Noise pollution - let's see consistency when taking action

I read about the plight of Home United Youth Football Academy and JSSL Singapore with a great deal of interest ("In need of a sound compromise"; Jan 15, "Searching for sound solution"; Jan 27, and "Compromise reached on pitch dispute"; Feb 11).

What is the criteria used to decide if sounds from activities constitute noise pollution?

How did the Singapore Land Authority and MacPherson Town Council arrive at the decision to allow Home United to conduct youth training activities on the two football pitches from 7pm to 9pm on Mondays and Wednesdays?

There is an outdoor multi-purpose hall in front of my block, which is used for a range of activities.

Every Monday and Wednesday night, line dancing is conducted from 8pm to 10pm.

The music is loud and the instructor shouts into a microphone.

Despite suggestions to find a compromise for the past year - for example, starting and ending an hour earlier - the situation has not changed.

Late-night outdoor line dancing is a common occurrence in other estates around Singapore.

Why was the noise from Home United taken so seriously? The loud line dancing music and instructor using a microphone is far worse.

MacPherson Town Council has set a precedent that should be followed by others.

For consistency, all night activities, regardless of who conducts them, should end by 9pm on weekdays if conducted in residential HDB estates.

Baptista Caroline Jovita (Ms)