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
Vaud - CDAP - June 19, 2024
AC.2022.0226
To assess playgrounds intended for children, one must refer to another document, namely the OFEV directive published in 2014 "Assessment of daily noise - Implementation aid for daily noise" (hereinafter: directive "Assessment of daily noise"). In this respect, the Federal Court has determined 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); as a rule, noise emanating from playgrounds for children is thus 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 cited consid. 8a/dd; see also directive "Assessment of daily noise", p. 27).
ff) According to the Directive "Sports Facilities", the noise from sports facilities includes emissions from technical installations, but also those produced by users during normal use, both inside and outside the facility. These emissions include noise related to the sporting 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 et seq.).
The following passages are also extracted from the Directive "Sports Facilities" (p. 19 et seq.):
"3.2.1 Types of Use and Intensities
The assessment of noise nuisances caused by sports facilities establishes a distinction between normal (intensive) operation, so-called rare events, whose number is limited to a few days per year, and events of high importance.
Weekly operation that is most frequent and used intensively is considered normal.
Vaud - CDAP - June 19, 2024
AC.2022.0226
To assess playgrounds intended for children, one must refer to another document, namely the OFEV directive published in 2014 "Assessment of daily noise - Implementation aid for daily noise" (hereinafter: directive "Assessment of daily noise"). In this respect, the Federal Court has determined 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); as a rule, noise emanating from playgrounds for children is thus 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 cited consid. 8a/dd; see also directive "Assessment of daily noise", p. 27).
ff) According to the Directive "Sports Facilities", the noise from sports facilities includes emissions from technical installations, but also those produced by users during normal use, both inside and outside the facility. These emissions include noise related to the sporting 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 et seq.).
The following passages are also extracted from the Directive "Sports Facilities" (p. 19 et seq.):
"3.2.1 Types of Use and Intensities
The assessment of noise nuisances caused by sports facilities establishes a distinction between normal (intensive) operation, so-called rare events, whose number is limited to a few days per year, and events of high importance.
Weekly operation that is most frequent and used intensively is considered normal.
1C_392/2024
Regardless of existing nuisances, it is important, as a preventive measure, to limit emissions to the extent possible given the state of the technology and operating conditions, and as long as this is economically feasible (para. 2). Art. 25 para. 1 LPE states that new fixed installations can only be constructed if the emissions caused by the noise of these installations do not exceed the planning values in the vicinity; the authority that issues the permit may require a noise prediction. Art. 39 para. 1, first sentence, OPB specifies that for buildings, noise emissions will be determined in the middle of the open window of noise-sensitive premises. The determination of noise in the middle of the open window is intended to preserve the well-being of residents, as it ensures that windows can be opened for purposes other than ventilation and that the noise level only slightly exceeds the planning and emission limit values, including in the surroundings (gardens, balconies; see judgment 1C_191/2013 of August 27, 2013, consideration 3.1). The limit values for emissions must be respected at the height of each of the windows of noise-sensitive premises (see ATF 146 II 187 consideration 4.1; 145 II 189 consideration 8.1; 142 II 100 consideration 4.7). According to Art. 7 para. 1 OPB, the noise emissions from a new fixed installation shall be limited to the extent that this is technically feasible and economically viable (letter a) and in such a way that the noise emissions exclusively due to the installation in question do not exceed the planning values (letter b). According to Art. 7 para. 3 OPB, in effect since November 1, 2023, additional measures for limiting emissions provided in para. 1 letter.
Summary
1C_392/2024
Regardless of existing nuisances, it is important, as a preventive measure, to limit emissions to the extent possible given the state of the technology and operating conditions, and as long as this is economically feasible (para. 2). Art. 25 para. 1 LPE states that new fixed installations can only be constructed if the emissions caused by the noise of these installations do not exceed the planning values in the vicinity; the authority that issues the permit may require a noise prediction. Art. 39 para. 1, first sentence, OPB specifies that for buildings, noise emissions will be determined in the middle of the open window of noise-sensitive premises. The determination of noise in the middle of the open window is intended to preserve the well-being of residents, as it ensures that windows can be opened for purposes other than ventilation and that the noise level only slightly exceeds the planning and emission limit values, including in the surroundings (gardens, balconies; see judgment 1C_191/2013 of August 27, 2013, consideration 3.1). The limit values for emissions must be respected at the height of each of the windows of noise-sensitive premises (see ATF 146 II 187 consideration 4.1; 145 II 189 consideration 8.1; 142 II 100 consideration 4.7). According to Art. 7 para. 1 OPB, the noise emissions from a new fixed installation shall be limited to the extent that this is technically feasible and economically viable (letter a) and in such a way that the noise emissions exclusively due to the installation in question do not exceed the planning values (letter b). According to Art. 7 para. 3 OPB, in effect since November 1, 2023, additional measures for limiting emissions provided in para. 1 letter.
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