News

This March, the Estonian Parliament passed an amendment to the Atmospheric Air Protection Act, which aims to clarify when noise limit values and when noise target values must be applied in the planning of new construction projects. Sandra Kaas and Villy Lopman, co-heads of the environmental law and spatial planning practice at RASK, explain, against the context of the amendment, why this issue has caused so much confusion to date.

When it comes to outdoor noise, two regulatory levels are distinguished: the limit value and the target value. The noise limit value is the maximum permissible noise level; exceeding it causes significant environmental disturbance and triggers an obligation to implement noise reduction measures. The noise target value is a stricter standard than the limit value, aimed at ensuring a better living environment. To date, the target value has been addressed in the law as the maximum permissible noise level in areas covered by the so-called new spatial plan.
 
It is precisely this definition that has caused confusion in practice. As early as 2023, the Chancellor of Justice pointed out that the term “area covered by a new spatial plan” is unclear – that is, it is not clear in which cases the noise target value should be applied. All local governments have a spatial plan, and therefore it is not possible to cover a “new” area with a spatial plan in the sense intended by the law. Similarly, the Supreme Court has taken the position that noise target values are established to prevent health risks to people, and that health risks do not depend on whether an area is subject to a new spatial plan or not.

Legal clarity in the application of noise standards is, however, important, as these standards are directly linked to several fundamental rights. On the one hand, basing planning on noise target values helps reduce health risks to residents. On the other hand, the applicable noise standard may determine whether it is even possible to plan residential buildings or, for example, mixed-use buildings in a given area. If a noise target value must be applied, planning a building with residential units may prove impossible even if the noise limit value is not exceeded. Thus, while noise standards grant residents the right to protect themselves from excessive noise, they may also restrict a landowner’s fundamental right to property.

What will change under the new law?

A legislative amendment taking effect on April 20 this year clarified the concept of a noise target value and the conditions for its application. A noise target value is now defined as a standard stricter than the limit value, the purpose of which is to improve or preserve the living environment in noise-sensitive areas.

The most significant changes concern the planning process. Going forward, noise target values will apply only when a plan is being drafted, provided that the plan changes the primary land use designation and the noise target value has not already been exceeded in the planning area.

It was further clarified that a noise-sensitive area is an area to which a specific noise category has been assigned in the spatial plan based on the designated land use. In certain cases, the planning authority may use a limit value instead of a target value if there is an overriding public interest in the construction of a noise-generating structure.

Therefore, the planning solution must ensure compliance with the outdoor noise standard in the planning area, which is established and becomes binding upon the adoption of the plan. In this regard, the plan serves as a key tool for resolving noise-related conflicts before they arise during the building or occupancy permit process. Once the noise standard has been established in the detailed spatial plan, it automatically applies to subsequent permit procedures. Compliance with this standard continues through all subsequent stages.

If environmental noise increases after the plan is adopted, additional mitigation measures must be implemented depending on the location and source of the noise; the owner of the noise source is responsible for implementing these measures.

The challenges in implementing noise standards are not limited solely to the selection of standard levels

The amendment to the Atmospheric Air Protection Act clarified the application of noise target and limit values. However, it does not resolve all implementation issues related to noise standards, particularly those arising from the failure to specify land use designations in spatial plans.

The application of noise target and limit values is closely linked to the spatial plan. Pursuant to the Planning Act, a municipality or city determines noise level categories in the spatial plan based on local spatial needs and planning objectives, and in accordance with the noise categories established in the Atmospheric Air Protection Act. It follows that local governments have a significant role and responsibility in shaping spatial solutions related to noise.

Noise standards do not depend on the actual use of the land or the designated purpose recorded in the land register, but rather on the primary land use designation specified for the area in the spatial plan. In practice, this has led to confusion and disputes, as many newer spatial plans have left the specific designated use of land in sparsely populated areas undefined, even though these areas may contain residential buildings or other noise-sensitive uses within the existing noise environment.

Legally, this situation is problematic. Land without a designated use does not fall into any noise category and cannot be treated as a noise-sensitive area subject to statutory noise limits. Therefore, it is not possible to clearly determine which noise standards apply to such land. This complicates the protection of individuals’ rights and the making of development decisions.

In a recent dispute, the court partially annulled a spatial plan on the grounds that the local government had failed to designate a primary land use purpose for a specific property, which also left the noise category and associated noise limits undetermined. The court emphasized that the local government must designate a land use category for the property so that it is clear which noise category applies to the property and so that nearby noise sources can take this into account. Thus, case law recognizes the right of individuals to have a specific designated use determined, as the absence of such a designation significantly complicates the protection of rights in terms of noise standards.

The role of spatial plans in decision-making regarding noise is growing over time

In conclusion, recent case law and the legislative amendment soon to take effect confirm the central role of local governments in resolving spatial conflicts related to noise.

The noise categories defined by local governments essentially constitute land use conditions that inherently fall within the scope of spatial planning. Local governments are most familiar with the specific characteristics of their region and the needs of their residents; therefore, they are tasked with designing plans in a manner that takes local conditions into account and establishes a legally clear basis for the application of noise standards. Consequently, the process of preparing a spatial plan is becoming increasingly important for landowners, developers, and the local community alike. The spatial planning process establishes the foundations upon which noise issues are resolved in subsequent proceedings. In subsequent proceedings, the ability to alter the choices made in the spatial plan is already legally limited.