AIBU to give you an update re Church noise?

I agree with PP who mentioned church stewards. Ministers come and go but every church has a core/committee of practical people who get things done and can be quite forceful. If you get them on your side you will be onto a winner.

Stop faffing about with the minister and go straight to the top hierarchy of the Methodist church. Just google their details and keep plugging away. You have been getting nowhere with the SDA and the minister for years now.

Also, just as an aside, as an ex planning expert pointed out in the last thread, it doesn't make any difference who was there first, the laws around reasonable noise apply to all and being there first is not an exemption.

I'd be even more surprised to find that the minister has updated the buildings/liabilityinsurer of the new arrangements.

Excellent point!

There are very possibly far more people at those services than is safe - Environmental Health would be the ones to contact, I would think - and their insurers would have something to say about it.

Just another thought on the angles of attack. It could be argued from a planning point of view that there has been a change of use for the church. The magic number for being able to take enforcement action is 5 years. If the SDAs have been there for 4 years, it could be worth contacting your local planners with a complaint arguing substantial change of use.

I can't quite remember the amount of time they are using the premises for on a Saturday - was it around 10 hours?

I really feel for you OP. However, I am not sure what must be worse. The noise from these SDA's or these idiotic people commenting non stop with 'what do you expect if you move next to a church.' Its been a painful read

I think you are doing the right thing by complying with the council for now but you must take it further if after those 6 weeks nothing is done. Do you have any holidays planned that will mean a bit of peace and quiet over one or two of the Saturdays?

Thanks to those endorsing my advice - its actually Dear Mama's so I can't take the credit. I would be less well behaved. I was thinking a series of flyers to go on the windscreens ramping up the ante - eg week 1 "Jesus is very disappointed with your anti social parking"; week 2 "Jesus condemns your parking as very selfish" etc etc leading up to "God has said you are all going to hell for making the lives of those who live here hell on earth" - but then I've never been a responsible person.....

I'd be even more surprised to find that the minister has updated the buildings/liabilityinsurer of the new arrangements.

Ooh, good thinking Weezol another angle of attack OP?

Just couldn't be bothered as I did recall you had omitted to mention in your original post whether or not you had moved knowing the church was active.

So why bother to post at all, @manicmj?

I'd have thought the rental agreement would have clauses in relating to noise and disruption of neighbours.

I would be amazed if there is any written agreement between the 7DA and the Methodist minister.

I'd be even more surprised to find that the minister has updated the buildings/liabilityinsurer of the new arrangements.

I'd have thought the rental agreement would have clauses in relating to noise and disruption of neighbours. As the actual minister is a bit feckless, it sounds like it needs to be escalated to whoever his boss is.

Perhaps MNHQ could add a TL:DR to the OP to prevent daft posts;
"I have lived next door to a church for 11+ years, and have had no problem with the associated noise/traffic. 4 years ago a 7th Day Adventist group started using the church weekly, using a loud PA/sound system, and using it for extended hours, inc very late at night. Parking is also a problem during their usage. AIBU to complain about this."

Londonmummy66 has some very good advice. I will just add that a Methodist Circuit should have a property steward, as well as the individual church having one, and it might be worth contacting him/her if you can get contact details - or just the Circuit Stewards team as a whole, as they are part of the Circuit's leadership team along with ministers. This could be especially useful if the local Methodist minister is also the Circuit Superintendent; I'm not clear whether the higher-up minister who came to your meeting was the Super or someone from District or what.

Pig Destroyer, Anal Cunt and Cattle Decapitation are useful bands to download and play.

Finding out whether the church is going over 120dB would be useful, too, as most bars are restricted to 100 in areas with residential properties (and frequently lose their licences for going over).

Having worked as an audio engineer, I hated evangelical or charismaticchurch work - there was always some glazed eye 'important person' who whined that the sound wasn't loud enough when I had to wear filters to prevent it causing permanent hearing damage.

I particularly remember one where they were shouting at me that it wasn't loud enough, but I couldn't hear them two foot away and, more importantly, they couldn't hear me.

I did point out that the Christian Church was responsible for the invention of sound engineering and acoustic design in architecture in the first place, as they literally created the science with the sole intention of carrying the prayers of the faithful up to Heaven as if God wasn't perfectly capable of hearing them without being shouted at in the first place.

I don't do church work anymore. It's a fucking health and safety risk that I wasn't prepared to risk again.

Have (the Council) given any undertakings this time that they will not just close the complaint (‘because nobody added to it for 4 weeks so computer said it all must be ok now’ or some other sappy excuse?

You've got to be joking; from long experience I can say without doubt that if they don't want to do something it will go like this:

We've lost the file
The person dealing with it's on holiday / inameetin
There's nobody assigned to this; we're waiting to recruit, but with the awful cuts ...
We're waiting on consultations
We can't discuss such-and-such because of GDPR
And so on and so on

Which is why, if OP really wants anything done, some of us have suggested the only remedy may be a legal one

I’m really glad you’ve updated OP although it sounds like they’re being incredibly obstructive.

This threads has also shown which posters desperately need to name change after making utter dingbats of themselves.

@manicmij

Strangely enough, when MNetters have bothered to read threads they have often been a fount of knowledge and useful advice. And yes, have sometimes actually solved problems.

That's one of the positives of forums.

Doesn't work with people who just jump in with 'couldn't be bothered' posts though.

@manicmj you're making a bit of a tit of yourself

Do you really expect Mnet to resolve your problem. Ever heard of solicitors!

@manicmij

Then why is an uninformed post of any use?

Just couldn't be bothered as I did recall you had omitted to mention in your original post whether or not you had moved knowing the church was active.

@MadameButterface
Mn really is turning into ThickyMcThickoNoReadingComprehensionWhatsoeversnet judging by this thread

Beautifully put

BTW, "decibel meters" are of no value whatsoever in cases like this, there are absolutely no noise limits laid down in law, at the end of the day it's all about what the EHO considers is reasonable or unreasonable. For "EHO" substitute "court" if it goes that far. Audio recordings may have some value but will/should not be relied on by the EHO in the decision to serve a Statutory Notice.

For the benefit of those who seem to think that you don't have a right to complain about noise if the makers of the noise were there first;

The Supreme Court has laid down a number of principles applicable when considering a claim of private nuisance by noise:
1 - whether noise constitutes nuisance must be assessed by reference to the character of the locality because what can constitute nuisance in one area may not be nuisance in another
2 - the activity creating the noise can be part of the character of the locality but only to the extent that they do not cause nuisance
3 - having planning permission to carry out an activity which causes nuisance by noise is not a defence, although the terms and conditions of the planning permission might be relevant in some cases
4 - it is not a defence to show that the complainant 'came to the nuisance' (eg moved into a property after the nuisance had started).

This has been the position in relation to nuisance for almost 190 years, it was changed slightly in 2014 to add "unless s/he changed the use of her/his land/property and as a result the pre-existing activity became a nuisance, but was not before", which is not the case in respect of the OPs complaint.

Oh and I definitely think it would be worth getting the council to loan you an official decibel meter if you own your own one, just in case they use that as an excuse at the next meeting - that they can’t trust your equipment...

How noisy was it yesterday op in light of there being a meeting about the noise this week? Same as usual or did they dampen it down just a little?

Did the council ever explain how they managed to close all the previous complaints withought actually doing anything begin to start investigating the noise let alone to fix the noise? Have they given any undertakings this time that they will not just close the complaint (‘because nobody added to it for 4 weeks so computer said it all must be ok now’ or some other sappy excuse?

Are you going to make sure you get a reading today during the Methodist service and when the Methodists leave and again at 10-midnight on a Methodist service day so you have all the comparison data needed too?

@manicmij if you can’t recall the full details perhaps you could read them on the clearly linked original thread?