Re: [Bell Historians] Livewithit - epetition response

[Dickon Love]

More powerful has been the following ruling:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3248989/Legal-defeat-for-neighbours-who-complain-of-pub-and-church-bell-noise.html

DrL

>  -------Original Message-------
>  From: Richard Offen <richard.offen at z3Om2doOXtV3rp6cdC-ROY791Zc2jI3AmmLUPnAESyZnTqMHE6CPUIkCqCKyO1HRxReqXKOcdxHlu94DP5tNejera_2Z.yahoo.invalid>
>  Subject: [Bell Historians] Livewithit - epetition response
>  Sent: Oct 24 '08 14:41
>  
>  The following response to the ‘Livewithit’ epetition has just
>  been published:
>  
>  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.
>  
>  As is so often the case, it would appear that those making the rules have
>  absolutely no idea of what is actually happening at the coal face!
>  
>  
>  Richard