How the public can protect their right to quiet through the lens of "Judge Dong's noise reduction"

New Path to Urban Noise Control under the Rule of Law and Co-governance: A Case Study of Noise Dispute Mediation in Haizhu District, Guangzhou

When noise becomes an "invisible killer"

In the process of urbanization, the "right to quiet" has become a core demand for citizens' environmental rights. In April 2025, the Haizhu District Court in Guangzhou successfully mediated a case involving low-frequency noise disturbance from a drum training class. Although noise levels did not exceed standards, Judge Dong Guangxu facilitated a settlement between the two parties through flexible mediation, providing a legal model for resolving noise disputes based on "noise violations that do not exceed standards." This case reflects the awakening of public awareness of rights protection and the improvement of government governance capabilities.

1. How can the public scientifically safeguard their “right to quiet”?

1. Clarify the legal basis and anchor the foundation for rights protection

• Legal Weapon : According to Article 86 of the Noise Pollution Prevention and Control Law, even if noise levels do not exceed standards, if they actually affect the lives of others, tort liability can still be claimed. In this case, although Zhang's test results met the standards, the court still found him guilty of tort because he was sensitive to low-frequency noise during his recovery period, demonstrating the law's protection of special groups.
• Building a chain of evidence : Residents can collect evidence through mobile phone recordings, decibel meter monitoring, and third-party testing (such as the professional agency commissioned in this case), and record the time, frequency, and health impact of noise.

2. Make good use of multi-faceted mediation to avoid litigation

• Pre-negotiation : Communicate with the noise source first and propose corrective measures (such as installing soundproofing or adjusting business hours). In this case, Ms. Li installed soundproofing, but technical limitations didn't fully resolve the issue.
• Administrative complaints : Reporting to environmental protection, urban management, and street offices triggers joint law enforcement. Guangzhou's Haizhu District uses a multi-party collaboration model involving courts, street offices, neighborhood committees, and inspection agencies to quickly identify the focus of conflicts.

3. Judicial Relief: From Passive Endurance to Active Action

• Litigation Strategy : If negotiations fail, a "noise pollution liability dispute" lawsuit can be filed, demanding a cessation of the infringement and compensation for losses. In this case, Zhang used litigation to promote rectification, ultimately achieving a "win-win" situation.
• Innovative precedents : The Guangzhou Court established the adjudication principle that "actual impact takes precedence over numerical standards", providing a reference for similar cases and forcing the noise source to take the initiative to assume responsibility.

2. How can the government build a tight “co-governance network” for noise control?

1. Policy upgrade: from "one-size-fits-all" to "refined"

• Standard iteration : The "Residential Project Specifications" implemented in May 2025 will reduce the floor sound insulation standard from 75 decibels to 65 decibels, and add new low-frequency noise limits to reduce disputes at the source of construction.
• Classification-based control : demarcate noise-sensitive areas (such as those around hospitals and schools) and restrict the entry of high-noise businesses; promote "quiet community" certification and require property management to establish a noise complaint response mechanism.

2. Technological empowerment: building a closed loop of “monitoring-early warning-disposal”

• Intelligent monitoring : Hangzhou, Xi'an and other places have piloted automatic noise monitoring stations, which generate "noise heat maps" in real time and accurately locate pollution sources.
• Data sharing : Break down data barriers among environmental protection, public security, housing and construction departments, establish a "one-stop" platform for noise complaints, and improve handling efficiency.

3. Flexible Governance: Resolving Grassroots Conflicts with the “Fengqiao Experience”

• Pre-emptive risk warnings : For example, Judge Dong issued a "Legal Risk Warning Letter" to the training class, giving them a 15-day rectification period to resolve disputes before litigation.
• Interest balancing mechanism : Through "micro-improvements" such as adjusting business areas and staggering operating hours, the needs of the people and the survival of the business are balanced. In this case, the training class continued to operate after relocating the classroom, protecting both employment and peace of mind.

3. Lessons from the Case: Noise Control Requires a Two-Way Effort

1. Masses: A balance between rational rights protection and inclusive coexistence

• Rights awareness : proactively learn about noise regulations and avoid excessive rights protection (e.g., demanding the closure of compliant businesses);
• Community participation : Join the "noise monitoring volunteer" team and promote neighborhood self-discipline conventions.

2. Government: Integration of rigid law enforcement and humane services

• Law enforcement innovation : Exploring flexible measures such as "no penalty for first violation" and "credit repair" to guide companies to proactively rectify violations. For example, Yongzhou City exempts companies from penalties for first-time violations that have completed rectification.
• Public services : Promote people-friendly technologies such as "ventilated soundproof windows", and the government subsidizes sound insulation renovations in old communities to reduce the cost of rights protection for the people.

Conclusion: Let "tranquility" become the foundation of urban civilization

Judge Dong's noise reduction efforts are not only a manifestation of judicial wisdom, but also a microcosm of the principle of shared governance. When citizens effectively utilize legal tools and the government builds a tight network of institutions, noise disputes are no longer "unsolvable problems" but instead a catalyst for the advancement of urban civilization. In the future, we look forward to more cases protecting the "right to quiet," ensuring that every voice of appeal has a voice and every home is safe for all.

(Note: The case in this article is cited from a public mediation case of the Haizhu District People's Court of Guangzhou)