Noise nuisance

The request was refused by Waltham Forest Borough Council.

Dear Waltham Forest Borough Council,

Under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations, please could you provide the following information for the last full year for which records are kept:

A) The number of complaints received for Amplified Music & Speech (or your equivalent).

B) For the above, please provide a breakdown for:

1. No statutory nuisance found
2. Nuisance found, formal warning issued
3. Noise Abatement Notice issued

C) Please provide all information held or used for the guidance or applicable criteria used in the assessment of the above which shows the levels at which you would deem a statutory nuisance to have arisen; for example frequency of occurrence i.e X times per week/month/annum.

C) Please provide details of information held/used in court cases used to support the serving or breaches of noise abatement notices.

D) Please provide all information held on any professional opinions in relation to the serving of a noise abatement notice for amplfied music and speech or your equivalent(s).

E) Please could you provide any documentation held for noise
abatement notices served for the above and redacting any information deemed necessary by the council.

F) Please provide any information held or used which shows that a single incident may be classed as statutory nuisance including the relevant legilsation and court cases.

G) A noise abatement notice was issued to the Immanuel International Christian Centre which was subsequently appealed. At the appeal Rishi Nathwani (prosecuting) said “The council is legally obliged to serve an abatement notice on the first visit.". Please provide all information held in support of this argument including legislation and relevant court cases.

H) Please provide all information held in relation to the serving and appeal of the noise abatement notice for the Immanuel International Christian Centre.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Akhtar

Information Officer, Waltham Forest Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Akhtar

Please see the attached Freedom of Information Request acknowledgment.

Marlon Guildford
Information Officer
Learning from Complaints
Residents First
London Borough of Waltham Forest
020 8496 4209

show quoted sections

2011 09:07 >>>
Dear Waltham Forest Borough Council,

Under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental
Information
Regulations, please could you provide the following information
for
the last full year for which records are kept:

A) The number of complaints received for Amplified Music & Speech
(or your equivalent).

B) For the above, please provide a breakdown for:

1. No statutory nuisance found
2. Nuisance found, formal warning issued
3. Noise Abatement Notice issued

C) Please provide all information held or used for the guidance
or
applicable criteria used in the assessment of the above which
shows
the levels at which you would deem a statutory nuisance to have
arisen; for example frequency of occurrence i.e X times per
week/month/annum.

C) Please provide details of information held/used in court cases
used to support the serving or breaches of noise abatement
notices.

D) Please provide all information held on any professional
opinions
in relation to the serving of a noise abatement notice for
amplfied
music and speech or your equivalent(s).

E) Please could you provide any documentation held for noise
abatement notices served for the above and redacting any
information deemed necessary by the council.

F) Please provide any information held or used which shows that a
single incident may be classed as statutory nuisance including
the
relevant legilsation and court cases.

G) A noise abatement notice was issued to the Immanuel
International Christian Centre which was subsequently appealed.
At
the appeal Rishi Nathwani (prosecuting) said “The council is
legally obliged to serve an abatement notice on the first
visit.".
Please provide all information held in support of this argument
including legislation and relevant court cases.

H) Please provide all information held in relation to the serving
and appeal of the noise abatement notice for the Immanuel
International Christian Centre.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Akhtar

show quoted sections

Dear Information Officer,

Thank you for your acknowledgement. May I say at the outset that I would be grateful if your address all parts of my request and meet the scope of my request in its entirety.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Akhtar

Dear Information Officer,

Ref: FOI 2011-00405

Please could you provide an update on my request made under the above reference number.

Whilst it may be that under certain circumstances an extention can be requested by an authority, no such request has been made and as such I would take this to mean that the information sought would be made available within the normal 20 days.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Akhtar

Mandy Thompson, Waltham Forest Borough Council

3 Attachments

Dear Mr Akhtar

Please find the attached n response to your request

Regards

Mandy Thompson
Response Service Section Manager
Environment & Regeneration
Waltham Forest Council
1st Floor East Wing
Sycamore House
Forest Road
London E17 4JF

Telephone: 020 8496 2246
Email: [email address] ( mailto:[email address] )

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the individual, persons or entity to whom it is addressed.
It may contain privileged and confidential information and, if you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, copy or distribute it, nor take any action in reliance upon it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please inform the sender as soon as possible and delete the e-mail from your computer.

show quoted sections

Dear Mandy Thompson,

Thank you for your reply to my request. I do not consider the authority to have met the scope of my request.

Accordingly you are requested to pass this on to the person or department who would deal with requests of my type and ask for a review to be carried out.

You are respectfully requested to widen your interpretation of my request as I believe this has been too narrow.

My request clearly posed a number of questions which sought an understanding of not only the factors used to determine a nuisance from amplified music or speech or your equivalent, but how such factors are applied and at what point a nuisance is determined for each factor.

I also wish you to consider a part of the reply provided in the context of Immanuel International Christian Centre and bearing in mind that the authority won its case at the appeal hearing (With the Magistrates Court agreeing with Legal Counsel and presumably the factors below):

i) Duration - would a person be correct in assuming that your client department would say that the 20 minutes of nuisance would be the maximum duration?

ii) Frequency - It is understood that in the case of the Immanuel International Christian Centre this occured once a week, on a Sunday morning from 11am. Would it be correct that your client department use once a week as a basis for frequency?

With respect to the two points above it should be noted that a lay person would imagine the authority to treat all its stakeholders equally.

In the case of Immanuel International Christian Centre, I believe that a professional opinion was formed by the Environmental Health Officer (s) so clearly the council should and does hold information of professional opinions where noise abatement notices have been served.

Your reply begs one further question - At the appeal Rishi Nathwani (prosecuting) said “The council is legally obliged to serve an abatement notice on the first visit." - With this in mind please provide any any information held on why the authority when a statutory nuisance has been witnessed it did not issue a noise abatement notice. Such information should include but not be limited to relevant legislation, policies, procedures and court cases.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Akhtar

Mandy Thompson, Waltham Forest Borough Council

I am away from the office until 15th September 2011

If you need any urgent assistance in my absence, please contact:

Business Support on 020 8496 2218/2219

show quoted sections

Dear Mandy Thompson,

Thank you for your reply to my request. I do not consider the
authority to have met the scope of my request.

Accordingly you are requested to pass this on to the person or
department who would deal with requests of my type and ask for a
review to be carried out.

You are respectfully requested to widen your interpretation of my
request as I believe this has been too narrow.

My request clearly posed a number of questions which sought an
understanding of not only the factors used to determine a nuisance
from amplified music or speech or your equivalent, but how such
factors are applied and at what point a nuisance is determined for
each factor.

I also wish you to consider a part of the reply provided in the
context of Immanuel International Christian Centre and bearing in
mind that the authority won its case at the appeal hearing (With
the Magistrates Court agreeing with Legal Counsel and presumably
the factors below):

i) Duration - would a person be correct in assuming that your
client department would say that the 20 minutes of nuisance would
be the maximum duration?

ii) Frequency - It is understood that in the case of the Immanuel
International Christian Centre this occured once a week, on a
Sunday morning from 11am. Would it be correct that your client
department use once a week as a basis for frequency?

With respect to the two points above it should be noted that a lay
person would imagine the authority to treat all its stakeholders
equally.

In the case of Immanuel International Christian Centre, I believe
that a professional opinion was formed by the Environmental Health
Officer (s) so clearly the council should and does hold information
of professional opinions where noise abatement notices have been
served.

Your reply begs one further question - At the appeal Rishi Nathwani
(prosecuting) said “The council is legally obliged to serve an
abatement notice on the first visit." - With this in mind please
provide any any information held on why the authority when a
statutory nuisance has been witnessed it did not issue a noise
abatement notice. Such information should include but not be
limited to relevant legislation, policies, procedures and court
cases.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Akhtar

show quoted sections

Information Officer, Waltham Forest Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Akhtar,

Attached is your request for review acknowledgment letter.

Regards

Sunil Duggal
Information Officer
Learning from Complaints
Residents First
London Borough of Waltham Forest
020 8496 4632

show quoted sections

Dear Mandy Thompson,

Thank you for your reply to my request. I do not consider the
authority to have met the scope of my request.

Accordingly you are requested to pass this on to the person or
department who would deal with requests of my type and ask for a
review to be carried out.

You are respectfully requested to widen your interpretation of my
request as I believe this has been too narrow.

My request clearly posed a number of questions which sought an
understanding of not only the factors used to determine a
nuisance
from amplified music or speech or your equivalent, but how such
factors are applied and at what point a nuisance is determined
for
each factor.

I also wish you to consider a part of the reply provided in the
context of Immanuel International Christian Centre and bearing in
mind that the authority won its case at the appeal hearing (With
the Magistrates Court agreeing with Legal Counsel and presumably
the factors below):

i) Duration - would a person be correct in assuming that your
client department would say that the 20 minutes of nuisance would
be the maximum duration?

ii) Frequency - It is understood that in the case of the Immanuel
International Christian Centre this occured once a week, on a
Sunday morning from 11am. Would it be correct that your client
department use once a week as a basis for frequency?

With respect to the two points above it should be noted that a
lay
person would imagine the authority to treat all its stakeholders
equally.

In the case of Immanuel International Christian Centre, I believe
that a professional opinion was formed by the Environmental
Health
Officer (s) so clearly the council should and does hold
information
of professional opinions where noise abatement notices have been
served.

Your reply begs one further question - At the appeal Rishi
Nathwani
(prosecuting) said “The council is legally obliged to serve an
abatement notice on the first visit." - With this in mind please
provide any any information held on why the authority when a
statutory nuisance has been witnessed it did not issue a noise
abatement notice. Such information should include but not be
limited to relevant legislation, policies, procedures and court
cases.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Akhtar

show quoted sections

Gavin Douglas, Waltham Forest Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Akhtar

Sorry to read that you felt our original response did not meet the scope of your request.

Please see my attached response to your request for a review.

Yours sincerely,

Gavin Douglas
Head of Environmental Health and Trading Standards
Environment & Regeneration

Waltham Forest Council
Sycamore House
Forest Road
London E17 4JF
02084962201 or 07900133827
www.walthamforest.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mandy Thompson,

Thank you for your reply to my request. I do not consider the
authority to have met the scope of my request.

Accordingly you are requested to pass this on to the person or
department who would deal with requests of my type and ask for a
review to be carried out.

You are respectfully requested to widen your interpretation of my
request as I believe this has been too narrow.

My request clearly posed a number of questions which sought an
understanding of not only the factors used to determine a nuisance
from amplified music or speech or your equivalent, but how such
factors are applied and at what point a nuisance is determined for
each factor.

I also wish you to consider a part of the reply provided in the
context of Immanuel International Christian Centre and bearing in
mind that the authority won its case at the appeal hearing (With
the Magistrates Court agreeing with Legal Counsel and presumably
the factors below):

i) Duration - would a person be correct in assuming that your
client department would say that the 20 minutes of nuisance would
be the maximum duration?

ii) Frequency - It is understood that in the case of the Immanuel
International Christian Centre this occured once a week, on a
Sunday morning from 11am. Would it be correct that your client
department use once a week as a basis for frequency?

With respect to the two points above it should be noted that a lay
person would imagine the authority to treat all its stakeholders
equally.

In the case of Immanuel International Christian Centre, I believe
that a professional opinion was formed by the Environmental Health
Officer (s) so clearly the council should and does hold information
of professional opinions where noise abatement notices have been
served.

Your reply begs one further question - At the appeal Rishi Nathwani
(prosecuting) said The council is legally obliged to serve an
abatement notice on the first visit." - With this in mind please
provide any any information held on why the authority when a
statutory nuisance has been witnessed it did not issue a noise
abatement notice. Such information should include but not be
limited to relevant legislation, policies, procedures and court
cases.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Akhtar

show quoted sections

Dear Gavin Douglas,

Thank you for your review of my request. I do not consider the authority to have met either the scope of my request or its responsibilities under the relevant act and accordingly I will be making a formal complaint to the ICO.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Akhtar