Have there been any court rulings in Switzerland concerning the noise from pump track facilities for children?
March 3, 2025
Environmental law
Noise emissions from pump track facilities
Yes, there have already been court decisions in Switzerland that deal with the noise from facilities, including playgrounds, for children. In relevant judgments, it is generally emphasized that society's tolerance towards the noise of playing children is high and such sounds are generally perceived as little disruptive.
A relevant ruling from the Federal Court mentions that society generally perceives noise from playing children as little disruptive (TF 1C_278/2010 of January 31, 2011, E. 4.4.9; 1C_148/2010 of September 6, 2010, E. 2.2; see also BGE 123 II 74, E. 5b; TF 1A.167/2004 of February 28, 2005, E. 4; 1A.241/2004 of March 7, 2005, E. 2.5.4; AC.2015.0164, E. 8a/dd; see also Directive "Evaluation des bruits quotidiens", p. 27) (AC.2022.0226).
Furthermore, various laws and guidelines regulate the handling of noise from facilities, including playgrounds. Environmental protection and spatial planning regulations are used to avoid conflicts of use (see Art. 7 para. 1 OPB, effective since November 1, 2023; 1C_392/2024).
It is also emphasized that specific regulations and tolerance values are set for common noise sources such as sports facilities and recreational areas, often considering the type and intensity of use (see Directive "Installations sportives", p. 9, ATF 133 II 292, E. 3.1, p. 295 ff.) (AC.2022.0226).
In summary, there are relevant legal bases and judgments that indicate a relatively high acceptance of noise from children and children's playgrounds; however, an individual examination of the respective noise situation must always be carried out.
Sources
federal - I. public law department - February 7, 2022
1C_552/2020
While the protection against pollution is regulated at the federal level and there is generally no room for cantonal law (Art. 74 para. 1 BV, Art. 65 USG [SR 814.01]), cantons and municipalities are responsible in the area of spatial planning law (Art. 75 para. 1 BV). The spatial planning law serves, among other things, to proactively avoid use conflicts (see in particular Art. 3 para. 3 lit. a and b RPG [SR 700]). This concerns not only immissions of an ideal nature but also those of a material nature, particularly noise. For example, businesses may be denied building permits if they contradict the character of a residential zone, even if the immissions they cause comply with federal legal limits. The decisive factor is that the relevant cantonal or municipal provision not only serves the classification of the noise sensitivity level but also (at least also) pursues spatial planning purposes (for the whole: Judgment 1C_555/2018 of August 29, 2019 E. 4 with references). The Environmental Protection Act, on the other hand, aims in particular to protect people, animals, and plants against harmful or annoying effects (Art. 1 para. 1 USG). Corresponding to this objective, environmental protection law restricts the planning freedom of cantons and municipalities to the extent that it requires that the requirements it sets for noise protection are met. However, it does not address the question of whether and to what extent noise-sensitive uses are permitted in the zones it specifies (Judgment 1P.200/1991 of March 25, 1992 E. 4c, in: URP 1992 p. 617; ALEXANDER RUCH, in: Practical Commentary RPG, 2020, N. 85 to Art. 22 RPG). Contrary to the opinion of the appellant, it does not automatically violate noise protection law if a university is built in an industrial and commercial zone with the ES IV. 3.3. First, it is necessary to examine whether the disputed project is zone-compliant (E. 4 and 5 below).
Summary
federal - I. public law department - February 7, 2022
1C_552/2020
While the protection against pollution is regulated at the federal level and there is generally no room for cantonal law (Art. 74 para. 1 BV, Art. 65 USG [SR 814.01]), cantons and municipalities are responsible in the area of spatial planning law (Art. 75 para. 1 BV). The spatial planning law serves, among other things, to proactively avoid use conflicts (see in particular Art. 3 para. 3 lit. a and b RPG [SR 700]). This concerns not only immissions of an ideal nature but also those of a material nature, particularly noise. For example, businesses may be denied building permits if they contradict the character of a residential zone, even if the immissions they cause comply with federal legal limits. The decisive factor is that the relevant cantonal or municipal provision not only serves the classification of the noise sensitivity level but also (at least also) pursues spatial planning purposes (for the whole: Judgment 1C_555/2018 of August 29, 2019 E. 4 with references). The Environmental Protection Act, on the other hand, aims in particular to protect people, animals, and plants against harmful or annoying effects (Art. 1 para. 1 USG). Corresponding to this objective, environmental protection law restricts the planning freedom of cantons and municipalities to the extent that it requires that the requirements it sets for noise protection are met. However, it does not address the question of whether and to what extent noise-sensitive uses are permitted in the zones it specifies (Judgment 1P.200/1991 of March 25, 1992 E. 4c, in: URP 1992 p. 617; ALEXANDER RUCH, in: Practical Commentary RPG, 2020, N. 85 to Art. 22 RPG). Contrary to the opinion of the appellant, it does not automatically violate noise protection law if a university is built in an industrial and commercial zone with the ES IV. 3.3. First, it is necessary to examine whether the disputed project is zone-compliant (E. 4 and 5 below).
Summary
Vaud - CDAP - June 19, 2024
AC.2022.0226
To assess play areas intended for children, one must refer to another document, namely the OFEV directive published in 2014 "Evaluation of Daily Noises – A Guide for Implementation of Daily Noises" (hereinafter referred to as the "Evaluation of Daily Noises" directive). In this regard, the Federal Supreme Court has held that society's tolerance for noise caused by children playing is high (TF 1C_278/2010 of January 31, 2011, consid. 4.4.9; 1C_148/2010 of September 6, 2010, consid. 2.2); in general, noise emanating from children's play areas is perceived as little disturbing (cf. also ATF 123 II 74 consid. 5b; TF 1A.167/2004 of February 28, 2005, consid. 4; 1A.241/2004 of March 7, 2005, consid. 2.5.4; AC.2015.0164 aforementioned consid. 8a/dd; see also directive "Evaluation of Daily Noises", p. 27).
ff) According to the "Sports Facilities" Directive, the noise from sports facilities encompasses emissions from technical installations, as well as those produced by users during normal use, both inside and outside the facility. These emissions include noise related to the sports activity itself, that from loudspeakers broadcasting announcements and music, and similar devices, as well as calls, shouts, and whistles from coaches, athletes, and spectators (p. 9 with reference to ATF 133 II 292 consid. 3.1 p. 295 ss).
The following passages are also extracted from the "Sports Facilities" Directive (p. 19 ss):
"3.2.1 Types of Use and Intensities
The assessment of noise nuisance caused by sports facilities distinguishes between normal (intensive) operation, so-called rare events, which are limited to a few days per year, and events of high importance.
Weekly operation that is most frequent in an intensive manner is considered normal for the sports facility.
Summary
Vaud - CDAP - June 19, 2024
AC.2022.0226
To assess play areas intended for children, one must refer to another document, namely the OFEV directive published in 2014 "Evaluation of Daily Noises – A Guide for Implementation of Daily Noises" (hereinafter referred to as the "Evaluation of Daily Noises" directive). In this regard, the Federal Supreme Court has held that society's tolerance for noise caused by children playing is high (TF 1C_278/2010 of January 31, 2011, consid. 4.4.9; 1C_148/2010 of September 6, 2010, consid. 2.2); in general, noise emanating from children's play areas is perceived as little disturbing (cf. also ATF 123 II 74 consid. 5b; TF 1A.167/2004 of February 28, 2005, consid. 4; 1A.241/2004 of March 7, 2005, consid. 2.5.4; AC.2015.0164 aforementioned consid. 8a/dd; see also directive "Evaluation of Daily Noises", p. 27).
ff) According to the "Sports Facilities" Directive, the noise from sports facilities encompasses emissions from technical installations, as well as those produced by users during normal use, both inside and outside the facility. These emissions include noise related to the sports activity itself, that from loudspeakers broadcasting announcements and music, and similar devices, as well as calls, shouts, and whistles from coaches, athletes, and spectators (p. 9 with reference to ATF 133 II 292 consid. 3.1 p. 295 ss).
The following passages are also extracted from the "Sports Facilities" Directive (p. 19 ss):
"3.2.1 Types of Use and Intensities
The assessment of noise nuisance caused by sports facilities distinguishes between normal (intensive) operation, so-called rare events, which are limited to a few days per year, and events of high importance.
Weekly operation that is most frequent in an intensive manner is considered normal for the sports facility.
Summary
1C_518/2023
In accordance with the aforementioned case law, the Cantonal Court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the situation. It confirmed the analysis of the cantonal authority specializing in noise, which concluded that, in this case, the legal requirements could be considered as met as long as the schedules related to the glass collection bins from the municipal waste management concept are adhered to (schedule from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM only on weekdays). In this instance, the appellants limit themselves to asserting that the cantonal court could not accept, in the absence of a noise assessment conducted by an acoustician, that the noise-related nuisances caused by the operation of the bin were in compliance with the DS III of the zone. In doing so, they do not raise any reason that would call into question the assessment made by the previous authorities, which does not appear to be contrary to federal law. Indeed, as noted by the Cantonal Court, the criticized noise nuisances are by nature occasional, as the glass deposit is made sporadically and not continuously. Furthermore, the bin is subject to specific drop-off hours defined by the municipality and reiterated in the building permit of June 8, 2021 (7:00 AM to 8:00 PM only on weekdays). It also emerges from the ruling of the Cantonal Court dated May 6, 2020, that the disputed bin is replaced by another bin every two weeks (see consideration 4.3 last paragraph of said cantonal ruling), so its use does not appear excessive. Thus, insofar as these nuisances are limited to daytime and only on weekdays, the Cantonal Court could consider, following the opinion of the cantonal authority specializing in noise, that said nuisances were compatible with the prevailing DS III in this area, which is an area where moderately disruptive businesses are permitted (see art. 43 para. 1 let.
Summary
1C_518/2023
In accordance with the aforementioned case law, the Cantonal Court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the situation. It confirmed the analysis of the cantonal authority specializing in noise, which concluded that, in this case, the legal requirements could be considered as met as long as the schedules related to the glass collection bins from the municipal waste management concept are adhered to (schedule from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM only on weekdays). In this instance, the appellants limit themselves to asserting that the cantonal court could not accept, in the absence of a noise assessment conducted by an acoustician, that the noise-related nuisances caused by the operation of the bin were in compliance with the DS III of the zone. In doing so, they do not raise any reason that would call into question the assessment made by the previous authorities, which does not appear to be contrary to federal law. Indeed, as noted by the Cantonal Court, the criticized noise nuisances are by nature occasional, as the glass deposit is made sporadically and not continuously. Furthermore, the bin is subject to specific drop-off hours defined by the municipality and reiterated in the building permit of June 8, 2021 (7:00 AM to 8:00 PM only on weekdays). It also emerges from the ruling of the Cantonal Court dated May 6, 2020, that the disputed bin is replaced by another bin every two weeks (see consideration 4.3 last paragraph of said cantonal ruling), so its use does not appear excessive. Thus, insofar as these nuisances are limited to daytime and only on weekdays, the Cantonal Court could consider, following the opinion of the cantonal authority specializing in noise, that said nuisances were compatible with the prevailing DS III in this area, which is an area where moderately disruptive businesses are permitted (see art. 43 para. 1 let.
Summary