDINAL SURVEYS............................................................................. 276. DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................... 307. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT.................................... 338. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FURTHER WORK ................................................................... 388.1 PROTECTION (AND CREATION) OF TRANQUIL SPACES......................................................... 388.2 MITIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 388.3 NATURAL SOUNDS ............................................................................................................ 388.4 MAN MADE SOUNDS .......................................................................................................... 398.5 FURTHER WORK ............................................................................................................... 399. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 419.1 DEFINITION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS OF RELATIVE TRANQUILLITY ..................... 419.2 IDENTIFICATION OF AREAS OF RELATIVE TRANQUILLITY IN WESTMINSTER FOR PROTECTIONAND ENHANCEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4110. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................... 4311. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 44APPENDIX A: RELEVANT ACOUSTIC AND ATTITUDINAL SURVEY TERMINOLOGY ........... 45APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE USED AT EACH SITE............................................................. 47APPENDIX C: DETAILS OF NOISE MEASUREMENTS AT EACH SITE..................................... 49D121316/R1/02Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportAPPENDIX D: DETAILS OF MEASUREMENT SITES.................................................................. 74APPENDIX E: WEIGHTED SCORING WITHIN TYPOLOGIES: ................................................... 75APPENDIX F: TRANQUILLITY CAPTURE FORM........................................................................ 82APPENDIX G: SAMPLE BLANK ASSESSMENT TABLE ............................................................ 90APPENDIX H: DETAILED ASSESSMENT SHEET ....................................................................... 92D121316/R1/02Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportExecutive SummaryScott Wilson has been commissioned by Westminster City Council (WCC) to undertake aninnovative tranquillity survey of twenty open spaces within the City of Westminster. A questionnaireapproach was developed for the purpose of assessing the many elements of relative tranquillity inopen spaces together with an acoustic measurement methodology. Noise measurements,observations and questionnaires were undertaken at twenty open space sites chosen by WCC.The twenty sites were subdivided into four typologies. A tranquillity score was developed from theanalysis of the survey findings together with a practical toolkit for the future assessment oftranquillity in Westminster.Key FindingsTranquillity is a complex concept. It is both a state of mind as well as an indicator of environmentalquality. For example, a Buddhist monk can find tranquillity in the noisiest of spaces whilst somerural households complain bitterly about noise levels taken for granted in the city. Westminster CityCouncil has rightly identified that tranquillity is a relative characteristic. It believes however, thatmany people suffer from the impacts of ‘unwanted sound’ – noise and the City Council’s 24 hournoise team receives over 18,000 ‘reports of noise problems’ a year.In this context, open spaces, which already carry a huge range of functions and expectations,might also be able to provide more respite from unwanted noise and a chance to bring a sense ofcalm into the lives of Westminster’s many residents, workers and visitors – a sense of tranquillity inthe city.How then did the twenty sites measure up and what in particular was the significance of noise inusers’ sense of tranquillity in and enjoyment of these spaces?The lowest measured noise levels were observed towards the centre of the largest open spaces,these also had the highest tranquillity scores. Noise levels at the edges of the large sites were ashigh as many of the smaller sites.Conversely the sites with highest noise levels were judged amongst the lowest tranquillity scores.However, the overall correlation was weak across the full range of noise levels within the openspaces surveyed. In the open spaces with moderate noise climates a wide range of otherexperiential factors influence the respondents’ appreciation of the space and its tranquillity.Overall no strong correlation between tranquillity score and noise level was seen. Noise levels atonly two sites were below the WHO (World Health Organisation) guideline noise level for gardensand recreational areas of 55 dB L Aeq .Analysis of the findings showed that positive visual factors are of equal or greater importance thannoise factors when defining tranquillity. However, negative noise factors such as traffic and aircraftnoise are more likely to detract from tranquillity where an open space doesn’t score particularlyhigh in terms of other (mainly) visual factors.In many, although not all, of the open spaces surveyed, there was evidence that users were ableto switch off less pleasant noise, often helped by the positive aspects of the space, although moodand other associations of the place in users’ minds will also come into this.The evidence strongly suggests that mitigation of the most un-tranquil open spaces would involvenoise related interventions, while enhancement of tranquillity in other (less noisy) spaces wouldD121316/R1/02iScott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Reportrequire a more holistic approach, giving visual, aural, sensual and even olfactory qualities moreconsideration.Whether there is a noise ‘tipping point’ for some open spaces (whereby they will always struggle toprovide any degree of tranquillity without dealing with man-made noise first), would need to beinvestigated further. However, it would make sense to ensure that where feasible open spacesenjoyed noise levels closer to the average rear façade (Westminster Noise Survey 2008) i.e. 55 dBgiven the large number of residents, workers and visitors that do not enjoy access to a rear façadespace. More importantly, the small number of open areas in Westminster where levels are belowthis, should be suitably designated and protected.Whilst a lack of medium sized sites may have skewed the results, the study identified a wholerange of sensory indicators that have proved useful to both measure tranquillity and also toimprove tranquillity scores in years to come.The study reinforced the opening hypothesis which identified four pillars of urban tranquillity –sounds, presence of nature, sense of personal safety, culture of the place. To this a fifth has nowbeen added, namely the Visual or Aesthetic Pillar.The work presents a toolkit which provides a tranquillity score for any open space and suggests awide range of mitigation measures to enhance it.D121316/R1/02iiScott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report1. Introduction1.1 Background1.1.1 Scott Wilson has been commissioned by Westminster City Council (WCC) to undertake atranquillity survey of open spaces within the City of Westminster.1.1.2 Sounds, pleasant and unpleasant, constant or intermittent, are a part of the urbanexperience. However, the Council is of the view that many people suffer from the impactsof ‘unwanted sound’ - noise. The City Council’s 24 hour noise team receives over 18,000‘reports of noise problems’ a year 1 .1.1.3 The Westminster Open Space Strategy (2007) highlighted the value of the borough’s openspaces in providing a respite from the day to day hustle and bustle of city life. The strategygoes on to identify a need to develop a set of measures to limit and control the intrusion ofnoise into open spaces with the aim of protecting existing quiet spaces and identifyingspaces where enhancements to reduce noise intrusion would be possible and beneficial.1.1.4 In addition to the purely noise related issues there is a recognition that a betterunderstanding is required of why people go to open spaces, the characteristics of openspaces which make them attractive and how this interlinks with noise. In essence, what is‘urban tranquillity’ and how does it relate to noise, both pleasant and unpleasant? Afterdiscussion with the client, it was agreed to pursue this by:a) Defining the characteristics of areas of relative tranquillity in the context ofWestminster and develop a method for assessing the ’relative tranquillity value’ ofpublic open spaces in Westminster.b) Identifying areas of relative tranquillity in Westminster for protection orenhancement based on (a) above.c) Identifying experiential factors and recommend measures to protect areas oftranquillity in Westminster and where possible context specific recommendations forhow each area of relative tranquillity identified at (b) may be protected or measuresfor enhancement, such as introduction of sound or other features to mask theperception of noise.d) Preparing and submit a Study Report covering points (a) – (c) above1.2 Tranquillity1.2.1 Tranquillity is a complex concept. It is both a state of mind as well as an indicator ofenvironmental quality. For example, a Buddhist monk can find tranquillity in the noisiest ofspaces whilst some rural households complain bitterly about noise levels taken for grantedin the city. Westminster City Council has rightly identified that tranquillity is a relativecharacteristic. It believes however, that many people suffer from the impacts of ‘unwantedsound’ – noise and the City Council’s 24 hour noise team now receives over 18,000‘reports of noise problems’ a year.1.2.2 This study starts from the premise that although there is a crucial difference between theexperience of tranquillity in urban and rural areas, the two cannot be divorced since theyare linked, psychologically, in the mind of city dwellers. Rural tranquillity has a close andD121316/R1/021Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Reportrelatively easy to understand link with sound level. In a rural context, tranquillity means therelative absence of man made sound, and the presence of a range of nature relatedsounds. An extensive study by the Campaign for Protection of Rural England (CPRE) 2 onareas of relative tranquillity focuses on the elements that make up the rural soundscape,and their value in terms of a tranquil experience.1.3 Pillars of urban tranquillity – a hypothesis1.3.1 For the purpose of this study, four possible ‘pillars of urban tranquillity’ were identifiedbased on studies by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) onurban public space, Scott Wilson’s experience of studying urban space usage, as well asthe CPRE study on areas of rural tranquillity. This hypothesis was then tested againstthe findings of the attitudinal surveys, which went on to inform site assessments.The ‘four pillars of urban tranquillity’ that form this hypothesis are as below:1.3.2 Sounds – it is hypothesised that urban tranquillity is related to the different sound sets aspace may encompass, including natural as well as man made sounds. Relative quiet is afactor, as is the relative absence or low levels of certain types of urban noise (construction,workplace or traffic sounds). The masking of individual unfavourable sounds by a suitableneutral sound can add to a feeling of tranquillity. In Westminster, background noise is oftentoo high to distinguish any individual elements that in a rural context may be importantfactors of tranquillity, such as birdsong or crickets. Therefore, in an urban context, it isimportant to study soundscape from a perspective where relative levels and combinationsof sound can be appraised.1.3.3 Presence of nature – the sight, touch and smell of natural elements such as trees, wateror wildlife are especially valuable in urban contexts as a break from the order of the manmadeworld. Consolidated open spaces with little or no buildings are rare instances indense urban environments, and in the users mind are associated with tranquillity.1.3.4 Sense of personal safety – freedom from crime or threat to the person is a valid factor inthe experience of tranquillity. These have a sizeable effect on the ability to enjoy or evenexperience a space in a relaxed manner. Along with actual crime rates, it is important for aspace to be perceived as having a ‘safe’ image. A feeling of safety is linked in many users’minds to a wide range of factors including the number and dynamic of people within viewand earshot, and the presence of wardens or Park Police for example.1.3.5 Culture and freedom of the place – tranquillity in dense and urban environments is linkedto an overall ‘sense of place’, which involves many tangible and intangible variables suchas the history or context of the space, its design, the pace and range of activities possibleand how much an individual user is allowed to feel ownership and a sense of freedom inthe space. These indicators are a result of factors as diverse as the number and type ofseats, whether the space provides a taste of remoteness and the nature and frequency ofevents held here. These can all influence the way users interact with each other in aspecific space. Do users make eye contact and acknowledge each other on the one handbut respect each others’ privacy on the other? Layout can also have a strong bearing onculture, particularly whether the amount of space and circulation layout give people achoice of whether to be seen or not seen by other users, depending on mood and needs.1.3.6 A glossary of terminology relevant to this report is included as Appendix A.D121316/R1/022Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report2. Methodology and Data Processing2.1 Sites2.1.1 Noise measurements, observations and questionnaires were undertaken at twenty openspace sites chosen by WCC.2.1.2 The full list of sites provided by WCC is as follows.1. Paddington Central;2. Paddington Recreation Ground;3. Westbourne Estate Canals;4. Regent’s Park;5. Harrow Road Open Space;6. St Mary’s Churchyard;7. Hyde Park Corner War Memorial;8. Hyde Park;9. Trafalgar Square;10. Leicester Square Gardens;11. Inigo Jones Gardens;12. Westbourne Gardens;13. St Anne’s Churchyard;14. Soho Square;15. Golden Square;16. Ebury Square;17. St James’s Park;18. Lower Grosvenor Gardens;19. Riverside Walk Gardens; and20. Victoria Tower Gardens North.2.1.3 Further information on the size and the typology defined by WCC officers is available inAppendix D of this report.2.2 Survey Measurement Methodology2.2.1 The original methodology set out in the proposal was revised after discussions withWestminster City Council (WCC) officers. The original proposal methodology suggestedtwo rounds of qualitative data gathering. The first was via a web and postal questionnairedesigned to establish which spaces in Westminster people thought were tranquil and toestablish broad principles of tranquillity. The second was a face to face questionnaire withopen space users designed to establish what experiential factors made a park tranquil andto delve further into an understanding of urban tranquillity.2.2.2 Following consultation with WCC officers it was decided that the Council would provide alist of twenty sites they would like investigated while a list of factors could be generatedusing previous research and personal experience to feed into the face to face survey.2.2.3 The following sequence of events was followed in carrying out this study:1. A questionnaire was developed based on a literature review2. A specific fieldwork team was recruited and briefed3. The questionnaire was piloted at a single site and then modified.D121316/R1/023Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report4. Site visits and interviews with site users were carried out. Noise measurements weretaken at each site, simultaneously with interview sessions, to allow a correlation offindings between the two arms of the study.5. Classifications of sites were formed from site observations and a preliminary review ofinterview findings. Sites were then grouped into new typologies (see note on typologiesbelow)6. A toolkit was develop with weighted tranquillity factors for each typology7. Sites were assessed objectively by team members who had visited them, using theproformas provided with the Toolkit (see Toolkit below).2.3 Acoustic Measurement Methodology2.3.1 The majority of the sites were visited for a period of approximately one hour during aweekday in the period 13 October 2008 to 12 November 2008. The two sites visited at theweekend were on the edge of Hyde Park near the café and the Rose Garden on Saturday1 November 2008 a ; it was considered these would be more populated during the weekendsand hence have a different noise climate than during the week. During all the visits, noisemeasurements were made simultaneously to the social surveys.2.3.2 The noise instruments were set up at a point considered typical of the site as a whole.Where possible this was chosen to be central to the open space. Care was taken not tocause an obstruction to the users of the site or to be too close to an obvious local noisesource, such as building service equipment in nearby buildings. Multiple measurementswere taken at larger sites such as Hyde Park, Regent’s Park and St James’s Park to reflectthe different soundscapes at the edge and centre of each site.2.3.3 Noise measurements were undertaken with a 5-minute logging period, and recorded noiseindicators included: L Aeq , L AF10 , L AF90 , L AFmax and 1/3-octave L eq sound pressure levels foreach 5-minute period b .2.3.4 In addition to the noise measurements and social surveys, a site pro-forma was completedat each site to capture the following information:• Instrumentation used for noise measurements, including calibration records;• Weather conditions during measurements;• Audible noise sources noted during the site survey (categorised, with spaces foradditional noise sources and comments);• A subjective assessment of noise climate at the site (the opinion of acousticconsultant undertaking noise measurement, and separate from the questionnaireresponses).2.4 Acoustic Measurement Data Processing2.4.1 Analysis of the acoustic measurement data has included comparison with a number ofreference noise levels and noise guidelines, including the following:a It was envisaged that a greater proportion of sites would be visited during the weekend, however this was not possibledue to inclement weather and timescale constraints.b A glossary of noise terminology is included in Appendix A to this report.D121316/R1/024Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report• World Health Organisation, Guidelines for Community Noise 3• Average Noise Levels from Westminster Noise Survey 2008 4• Average Noise Levels from Central London boroughs (Westminster, Camden,Southwark and Tower Hamlets), from London Noise Survey 2004 5 .• Average Noise Levels for Outer London and the UK from the National NoiseIncidence Survey 2000/2001 6 .• London Noise Map 7 .2.5 Questionnaire2.5.1 A list of tranquillity influencing indicators was developed using the CPRE 2005 report andsupplementing the indicators used there with a list of factors suitable for an urban context.Each factor was assessed in light of open spaces in Central London, as opposed to ruralenvironments, and by social researchers experienced in usage studies of urban spaces.Using this experience it was possible to refine the list of factors to be investigated. Thesewere then divided into categories based on the basic senses, sight, sound, touch andsmell. An extra category was created to cover more abstract experiential urban designfactors, such as a sense of scale, as well as other factors that respondents may bring upunprompted. These factors and senses are reproduced in the table below:Table 1. Experiential factors seen to influence tranquillity in urban open spacesSenseFactorSeeingHearingA 'green' landscapeMan made artistic / memorial water featuresNatural (or natural-looking) water bodies (Lakes, ponds, rivers, canals)Wide open spacesNatural 'wild' looking areasGrassy surfaceTreesBushesFlowersBirds, including water fowlPigeonsWild animals, e.g. squirrelsDogsPeopleCrowdsHistoric buildingsModern buildingsLow flying aircraftRoadsVehicles inside the spaceVehicles outside the spaceCycle routes and cyclists inside the spaceBoatsMilitary personnel / formations / activitiesPolice / other security personnelMaintenance personnelHomeless peopleMan made artistic / memorial water featuresNatural water bodies (Lakes, ponds, rivers, canals)BirdsongCrickets etcD121316/R1/025Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportSenseFactorWild animals, e.g. squirrelsWaterfowlPigeonsFlowing WaterDistinct voicesHum of conversationPeopleChildren playing close byMobile phone ringtones and conversationsChurch bells / clock towersFootstepsHelicoptersLow flying aircraftBusesCarsMotorbikesLorriesBoat enginesCyclistsDistinctive vehicle noise, e.g. horns or reversing vehiclesTouchSmellOther factorsPublic announcementsPublic speakersBuskersMilitary personnel / formations / activitiesPolice / other security personnelMaintenance personnelHomeless people asking for changeWind turbinesRailways & TrainsComplete silenceNatural noises e.g. wind rustling treesOther non-natural sounds e.g. workmenBands; live musicGrass/plants/flowers/leavesWaterWindFresh airNewly mown grassFlowersTraffic fumesSmelly rubbish binsCoffee/tea/food outletsDistant activityLarge open spacesBenchesOtherOtherOther2.6 Data Gathering Method2.6.1 It was agreed with WCC officers that the most effective way to investigate tranquillity inspecific spaces was to use a structured questionnaire to carry out in-depth, face-to-faceinvestigations with users. The initial survey questions were designed to ensure respondentswere qualified to take part (i.e. regular park users) and if they were not, then they werescreened out. This screening step was necessary in order to make sure that only the valuejudgements of respondents who chose to visit the open spaces in question, rather thanD121316/R1/026Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Reportthose who just happened to be there, were taken into account for the study. This was thenfollowed by questions on user information such as frequency and length of visits. The nextsection investigated each factor of tranquillity using a Likert Scale. An example of this is setout in Table 2 below.Table 2. Example Question from the QuestionnaireFactorTreesStrongDislikeDislike Neutral Like StrongLikeNotApplicable2.6.2 A Likert item is simply a statement which the respondent is asked to evaluate according toany kind of subjective or objective criteria; generally the level of agreement ordisagreement is measured. The Likert Scale is the sum of responses on several Likertitems. A Likert scaling was used because it is a bipolar scaling method, measuring eitherpositive or negative responses. In this way it is possible to understand whether a factorcontributes to tranquillity or detracts from it. Further discussion of this is presented below inthe Analysis and Weighting section.2.6.3 The remainder of the questionnaire was used to establish whether respondents thought theopen space they were using was tranquil and whether there were other more tranquilspaces they preferred. The word ‘tranquil’ was not used until the end of the interview so asnot to unduly influence respondents’ thinking and therefore responses. A full copy of thequestionnaire is presented as Appendix B to this report.2.6.4 Two questions in the interview questionnaire were specifically geared towards qualitativeresponses.“Q. 2 What is it about the space that makes you come back here? if unsure, ask 'Why haveyou come here today?' “Responses to this question, asked at the beginning of the survey, were loosely quantifiedby a ‘tagging’ method. Fieldworkers were instructed to spend up to 3 minutes on thisquestion, drawing respondents out, and marking or ‘tagging’ words or phrases as theyoccurred in the course of the conversation, in the table shown below. This would help toestablish whether the respondent valued the space they were interviewed in due to itstranquil nature, according to our hypothetical understanding of tranquillity. This would also‘validate’ the respondent for the purposes of our study.Relevant and unique comments were also summarised or recorded verbatim, depending onthe case.tranquillity -A place tothink,peaceful,calm, quiet,get away,hide, read,…urbantranquillity -peoplepresent butnotengaging,buzz, busy,watchpeople,alone in acrowdtranquillitylinked tonature -trees, birds,animals,grass,water, skytranquillitylinked tobuildingsvisiblenon-soundrelatedtranquillity– touchnon-soundrelatedtranquillity -spatialsense,scale,distancefrom activitynot usingthe spacefor itstranquillityOTHERTAGSD121316/R1/027Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report“Q. 7 In this space how do you feel? Don't rush to prompts, but if needed - Happy, safe,unsafe, peaceful, nervous, relaxed etc.”This question was asked near the end of the survey, respondents having been given achance to think about the various factors that made up the space. Responses wererecorded as well as ‘tagged’, as before.2.6.5 Due to the time available per site and the thrust of the study towards producing assessmenttoolkits, qualitative responses were given less importance than in a structuredconversational interview format. However, qualitative responses contributed to ourunderstanding of the associations people make with open spaces, various factors presentin them, and their understanding of tranquillity. As a result, the qualitative responses areimplicit in our conclusions and recommendations.2.7 Sampling2.7.1 The sampling method used was convenience sampling (non-probability) as it was reliant onpark users voluntarily taking part in the questionnaire.2.7.2 The questionnaires were conducted at various times of the day between 11:00 and 18:00 atboth weekdays and weekends at 20 different sites. Details of the days when sites werevisited are provided in Appendix C. Due to budgetary constraints, time was limited to 1 hourof research per site.2.7.3 Response numbers were limited at several sites as a result of the fixed time windows inwhich site work had to be undertaken. Scott Wilson originally recommended a minimum ofhalf a day per site, but were asked to prioritise a greater number of site visits within thebudget. Normally, this is a deterrent to the creation of a fully robust toolkit based on useropinion. However, the typology method of producing toolkits, (as explained in 2.10 below)has partially mitigated this circumstance by pooling responses for a number of sites whichfall within the same typology, and using this pooled number to calculate the importance ofeach factor to a sense of tranquillity (see limitations of the method in Section 3.4 for wherewe think this can be improved upon).2.8 Note on Typologies2.8.1 The CPRE study weighted several factors of tranquillity against each other and resulted ina single Toolkit for assessing tranquillity in rural spaces in England. In a central London,distinctly urban environment, the relative importance of individual factors on the tranquillityof a space would vary widely between specific site contexts. Assessing the value of ‘agreen landscape’, for instance, would be irrelevant in paved public spaces such asTrafalgar Square, which may be valued by users for its tranquillity on other counts.Similarly, the question of whether the presence of ‘wide open spaces’ contributes totranquillity would be inapplicable in small pocket parks, which users may still find to be themost tranquil of spaces.2.8.2 WCC has classified these 20 sites into seven typologies based on Greater LondonAuthority land use designations, these are: District, Local Park, Metropolitan, Pocket Park,Small Local Park, Civic Space, Linear Open Space.2.8.3 In carrying out the survey, specific similarities between the types of responses - andtherefore the user experience - of sites were found across these typologies. (See also 3.1.3in ‘Creation of Toolkits’). In light of comparative analysis therefore, it was thought useful toconsider:D121316/R1/028Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report• Profile (this includes considerations such as how well known the space is andespecially whether people would visit it simply for its fame. While there were no dataon users, a distinction can be made between sites of local, national and globalimportance. This screening of sites by virtue of their being on or off a ‘tourist map’ isvery pertinent to this study as Westminster contains several locally, nationally andglobally well known public spaces.• Treatment and types of materials (hard or soft paving, green element, othernatural elements)• Size (varies widely in urban context; limits possible distance from road andbuildings)2.8.4 Based on these considerations, we have reduced the current seven typologies to four forthe purposes of assessing tranquillity in Westminster’s open spaces have been proposed.These newly defined typologies are as follows:• Civic Paved Space (CPS) – high profile, predominantly hard landscape elements;pedestrianised; over 0.5 ha• Local Mixed Surface Space (LMSS) – low or mostly local profile; combination ofhard and soft landscape elements; pedestrianised; under 2 ha• Civic Mixed Surface Space (CMSS) – high profile; combination of hard and softlandscape elements; pedestrianised; under 2 ha• London Park (LP) – high profile; predominantly grassy / soft landscape elements;predominantly pedestrianised; over 2 ha2.8.5 Which typology the chosen sites fall into is shown in Table 3 below.D121316/R1/029Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportTable 3. Site TypologiesCivic Paved Space• TrafalgarSquareLocal MixedSurface Space• WestbourneEstateCanalsideGardens• PaddingtonRecreationGround• Riverside WalkGardens• Ebury Square• Inigo JonesGardens• St Anne’sChurchyard• St Mary’sChurchyard• PaddingtonCentral• Golden Square• LowerGrosvenorGardens• Harrow Roadopen space• WestbourneGardensLondon Park• Hyde Park• St James’s Park• Regent’s Park• Victoria TowerGardens NorthCivic Mixed SurfaceSpace• Soho Square• LeicesterSquare Gardens• Hyde ParkCorner WarMemorial2.8.6 Although these typologies provide a logical framework for a comparative assessment ofthese sites and can embrace other sites within Westminster, the suggested methodologyretains enough flexibility to add and assess additional typologies for any future studies.2.8.7 Please note that the site methodologies for acoustic and attitudinal survey were the sameacross all sites. Typologies came into play only at analysis stage.D121316/R1/0210Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report3. Creation of Toolkits3.1 Toolkits3.1.1 One of the key outputs of the study was to develop a ‘Toolkit’ for assessing tranquillity,using an objective yes / no assessment system, which would lead to a ‘tranquillity score’ foreach site.3.1.2 The rationale behind the toolkit method is the question of how and how much the presenceof a particular element of open space (such as grass, water, the presence of people, birds)matters to people’s sense of tranquillity in this ‘type’ of space. Some elements are absent,by default, in some types, e.g., green surfaces in Civic Paved Space. This is different froman element being perceived as not making a difference to tranquillity. When a respondentthought an element did not matter to tranquillity, this was coded as a 0 on the Likert Scale.3.1.3 Questions irrelevant to a given site were marked as such during site visits, and theelements relating to these were ruled out of the analysis for the given site. All sites whichhad the same elements ruled out (e.g., wide open spaces, grassy surfaces) were groupedinto the same typology.3.1.4 Elements of open spaces that we hypothesised as having an effect on people’s sense oftranquillity, and which were part of our questionnaire, are from this point forward termed‘experiential factors’.3.2 Data Input, Analysis and Weighting3.2.1 All questionnaire data were input into MS Excel. In the first instance summary tables wereconstructed for each site to determine the total number of responses. Some sites had nodata due to a lack of potential respondents on site at the time of study (see assumptionsand limitations, Section 3.4). However as weighting scales were created for ‘typologies’rather than sites, data skewing due to low numbers was largely mitigated.3.2.2 With the new typologies described above, it was necessary to code and weight the resultsof the Likert questions in order to develop a Toolkit. The coding used is as shown in Table4 below.Table 4. Likert CodingLikert Strong Dislike Dislike Neutral Like Strong Like Not ApplicableItemCoding -2 -1 0 1 2 No score3.2.3 The assignation of a typology to a site also considered the physical elements of the site,such as water bodies, grassy surfaces, paved areas, etc. By default, some physicalcharacteristics were absent in sites of a given typology, e.g., grassy surfaces in CivicPaved Spaces. Since many of the ‘experiential factors’ listed in table 1 relate to physicalcharacteristics of sites, the interview questionnaire had to be varied across the fourtypologies of sites. This is why four sets of weightings and toolkits (one per typology) werecreated (see below).3.2.4 Once the Likert Coding (Table 4 above) was set up, the experiential factors (Table 1) werethen weighted in order to establish the relative influence of a given factor compared to allthe other factors in a typology. The weighting was calculated using the following formula:D121316/R1/0211Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report3.2.5 Weighting CalculationTotal number of responses for a given Likert value inthe given typologyTotal number of responses for the given typologyX Coding of responseon Likert Scale(See table 4 above)Worked example for Civic Mixed SurfaceSpace (CMSS) which contains 3 sites:(1+4+0)13X 2 = 0.77Where:1 + 4 + 0 = Number of respondents from the 3 sites in this typology who ‘strongly like’ ‘AGreen Landscape’13 = Total number of respondents in the three CMSS sites2 = Code given to the opinion “strongly like3.2.6 The formula is repeated for each Likert value (strong dislike, dislike, neutral, like andstrongly like) for a given experiential factor (e.g. hearing birds, feeling water, seeingcrowds). These values are then added together to produce a weighted tranquillity score foreach of the 60+ experiential factors (see Appendix E).3.3 Use of Weighting3.3.1 At the core of the toolkit method and the division of sites into typologies is theunderstanding that in different types of spaces, i.e. four distinct typologies, the experienceof tranquillity is ‘different’, not ‘more’ or ‘less’. It may therefore be counter-productive to tryand arrive at a single tranquillity score for each typology in order to compare between themand inadvertently rule out a particular type of space, (e.g. Civic Paved Spaces) because itscores poorly against other typologies. For example, the qualitative responses in TrafalgarSquare suggested that a user can gain an element of tranquillity, by being a spectator inone of the world’s most famous squares where one can also pause for reflection and watchthe world go by.3.3.2 It is only with the toolkit weighting that comparison between tranquillity scores can be maderegardless of typology. For instance, to make a decision between investment in either SohoSquare (Civic Mixed Surface Space) and Westbourne Gardens (Local Mixed SurfaceSpace), the Council needn’t take into account the qualitative differences in the type ofspace since the Toolkit already addresses those differences by means of the weighting.3.3.3 The weighting attached to each experiential factor also enables the Council to see, at aglance the relative value of each factor within its typology. For example whether seeingbirds contributes more to a sense of tranquillity than seeing trees.D121316/R1/0212Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report3.3.4 The assessment of sites using the toolkit method is explained below as a step-by-stepprocess in ‘3 Using the toolkit’. Poorly performing spaces i.e., those that achieve a lowscore in the assessment described below, can be improved by implementing suitablemeasures to eliminate negative scores or to gain positive scores depending on costs, timeetc.3.4 Limitations of the Method3.4.1 Several experiential indicators listed separately in the questionnaire are quite similar toeach other. For the purposes of the research, they were kept distinct in order to tease outfine differences of perception. For less busy open spaces, it may be helpful to combineindicators in the list for analysis and to reserve the questionnaire (Appendix B) for siteswhere high response volumes are anticipated. For example, the factors ‘green landscape’and ‘grassy surfaces’ can be combined.3.4.2 Using the Likert scale, some sites may achieve relatively neutral scores, i.e., tendingtowards neither positive nor negative, even though some individual indicators may havehigh positives or negatives. In such cases, individual factors need investigation, and tohighlight this, total positive and negative scores have been kept, as well as the netTranquillity Score.3.4.3 The Civic Paved Space typology has only one site within it and may, therefore be lessrobust in its toolkit weighting than the other typologies. Further surveying at TrafalgarSquare, or assessment of additional similar sites, is required in order to ensure thedependability of this particular weighting.3.4.4 This methodology does not account for:• The ‘culture’ of place to any great extent, except to consider ‘high profile’ Londonspaces – this needs more time and space for a finer analysis;• Changes in usage patterns due to weather conditions, except to exclude interviewsessions and noise measurements carried out in bad weather; and• Personal mood – the toolkit has not been able to assess scores over time againstusers’ mood. Although this is outside the scope of this study, a quantitative measureof ‘happiness’, such as measuring users’ blood pressure changes would beparticularly significant from a health and well-being perspective.D121316/R1/0213Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report4. Using the Toolkit – Assessment of Sites4.1.1 This Toolkit has been developed keeping in mind that WCC should ideally be able to carryout assessments of future sites without the need for specialist researchers. The method ofusing the Toolkit should also be as standardised and objective as possible, but with enoughspace to record subjective observations. As explained above, this study has developed aworking classification of public spaces in Westminster into four typologies. Each typologyhas its own set of weightings set in a tranquillity capture form (see Appendix F). However,it is important to note that the ultimate score or ‘Tranquillity Value’ of each site canbe compared to any other site under study, regardless of typology.4.2 Tranquillity Capture Form4.2.1 The Tranquillity Capture Form is essentially a proforma to be used for each typology andcan be found in Appendix F. The sequence to be followed for assessment is as below:4.2.2 Sites within a typology should be assessed using the Toolkit specific to that type. SeeTable 3 for a breakdown of sites by typology.4.2.3 In order to assess a given open space based on the field worker’s observations:a. At initial site visit select the typology it belongs to (see ‘note on typologies’,Section 2.8 above).b. Complete Tranquillity Capture Form on site.c. Back at the office, input results into the tranquillity calculator where ‘yes’(presence of a factor) equals 1 and ‘no’ (absence of a factor) equals 0.d. Once all experiential factors are scored, the following scores are generated bythe spreadsheet:• Net tranquillity score for a site• Total positive scores• Total negative scores• Sub total sum of scores for man-made soundsSee interpreting scores below for more discussion of positive and negativescorese. All the above data and formulae mentioned above, with instructions for dataentry, are contained in an MS Excel spreadsheet, titled ‘Tranquillity Calculator’,provided to WCC electronically. This can also be used to develop furthertypologies if required.D121316/R1/0214Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report4.2.4 Worked out example – Riverside Walk Gardens. Typology: Local Mixed Surface SpaceSeeingA 'green' landscapeExperiential Factorsman made artistic / memorialwater featuresnatural water bodies (Lakes,ponds, rivers, canals)Weighted ScoreWeighting1.37Present?Y=1N=00(you don’t see a ‘greenlandscape in thisspace))Tranquillity Score0.00(the space receives noscore for this factor)0.60 0 0.000.40(weighting forseeing a naturalwater body in thistypology has beencalculated to be0.4)1(the fieldworker can seethe Thames flowing nextto this space; thereforethe space receives ascore for seeing anatural water body)0.40(the space receives aweighted score as thefieldworker can see anatural water body while inthe space)Wide open spaces 0.57 1 0.57Natural 'wild' looking areas 0.60 0 0.00Grassy surface 1.27 1 1.27Trees 1.30 0 0.00Bushes 1.13 1 1.13Flowers 1.07 0 0.00Birds, including water fowl 0.80 1 0.80Pigeons 0.07 1 0.07Wild animals, e.g. squirrels 0.70 0 0.00Dogs 0.50 1 0.50People 0.87 1 0.87Crowds -0.33(weighting forseeing crowds inthis typology hasbeen calculated tobe -0.33)0(the fieldworker does notsee crowds in thisspace)0.00(the space receives noscore for this factor)Buildings Historical 0.77 1 0.77Modern 0.17 1 0.17Low flying aircraft -0.10 0 0.00Roads -0.03(weighting forseeing roads in thistypology has beencalculated to be -0.03)1(the fieldworker can seeone or more roads fromwithin the space)-0.03(the space receives aweighted score as thefieldworker can see a roadfrom within the space)Vehicles inside the space -0.10 0 0.00Vehicles outside the space 0.03 1 0.03Cycle routes and cyclists insidethe space0.00 1 0.00Boats 0.20 1 0.20Military personnel / formations /activitiesThis factor does not apply to this typologyPolice / other security personnel 0.27 0 0.00Maintenance personnel 0.17 1 0.17Homeless people -0.03 0 0.00Hearingman made artistic / memorialwater features0.20 0 0.00natural water bodies (Lakes,ponds, rivers, canals)0.13 1 0.13Wildlife Birdsong 0.90 0 0.00Crickets etc 0.70 0 0.00Waterfowl 0.77 0 0.00Pigeons 0.57 0 0.00Flowing Water 0.07 1 0.07Distinct voices -0.13 0 0.00Hum of conversation 0.60 0 0.00People 0.27 0 0.00D121316/R1/0215Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportChildren playing close by 0.53 0 0.00Mobile phone ringtones andconversations-0.30 0 0.00Footsteps 0.17 1 0.17Church bells / clock towers 0.37 0 0.00Low flying aircraft -0.17 0 0.00Helicopters -0.17 0 0.00Vehicles Buses -0.20 0 0.00Cars -0.20 1 -0.20Motorbikes -0.20 0 0.00Lorries -0.27 0 0.00Boatengines0.03 1 0.03Cyclists -0.07 0 0.00Distinctive vehicle noise, e.g.horns or reversing vehicles-0.10 0 0.00Military personnel / formations /activitiesThis factor does not apply to this typologyPublic announcements -0.03 0 0.00Public speakers (speeches) -0.40 0 0.00Buskers -0.07 0 0.00Homeless people asking forchange-0.60 0 0.00Wind turbinesRailways & Trains -0.07 0 0.00Complete silence -0.17 0 0.00Natural noises e.g. wind rustlingtrees0.90 1 0.90other non-natural sounds e.g.workmen-0.60 0 0.00bands; live music 0.17 0 0.00(Touch)Grass/plants/flowers/leaves 0.43 1 0.43Water 0.10 0 0.00Wind 0.03 1 0.03(Smell)Fresh air 0.37 1 0.37Newly mown grass 0.30 0 0.00Flowers 0.43 0 0.00Traffic fumes -0.20 0 0.00smelly rubbish bins 0.03 0 0.00Coffee / tea / food 0.03 0 0.00Large open spaces 0.30 1 0.30Distant activity 0.20 1 0.20Smaller, more private open space 0.27 0 0.00benches, other surfaces to sit on 0.43 1 0.43other (note) 0.10 0 0.00other (note) 0.00 0 0.00other (note) 0.00 0 0.00Tranquillity Score 9.77Total Negative Scores -0.23Total Positive Scores 10.00Sub total score for man made 'noise' (including mobile phone ringtones and conversations,low flying aircraft, helicopters, vehicle noises, railways and trains, other non-natural sounds) -0.174.2.5 As was noted above, in some cases the overall tranquillity score may be low, even thoughthe site scores positively on several counts. In such cases, it will be especially important tolook more closely at negative experiential factors, and find possible mitigation measures forthem.4.2.6 If sites are visited more than once to account for different conditions at different times ofday (e.g. presence or absence of birdsong, presence or absence of people or vehicles) theresultant scores can be averaged to provide an average tranquillity score for a given site.Alternatively the site’s tranquillity can be assessed as a function of the time of day. AsD121316/R1/0216Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Reportusage patterns differ over a single day, it may be useful to record tranquillity at specifictimes in order to target certain interventions or improvements at these times. An examplewould be closing off vehicular access to the perimeter of a site during certain hours of a dayto maintain the site’s tranquillity value during those hours. Weather conditions should benoted during the site study, in case of the need to nullify a particular site study.4.2.7 Once a Tranquillity Capture Form is completed for a specific site, entries should be insertedinto the Tranquillity Calculator (provided electronically). A sample blank assessment table isshown in Appendix G4.3 Interpretation of Scores4.3.1 The sum of positive scores reflects the resultant effect of all experiential factors which addto tranquillity. Similarly, the sum of negative scores reflects the resultant effect of allexperiential factors that detract from tranquillity.4.3.2 If a given site has a relatively low net tranquillity score, but a high sum of positive scores,(and thereby a high sum of negative scores), this indicates that in spite of the site havingthe potential to be a good tranquil space, detracting factors result in it being a moderatelytranquil space. Such cases should be looked into with a view to reduce the negative scoresand preserve positive scores.4.3.3 High positive scores indicate the presence at a given site of a large number of experientialfactors that contribute to tranquillity; each factor, or each element should therefore be seenas a valuable resource, which to be preserved.4.3.4 High negative scores indicate the presence at a given site of a large number of factors thatdetract from tranquillity. Means to eliminate each ‘negative’ factor or element should beexplored in order to mitigate this.D121316/R1/0217Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report5. Findings5.1 Findings from Acoustics Measurements5.1.1 Measured noise levels at the sites visited have been compared against a number ofreference values. In particular, the following noise levels were considered appropriate:• The World Health Organisation guideline limit for noise in gardens or recreationalareas of 55 dB L Aeq . The value of 55 dB L den was also suggested in the EnvironmentalNoise Directive for Quiet Areas in agglomerations. It has also been recommendedthat Quiet Areas be designated based on the

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportFigure 2. Comparison of measured noise levels with Westminster Noise Survey757065Key to Open Space TypesMetropolitanPocketLocalDistrictSmall LocalCivicLinearL Aeq (dB)60555045Regent's Park - Central AreaHyde Park - Central AreaWestbourne GardensGolden SquarePaddington RecreationWHO guideline limit for noise ingardens or recreational areas(55 dB L Aeq )St James's Park - Central AreaSoho SquareEbury SquarePaddington centralSt Anne'sLeicester Square GardensInigo Jones GardensWestbourne Estate CanalsideHyde Park Corner War Memorial (5 mins only)St Mary'sVictoria Tower Gardens NorthLower GrosvenorRiverside WalkTrafalgar SquareHarrow RoadWestminster Noise Survey2008 Phase 1 average frontfaçade L Aeq,12hr (62.0 dB)Westminster Noise Survey2008 Phase 1 average rearfacade L Aeq,12hr (54.9 dB)Figure 3. Comparison of measured noise levels with London Noise Survey andNational Noise Incidence Study757065Key to Open Space TypesMetropolitanPocketLocalDistrictSmall LocalCivicLinearL Aeq dB60555045Regent's Park - Central AreaHyde Park - Central AreaWestbourne GardensGolden SquarePaddington RecreationWHO guideline limit for noise ingardens or recreational areas(55 dB L Aeq )St James's Park - Central AreaSoho SquareEbury SquarePaddington centralSt Anne'sLeicester Square GardensInigo Jones GardensWestbourne Estate CanalsideHyde Park Corner War Memorial (5 mins only)St Mary'sVictoria Tower Gardens NorthLower GrosvenorRiverside WalkTrafalgar SquareHarrow RoadInner London Average L Aeq,12hr (61.4 dB)Outer London Average L Aeq,12hr (58.0 dB)UK Average L Aeq,12hr (56.9 dB)5.1.3 It can be seen from these graphs that only two measurement locations (the centres ofRegent’s Park and Hyde Park) had measured noise levels below the WHO guideline valueD121316/R1/0219Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Reportof 55 dB L Aeq , whilst a significant number of locations exceeded the average noise levelmeasured at the front façade of residential properties in Westminster during the 2008Westminster Noise Survey.5.1.4 When looking at the site classifications, it can be seen that the Metropolitan parks generallyexperience the lowest noise levels, whilst the highest levels are experienced at Civicspaces and Linear spaces. When compared with the suggested new typologies, LondonParks generally experience the lower noise levels, whilst the Civic Paved Spacesexperience the higher levels. For the other categories, a wider range or noise levels wererecorded.5.1.5 The measured noise levels have also been compared against the area of the open spaces.These results are presented graphically in Figure 4.Figure 4. Comparison of measured noise level and open space area100010010Area (Ha)140 45 50 55 60 65 70 750.10.01Noise Level L Aeq (dB)5.1.6 These results again show that the lowest noise levels are experienced in the largest openspaces (as the centres of these are generally the most distant from major transportationnoise sources).5.1.7 The smaller open spaces generally experience higher noise levels, although there is alarger range of levels across these.5.1.8 Further comparisons have been made, looking at both the overall tranquillity rating for eachsite, and the rating for man-made noise at each site in comparison with the measured noiselevels. These are presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6 below. It should be noted that thetranquillity ratings for man-made noise are negative values, as these factors detract fromthe overall tranquillity rating for a space.D121316/R1/0220Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportFigure 5. Comparison of measured noise level with tranquillity ratings7530.07025.0L Aeq (dB)65605520.015.010.0Tranquillity Rating505.0450.0Hyde Park - Central AreaRegent's Park - Central AreaWestbourne GardensGolden SquarePaddington RecreationSt James's Park - Central AreaSoho SquareEbury SquarePaddington centralSt Anne'sLeicester Square GardensInigo Jones GardensWestbourne Estate CanalsideHyde Park Corner War Memorial (5 mins only)St Mary'sVictoria Tower Gardens NorthLower GrosvenorRiverside WalkTrafalgar SquareHarrow RoadNoise LevelTranquillity RatingFigure 6. Comparison of measured noise level with tranquillity rating for man madenoise75-4.50L Aeq (dB)7065605550-4.00-3.50-3.00-2.50-2.00-1.50-1.00-0.50Man Made Noise RatingRegent's Park - Central Area450.00Hyde Park - Central AreaWestbourne GardensGolden SquarePaddington RecreationSt James's Park - Central AreaSoho SquareEbury SquarePaddington centralSt Anne'sLeicester Square GardensInigo Jones GardensWestbourne Estate CanalsideHyde Park Corner War Memorial (5 mins only)St Mary'sVictoria Tower Gardens NorthLower GrosvenorRiverside WalkTrafalgar SquareHarrow RoadNoise LevelMan Made Noise Rating5.1.9 With reference to Figure 5 above, it can be seen that the sites with lowest noise levels havethe highest tranquillity scores and the sites with highest noise levels are amongst theD121316/R1/0221Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Reportlowest tranquillity scores. However there are some notable exceptions, e.g. Victoria TowerGardens North where a high tranquillity rating is associated with a high noise level.5.1.10 Figure 6 shows little correlation between man made noise ratings (as judged byrespondents) and measured noise levels. In general, ratings of around -1 are common,indicating that at most sites man-made noise is clearly noticed irrespective of actual noisevalues. At four sites (Central area of St. James’s Park, Soho Square, Hyde Park Corner,and Victoria Gardens North), significantly higher negative values are noted for man madenoise ratings.5.1.11 A further insight into the role of man made noise in the overall tranquillity ratings can begained from Figure 7. This graph shows the overall tranquillity rating for each site, togetherwith the (negative) tranquillity rating for man made noise.Figure 7. Comparison of overall tranquillity ratings with tranquillity rating for manmade noise25.0Overall Tranquility RatingMan Made Noise Rating20.015.010.05.00.0-5.0Regent's Park - CentralAreaHyde Park - CentralAreaWestbourne GardensGolden SquarePaddington RecreationSt James's Park -Central AreaSoho SquareEbury SquarePaddington centralSt Anne'sLeicester SquareGardensInigo Jones GardensWestbourne EstateCanalsideHyde Park Corner WarMemorial (5 mins only)St Mary'sVictoria TowerGardens NorthLower GrosvenorRiverside WalkTrafalgar SquareHarrow Road5.1.12 This figure clearly shows sites such as Hyde Park Corner, where a strong negative manmade noise rating results in a low overall tranquillity rating. At other sites, such as StJames’s Park, a strong negative man made noise rating is compensated for by otherpositive factors, and a much relatively high overall tranquillity rating results.5.2 Other Noise Indicators5.2.1 The above analyses have focussed on the L Aeq noise indicator. Further analyses usingdifferent noise indicators are presented in Figure 8 to Figure 10 below. These graphspresent comparisons of the following noise indicators against the tranquillity ratings:• L Amax - The maximum measured noise level at the siteD121316/R1/0222Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report• Average L A10,5min – The L A10,5min indicator is the noise level exceeded for 10% of a 5-minute measurement period. L A10 noise levels are often used as indicators of roadtraffic noise.• Average L A90,5min – The L A90,5min indicator is the noise level exceeded for 90% of a 5-minute measurement period. L A90 noise levels are often used as indicators ofbackground noise.Figure 8. Comparison of measured L Amax noise levels with tranquillity ratings10530.09525.0L Amax (dB)85756520.015.010.0Tranquillity Rating555.045Regents Park - Central AreaHyde Park - Central AreaPaddington centralLeicester Square GardensHyde Park Corner War Memorial (5 mins only)St Mary'sSt James's Park - Central AreaWestbourne GardensSoho SquareInigo Jones GardensSt Anne'sGolden SquareWestbourne Estate CanalsideVictoria TowerEbury SquarePaddington RecreationTrafalgar SquareLower GrosvenorRiverside WalkHarrow Road0.0Noise LevelTranquillity RatingD121316/R1/0223Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportFigure 9. Comparison of measured L A10 noise levels with tranquillity ratings7530.07025.0L A10 (dB)65605520.015.010.0Tranquillity Rating505.045Regents Park - Central AreaHyde Park - Central AreaWestbourne GardensGolden SquarePaddington RecreationEbury SquareSoho SquarePaddington centralSt James's Park - Central AreaSt Anne'sInigo Jones GardensLeicester Square GardensWestbourne Estate CanalsideHyde Park Corner War Memorial (5 mins only)St Mary'sVictoria TowerRiverside WalkLower GrosvenorTrafalgar SquareHarrow Road0.0Noise LevelTranquillity RatingFigure 10. Comparison of measured L A90 noise levels with tranquillity ratings7530.07025.0L A90 (dB)65605520.015.010.0Tranquillity Rating505.045Regents Park - Central AreaHyde Park - Central AreaPaddington RecreationGolden SquareWestbourne GardensSt James's Park - Central AreaEbury SquareSoho SquareInigo Jones GardensSt Anne'sVictoria TowerHarrow RoadPaddington centralRiverside WalkLeicester Square GardensWestbourne Estate CanalsideHyde Park Corner War Memorial (5 mins only)St Mary'sLower GrosvenorTrafalgar Square0.0Noise LevelTranquillity Rating5.2.2 All three of these graphs show the same overall trend as was seen for the L Aeq noise levels,with lower noise levels generally being associated with higher tranquillity ratings. However,for all noise indicators, there is still a large variation within this and a number of significantD121316/R1/0224Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Reportexceptions. From these graphs, it is not apparent that better correlation is achieved withany particular noise indicator.5.3 Comparison with noise maps5.3.1 Another source of data on noise levels across London is the Defra commissioned noisemaps. These noise maps present predicted (not measured) noise levels from a number ofdifferent sources (road traffic, railway, aircraft and industrial noise sources). The maps areavailable on the Defra website at http://noisemapping.defra.gov.uk. Noise levels arepresented as both L den and L night noise levels. Due to the presentation of the noise maps, ithas not been possible to extract a precise predicted noise level for each site, and only arange of 5 dB L den was available.5.3.2 For the purposes of these comparisons, it has been assumed the L den noise levels providethe best estimate of the daytime L Aeq noise levels, and that noise at all locations isdominated by road traffic noise. Figure 11 below presents a comparison of measured noiselevels with the road noise L den noise map predictions. The WHO Guideline value of 55 dBL Aeq is also shown for reference.5.3.3 It should be noted that the noise indicators differ between the measurements andpredictions, as the measurements are 1-hour L Aeq values, whilst the predictions are L denvalues. The measurements also include all sources of noise present at the time ofmonitoring, whilst the noise map predictions are for road traffic noise only. Furthermore theDefra website states that the maps only include major roads (defined as roads with morethan 6 million vehicle passages annually). This approach will therefore exclude manyrelatively busy local roads that pass close to certain open spaces. The predictions are alsoshown as a point at the centre of the band of noise levels indicated on the noise map,together with error bars indicating the extents of this band. It should be noted that in somecases the sites were on the border between two bands, and that the lowest band is simply

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportFigure 11. Comparison of measured noise level predicted noise level from Defra ENDroad noise maps7570Noise Level (dB)6560555045Regents Park - Central AreaWestbourne GardensHyde Park - Central AreaGolden SquarePaddington RecreationSt James's Park - Central AreaSoho SquareEbury SquarePaddington centralSt Anne'sInigo Jones GardensLeicester Square GardensWestbourne Estate CanalsideHyde Park Corner War Memorial (5 mins only)St Mary'sVictoria Tower Gardens NorthLower GrosvenorRiverside WalkTrafalgar SquareMeasured LAeq,1hrHarrow RoadWHO guideline limit for noise in gardensor recreational areas (55 dB LAeq)Lden from noise map5.3.4 The differences between the measured and predicted noise levels have been investigatedfurther. The differences between predicted and measured noise levels have beencalculated, and are shown in Figure 12 below. This chart shows the sites separated intothose which are adjacent to a main road and those which do not border main roads. It isimportant to note that there is a large degree of uncertainty in these comparisons, not leastbecause of the 5 dB bands in which levels can be read from the noise maps.D121316/R1/0226Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportFigure 12. Comparison of measured noise level predicted noise level from Defra ENDroad noise mapsPredictedLdenhigherDifference BetweenNoise map predicted L den andMeasured L Aeq,T (dB)1050-5-10Site adjacent to main roadSite not adjacent to main roadMeasuredL Aeqhigher-15Inigo Jones GardensPaddington RecreationWestbourne Estate CanalsideGolden SquareWestbourne GardensEbury SquareSoho SquareLeicester Square GardensVictoria Tower Gardens NorthSt Mary'sSt James's Park - Central AreaHyde Park - Central AreaRegents Park - EdgeTrafalgar SquareRegents Park - Central AreaLower GrosvenorSt James's Park - Edge (10 mins only)Harrow RoadRiverside WalkSt Anne'sHyde Park -Edge (near café)Paddington centralHyde Park -Edge (The Rose Garden)Hyde Park Corner War Memorial (5 mins only)5.3.5 From these results, it can be seen that the sites adjacent to main roads generally havehigher predicted L den noise levels from the noise maps than the measured L Aeq values. It islikely that this is due to the difference between these two noise indicators, and in particularthe contribution of night time noise levels to the L den indicator. Due to the definition of theL den noise indicator, in areas where noise levels do not decrease by at least 10 dB at night,the L den noise level will be greater than the daytime L Aeq level. This is likely to be the case inthe majority of central London locations, where data from previous noise studies 4,5 indicatethat a drop in noise levels of this magnitude is less common.5.3.6 Similarly, for the sites which are not adjacent to main roads, the measured noise levelsgenerally exceed the predicted values from the noise maps. In this case, a likelyexplanation is the contribution of noise sources other than the roads included in the noisemaps.5.4 Findings from Attitudinal Surveys5.4.1 Table 5 below summarises the assessment of the 20 given sites using the Toolkitdeveloped, as described above:D121316/R1/0227Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportTable 5. Assessment summarySite Typology TotalpositvescoreTotal -negativescoreNetTranquillityScoreHyde Park LP 26.28 -1.60 24.68Regent’s Park LP 25.20 -1.90 23.30Victoria TowerGardens NorthLP 26.05 -3.60 22.45St James’s Park LP 25.70 -3.65 22.05PaddingtonRecreation GroundInigo JonesGardensWestbourne EstateCanalside GardensLMSS 15.43 -0.87 14.57LMSS 14.00 -1.10 12.90LMSS 13.47 -0.93 12.53Ebury Square LMSS 12.43 -0.10 12.33St Mary’sChurchyardLMSS 13.77 -1.43 12.33Leicester square CMSS 16.23 -4.38 11.85St Anne’sChurchyardLMSS 12.23 -0.80 11.43Riverside WalkGardensLMSS 10.00 -0.23 9.77Golden Square LMSS 10.90 -1.27 9.63WestbourneGardensLMSS 9.77 -1.20 8.57Soho Square CMSS 13.92 -5.77 8.15Lower GrosvenorGardensLMSS 9.33 -1.43 7.90Trafalgar Square CPS 10.17 -3.00 7.17Paddington Central LMSS 7.73 -1.60 6.13Harrow Road OpenSpaceLMSS 5.33 -1.80 3.53Hyde Park CornerWar MemorialCMSS 7.23 -6.31 0.92Commentsexceptionally high positives;important to maintain factors thatcontributed to thisexceptionally high positives;important to maintain factors thatcontributed to thisexceptionally high positives;important to maintain factors thatcontributed to thisexceptionally high positives;important to maintain factors thatcontributed to thisVery low negative score; detailedassessment should be investigatedto increase number of positivesHigh negative score cancels out arelative high positive; negativescores should be investigated indetailed assessmentHigh negative score cancels out arelative high positive; negativescores should be investigated indetailed assessmentIn spite of a number of positivescores, this site scores very poorlyoverall because of an almostequally high number of negativefactors. The detailed assessmentshould be studied for possiblemitigation.D121316/R1/0228Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportKey:Typology as explained in 2.8 aboveLP: London ParkLMSS: Local Mixed Surface SpaceCMSS: Civic Mixed Surface SpaceCPS: Civic Paved SpaceTotal positive score: weighted sum of factors present on site which have been assignedpositive scores in the toolkit for this typologyTotal negative ve score: weighted sum of factors present on site which have beenassigned negative scores in the toolkit for this typologyNet Tranquillity Score: sum of positive and negative scores for a site5.4.2 A full detailed assessment sheet is included as Appendix H to this report.D121316/R1/0229Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report6. Discussion6.1.1 The lowest measured noise levels were observed towards the centre of the largest openspaces, these also had the highest tranquillity scores. Noise levels at the edges of the largesites were as high as many of the smaller sites.6.1.2 However, the overall correlation was weak (see Figure 5) across the full range of noiselevels within the open spaces surveyed. In the open spaces with moderate noise climates awide range of other experiential factors influence the respondents’ appreciation of thespace and its tranquillity.6.1.3 The visual factors that lie behind users tranquillity ratings show they are more or equallyimportant as audio factors. For example, only three of the top ten experiential factors thatare seen to add to tranquillity in Local Mixed Surface Spaces are factors of hearing, whilethe remaining seven are visual. On the other hand, noise related issues appear morefrequently among factors that are seen to detract from tranquillity. For example, eight out ofthe top ten factors that are seen to detract from tranquillity in Local Mixed Surface Spacesare noise related factors.6.1.4 Figure 6 explores the user’s sensitivity to noise levels more directly. Here, again with someexceptions, negative tranquillity scores around man-made noise (such as traffic andaircraft) were firstly fairly low and secondly not related to actual noise levels. This suggeststhat users are able to switch off less pleasant noise, possibly helped by the positive aspectsof the space, although mood and other tranquillity pillars will also come into this.6.1.5 It is considered no co-incidence that at three of the four sites which showed user dislike ofman-made noise, their overall tranquillity score was relatively or very low – even thoughthey were only in the medium noise range. This implies that mitigation of the most untranquilsituations in Westminster’s Open Spaces would involve noise related interventions,while enhancement of tranquillity in other (less noisy) spaces would require a more holisticapproach, giving visual, aural, sensual and even olfactory qualities more consideration.6.1.6 Whether there is a noise ‘tipping point’ for some open spaces, whereby they will alwaysstruggle to provide any degree of tranquillity without dealing with man-made noise wouldneed to be investigated further. However, it would make sense to reduce levels towards theaverage rear façade level of 55 dB L Aeq , (Westminster Noise Survey 2008 ) given the largenumber of residents, workers and visitors that do not enjoy access to a rear garden or rearof building space (see Figure 2). More importantly, the small number of areas where levelsare below this, should be suitably designated and protected6.1.7 The findings from this study therefore suggest that noise is the strongest link withtranquillity only in a limited number of spaces. When we compare findings across a widerrange of spaces, visual elements appear to be at least as important as noise elements. Theweightings in each typology are given below. These show the distinct experiential factorswhich are seen to affect tranquillity positively and negatively, in order of magnitude.Experiential factors with weightings below 1.0 in each typology have been disregarded inthis list, unless they are significantly different from the factors next to them, and it isconsidered that they could possibly be addressed specifically in any future mitigation orprotection strategies.Civic Public SpacePositive experiential factors, starting from most positive• Hearing water features• Seeing water featuresD121316/R1/0230Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report• Seeing wide open spaces• Seeing people• Seeing historical buildings• Hearing church bells and clock towersNegative experiential factors, starting from most negative• Seeing cycle routes and cyclists inside the space• Seeing dogs• Hearing public speakers• Hearing distinct vehicle noises (horns, reversing vehicles)• Modern buildings• Vehicles inside the spaceLocal Mixed Surface Space, starting from most positivePositive experiential factors• Seeing a green landscape and grassy surfaces• Seeing trees, bushes and flowers• Hearing natural noises, e.g., the wind rustling the leaves• Hearing birdsong• Seeing birds• Seeing historical buildingsNegative experiential factors, starting from most negative• Hearing/seeing homeless people asking for change• Construction and other specific non-natural sounds• Public speeches• Seeing crowds• Hearing mobile phone ringtones and conversations• Hearing motorbikes and lorries• Smelling traffic fumes• Hearing cars and busesLondon ParkPositive experiential factors, starting from most positive• Seeing trees• Seeing grassy surface• Seeing flowers and bushes• Seeing green landscape and wide open spaces• Seeing natural water bodies• Seeing wild animals and wild looking areas• Hearing birdsong• Touching grass, flowers, plants and leaves• Smelling fresh airNegative experiential factors, starting from most negative• Construction and other specific non natural sounds• Hearing homeless people asking for change• Hearing motorbikes and lorries• Hearing mobile phone ringtones and conversations• Hearing complete silence• Hearing helicoptersD121316/R1/0231Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report• Seeing vehicles inside or outside the space6.1.8 The data show that whilst acoustic criteria are important elements in a tranquillity score,they are not necessarily defining factors. Identification of tranquil areas can therefore not bemade purely on the basis of noise level or other acoustic criteria.6.1.9 Sites in the study were mostly relatively small with a few large sites. There was an absenceof medium sites and this is likely to influence the findings. Assessments should be made atmedium sized sites. If these cannot be found elsewhere in Westminster considerationshould be given to extending the study to the most similar surrounding boroughs.D121316/R1/0232Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report7. Recommendations for Protection and Enhancement7.1.1 This section contains a subjective description of noise sources and the noise climate ofeach site visited during this project, together with recommendations as to possible actionswhich may help to protect or enhance this noise climate.7.1.2 These recommendations also need to be considered in the light of other council policies,and cost implications, as non-acoustical factors may limit their usefulness andeffectiveness. A detailed investigation, consultation with appropriate Westminster officers,and possible further refinement of proposals would be required prior to implementation ofthese recommendations. There are a number of references to water features as pleasantnatural sounds. It is recognised that water features are relatively expensive to build andmaintain and may not be appropriate for certain spaces. For some of these spaces othermasking sounds may be appropriate.Riverside Walk Gardens7.1.3 Traffic noise from the adjacent busy road was dominant with distinctive contributions fromvehicle horns, heavy vehicles and emergency sirens. Squealing of heavy vehicle brakeswas also significant. Wind noise along the river was apparent on the monitoring day.7.1.4 If practical, traffic calming measures may reduce noise levels along with ensuring goodmaintenance of the bus fleet to reduce noise from bus brakes. Road signs stating that thisis a quiet area with no use of car horns may help.Ebury Gardens7.1.5 The dominant noise sources were transport based – local and distant road traffic andaircraft noise. Traffic calming on the local roads around the gardens may reduce the noisefrom local traffic.7.1.6 When these were not prominent, natural sounds such as running water in the fountain, birdsong and low levels of human noise (footfall and conversation) were evident. The water inthe fountain was a constant feature of these natural sounds. Reduction in measured noiselevels may be achieved by turning off the fountain, but the role it plays in masking othersounds may lead to a subjective increase in perceived noise levels. Alternatively –increasing the flow of the fountain may increase masking.Lower Grosvenor Gardens7.1.7 This open space is surrounded by very busy road junctions with traffic noise dominant.Particularly distinctive noise events were produced by sirens, reversing alarms,accelerating vehicles and the squealing of brakes from the buses.7.1.8 Ensuring good maintenance of the bus fleet may reduce noise from bus brakes. Trafficcalming measures, rephrasing of the traffic controls or rerouting the traffic may reducenoise levels.Trafalgar Square7.1.9 The noise climate at Trafalgar is dominated by road traffic. Unless the volume or type oftraffic can be reduced it is unlikely that any mitigation measures or enhancement measureswould be appropriate without causing a significant visual impact.D121316/R1/0233Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportPaddington Central7.1.10 An enclosed amphitheatre style lunch venue surrounded by high rise offices and flats withdistant traffic noise the dominant source. Subjectively the noise was not overly intrusive.The nearby flyover could be seen from some areas. Due to reflective nature of surroundingbuildings there would be very little benefit in providing any acoustic barriers around thespace itself. As the space is used mostly for lunching the introduction of some maskingsound may be appropriate in the form of background music or a water feature.Regent’s Park7.1.11 Central – distant traffic noise and aircraft were the dominant sources in the centre of thepark. Relatively low noise levels were measured and it is felt that there is little that could bedone to improve this area, with the exception of diverting flight paths to avoid any aircraftdirectly overhead.7.1.12 Edge – very close to Park Road (A41) which traverses the south west boundary of the park.The traffic on the road was not continuous and as such traffic calming would have littleeffect on noise levels. An increase in foliage at the boundary would be beneficial to visuallyblock the view to the road from the park. In terms of noise an acoustic barrier would be themost appropriate solution positioned as close to the road as possible.St. Mary’s Churchyard7.1.13 Noise at this site was dominated by construction and distant traffic. As construction noise istemporary this should be ignored. Significant noise barriers to the surrounding roads wouldprovide improvement and / or the planting of trees with all year round leaf coverage toprovide additional wind generated masking (rustling) sound.Hyde Park7.1.14 Central – Distant traffic was the main source of noise, contributions would be from manyroads and therefore not practicable to reduce at source. Providing a water feature on thelake may be a good way of generating some masking sound. Aircraft also a significantsource and therefore ensuring flight paths to not pass directly overhead would bebeneficial. One or more designated quiet zones could be appropriate for this site.7.1.15 Edge – The park is surrounding by roads. It is likely that acoustic barriers would be toovisually intrusive. Noise could be reduced by restricting traffic flows on these roads or usingtraffic calming measures. Where fountains are currently used these do provide somereasonable masking of traffic noise in the near vicinity. Locating noisy activities such asopen areas for sports around the edges rather than in the centre, could improve thetranquillity of the central areas.Leicester Square Gardens7.1.16 This is a busy square dominated by construction activities and the noise from people.Distant traffic noise was audible in the lulls between construction activities. More greeneryaround the edge of the gardens may psychologically help to separate the gardens from thesurroundings to give the impression of entering a tranquil space. However, many visitors toLeicester Square come to people watch and therefore this barrier could not be too visuallyintrusive. More could be made of the water feature to provide a louder masking sound. Ayfurther mitigation measures would be inappropriate as people coming to Leicester Squarewould expect to hear some noise and it is relatively quiet for a central London area.D121316/R1/0234Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportWestbourne Gardens7.1.17 This is a small heavily planted area surrounded by tall town houses with only distant trafficand trees rustling as continuous noise sources. Some construction noise was heard from anearby house but this was appropriately contained for a temporary open site. It is not feltthat any mitigation measures to improve the noise climate in this area would be appropriateor necessary.Golden Square7.1.18 This site is surrounded by high rise offices, distant traffic and occasional vehicles onsurrounding roads dominated the noise climate. An acoustic barrier would providereasonable reduction of noise from any vehicles in the square, but distant traffic noisewould be unaffected. Traffic could be banned in this area at certain times of the day toprotect the tranquillity. Providing masking sound such as a water feature would bebeneficial in such a small square.Victoria Tower Gardens North7.1.19 Noise dominated by traffic on Millbank which has a 30mph limit. Assuming a reduction intraffic levels is not practicable, for the benches along the road side of the gardens only asignificant noise barrier would provide any real benefit.7.1.20 For the benches along the river: visually transparent noise ‘booths’ could be used facingthe river to block a majority of the noise from the road but not block the view of the housesof parliament. The wall along the river could be replaced with an iron fence to minimisereflection of road noise back to people on benches, also providing a clear view of the waterfrom a sitting position and would allow any sound from the water lapping at the side toreach people.Paddington Recreation Ground7.1.21 A large park area with a café in the centre, children’s play area, all weather football pitchand all weather tennis courts. Main noise sources consisted of a continuous hum of distantroad traffic, children playing and a football game on the all-weather pitch.7.1.22 It is not felt that any mitigation measures to improve the noise climate in this area would beappropriate or necessary, however the introduction of masking sounds, such as fountains,may mask distant, unrelated noise sources.Westbourne Estate Canalside7.1.23 Noise levels at this open space were dominated by construction works (constant dieselgenerator) at the adjacent Westbourne Estate flats. As construction noise is temporary thisshould be ignored. Other noise sources included road traffic noise (with occasionalemergency sirens) and overhead aircraft. Significant noise barriers to the nearby HarrowRoad would provide improvement.Harrow Road Open Space7.1.24 Traffic noise from the adjacent busy road was dominant with distinctive contributions fromvehicle horns and emergency sirens. A pedestrian crossing was also a significant noisesource and appeared to be on a timer, stopping traffic approximately every minute, evenD121316/R1/0235Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Reportwhen no pedestrians were waiting to cross. This is turn required traffic to brake (with somebrake squeal) and then accelerate.7.1.25 If practical traffic calming measures may reduce noise levels. It may also be practical tochange the pedestrian crossing so it only activates when pedestrians are waiting to cross.7.1.26 A significant noise barrier located alongside the pavement would help reduce noise levelsand focus vision towards the adjacent canal, however this may not look aestheticallypleasing from the road.Hyde Park Corner War memorial7.1.27 Traffic noise from three-lane traffic surrounding the open space dominated. Unless thevolume or type of traffic can be reduced it is unlikely that any mitigation measures orenhancement measures would be appropriate without causing a significant visual impact.An increase in foliage at the boundary would be beneficial to visually block the view to theroad from the park; however this would block the view of the war memorials and WellingtonArch from the road.Inigo Jones Gardens7.1.28 An enclosed private churchyard area surrounded by tall buildings to three sides and achurch to one side. Noise levels within the area were dominated by distant road trafficnoise and entertainment noise from nearby Covent Garden.7.1.29 It is not felt that any mitigation measures to improve the noise climate in this area would beappropriate or necessary, however the introduction of masking sounds, such as fountains,may improve the noise climate further.St Anne’s Churchyard7.1.30 An informal green space in front of St Anne’s Church, elevated above Wardour Street byapproximately 2 metres, with tall buildings to either side with associated air conditioningunits. Dominant noise sources were distant road traffic and vehicle movements on WardourStreet.7.1.31 An increase in foliage at the boundary would be beneficial to visually block the viewtowards Wardour Street, however it is understood that foliage at St Annes' Garden's wasdeliberately cut back in order to give a better view of the church and to discourage antisocial/criminalbehaviour. A noise barrier (transparent) would provide reasonable reductionof noise from any vehicles on Wardour Street, but distant traffic noise would be unaffected.Providing water features may mask the noise produced by air conditioning units located onadjacent buildings.Soho Square7.1.32 A popular square dominated by road traffic, both distant and from roads circling the square.Noise could be reduced by restricting traffic flows on the roads circling the square. Barriersare considered too visually intrusive. Providing a water feature may be a good way ofgenerating some masking sound.D121316/R1/0236Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final ReportSt James’s Park7.1.33 Central – Distant traffic noise provided main source, contributions would be from manyroads and therefore not practicable to reduce at source. Providing a water feature on thelake may be a good way of generating some masking sound.7.1.34 A helicopter was also circling the park regularly during the site visit.7.1.35 Edge – A busy road runs around the edge of the site, barriers would be too visuallyintrusive. Noise could be reduced by restricting traffic flows on these roads or using trafficcalming.D121316/R1/0237Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report8. Recommendations and Further Work8.1 Protection (and creation) of Tranquil Spaces8.1.1 Where quiet or relative quiet is deemed to be a key factor in determining the tranquillity ofan open space then it will be necessary to safeguard this. For larger sites, quiet zones canbe designated and regularly monitored (both subjectively by park staff and objectively usingnoise measurements). These can be sited furthest away from noise sources or noisemitigation can be employed. For smaller sites, noise mitigation may be possible;alternatively masking with positive sound may be more appropriate.8.1.2 The enhancement of existing positive sounds or introduction of a soundscape feature canbe beneficial to tranquillity and can be considered as a positive soundscape. These caninclude natural and man made sounds.8.1.3 To protect the acoustic elements of tranquil open spaces the planning authority shouldinsist on a noise impact assessment for any proposed development that may encroach onan open space at which acoustic tranquillity is considered an important feature. Note thiscould link in with the Environmental Noise Directive (END) open space strategy.8.2 Mitigation8.2.1 Given that traffic noise dominated at most sites, re-routing or calming traffic, particularly attimes when parks are most used may be an option, however this may simply shift a noiseproblem to another set of receptors. Given that open spaces are largely used duringdaytime, the redistribution of traffic away from the daytime period with increase at nighttime may be beneficial, providing there are no other receptors close to parks that could beimpacted by such an approach. The use of speed restrictions, traffic calming measures,restrictions on HGV and LGV movements and the use of lower noise road surfaces canalso be considered, where these are not already used. Noise barriers may prove suitable atsome sites. In the context of an open space, green barriers and earth bunds are likely to bemore appropriate visually than conventional highway barriers fabricated from timber, metalor concrete panels.8.2.2 Open spaces could have designated, managed and protected quiet zones. These couldinclude the positive soundscapes as described above and include noise mitigation. Theseshould be sited as far from noise sources as practical. Mitigation in the forms of barriers(particularly green barriers) or bunds could be used.8.2.3 Signs stating that these are quiet areas/zones could be employed. These should state thatthese areas are for quiet use and people should refrain from making unnecessary noise.The use of quiet activities, for example, reading, meditation and Ti Chi could be promoted.8.3 Natural Sounds8.3.1 Natural sounds can be considered as part of a positive soundscape and can add totranquillity. Natural sounds can be split into:• The habitat and vegetation assemblages that will create pleasant sound themselvessuch as wind (or other weather effects) or generated by people walking throughthem (rustling through leaves, water flowing over rocks, the crunch of gravel or theswish of long grass as one walks through it etc) and;D121316/R1/0238Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report• Those discrete sounds attributed to diverse natural habitats as follows:• Provision of habitats for songbirds and owls (range of grassland and scrub, withtree copses linking to areas of more substantial woodland off site). Use birdboxes.• Woodland copses; low intensity management of grassland and meadows.• Flowing aquatic habitats will produce "nice" sounds from pool and riffle orweir/cascade structures or just as simple fountain. Nectar rich meadows andspecies diverse grasslands and scrub can provide habitats for invertebrates andattract noisier specimens (bees, hoverflies, crickets, wasps etc).8.3.2 The positive effects of the above could be compromised to some extent by ‘noisy’ playHowever, if, at the same time Westminster designates non-quiet areas/zones for typicallynoisy activities such as ball games, this can help to reconcile the goals of pleasant naturalsoundscapes with provision of amenity space.8.4 Man made sounds8.4.1 Using man-made sounds to positively enhance tranquillity carries some risks. Somesounds such as water features, fountains, weirs, church bells and clock chimes are almostuniversally welcomed. However, others such as music, sonic art and wind chimes mayreceive much more varied reaction. Similarly children playing can be a pleasant noise maskto some and an intrusion to others.8.4.2 Existing man made sounds can also be enhanced or protected by mitigation of competingnoise sources.8.4.3 Suggested recommendations for how each area of relative tranquillity may be protected orenhanced have been provided in Section 7.8.5 Further Work8.5.1 Three of the five pillars of tranquillity – namely sounds, presence of nature, sense ofpersonal safety, and the visual or aesthetic pillar have been explored in this particularstudy. However, the importance of other pillars has been identified, such as understandingand influencing the culture of an open space, and aspects of personal and communitysafety. This may require more work for some of the open spaces in Westminster.8.5.2 It may be possible to provide a better trend analysis if some medium sized parks can beassessed. As these cannot be found elsewhere in Westminster, consideration should begiven to extending the study to the most similar surrounding boroughs. In addition toproviding useful information regarding any medium sized sites assessed, this would alsoassist in developing a robust assessment methodology over the full range of sizes of sites.8.5.3 Detailed noise mapping of larger sites could be undertaken to determine the best sites todesignate as quiet areas. Acoustic measurements could be taken to confirm the findings ofthe mappings. For some sites the absolute noise level will be an important measure,however for others the relative level of the space to its surroundings will be a moreappropriate factor.D121316/R1/0239Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report8.5.4 Given the findings that the visual aspect of relative tranquillity is of high importance,landscape architects and cultural heritage experts should be invited to review the findingsof this report and contribute to any further study.8.5.5 It would also be beneficial to undertake detailed measurements and questionnaire surveyat a smaller sample of sites over much longer period. Consideration should also be given torepeating studies at different times of day, outside of the 11:00 – 18:00 times used for thisstudy. Consideration should be given to repeating studies at different times of year to lookat seasonal variation. Particular attention should be given to repeating the survey at theheight of the summer when open space use is likely to be at its peak. Weather is likely tobe an important factor in open space usage, although increased numbers of people willhave an adverse influence on tranquillity for certain users.8.5.6 A trial should be undertaken to designate and protect quiet zones/areas in one or morespaces. Different approaches (and expectations) would be required depending on the sizeof the spaces, the number of users and the surrounding noise sources.8.5.7 The practical limitations of the suggested recommendations for how each area of relativetranquillity may be protected or enhanced given in Section 7 should be reviewed by therelevant experts within WCC.8.5.8 The tranquillity toolkit and pro-forma should be trialled by officers for ease of use andresults. It is recommended that a workshop is held combined with a site visit to practicefilling out the Tranquillity Capture Form, so that a small number of officers or park wardensare trained up in the assessment.D121316/R1/0240Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report9. Conclusions9.1 Definition of the characteristics of areas of relative tranquillity9.1.1 This study tested our working hypothesis for key contributors of urban tranquillity.9.1.2 Sound – a correlation between sound and tranquillity definitely exists, but is more evidentin terms of elements that take away from tranquillity, rather than those that contribute to it.This means that people notice the negative effects of unwanted noise more often than theyappreciate the positive effects of pleasant sounds.9.1.3 Presence of nature – a strong positive association can be made between contact withnature or natural features, and a feeling of tranquillity in urban public spaces inWestminster. People find it valuable to find a piece of nature in the middle of centralLondon, and contact with this nature in this form gives them a feeling of calm.9.1.4 Sense of personal safety – while this was one of the four hypothetical pillars of tranquillityat the beginning of this study, the link between tranquillity and a sense of personal safetywas not directly explored9.1.5 Culture of place – there are indications of a correlation between the culture of a place andthe experience of tranquillity in it. This is most evident in the Civic Public Space typology.Seeing historical buildings is the most ‘cultural’ factor to have been associated with urbantranquillity in this study. However it has been beyond the scope of this study to investigatethe complex dynamics of place making, streetscapes, and the theatrical nature of publicspaces in the city, and any relationship of these dynamics to tranquillity.9.1.6 The study has also shown there is a strong link between the visual landscape and othervisual elements and tranquillity. These can both help with masking unwanted sounds andadding to a sense of beauty and calmness which are such important aspects of tranquillity.The hypothesis of the four pillars of tranquillity should therefore be refined to include thevisual aspect as a ‘pillar’ in itself, even though it may be a part of some of the other pillars.This has been called the Visual or Aesthetic Pillar.9.1.7 This study has been able to explore some of the complexities of tranquillity in relation to thevital role played by public open space in Westminster. Through a user survey and noisemapping a toolkit to measure and characterise the key ingredients behind tranquillity hasbeen developed. A baseline tranquillity score has been provided for 20 key open spacesand the toolkit will enable further sites to be easily assessed.9.2 Identification of areas of relative tranquillity in Westminster for protection andenhancement9.2.1 The lowest measured noise levels were observed in the largest open spaces (towards thecentres); these also had the highest tranquillity scores. Noise levels at the edges of thelarge sites were as high as many of the smaller sites. Smaller sites were generallyassociated with higher noise levels and lower tranquillity ratings, although there were somenotable exceptions to this.9.2.2 Conversely the sites with highest noise levels were amongst the lowest tranquillity scoreswith smaller open spaces generally experiencing higher noise levels, although there was alarger range of levels across these.D121316/R1/0241Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report9.2.3 Noise levels at only two sites were below WHO (World Health Organisation) guideline noiselevel for gardens and recreational areas of 55 dB L Aeq .9.2.4 A number of ideas for the protection and enhancement of relatively tranquil spaces andsuggestions for further work are given.D121316/R1/0242Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report10. Acknowledgements10.1.1 It is important to acknowledge the work of the survey staff involved with this study. Theseare Tom Horne, Katie Hiscock, Heather Billin, Ruth Baxter, Andy Nash and the authorsthemselves.D121316/R1/0243Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report11. References1. Westminster City Council, Westminster Areas of Relative Tranquillity Study (Public OpenSpaces) , Project Brief July 2008.2. Mapping Tranquillity: Defining and Assessing a Valuable Resource’, Northumbria Universityand The University of Newcastle for the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), March20053. World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise, World Health Organisation, 2000.4. Westminster Noise Survey 2008, Scott Wilson Report D119026_2, November 2008.5. Skinner CJ, Walls C, London Noise Survey – Four Inner London Boroughs: Analysis of Datafrom London Noise Survey Phase 1 (2004) and Westminster Noise Survey (2003); BRE ReportNo, 221083.6. Skinner CJ, Grimwood CJ, The national noise incidence study 2000/2001 (United Kingdom):Volume 1 – Noise Levels; BRE Report No. 206344f.7. Defra Noise Mapping England Website. http://noisemapping.defra.gov.uk/cara/8. Watts G et al. A Proposal for Identifying Quiet Area in Accordance with the EnvironmentalNoise Directive. Proceedings of the institute of Acoustics Vol.28. Part 7 2006 pp74-839. Tranquillity mapping, Northumbria University for the Campaign to Protect Rural England(CPRE), 2004D121316/R1/0244Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009