Petition The PM
Discussion
This is one petition I think everyone in motorsport must sign. Please also pass it on to others if you agree.
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce a green paper
proposing ways, that, where complaints have been instigated by resident(s)
against a long standing activity (for example, church bells, sports
facility, local airfield and similar), and where residence has been taken up
since the start of that activity (providing there has been no significant
increase in activity), a presumption should be made to protect the
continuation of that activity and reject such complaint."
The airfield bit is particularly relevant to those of us involved in
rallying and racing doesn't escape either with the problems at Castle Combe,
Brands and Rockingham, where NIMBY's moved in and then complained about the
noise.
http://petitions.PM.gov.UK/livewithit/
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce a green paper
proposing ways, that, where complaints have been instigated by resident(s)
against a long standing activity (for example, church bells, sports
facility, local airfield and similar), and where residence has been taken up
since the start of that activity (providing there has been no significant
increase in activity), a presumption should be made to protect the
continuation of that activity and reject such complaint."
The airfield bit is particularly relevant to those of us involved in
rallying and racing doesn't escape either with the problems at Castle Combe,
Brands and Rockingham, where NIMBY's moved in and then complained about the
noise.
http://petitions.PM.gov.UK/livewithit/
That's being covered here already - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
NIMBY's annoy the hell out of me. Personally I've never taken my car to a track as
1 It's pretty rubbish
2 Don't have the money to make it handle well
But I like to think one day I will have a vehicle suitable for it andI'll be dammed if some people who've moved into an area knowing there is the potential for vehicle noise complaining!
Rant over.
1 It's pretty rubbish
2 Don't have the money to make it handle well
But I like to think one day I will have a vehicle suitable for it andI'll be dammed if some people who've moved into an area knowing there is the potential for vehicle noise complaining!
Rant over.
Deadline was 17th Sept, so it's now closed - 13000 sigs
Nothing to do with motorsport, but it mentions church bells - when people phoned our vicar to comaplain about the noise he asked them how long they had lived there, and then explained that the bells were pre-reformation (Henry VIII in the 1500s)so had been ringing for quite a while before they moved in!
There wasn't much that they could argue about that!
Nothing to do with motorsport, but it mentions church bells - when people phoned our vicar to comaplain about the noise he asked them how long they had lived there, and then explained that the bells were pre-reformation (Henry VIII in the 1500s)so had been ringing for quite a while before they moved in!
There wasn't much that they could argue about that!
I'd sign it.
Look at Newton Abbot a few years ago,they were running F2 stocks and bangers there for years,since the 50s i think? A new housing estste was built and a load of newcomers moved in,mainly London and the home counties,no disrespect I am not generalising you will see why i said that in a minute. Within months they were kicking off about the noise on a Tuesday and Saturday night and occasional afternoon when Championships were on. When asked one of them stated " we didn't move to the country to listen to this noise" it's a TOWN ffs and still less noisy than the A406 when you live that far away from the track,people across the road from the circuit (at the racecourse btw) had NEVER complained and they lived CLOSER.
Happening at Dunkeswell kart track as well,there since the 60's ppl now start to complain,it was there before they were ,should have had a proper chat to the locals about what goes on locally before they moved in.
Start another one purely for motorsport,sod the church bells!!!!!
Brian
Look at Newton Abbot a few years ago,they were running F2 stocks and bangers there for years,since the 50s i think? A new housing estste was built and a load of newcomers moved in,mainly London and the home counties,no disrespect I am not generalising you will see why i said that in a minute. Within months they were kicking off about the noise on a Tuesday and Saturday night and occasional afternoon when Championships were on. When asked one of them stated " we didn't move to the country to listen to this noise" it's a TOWN ffs and still less noisy than the A406 when you live that far away from the track,people across the road from the circuit (at the racecourse btw) had NEVER complained and they lived CLOSER.
Happening at Dunkeswell kart track as well,there since the 60's ppl now start to complain,it was there before they were ,should have had a proper chat to the locals about what goes on locally before they moved in.
Start another one purely for motorsport,sod the church bells!!!!!
Brian
Edited by WTP mech on Thursday 2nd October 10:02
Government response:
Government with fingers in ears said:
It is a statutory requirement of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that Local Authority Environmental Health departments investigate all complaints relating to alleged statutory nuisances from residents living within their boundaries. During their investigation, the Environmental Health department must determine whether the noise occurring can be considered to be a statutory nuisance.
When reaching a decision as to whether the noise is a statutory nuisance, a variety of factors are taken into consideration, such as, the type of the noise, the frequency and duration of the noise, the loudness of the noise, the general character of the area, sensitivity of the complainant and reasonableness of the activity causing the noise. The determination of each of these issues is carried out by reference to established case law.
Were the changes proposed made to the legislation, a statutory nuisance causing activity, such as a factory or a noisy neighbour, could be allowed to continue to blight an area as they happened to be resident before the complainant. Case law states that this situation cannot be allowed to happen. In relation to the noise sources specifically mentioned, however, it seems unlikely that an Environmental Health department would consider church bells or children playing in a playground to be considered a statutory nuisance as they very well may be considered reasonable for the area.
As the statutory nuisance regime is currently structured, the determination of whether a statutory nuisance exists cannot be made until a qualified representative of an Environmental Health department witnesses the noise. As such, discouraging residents to make complaints relating to noise could be argued to be counterproductive.
It is for these reasons that there are no plans at present to change the law to favour existing noise sources over new residents.
When reaching a decision as to whether the noise is a statutory nuisance, a variety of factors are taken into consideration, such as, the type of the noise, the frequency and duration of the noise, the loudness of the noise, the general character of the area, sensitivity of the complainant and reasonableness of the activity causing the noise. The determination of each of these issues is carried out by reference to established case law.
Were the changes proposed made to the legislation, a statutory nuisance causing activity, such as a factory or a noisy neighbour, could be allowed to continue to blight an area as they happened to be resident before the complainant. Case law states that this situation cannot be allowed to happen. In relation to the noise sources specifically mentioned, however, it seems unlikely that an Environmental Health department would consider church bells or children playing in a playground to be considered a statutory nuisance as they very well may be considered reasonable for the area.
As the statutory nuisance regime is currently structured, the determination of whether a statutory nuisance exists cannot be made until a qualified representative of an Environmental Health department witnesses the noise. As such, discouraging residents to make complaints relating to noise could be argued to be counterproductive.
It is for these reasons that there are no plans at present to change the law to favour existing noise sources over new residents.
Government with fingers in ears might have well said:
Lalalalalalalalala, we're not listening
Those who have signed this should have received or be receiving a reply about it right now.
Frankly I think the response missed the point quite a bit. It almost reached it by recognising the request for changes to legislation but then contradicted itself by suggesting that church bells would not be under threat, which most know in practice to be the opposite (see the Castle Combe thread).
I'm not familiar with the Case Law that disallows noise to be a 'blight to the area'. Can anybody else have input?
Frankly I think the response missed the point quite a bit. It almost reached it by recognising the request for changes to legislation but then contradicted itself by suggesting that church bells would not be under threat, which most know in practice to be the opposite (see the Castle Combe thread).
I'm not familiar with the Case Law that disallows noise to be a 'blight to the area'. Can anybody else have input?
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17266 said:
Read the Government’s response
It is a statutory requirement of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that Local Authority Environmental Health departments investigate all complaints relating to alleged statutory nuisances from residents living within their boundaries. During their investigation, the Environmental Health department must determine whether the noise occurring can be considered to be a statutory nuisance.
When reaching a decision as to whether the noise is a statutory nuisance, a variety of factors are taken into consideration, such as, the type of the noise, the frequency and duration of the noise, the loudness of the noise, the general character of the area, sensitivity of the complainant and reasonableness of the activity causing the noise. The determination of each of these issues is carried out by reference to established case law.
Were the changes proposed made to the legislation, a statutory nuisance causing activity, such as a factory or a noisy neighbour, could be allowed to continue to blight an area as they happened to be resident before the complainant. Case law states that this situation cannot be allowed to happen. In relation to the noise sources specifically mentioned, however, it seems unlikely that an Environmental Health department would consider church bells or children playing in a playground to be considered a statutory nuisance as they very well may be considered reasonable for the area.
As the statutory nuisance regime is currently structured, the determination of whether a statutory nuisance exists cannot be made until a qualified representative of an Environmental Health department witnesses the noise. As such, discouraging residents to make complaints relating to noise could be argued to be counterproductive.
It is for these reasons that there are no plans at present to change the law to favour existing noise sources over new residents.
It is a statutory requirement of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that Local Authority Environmental Health departments investigate all complaints relating to alleged statutory nuisances from residents living within their boundaries. During their investigation, the Environmental Health department must determine whether the noise occurring can be considered to be a statutory nuisance.
When reaching a decision as to whether the noise is a statutory nuisance, a variety of factors are taken into consideration, such as, the type of the noise, the frequency and duration of the noise, the loudness of the noise, the general character of the area, sensitivity of the complainant and reasonableness of the activity causing the noise. The determination of each of these issues is carried out by reference to established case law.
Were the changes proposed made to the legislation, a statutory nuisance causing activity, such as a factory or a noisy neighbour, could be allowed to continue to blight an area as they happened to be resident before the complainant. Case law states that this situation cannot be allowed to happen. In relation to the noise sources specifically mentioned, however, it seems unlikely that an Environmental Health department would consider church bells or children playing in a playground to be considered a statutory nuisance as they very well may be considered reasonable for the area.
As the statutory nuisance regime is currently structured, the determination of whether a statutory nuisance exists cannot be made until a qualified representative of an Environmental Health department witnesses the noise. As such, discouraging residents to make complaints relating to noise could be argued to be counterproductive.
It is for these reasons that there are no plans at present to change the law to favour existing noise sources over new residents.
Just read this having recieved the email.
Only our current government could compare noise from a factory and a noisy neighbour. A noisy neighbour is generally just a bit ignorant, you can't really compare them to a factory that are providing a service and running a business can you. I really wonder where they find the people to write these things.
Only our current government could compare noise from a factory and a noisy neighbour. A noisy neighbour is generally just a bit ignorant, you can't really compare them to a factory that are providing a service and running a business can you. I really wonder where they find the people to write these things.
Problem is the petition wasn't specific enough for the purposes that we'd want it to be. Hence they have taken the easy route and siad that Church Bells and Kids playing were unlikely to be affected.
If the petition had specifically stated motorsport activity they'd have had to respond to it and it'd have been something like this I have no doubt:
If the petition had specifically stated motorsport activity they'd have had to respond to it and it'd have been something like this I have no doubt:
Government arse said:
Lalalala we're not listening and your sport's f
ked, Ha ha!
ked, Ha ha!Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff