All Saints launches legal challenge against noise abatement notice

A Croxley Green church which has had its 140-year-old hourly chimes silenced following a single complaint from a resident has launched a legal challenge against Three Rivers District Council.

All Saints Church in The Green was served with a noise abatement notice, banning chimes between 11pm and 7am, on September 26 after environmental health officers upheld a complaint from a Windmill Drive resident.

Because it is not possible to set the ancient mechanism to work within specific hours, the bells have been silenced to comply with the order, but a legal challenge is already underway.

Reverend Miriam Mugan revealed this week that the number of letters and emails from residents supporting the bells made the decision to instruct diocesan solicitors to appeal against the order through the magistrates court easier.

She said: "The clock was installed in 1877 and the mechanism cannot be turned off for a few hours or on for a few hours. We have turned it off because we need to abide by the terms of a noise abatement notice.

"This has been a tough decision for us because of the financial expense we will incur. However, we feel we cannot allow this decision to go unchallenged.

"We do not know the timescale yet, it could be months rather than weeks, but until then we must abide by the noise abatement notice."

Scores of concerned residents crowded into the community centre on Community Way as Tuesday night’s extraordinary meeting of the parish council saw councillors pledge their unanimous support for All Saints Church.

During the meeting, the audience reacted angrily to the news that the same resident previously made a complaint about the clock chimes in 2004, which was dismissed by the council.

Councillor Philip Brading, who is also the district council’s member for environmental health, said: "I had a discussion with the environmental health officer charged with investigating this complaint and this isn’t something the officer has done lightly or on a whim.

"A complaint was received on August 10 the first thing they did was call the legal department for advice and the chief executive of Three Rivers. They then carried out a night time visit.

"She reached the conclusion that in that house, in that room, the noise was such that it would constitute a statutory noise nuisance, having determined that she was under obligation to act.

"The notice was issued, I believe, with a very heavy heart and I believe she would be very pleased if the order was quashed."

Councillor David Wynne-Jones said: "One of the really important things is to see you all here, this is a community and this is where our strength lies.

"Some of us are rather surprised and stunned that this was allowed to go through in the first place.

"One thing to get quite clear is this has now passed from being more of a frivolity to a legal matter.

"We will have to wait, and wait for some time, before we hear the golden chimes again."

The district council is understood to currently be considering whether the defend the church’s legal challenge or offer no evidence but, whatever the outcome, the order will remain in place until the court hearing.

Councillor Roger Seabourne, a Lib Dem district councillor for Croxley Green central ward, said: "Once the matter is resolved there are going to be winners and losers. If the bells are reinstated maybe the council can look at doing something to help the complainant.

"We won’t close the case while there is still at least one Croxley Green resident unhappy with the situation."

The resident who made the initial complaint was contacted this week by the Watford Observer but did not respond.

Comments(19)

Home Truths says...
12:58pm Thu 11 Oct 12

tis is turning into a right old ding dong

Reg Edit says...
1:02pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Spoken like a woolly liberal!

Do you know Seaborne, if there is only one resident complaining you should stop wasting time, money and effort and close the case.

This case should never have arisen, full stop.

Now clear off and find something useful to do, if that's possible for you!

The Rover says...
1:02pm Thu 11 Oct 12

The church have made the right decision. Ridiculous to silence the bells that have been chiming for over 140 years becasue of one complaint. If I complain that I can hear the M25 Motorway from my house would they close the M25 overnight? I dont think so!

LSC says...
1:18pm Thu 11 Oct 12

If the resident is being woken every hour, on the hour, then perhaps that is very disturbing for them and can seriously affect quality of life.

But surely a whip round and half the money spent by the church on legal action would pay to have the resident's bedroom sound proofed?

Heavier curtains and secondary glazing would do it, surely?

TRT says...
2:10pm Thu 11 Oct 12

@LSC it would be a statutory nuisance if it disturbed the neighbours as well. As I explained in comments on a previous article, the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" test obtains in these cases. A survey of persons at a similar distance would determine if their sleep is disturbed in a similar way. It is this "average man" test which prevents, say, a shift worker from expecting silence during the 7am to 11pm period. If this person is prone to disturbed sleep, then it is incumbent upon *them* to take reasonable steps to sleep. You wouldn't expect to get the KP factory next door closed down if you had a peanut allergy, would you?

Hornets number 12 fan says...
2:18pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Would the Council be so quick to serve an abatement notice on a Mosque if ONE person complained about it? I think NOT! Three rivers council should hang their wolly heads in shame!!!!

LSC says...
2:53pm Thu 11 Oct 12

@ TRT. I totally understand your reasoning, and I agree, I'm just trying to think of a solution that suits all.

There was some major building work done near me recently, and while the actual workers didn't start hammering away until half seven, supply and plant lorries would turn up as early as 5.30am and sit in a queue with their engines running outside my house.
I knew it wasn't forever so got through it, but it was a rotten time and I spent all summer tired and out of sorts.
Some of my neighbours weren't disturbed, and some were up anyway. But it drove me potty.

TRT says...
3:04pm Thu 11 Oct 12

LSC wrote:
@ TRT. I totally understand your reasoning, and I agree, I'm just trying to think of a solution that suits all.

There was some major building work done near me recently, and while the actual workers didn't start hammering away until half seven, supply and plant lorries would turn up as early as 5.30am and sit in a queue with their engines running outside my house.
I knew it wasn't forever so got through it, but it was a rotten time and I spent all summer tired and out of sorts.
Some of my neighbours weren't disturbed, and some were up anyway. But it drove me potty.
@LSC. I'll have to check the detail in the recently approved planning consent for the place next door to me. I hope that it includes plant equipment and deliveries. Good tip, thanks.

OAC Bailiff says...
3:15pm Thu 11 Oct 12

ding dong merrily on high soon be christmas bells ringing everywhere but maybe not in croxley hope it all turns out well and the chimes reinstated

Croxley Comet says...
3:49pm Thu 11 Oct 12

I was at the meeting and the case for the issuing of the notice was not made out. It is a subjective test and relied on one EHO making a subjective decision. The question is why did one EHO in 2004 say the chime did not constitute a noise nuisance but this time round the EHO came to a different decision. The chimes haven't changed? They have a duty to investigate this complaint but that is obviously not what occurred. The EHO simply took the word of the one complainant at face value without undertaking any other investigation. Result is chimes turned off and taxpayers landed with a hefty solicitors bill whichever way the Magistrates decide. Well done TRDC!

Honest Rog says...
10:29am Fri 12 Oct 12

Reg Edit wrote:
Spoken like a woolly liberal! Do you know Seaborne, if there is only one resident complaining you should stop wasting time, money and effort and close the case. This case should never have arisen, full stop. Now clear off and find something useful to do, if that's possible for you!
Ahh, showing yer colours here mate. So, let's see; in your book individual residents/voters don't count. Your vulgar dismissal of people's wishes sums up the reason why your Little Englanders amount to nowt.
Show us yer policies!
Yeah thought so, you aint got none!

garston tony says...
11:38am Fri 12 Oct 12

Croxley Comet the article states that the officer did attend the property of a night to ascertain the noise level. I'm assuming some law has set out what is 'too loud' and the level was breached. I'm going to take a wild guess that the human rights act is involved somewhere along the line.

This does raise several questions, as some others have stated what is nuisance and disturbing to one person is not to another. For some people too little noise could cause them to lose sleep!

But to me the principal is that the clock has been chiming for 140 years, the complainant can obviously not have been around that long and has therefore at some point chosen to live as close as they do to the church. As such by choosing to live in that proximity common sense would say they accepted the situation and its wrong of them to complain and force a change in retrospect.

As to costs incurred by the church in appealing will they be reimbursed if and hopefully when they are successful? Seems shocking that someone can make an erroneous complaint about you and you be left out of pocket challenging it. The complainant should bear the costs, although that does itself raise the issue of genuine complaints not being made for fear of being lumbered with a bill.

TRT says...
12:39pm Fri 12 Oct 12

@ Garston Tony,
You assume. Mistake to do that when it's easy to check the facts. There *is* a level set by the home secretary above which a more formal investigation has to be carried out, but the offence is that of being a statutory nuisance by way of pollution. The judgment of whether the noise constitutes a statutory nuisance or not is subjective, and can be challenged. It matters not how long something has been there, if it hasn't been excluded by the home secretary, then it could still be breaking the law. The point is that the investigating officer should have surveyed the neighbours.

LSC says...
12:52pm Fri 12 Oct 12

Fair points Tony, but people change. I myself grew up on a main road with no double glazing, so traffic noise was almost a lullaby. When I visited relatives in rural areas, I struggled to sleep!

Now I live in a quieter road, but am driven mad by the neighbours: They were part of the GB Olympic Car-Door Slamming and Shouting Team; they didn't win a medal despite all the practice they put in.
Years ago I wouldn't have even noticed it.
Being woken every hour is actually a technique used in some countries as a form of torture, so if that is what is happening to this person, I have a degree of sympathy.
I do not agree silencing the bell is the answer, but there must be other solutions.

Bells work on resonance, so a simple timer and electric motor could lower a pad onto the bell at night and greatly reduce it's volume. That would cost less than an hour with a lawyer.

Or as I suggested above, sound-proof the house in question more.

Croxley Comet says...
4:34pm Fri 12 Oct 12

Garston Tony.. Oh if it was that simple mate. Believe it or not there is no set limit, decibel meter level or other law which sets out what it too loud. That is why, as TRT says, its a subjective test. So if the EHO decides its a noise nuisance, then it is. Full Stop! So for instance if a neighbours cat was meowing outside your window preventing you from sleeping, your neighbours could have a noise abatement notice slapped on them to prevent the cat doing what cats do!
And I totally agree with you about the lack of noise also keeping people awake, but their rights don't seem to matter. Lots of folks like the reassuring sound of a clock chime, it provides them with a sense of 'wellbeing' but in this case it would appear that their rights are being ignored by the actions of TRDC officers.

Masquerade says...
7:16am Sat 13 Oct 12

As there is no prescribed level of noise which constitutes a nuisance it is purely at the discretion of the TRDC officer. The fact that one took no action years ago (someone who applied some common sense!) but an EO has now served a notice surely means that it is a very personal decision. TRDC are trying to defend this by saying that the complainant has had a change of circumstance and that's why they took action now (ie he is sleeping in a different bedroom). That's his choice and if he chooses to do this he must put up with the consequences. I have no doubt the case will be over-turned by a magistrate and costs awarded against the Council for us, the tax payer, to pick up the bill. Let's just wait and see how our Council tax increases next year to pay this bill, caused by a ridiculous decision from one council employee (i hope he/she is pleased with himself for causing waste of time and money!!!)

garston tony says...
10:02am Mon 15 Oct 12

I'm surpised its subjective, but that explains why the complaint was not upheld in 2004 but has been now. Does the law take into account weight of numbers ie one complaint v. 100 supporters?

LSC I appreciate people change, but isnt that the point in that scenario? It’s the person that has changed not the noise, so how is it right that a complaint can be made by the party that has changed against the one that is the same? I don’t know, its like I build an extension on my house and then complain about the neighbours 100 year old tree because its blocking the view from one of my new windows.

If the church bells had gotten louder or instead of the usual chimes rang out top 40 hits then fair enough, but its been stricking the same note(s) at the same level for decades. The complainant has either moved to the area and not liked the chimes or as you suggested they werent bothered by them previously but now are. In either case I don’t see how they can morally complain about it, legally is obviously another matter!

Croxley Comet says...
4:56pm Tue 16 Oct 12

A petition in support of the Church is available to sign by those residents and others who believe the chime should be re-instated. Location of the petitions are:-
The Sportsman Pub, Scots Hill.
Croxley Meats, New Road,
Roberts Fruit, Baldwins Lane and
Croxley Hardware, Baldwins Lane.
Get along if you can and sign up, get your neighbours and friends out too in order to support your community.

TRT says...
4:03pm Wed 17 Oct 12

Here, I'll buy the complainant one of these out of my own pocket.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-sus
sex-19978247

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree