No health hazard from parking lot noise – 70/60 dB(A) are reasonable for neighbours

Legal action regarding parking lot noise against parking spaces provided for in a development plan must be specifically substantiated in order to succeed.

1. Background: noise protection as a central weighing factor in land-use planning

Protection againstnoise emissionsis one of the central concerns that a municipality must take into account when drawing updevelopment plans. According to § 1 Abs. 6 Nr. 1 BauGB, the concerns ofhealthy residential and working conditionsmust be preserved in the planning balancing exercise. Noise can arise from bothroad trafficand frompublic parking facilities.

In practice, the question regularly arises according to which technical standards thenoise forecastis to be carried out. TheTA Lärm(Technical Guidance on Protection against Noise) generally applies to stationary installations, while the16. BImSchV(Traffic Noise Protection Ordinance) is to be applied to road traffic noise. Forpublic parking lots, the demarcation is, however, not clear, as these belong to stationary traffic but at the same time have noise sources similar to operational facilities.

TheHigher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (OVG NRW)dealt with this issue in itsBeschluss vom 24. Oktober 2025 – 10 B 1003/25.NE. The case shows that aplan-related noise exposuredoes not automatically create a health hazard or an unreasonable impairment, even if the orientation values of theDIN 18005are exceeded.

2. What was at issue: neighbour resists feared parking lot noise against parking lot in development plan

The applicant is the owner and user of two plots of land with residential and commercial building use, which adjoin directly the planning area of a newly plannedpublic parking facility. With aNormenkontrolleilantrag nach § 47 Abs. 6 VwGOhe applied for theprovisional suspension of enforcementof the development plan.

He argued that the planned parking spaces would result inunreasonable parking lot noise, in particular fromdoor slammingand nocturnal vehicle movements. Theacoustic expert reportssubmitted by the municipality were methodologically flawed in that they applied the wrong set of rules, underestimated the actual noise exposure, and did not take into account more recent findings fromnoise effects research.

Furthermore, the applicant referred tonoise maps according to § 47c BImSchG, from which there was already a significant background noise burden on his plot of land.

3. Legal considerations of the OVG NRW

The OVG NRW dismissed the application. The prerequisites for the issuance of an interim order according to § 47 Abs. 6 VwGO were not met. Under this provision, a development plan could only be provisionally suspended from enforcement inparticularly exceptional cases, if this was necessary to avertserious disadvantagesor for other important reasonsurgently requiredbe. Mere dissatisfaction with the planning or an abstract possibility of future impairments would not be sufficient.

a) No exceeding of the relevant reasonableness threshold

In the court's view, the applicant was subjected to parking lot noise no unreasonable noise emissions. What mattered was whether the planning-related noise was compatible with healthy living conditions (§ 1 Abs. 6 Nr. 1 BauGB).

The evaluation of the sound engineering expert report of 23 January 2025 showed that at the relevant point of immission (IP 05) the equivalent continuous sound pressure level during the day amounted to 63.6 dB(A) and at night 55.3 dB(A). A planning-related increase of only 0.1 dB(A) lay far below the human perceptibility threshold of 1 to 2 dB(A). Although the guideline values of DIN 18005 for rural or mixed-use areas (60/45 dB(A)) were exceeded, the threshold for health hazard was clearly undercut.

In this context, the court reaffirmed its established case law according to which the limit of health hazard for residential areas regularly begins at 70 dB(A) daytime and 60 dB(A) at night. These values correspond to the established line of the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) (including judgment of 12 June 2024 – 11 A 13.23).

The applicant's reference to more recent WHO Guidelines and drafts of a noise protection law with reduced thresholds (65/55 dB(A)) was unsuccessful. According to the court's view, these are based neither on established scientific findings nor on applicable law.

b) TA Lärm, 16. BImSchV and parking lot noise study – a distinction without practical relevance

It is notable that the OVG NRW explicitly left open the much-discussed question of the applicable technical standards. It could be disregarded whether, in the case of public car parks, the TA Lärm; the 16. BImSchV or a combination of both regulations should be applied. What was decisive was that the determined values, independent of the method, lay below the health hazard threshold.

The sound engineering expert report used sound engineering expert report had performed calculations according to both the 16. BImSchV and the TA Lärm taking into account the Bavarian Car Park Noise Study (2007). Even if – as the applicant claimed – surcharges for impulse, tonal or informational content (No. 2.10 TA Lärm) had wrongly been disregarded, this did not change the result: the relevant limit values were not exceeded.

c) Short-term noise peaks – door slamming is not a health risk

The OVG gave particular attention to the submissions on short-term noise peaks (e.g. door slamming). Although TA Lärm permits, according to No. 6.1 sentence 2, an exceedance of the immission guideline values by up to 30 dB(A) during the day and 20 dB(A) at night, it was questionable whether these requirements were applicable to car park noise at all.

Even if one were to assume this, the forecast values did not justify an interim injunction. According to more recent findings of the Bavarian State Office for the Environment (2025) the assumptions of the Parkplatzlärmstudie 2007 were outdated. For door closing of modern cars, a reduction of the sound power level by approximately 7 dB(A) should be assumed. In the case of the parking spaces affected here, which are intended predominantly for electric vehicles, significantly lower maximum levels should therefore be anticipated.

The court made it clear: even if individual peak values are arithmetically above the immission guidelines, they are not decisive from a fundamental rights perspective. The decisive factor for parking lot noise is the equivalent continuous sound level, not the individual bang.

d) Further objections by the applicant unsuccessful

The applicant had furthermore objected that the expert opinion had inaccurately recorded the terrain profile, bus traffic and the noise emanating from the bus stop. These objections did not convince the court. The current terrain level had been taken into account; the bus stop does not contribute relevant to noise pollution.

Nor could any higher pollution level be derived from the noise maps pursuant to § 47c BImSchG since these merely provide an orientative representation for strategic purposes and could not replace concrete calculations at the immission location. Likewise, the alleged rent reduction by the residents does not give rise to a violation of the property guarantee: only an exceedance of the threshold to health hazard could trigger a fundamental rights-relevant interference with property.

4. Outcome and significance of the decision

The Higher Regional Court of North Rhine-Westphalia (OVG NRW) rejected the application for suspension of the development plan. The order is final (§ 152 Abs. 1 VwGO).

The decision confirms that even with exceeded orientation values of DIN 18005, there is no health hazard as long as the continuous sound level remains significantly below 70/60 dB(A). Furthermore, the court emphasizes that the Bavarian Parking Lot Noise Study of 2007 is in part outdated and modern cars, in particular electric vehicles, produce lower noise peaks.

5. Practice note for municipalities and property owners

For municipalities the decision shows that development plans with public parking spaces can also be legally sound in noise-sensitive locations, provided that a current acoustic expert opinion is available and the applicable reasonableness thresholds are observed. It is recommended to refer in the plan justification to more recent scientific studies (e.g. by the Bavarian LfU or VDI) and to make clear that any peak levels in the case of parking lot noise in individual cases do not give rise to a health hazard.

For Residents and property owners applies: An urgent application against parking space planning is only promising if concrete evidence exists that the threshold of 70 dB(A) daytime or 60 dB(A) nighttime is exceeded or the expert opinion contains serious methodological errors. Subjective noise nuisance or mere loss in value are not sufficient.

Conclusion:
The OVG NRW has consolidated its position: The acceptability threshold of 70/60 dB(A) remains as a rule the decisive standard for assessing health hazards from parking lot noise. Municipalities thereby obtain legal certainty, while residents must in future substantively demonstrate that this threshold is actually exceeded.

Whether as a municipality that wishes to design its development plan with legal certainty, or as an owner who wishes to defend itself against planning-related noise exposure – the experts of AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart advise and represent you competently in all matters of building and environmental protection law.