Editor,

Reference is made to Junior Sabena Mutabazi’s article, "Noise pollution: Kigali City Council must get this right” (The New Times, October 16).

I think Mr Mutabazi got it wrong. I see the argument of sound-level equipment coming up again and again but this should not be an excuse to continue noise pollution.

For instance, here in Europe when people complain about noise pollution from their neighbours, police comes in without any sound-level equipment and then assess in real-time with their ears whether the level of noise that gets outside is reasonable or not. After that, they decide to or not make a police statement. When they decide to make one, you can be sure you will receive a fine later.

Here, neighbours are given their rights to complain. If this is done repeatedly, the city authorities where the business operates may decide to close down your business as it receives all the police reports about noise pollution offences.

John

****************

I don’t think the writer was trying to say that the lack of sound-level equipment should be an excuse to continue noise pollution. If I’m correct, his point is that if authorities have to close businesses as well as places of worship, they need to base their judgments on scientific evidence rather than doing it subjectively, hence the use of sound-level equipment.

Here in the UK, for instance, once sufficient evidence has been gathered indicating that a statutory nuisance exists, the officer will serve an abatement notice on the perpetrator. In some cases this can be served immediately and in others it is served within a week.

In some cases the abatement notice will give the recipient a time limit to comply with the notice or specify certain measures that need to take place. In other cases, particularly those involving neighbour or music noise, the recipient is instructed to abate the nuisance immediately.

Please note that it all boils down to statutory nuisance, which can only be established using sound-level equipment.

Livingston

****************

Your reference to the way the authorities do it "abroad” seems to imply that we should do the same in Rwanda. I think not, at least not necessarily.

It is OK for us to apply different measures as long as they work for us. Unless proven unfeasible, sound level equipment should be considered if only to avoid sudden closures of businesses just because one complaint was made.

A suggestion I would emphasise is one suggested by Sunny Ntayombya in The New Times recently; planning for the city should accommodate "bourbon streets” where the night time economy can be both managed and continue to boost financial prospects.

Marie