Acorn Close, Barlby
A primary school in Barlby, near Selby, just south of York has taken leave of their senses and given into to a few obnoxious residents who complained about noise levels. Obviously everyone in the blogosphere and in the MSM are going WTF! Has the world gone mad? Have the rights of a few old people* living in Acorn Close, Barlby trumped the rights of dozens of young kids who need to exercise?
Yes is the answer. It’s all down to 13 years of political correctness where everything has to be fair and everyone has human rights. This means that the human rights of someone who buys a house near a school gets it into their head that they have a right to complain about the noise levels of kids playing. This is kids playing at lunch time. The middle of the day. When right minded people are usually at work.
But why did the council get in touch with the school and raise the noise issue with them? Are they politically correct left leaning councillors? Not quite.
Even though Labour have been in power nationally for 13 years, this is a Conservative council since 2003. But local councillors are just politicians like MPs. Those councillors who do have power, the ones on committees, like to keep their empires and enhance them. Being Tory or Labour doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference. They all care about themselves and not their electors.
The other factor in how the council reacted is the council officers. These are employees of the council and are not elected officials. These are the real poison in councils. These people are the ones on excessively high salaries (some CEOs of councils are paid more than the PM) who bow to no one, not even councillors. These are the ones with real power. These are the ones who are the left leaning politically correct busy bodies even if the whole council was comprised of Tory councillors. These are the ones who make life awkward and difficult for anyone with any common sense.
So the council, read council officials who have nothing better to do except create work for themselves to justify their existence, raised a meeting with the school and told them that they had received complaints about the noise. They did this because they had a duty to react after any complaint. This means they react without thought. So the council officials have pretty much told everyone that they don’t have any common sense and didn’t talk to the complainants to ensure that they really had a reason for making their complaint. No, what they did is go straight to the school because that way they can have a meeting because having meetings means that they can discuss the issue and pass the buck on to someone else. In this case the school.
So the school gets the story from the council that complaints have been made. And the council have probably talked up the issue because a silly little complaint would be worth having a meeting about would it? So the school hears the story as a major complaint has been received by the council, that the council have had to think about noise abatement orders (a way of making the issue bigger than it is and scaring the school further) and possibly call in consultants (more scaring about the thought of expensive consultants) to check the noise levels with their fancy machines.
The school’s board now have to react because they have been passed the buck by the council. And they are worried that they might incur extra costs if they don’t follow the council’s advice. This is advice from a person who probably has no legal background nor intelligence. The only thing they have was perceived authority based on FUD. The school’s board, who don’t have the background nor experience of how to handle such situations as they are only ordinary people wanting to do best for the kids, do what they can only do in such situations. Issue a ban as that is what they’ve seen loads of other organisations do in such situations. They can’t talk to the complainants, because the council wouldn’t tell them who they are because of data protection issues (amazing that organisations use this when they don’t want to do something, but freely ignore it when it’s our data they lose). They can’t negotiate with the householders who live on the other side of the fence. An acoustic fence mind you. They can’t find out what’s causing the irritation to the householders to work out if its a particular thing or just the noise in general. So what they do ban noise making activities. They stagger the kids playtime – this only lengthens the noise making period. They ban hard ball games – as if that making more noise than kids screaming.
This will not solve the problem as the complainant (there will be a key person, the other two are just hangers on) will probably not be satisfied till the school is shut down. They probably lived there for many years, years before the school was built in 2002. They probably didn’t want the school then. Rather than move, they demand that their human rights are taken into account and that they are more important than the human rights of dozens of kids. They were probably the single person who complained when they school put in a planning application for an extension in 2007. This ties in with reports in some newspapers that the noise level increased due to “funnelling” after the recent redesign of the school. And this redesign and extension must have been big to change the noise levels so much. You would think so. But in fact it’s a single class room. Not even two story. And conditions were imposed as part of the planning including the installation of an acoustic fence. All I can think of about the noise objection is that this was put in by a very pedantic NIMBY. How does a single class room extension make the slightest difference to noise levels outside? Does a single classroom extension suddenly increase the number of kids at the school to unimaginably high levels where the noise levels are unbearable.
Unlike a lot of journalists, I’ve did a quick bit of research. Only five minutes mind. I’m not paid to do this kind of work. Amazing what you can find out on Google and some thought.
Oh, and have a look at the attached picture and see how many houses are near the school. The green line is the acoustic fence. The red box is the single classroom extension.
Links:
North Yorkshire Planning Committee report on Barlby Primary school extension – 2007
GoogleMaps of Barlby Primary school
* I’m only assuming that it is old people because they stereotypically are the ones who are at home during the day and who can be arsey enough to make a complaint. I make this assumption from Streetview where I notice that the houses in the local estate are predominately bungalows and houses have very neat front gardens. The are other possibilities, but pensioners are my guess.
-
1
September 19, 2010 at 07:45 -
If you suffered from restless leg syndrome or any of the maladies that deprive old people of their sleep you would not be so judgemental.
the only good sleep you get is the ‘nap’ in the middle of the day. And screaming children do not help.
When you re really old you have to fight for everything or you are just labelled ‘ an old git’ and ignored.-
2
September 19, 2010 at 16:55 -
They have all day to have their nap at any time when it’s quiet. The kids are noisy for about 1/2 hour to an hour max. If it is due to someone having a nap.
-
3
September 20, 2010 at 12:51 -
It really is tricky, isn’t it, when you get to an age where you can’t decide which is best between a) covering your ears up so you can have your midday nap in silence, or b) stifling the natural joyful behaviour of small children to achieve the same. Old git.
-
-
4
September 19, 2010 at 09:11 -
Children playing is a good sound. Imagine a world without it!
Top Blogging Sir -
5
September 19, 2010 at 09:46 -
Totally agree, excellent blog. I couldn’t believe it when I saw the report.
And Rand Hack, I think you’ll find its Ma’am, not Sir. The clue is in the title. -
7
September 19, 2010 at 09:53 -
A sleep in the middle of the day? Most old people that I know sleep from 2pm until 4pm. If they take a nap at all. Which most of them don’t. They are all much too busy out Pigeon Shooting to augment their pensions, or playing Poker in the off season.
These moaning minnies need to get a life.
-
8
September 19, 2010 at 10:06 -
Excellent blog, so when did the ‘you can make whatever noise you like between 8am and 11pm’ gidance get the boot?
Bernard, the blog does belong to a Ma’am, but the post is from Sad butMad ‘LAD’, therefore a Sir
Please do try to keep up with the fat that Anna has guest posters… -
9
September 19, 2010 at 10:11 -
The Council officials are implementing the laws enacted by Parliament. Where an Act sets out a duty on a council to undertake a certain task, that task has to be done. Where an Act creates discretionary powers for a Council, the policy for using those powers is agreed by the Council. The council officials are responsible to the Council. If they don’t do their jobs properly they may be liable to disciplinary or criminal sanction.
Wouldn’t it be nice if neighbours had no rights, if the council officials had simply said ” It is a school, pupils will create noise at its convenience, you have no say in the matter, go away and pay your Council Tax.” Or, on the other hand, what if a local resident decided to use a shredder or lawn mower near to a classroom at exam time and nothing could be done?
The people who complain are those who keep councils, indeed all democratic institutions, on their toes. Illegal travellers’encampment next to your home: oh, it’s just nimbyism. It’s not, it’s the expection that civil society is governed by the rule of law, otherwise give everyone a shotgun.
The fault lies with the MPs who were whipped into voting for bills they hadn’t read so they could spend more time on claiming expenses, being entertained by lobbyists and sorting out complaints from residents caused by inadequate and misguided legislation.-
10
September 19, 2010 at 17:06 -
I don’t disagree that it’s the MPs fault in the first place, but the council officials and councillors are at fault here too. They do have some responsibility.
As to rights. Well yes, everyone has rights. But negotiation comes into it as well. In this case it seems that after all the negotiation, the neighbours weren’t satisfied and went to the council to make their complaint.
The school did offer various methods of alleviating the noise issue before the council got involved, including the acoustic fence. But the neighbours have insisted on the ban on ball games and the staggering of times when kids play. When does a ball game (using hard balls) become noiser than screaming kids? Is the noise from a few dozen kids any less than the noise from a few 200 kids?
-
11
September 19, 2010 at 17:49 -
In any booklet on planning matters, one of the first recommendations is to consult with neighbours. Often any disagreements result in improved designs but people feel better if they have been consulted for their opinions first. The ball game restriction is fair if you have had a light in your greenhouse smashed and a youngster then ringing the doorbell asking for their ball back. Asking for damages is futile. The matter of increasing noise, and type of noise, eg high pitch/low pitch is a complex one. An increase of 4 dB from 72 to 76 actually doubles the amount of perceived noise. Often high trees or hedging will mitigate the problem as almost as well as acoustic fencing (for a school?).
-
-
-
12
September 19, 2010 at 10:33 -
World’s gone mad, (chunter chunter)
Perhaps the children should be stopped from playing anyway on Health and Safety grounds – they might hurt their vocal chords by laughing, for example. -
13
September 19, 2010 at 11:16 -
Reminds me of the Emo Phillips quote:
I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the little children jump up and down and run around yelling and screaming. They don’t know I’m only using blanks.
-
14
September 19, 2010 at 12:06 -
This is I think one of the worst posts I have ever read here.
Sorry but I think you need to apologise to pensioners. Such unresearched knee-jerk condemnation is unbecoming to a supposedly intelligent blog and shows an appalling judgemental stereotyping of members of society.
Yes of course there are some bloody awful difficult pensioners, as there are difficult people at all ages. But there are also many who, as they age, become increasingly pleased to see and hear children. Often with age comes a recognition that children are the future and give meaning to their own lives, maybe when you are older you will recognise that?
Neither is such a complaint NIMBYism, which in its more ususal form means an objection to change or to losing some sort of perceived benefit for the good of the community. Such a situation can often have two sides. Were all heathrow third runway objectors NIMBYs? But then we might think it very unreasonable indeed for a NIMBY to oppose local affordable housing.
Bbut this is not a new school and living near an established school has nothing to do with NIMBYism, the school already existed.
This a complaint is simply total unremitted stupidity – people need to be reminded, forcibly, that when they choose to live near an existing school, or a sports ground, or have views across a golf course, they will get the children, games players, golf balls or whateveris associated with it.-
15
September 19, 2010 at 12:33 -
It is a new school, built in 2002. I’ll build one in your back garden and see how you like it.
BTW …’children are the future’… Sorry, I just had a little bit of sick come up into mouth, but its OK, it’s gone now.
-
16
September 19, 2010 at 14:47 -
Rebuilt in 2002 is hardly new.
And if anything is to be built behind my house, and we are all hostages to fortune with our neighbours, I would much prefer a school – open only approx 190 days a year daytime only – to a business park or commercial use creating mechanical noise, pollution and disturbance throughout the year and into the evenings, or a block of flats, or a sink estate or a 24/7 supermarket, or a young offenders institution, or a dog pound, or a skateboard park, or whatever.
And I’m sorry about your potential gastronomic regurgitative problems, maybe I laid it a bit thick to make the point? But even so I assume you realise that without children society will cease to exist in a generation, so they are important. Maybe you have some better system to create ready made adults perhaps?
Seriously, to my mind it’s probably nonsense to complain about kids enjoying playtime for half an hour a day – unless there is some activity we don’t know about like catapult or screaming competitions?
It’s however very wrong to jump to conclusions about the people – nimby pensioners implicated here – who complained, or why. I think the original blog post did exactly that.-
17
September 19, 2010 at 15:40 -
My point on the date of building is that the houses probably pre-date the school, meaning the householders did not choose to buy a house next to a school.
I have not called anyone a nimby. I do not have enough info to make an informed decision, but my gut feeling is that the complainant is probably over-reacting, but I can see a persons point of view if a school appears over their garden wall one day, after years of peace and quiet.
I can think of at least 10 far better ways of developing and educating children than sending them to socialist indoctrination centres, so whenever anybody gets emotive about other people’s children and their ‘education’, I get the sick thing.
-
18
September 19, 2010 at 21:22 -
No, indeed you didn’t use the phrase nimby – the original posting did. But one report did say that the school was rebuilt in 2002, ie it was a school site long before then.
But the point is we simply don’t know who complained or exactly why. That’s why I was annoyed at the original post, which made a number of assumptions about local residents, pensioners, tidy gardens etc and then made assumptions about likely complainants.
-
-
-
-
19
September 19, 2010 at 17:13 -
It’s not just me. Others made the same assumption based on the pictures from streetview and they actions of the neighbours.
But yes, it is an assumption based on nothing more than neat gardens and bungalows. And who hasn’t made assumptions based on sterotypes. That’s why the programme Grumpy Old Men/Women exists on TV.
I am are pretty close to pensioner age myself, but I recognise that education is one of the most important things that a society should foster. They are the ones who will ensure that society continues by using their knowledge to benefit society and also using the values they were taught to ensure that society doesn’t collapse in on itself.
-
-
20
September 19, 2010 at 12:34 -
Insightful analysis into how local government works ( are you in that racket yourself?) – a triumph of bureaucratic stupidity over common sense.
But your assumption (stereotypical, as you say in red) that complainers are most likely be found among the aged betrays a certain shallowness. -
21
September 19, 2010 at 13:47 -
“They probably lived there for many years, years before the school was built in 2002″
The school was rebuilt in 2002 but there has been a school on the site for over 100 years so the complainants must have known about the school before they bought their houses. Case dismissed.
-
22
September 19, 2010 at 14:42 -
Great article.
SADBUTMADLAD deducted that the complainers might be pensioners based on reasonable evidence. Don’t see the problem. If he’s wrong he can appologise to the people he seems to have offended.-
23
September 19, 2010 at 15:03 -
SADBUTMADLAD deducted that the complainers might be pensioners based on reasonable evidence
No he didn’t – he based it (as he himself states) on a stereotypical assumption.
-
-
26
September 19, 2010 at 16:20 -
I suppose that the complainants might be unemployed. In which case, what can I say?
-
27
September 19, 2010 at 20:07 -
I suppose that the complainants might be unemployed..
No Eleanor, only the aged have neat front gardens. Unemployed people have burnt-out cars, dog shit and rubbish in their front gardens. -
28
September 20, 2010 at 22:10 -
No not unemployed but a childminder!! And all her children went to the very same school!! you can’t make this stuff up. My daughter is at this school there are over 300 children there and they are a great bunch of kids 3 complaints guess what they want compansation!!! makes my blood boil we are doing the best we can to get the kids their playtime back wish us luck Karen
-
29
September 21, 2010 at 10:32 -
Wow!
Even I wouldn’t have guessed that. So it’s the compensation culture to blame then.
You would have thought that this childminder (can I make an assumption that she is female?) would recognise the joy of listening to children make a lot of noise.
Now I might be making invalid assumptions again, but it might partially explain why she went to the council. To be a childminder you have to get so many permits, licences, visits from the council that you will understand the council’s bureaucratic way of working. She will also probably have had enough contact with the council to be known which ensures that she will be listened to too.
-
-
-
30
September 19, 2010 at 21:09 -
I come to this late alfter much chuntering.
The Council has to act but does not have to act is a prescribed manner. Merely act. The complainant then has a range of possible responses to the response. In this case I suspect that the main fault lies with the reaction of the school – and this fault unquestionably lies with the headteacher & Chair of Governors who have over-reacted.
Oh and to discover who objected to the planning application is simple- go to where the paper file is stored and look at the letter. It is a matter of public record and the Council cannot redact the name and addres of the objector.
And Councillors will not have been consulted or involved in this decision. As the exercise of a power (and a duty to respond to the complainant) Councillors – other than the Council’s executive – have no power to intervene. All we can do is shout.
To give the other side of the coin – in Cullingworth we have been trying for several years to get environmental health to take some action to reduce the negative impact (noise, smell, dust) of stone cutting and a yard on the centre of the village. To date nothing has happened (despite any number of visits by EH Officers and a stream of letters, e-mails, phone calls, meetings and texts) and the noise, dust and smell continues without any significant change.
That is the more usual situation.
-
31
September 19, 2010 at 23:24 -
“The Council has to act but does not have to act is a prescribed manner. Merely act. ”
As I thought, the council could have made a decision not to proceed. And reading some articles about the story, it does seem that the council didn’t think the complaint had much substance. But they still felt that they had to act because they had to “have to take all complaints seriously” and “wish to maintain good relations with local residents”. This is just PR blurb to try and explain away their actions because they didn’t think that it would get out of hand with the school overreacting.
“to discover who objected to the planning application is simple- go to where the paper file is stored and look at the letter.”
Wish I could as I used to live in Selby.
Interesting about the power of councillors and where the real power lies – with unelected council officials and their fiefdoms.
Sound like with your case, that the business is just ignoring the council because they can and they realise that the council have limited powers. The school didn’t realise this and kowtowed pretty much straight away exasperating what was a probably a simple case.
PS. Don’t feel that I am lumping you with all the councillors in my article, you are one of the exceptions to the rule – thankfully!
-
-
32
September 20, 2010 at 00:35 -
The world is full of noises – some annoying, some not.
Into the annoying category fall the bass notes of mobile boom boxes, the low but relentless drone of hard to trace machinery (eg, cooling fans) the yapping of other people’s dogs and, most annoying of all, the self important ones: “This vehicle is reversing, so just bugger off’” and burglar alarms of all kinds – whose sole purpose, as far as I can tell, is to cause annoyance.
Not annoying are wind chimes, people whistling as they walk down the street, ice cream chimes, church bells, market traders’ calls and school playgrounds – I live within earshot of two, and they make a nice hubbub when I’m at home on a school day.
(Incidentally, SBML, not everyone works 9-5!)-
33
September 20, 2010 at 19:27 -
It’s amazing how quickly you can get used to noises. I live right next to a railway. A couple of months after moving in, I noticed that the trains didn’t seem to be going by. I suddenly realised it was because I had got used to it and I blocked out the noise. I have also lived next to a main road and the only time I notice the road noise is when it goes quiet.
-
-
34
September 20, 2010 at 00:45 -
Paert of the trouble SBML is that you think the council, the school and the the complainants are all wrong and you are right.
-
35
September 20, 2010 at 13:43 -
The arrangement of the buildings around the triangular playground will, without a doubt, reflect noise in the direction of those homes. Unless the previous school was orientated in a similar fashion this looks like a preventable design error and one that the designers nor the council considered – otherwise an acoustic fence or different orientation would have been a condition of planning permission being granted.
I wonder if the complainant complained when the planning permission for the rebuild was being sought and was ignored.
How large was the old school? My primary school was about a dozen pupils 20 years ago and has ten times as many children now.
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }