That’s a long title.
Petition for your sig-nay-chures is below.
That’s far too specific. And it reads a bit like a regurgitated thesaurus.
There’s other groups who make noise and have a better public image than motorsports - the general principle ought to be for when someone moves near any noisy thing (airport, motorsports venue, pub, Camden etc.), rather than trying to have some piece of legislation for each one. That’s a principle whose petition might get enough votes to secure a parliamentary answer.
Church Bells? Local Mosque wailing (call to prayer). List goes on.
posted a little while ago, but wirtha boost.
BRS and makman, not sure you have quite got the point, or understand just how much if a threat these circuits are under. i’ve not heard of many churches closing because folk dont like the bells. crap comparison.
http://londonbikers.com/forums/1101542/govt-e-petition,-preventing-noise-complaints-near-racetracks
I’d already signed but I got my missus to sign it. This is vital for our circuits and for the sake of (un)common sense
Things like this really annoy me, Airports, schools, sporting venues etc were in place long before 99% of the people that moan about them moved into those houses, if you are likely to get annoyed by that sort of thing then maybe you should think about it when buying the bloody house!!
I’ve signed for me and also my Mrs and kids!!
That’s exactly why it’s a good analogy, surely? The majority of people don’t have any great desire for racetracks to stay open, so restricting the petition signatures to those people wont help raise the number of signatories It’s also a weirdly specific law to request, so it’s likely not workable in that respect.
A petition for a more general premise (that people moving into a noisy area have no reason to expect it to not be noisy) would be able to attract more signatories (from people who like music venues especially, but there’s not much harm in pointing out that hypothetically churches and mosques could be affected), would be asking for an actual and workable principle and would also cover the hoped-for outcome of this one.
Would it make even more sense in your eyes to have one petition for each of the affected tracks?
Hey guys,
I believe Ministry of sound won a case recently which means anyone buying a newbuild flat next to the club has to sign something similar.
Not 100% sure and cannot be arsed to find out but im 95% sure thats the case. Which if you ask me is how it should be!
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ministry-of-sound-club-in-deal-with-developer-over-noise-9043411.html
“Residents will effectively also “sign away” their rights to complain about noise through a specific reference in their deeds.”
I don’t see how it’s too specific, this is much more likely to succeed than an all encompassing petition. British racing is a cultural and heritage thing, a nightclub or airport isn’t.
I’d also like to point out, it’s at 30k signatures, if there’s a petition which has a chance of making it into parliament this is one of them.
So why not sign on the dotted line and stop being so negative 
Surely people buying a property near a motor circuit would be aware of the noise. Or maybe unprofessional estate agents would do what they can to either not declare such an import fact. But then I suppose being an estate agent is still the most hated profession, with the exception of being a parking attendant.
Much as I can’t apparently explain why I think it’s much less likely to succeed, can you explain why this one is more likely to? Are there people who would sign a petition worded specifically to save racetracks but not one that also mentions nightclubs?
I’ll meet you half-way - I’ve signed it
The problem is less people moving in and then suddenly making a complaint, and more of when the venue needs planning permission for something (or to renew a license) that it must go through the local council, and the local residents are able to raise objections there.
So perhaps they cannot complain that the track is too noisy, but they can prevent the building of the facilities it needs in order to carry on.
Because racing has that heritage element to it. Apparently there are at least 30,000 so far and counting who would
LB has 20,000 registered users, if only 1/4 of those are real and they signed up there would be an extra 5k.
Let’s bear in mind that most of the users here are from London and are into bikes.
How many people up and down the country do you think are into cars?
But surely [all the people into bikes] is fewer people than [all the people into bikes] combined with [all the people into live music]? I don’t understand why you’d get more people by appealing to fewer.
Annoying as it is, we are a country with limited housing, and the idea that everyone can live somewhere else, where it is quiet is a nonsense. Why should some people have to suffer the noise and nuisance of a race track, or a night club, just because it has been there for a long time? The idea that there is a choice for everyone is nothing but a construct to allow those that want a certain thing to justify their keeping it at other people’s expense.
And Yes I too would be gutted to lose race tracks.
This is the simple fact, if the Government wanted to keep those race tracks, they should not have given planning permission. If the local government wanted to keep Ministry of Sound open, they should not have given planning permission; however, we are desperate for housing and needs must. It isn’t fair to say that the people that live in those places now have to suffer noise indefinitely, just because they wanted a place to live.
Besides which I doubt the story above or legislation would be legal.
You cannot sign away your human rights.
Art 8: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
This is a qualified right, but music in night clubs, or motor sports, would not be one of the items that would allow the state to interfere with that right.
The issue of waiving rights in a lease, would involve the state. The Courts would be the ones to enforce the “lease”, as the developer would have to apply to the court to enforce any eviction, and the courts could not breach human rights, it would be unlawful for them to do so, and therefore would not enforce such a clause. They also could not rely upon the agreement to dismiss any nuisance case brought before them.
Any legislation would be subject to a finding of being in breach of human rights law, and could end up in the European Court of Human Rights. This does not mean our Parliament is bound by any such decision, but they usually do act upon those decisions.