Livewithit ePetition -- UK Government response
We received a petition asking:
"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."
Details of Petition:
"There are increasing cases of new residents moving into a location, then to complain
and campaign against activities that have taken place for many years, especially when
such noise would or should have been obvious before choosing to live in the locality.
Effectively, I am proposing "Grandfather rights" to well established activities and a
presumption of rights to continue. This would typically include moving near to a church,
only then to complain about the bells, a playground only then to complain about children
screaming or shouting, near a village airfield, then campaigning for its closure, a
riding school, objecting to the horses, the noise of sports fans at a local pitch and
other such long standing amenities or activities. In addition to the benefits for those
who have long enjoyed the facility, such a policy will ensure clarity for those making
choices on places to live. Please support this petition to protect long established
activities with the presumption, that, providing there is no significant increase,
such activities may continue; thereby protecting the traditions and facilities that make
the UK such a great place to be."
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.
