Brian Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 as it's a regular topic here... Introduce mandatory noise complaint waivers for anyone who buys or rents a property within close distance of a music venue Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs There are innumerate cases of people knowingly moving within close proximity of live music venues, only to try to have their licenses revoked or have them closed completely when they take exception to the noise. It is extremely detrimental to the UK's entertainment industry, particularly on a grassroots level, when all the music venues start disappearing. Music is a key British export and to endanger our strong national artist community is to endanger a key British industry. As such, anyone who wishes to buy or rent a property within a determined distance of a music venue should have to read and sign legislature that waives their right to complain about the noise from the nearby venue. If they do not wish to be bothered by something that was a fixture of the community long before they arrived, they should not move there in the first place. e-petition here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalhammond Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Signed... Although I'm pretty sure it won't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top-cat Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 The trouble is that the issue is often not as it is publicised. The newspaper says "Man moves in next door to established live music venue then complains that it makes noise". What actually happened, could have been: "Man moves in next door to established live music venue, accepts that there will be noise, but finds it unacceptable that the fire exits are left open all night allowing the noise to escape" "Man moves in next door to established live music venue, accepts that there will be noise, but does not accept that there will be noise after the licensed hours" "Man moves in next door to established live music venue, accepts that there will be noise, but does not like that the noise produced is higher than the amount stipulated in the license" "Man moves in next door to established live music venue, accepts that there will be noise, but feels the venue could do more to reduce it" etc etc etc Ultimately the venues are commercial entities and have a responsibility to reduce the noise as far as practical. The argument of "we were here before you" does not give you the right to make no conscious effort to reduce your noise output by way of soundproofing, PA system design, etc; or leave the fire exits open all night to save you having to invest money in an air con system. The fact that a venue was there first does not give it the right to make more noise than it's allowed to, or stay open for longer than it's allowed to. These are all legit complaints. Of course the venue never mentions this when interviewed by the media. I appreciate that there ARE also times when old / grumpy / socially inept people happily move in next door to a music venue and then go straight on the offensive about the noise, sometimes not even stopping by the venue to talk to the management about it, just straight on the blower to the council to have a good old whinge. If it wasn't the noise, they'd probably be complaining about dog eggs in the park or kids on skateboards. I just think that sometimes the reason for the complaint is completely understandable and that whilst people have a responsibility to research where they are moving to, venues - as businesses making money out of loud music - also have a responsibility to do everything they can to reduce the disturbance caused to their neighbours. It goes both ways but some venues seem to think that the "we were here first" argument is a license to do what they want with no regard for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Man moves into countryside and complains of cockerel crowing. Farmer has to get rid of said bird.* The general public are cretins, and we need protection from them. That said, some of TCs comments hold some water. *Yes, it does happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shez Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 One of the festivals I do has a nearby resident who always complains about noise each year. We've offered him a free weekend away so he won't be disturbed but he refuses, stays at home and complains. Some people just like to complain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lewis Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I have every sympathy for venues who are affected by new neighbours making noise complaints. However, the defence of prescription (applied in the Tort of Private Nuisance) relies on the noise having been freely made and accepted usually for 20 years. There are numerous cases (and not just clubs and pubs) where neighbours have made complaints and won. Mildenhall Stadium Croft Edward the Peacock Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 councils have a legal duty to inspect their areas for statutory nuisance (which includes noise) and also have a duty to investigate any complaint made by a person living within their area. Whilst one off events may be carefully licenced and managed to reduce noise nuisance to agreed and acceptable levels. it is sometimes (or often) the case that clubs are using unsuitable premises and break the terms of any licencing restrictions on environmental noise levels.Businesses have the defence of Best Practicable Means - where if it can be shown that the best techniques in noise reduction and minimisation have been applied this acts as a defence against noise complaints. In the case of entertainment noise the best engineering controls (isolation, removal of flanking paths etc.) are not always applied and the simplest control measure (which so often eludes industrial processes) of turning the amps down a little is seen as unworkable for aesthetic reasons. Therefore, it is harder to apply BPM in such cases.The law is not on our side in this situation...Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin D Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 We have a local moaner who moved in to a house within 50 yards of a C12 church with an award winning bell ringing team and is now complaining about the noise. "I don't mind it on Sunday's but Tuesday evening (Practice night for living memory for locals and certainly since the end of WWII!) is just too much"! Currently the most unpopular person in the village! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lewis Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 We have a local moaner who moved in to a house within 50 yards of a C12 church with an award winning bell ringing team and is now complaining about the noise. "I don't mind it on Sunday's but Tuesday evening (Practice night for living memory for locals and certainly since the end of WWII!) is just too much"! Currently the most unpopular person in the village! You need to read what the Church of England Synod says ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top-cat Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 We have a local moaner who moved in to a house within 50 yards of a C12 church with an award winning bell ringing team and is now complaining about the noise. "I don't mind it on Sunday's but Tuesday evening (Practice night for living memory for locals and certainly since the end of WWII!) is just too much"! Currently the most unpopular person in the village! Does that make him what you could call a "bell end" ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Some people just like to complain... According to the Daily Mail (I know not ideal), the John Lewis penguin advert has so far received one complaint from a viewer worried that people might think it's acceptable to buy or try to obtain a penguin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin D Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 You need to read what the Church of England Synod says ;-)That's interesting reading. Practice night always finishes by 8.30. I guess it depends if that's defined as "early evening"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shez Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 That same festival is within hearing distance of a church; on Sunday mornings we have to schedule quiet acoustic acts on the outdoor stages as I believe it's actually illegal to disturb a church service. One rule for them... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alistermorton Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Lydden circuit has restrictions on when engines can be started on Sunday because it would otherwise disturb a nearby church. Or at least it certainly used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lewis Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Lydden circuit has restrictions on when engines can be started on Sunday because it would otherwise disturb a nearby church. Or at least it certainly used to. And Silverstone.... However, my church has restrictions on how loud and how late amplified music can be played in an evening... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
organised confusion Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 There are innumerate cases of people knowingly moving within close proximity of live music venues, only to try to have their licenses revoked or have them closed completely when they take exception to the noise. I support the cause. However innumerate means no knowledge of basic maths not a great many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lewis Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 ...I believe it's actually illegal to disturb a church service. One rule for them... ;) "Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 s2Penalty for making a disturbance in churches, chapels, churchyards etc Any person who shall be guilty of riotous, violent, or indecent behaviour in England in any cathedral church, parish or district church, or chapel of the Church of England, or in any chapel of any religious denomination, or in England in any place of religious worship duly certified under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, 18 & 19 Vict c 81, whether during the celebration of Divine service, or at any other time, or in any churchyard, or burial-ground, or who shall molest, let, disturb, vex, or trouble, or by any other unlawful means disquiet or misuse any preacher duly authorised to preach therein, or any clergyman in Holy Orders ministering or celebrating any sacrament or any Divine service, rite, or office in any cathedral church or chapel, churchyard, or burial ground shall on conviction thereof before two justices of the peace, be liable to a penalty of not more than level 1 on the standard scale, or may, if the justices before whom he shall be convicted think fit, instead of being subjected to any pecuniary penalty be committed to prison for any time not exceeding two months." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.