WALTHAMSTOW: Church loses noise appeal
3:50pm Wednesday 7th October 2009 in
A CHURCH has accused the council of taking away the ability to praise God by restricting the noise made by of its congregation.
In what has been described as an “ugly case”, the Immanuel International Christian Centre has failed to overturn a noise abatement notice issued following a complaint from a neighbour.
Baha Uddin claimed he was unable to use his garden at weekends, and his one-year-old daughter was regularly disturbed by amplified music used by the church during sermons.
He said: “It’s been a nightmare. I’ve not been able to use my garden or living room on a Sunday because of the church services. The amplified music, drums and the loud sermons made having a conversation impossible.
“We had to move my daughter Anisah from her cot into our bed which wasn't ideal because we want her to be used to sleeping in her cot.”
“The noise made me depressed. I felt guilty because I bought the house and I felt I had made the wrong decision.”
But another neighbour in Vallentin Road, Walthamstow, said noise was not a problem and the church says the council action ignores the church’s “need to worship”.
Church Pastor Dunni Odetoyinbo claimed a council officer had asked her “to keep the noise down so as not to offend the Muslim community.”
However, she refused to reveal the officer’s identity or elaborate on the claims when questioned by Rishi Nathwani, prosecuting for the council.
Church secretary Adetunji Ajike said: “Has the council considered our need – the need to worship? The noise abatement notice is unreasonable and takes away the ability for us to praise God.”
Paul Diamond, mitigating, said: “There is something ugly in this case. The church was given the information that this was a political matter – a Muslim was making a complaint and people would say something.”
Mr Nathwani said: “The council is legally obliged to serve an abatement notice on the first visit.
“However, officers visited on numerous occasions and tried to work with the church. I believe the council has been more than reasonable in this instance.”
Alan Simms, bench chairman, dismissed the church’s appeal and ordered it to pay £2,250 costs.
The church decided to play music for 20 minutes on a Sunday between 11.30am and 11.50am.
Speaking after the hearing at Waltham Forest Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday, Mrs Odetoyinbo, 55, said: “I think the ruling is very unfair. The council says we have been creating excessive noise but nobody at the council has explained what is excessive noise.”
She said that the congregation has shrunk from 100 to 30 because of the restrictions, and the ministry will suffer financially because it can no longer hire out its hall for events.
A council spokesman said: "Our officers visited the church by invitation on October 23 2007 when it was explained that the noise they were generating was excessive.
"Since then we have worked extremely hard to try and resolve this situation amicably but sadly all attempts have failed.
"We are committed to protecting the quality of life for all our residents and only issue noise abatement notices as a last resort."
Comments(26)
Touchwood
says...
6:15pm Wed 7 Oct 09
Morris Hickey
says...
8:06pm Wed 7 Oct 09
Sigi from Walthamstow
says...
10:32am Thu 8 Oct 09
Secondly, we all live very close together here, and noise is a big problem. Noise causes stress and sickness to people.
The council has a responsibility towards EVERYBODY.
Thirdly - can you tell me why this particular church appears to believe that God is hard of hearing? - That's probably the reason for the excessive use of loudspeakers.
Walthamstow noob
says...
12:29pm Thu 8 Oct 09
Whatever happened to love thy neighbour?
Misshighamhill
says...
4:12pm Thu 8 Oct 09
Gossop
says...
5:28pm Thu 8 Oct 09
Morris Hickey wrote:Another stupid comment from you, Morris Hickey.
I just wonder what the council would have done, if anything, had it been a complaint about noise coming from a non-Chistian place of worship? Probably arranged classes in racial tolerance for the complainants.
Can you ever give a constructive argument about anything? Why are you speculating about a matter that did not take place and hypothesising. Make a comment, but please stop being a Clever Dickey all the time. Are you still in politics or did they throw you out for being monotonous?
Melwhite
says...
6:02pm Thu 8 Oct 09
Secondly the article also mentions that the "excessive music" was played on a Sunday for 20 mins. Its not even like everyday, at all hours of the night like some of these parties you hear.
Baha Uddin is just an unreasonable neighbour who made a bad decision to move into a vicarage and now he is regretting it. My advice to him is to suck it up or MOVE!
pepita
says...
1:39am Fri 9 Oct 09
Would he complain if it was a mosque next door, with people visiting five times a day, traffic and parking problems, noise etc?
No, I don't think he would.
In my opinion this is just another whinge from a cult who would be over the moon if all our churches were to close.
Who is the councillor on this case? I would like to know what connections he has to Uddin if any! Now that would be interesting.
And why has this man Uddin, moved next door to a church?
What mosque does Uddin attend, and is his Imam a supporter of his complaint against the church in question?
Would you be able to go to Pakistan or any other Islamic country and demand to silence their call to prayer etc? You wouldn't get far, in fact, you would probably get your head removed!
People need to wake up, stop allowing our country to be dictated to - people of Walthamstow should have made their voice heard. Stand up for yourselves for heavens sakes.
If these people, like Uddin, don't like our country, they should move to a country more fitting to their beliefs and customs, instead of finding ridiculous excuses to upset our communities.
Walthamstow councils needs a good sweep with a strong bristled broom - clean up the debris and infiltration of corruption.
Adamblack
says...
1:42am Fri 9 Oct 09
I believe the Church has made ample effort to soundproof the Church but when your neighbor practically shares the same wall with you it can be challenging. Someone needs to talk to the council about who in planning permitted a property which seems to be part of the Church into a residential home. Also my question is what efforts has Mr. Baha made to protect his home from noise seeing that the original purpose of his home was a Vicarage or Pastor's dwelling.
I live on the same Road as the Church and honestly I do not hear any noise from this Church in fact they have restored a building which was once an ugly eyesore into a place for the community. So I believe this is deeper than a noise issue.
alanvan
says...
8:26am Fri 9 Oct 09
I appreciate both sides of the arguement. But in the old-days Churches were build away from people's houses with lovely grounds and grave yards. Now, they are sometimes simply too close to people's living space. This case received unfair attention as the man complaining was a muslim. Which I think might just be media hype. But I am not sure. I don't any Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jahn, Atheist, Altruist or any other hard working people needing some peace and quite in the retreat of their own home wants this kind of annoyance. People having a huge drunken party would be asked to turn the music off or down. Why shouldn't a church? Why are churches any differnent?
ALan
The guv
says...
9:36am Fri 9 Oct 09
If these people, like Uddin, don't like our country, they should move to a country more fitting to their beliefs and customs, instead of finding ridiculous excuses to upset our communities.
Mr.Uddin has realised he has made a mistake and now wants compensation or I assume some one to buy his house.
Walthamstow noob
says...
1:16pm Fri 9 Oct 09
http://www.christian
legalcentre.com/view
.php?id=866
***“Gary Vickers, an Environmental health enforcement officer visited Mr Uddin’s house on 10th August (Sunday worship service time) and on 12 August issued a letter to us saying that in his opinion, the volume from the music was of statutory noise nuisance level throughout the neighbours’ property. He suggested to deal with matter through sensible negotiation, informing our Pastor that ‘the church had to keep the noise down so as not to offend the Muslims living in the area’. He told us ‘this is a Muslim borough, you have to tread carefully’.”***
I think there are possibly some shenanigans on both sides here, but it's interesting how the pastor would allow the Christian Legal Centre publish the above information in a press release, but refuse to provide those same details in court.
Melwhite
says...
2:13pm Fri 9 Oct 09
In terms of the information disclosed to the press noob, unless you were actually in court you cannot be justified in saying the pastor did not disclose this information. Also bear in mind I am sure the Church is not arguing on a religious issue, basically to have the right like any Church in this country to be able to conduct a normal church service which includes singing hymns and playing the church organ or piano. Also according to other information the Church has tried to reasonably negotiate with Mr. Baha but he seems to be an aggressive neighbour who does not want to compromise as well as falsifying information to make his case stronger.
Walthamstow noob
says...
2:45pm Fri 9 Oct 09
I'm working on the assumption that Jonathan Moyes' report, which we're all commening on, is based on him, or someone from the paper being at the court. Or maybe he had access to court documents. He wrote above:
***Church Pastor Dunni Odetoyinbo claimed a council officer had asked her “to keep the noise down so as not to offend the Muslim community.”
However, she refused to reveal the officer’s identity or elaborate on the claims when questioned by Rishi Nathwani, prosecuting for the council.***
So unless the Guardian's report is wrong, I think the point is justified. Court would be the logical place to disclose this information, as it would have a direct bearing on their appeal. Issuing those details after the appeal has been lost, in a press release, looks suspect to me.
While we're talking about justifying comments,I'd be interested to know what you think justifies this:
***he seems to be an aggressive neighbour who does not want to compromise as well as falsifying information to make his case stronger.***
What information has he falsified? Was this revealed in court?
Melwhite
says...
3:25pm Fri 9 Oct 09
Secondly you seem to contradict yourself you said the information disclosing the officer was questioned in court, and then you comment that the information was released to the press after the appeal was lost ...where was the officers name or any information disclosed after the appeal?
***he seems to be an aggressive neighbour who does not want to compromise as well as falsifying information to make his case stronger.***
This comment is based from the article you pointed out by Christian Legal and I quote: -
"Mr Uddin would stand at church’s main entrance door and shout his complaints and demand our Pastor come out to speak to him during her sermon"
Does this seem like a reasonable man who has respect for a place of worship by standing and shouting complaints during a Church Service and expect the Pastor to leave the pulpit to address his issue. Secondly Mr Uddin complains that the music continues for 40 mins where it states the Church reduced it to 20 mins every sunday and even cancelled other weekly services. Falsifying information can include trying to make the Church seem as if they are constantly making noise all day, everyday.
Walthamstow noob
says...
4:32pm Fri 9 Oct 09
***By revealing the officers name is not pertinent to the case it may have been a comment stated in confidence and something as a Pastor she may not feel necessary to reveal.***
This doesn't make sense to me. If it was in confidence then why has she reported it to the press? His name is in the press release issued by the Christian Legal Centre.
***is it necessary to spell it out in court even at cost of the officers job.***
If the Church really cares about their right to worship (and apparently they do), then it shouldn't matter. If they think a council officer was basing his assessment on religious feelings, rather than noise issues, then I would imagine they would have good grounds for appeal.
***Secondly you seem to contradict yourself you said the information disclosing the officer was questioned in court, and then you comment that the information was released to the press after the appeal was lost ...where was the officers name or any information disclosed after the appeal?***
I don't see the contradiction. A vague claim was made in court about an officer's comments, and the WFG article says the pastor refused to comment further (ie give the officer's name or elaborate on what he said). Then after the court appeal was lost, the press release was issued by the Christian Legal Centre which gives the officer's name and states exactly what they allege he told them.
My point is that they appear to be making these allegations to the press and the public, rather than in an actual court where it could have helped their appeal.
***he seems to be an aggressive neighbour who does not want to compromise as well as falsifying information to make his case stronger.***
This comment is based from the article you pointed out by Christian Legal and I quote: -***
As I've already said, what they are telling everyone in their press release, and what they actually argued in court appear to be totally different.
Maybe he really was unreasonable and aggressive, I don't know, but do they have any evidence? The council certainly submitted evidence that the noise levels were unacceptable and they won the case. All of the Church's allegations seem to be to the press rather than to the court though, so I'm inclined to be skeptical of their claims.
***Secondly Mr Uddin complains that the music continues for 40 mins where it states the Church reduced it to 20 mins every sunday and even cancelled other weekly services. ***
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I took it to mean that the services were 40 mins, and have now been reduced to 20 minutes due to the noise order.
***Falsifying information can include trying to make the Church seem as if they are constantly making noise all day, everyday.***
This would be easily verifiable by the council, after all, they were the ones pushing for the noise order. And again, the council won the case so there was obviously a proven issue with the noise. You could also consider falsifying information to be making statements to the press that wouldn't hold up in court, in order to give the appearance that this is about a clash of religion, instead of being about a noisy neighbour.
Melwhite
says...
5:31pm Fri 9 Oct 09
Certainly I do believe that the Church should have stronger legal representation so as you rightly said if the officers are basing their opinions on religious beliefs rather than statutory noise controls it needs to be addressed. However the fact that the case was lost at Magistrate level is not a reflection that the Church in anyway has not addressed the abatement orders and tried to comply within the regulations. I believe that the case needs to be taken before a judge where legal rules and principles can be applied and if there is any type of discrimination it will be addressed. I also believe at a higher court mere statements will not be enough, the case law will come into play more.
Also I believe that we should not ignore the fact that this man bought a Vicarage which actually once belonged to the Church some years ago. The Council needs to take this into consideration. You cannot apply a standard noise level to this situation, as his property is adjoined to the church. Also don't you think that it is unusual that the other neighbours on the street have not come forward with complaints? According to the CLC article the church has spent thousands to soundproof the church...it seems not to be enough for Mr Uddin
***Secondly Mr Uddin complains that the music continues for 40 mins where it states the Church reduced it to 20 mins every sunday and even cancelled other weekly services. ***
Mr. Uddin not only complains about the music that is played but also he complains about hearing the sermon which is mere talking to a congregation. So that means a session of of music is reduced from 40 mins to 20 mins, excluding all musical accompaniment....and the pastor has to whisper to her congregation of 100 or less.
Walthamstow noob, Walthamstow says... You could also consider falsifying information to be making statements to the press that wouldn't hold up in court, in order to give the appearance that this is about a clash of religion.
You have to ask yourself what gain does the Church have in falsifying information on the basis of a religious clash. Why would they spend thousands on soundproofing and improvements according to the Councils recommendations, only to drop a statement about religion on the offset it will help their case. After all they are just fighting for the right to have a normal church Service like every religious institution in the UK.
This is a situation that could have resolved by both Mr. Uddin and the Church sitting down and discussing how they can accommodate each other. It looks like the Church has taken all measures to do this.
Muslim, Christian, Athiest, ...whatever religious belief if they were to reside in the property Mr. Uddin is in now...there is no way you can avoid the substantial amount of noise from a Church....he was just not thinking if you ask me.
Walthamstow noob
says...
8:24pm Fri 9 Oct 09
***Also I believe that we should not ignore the fact that this man bought a Vicarage which actually once belonged to the Church some years ago. The Council needs to take this into consideration. You cannot apply a standard noise level to this situation, as his property is adjoined to the church.***
Others have made this point too, and even if you agree that he was foolish to buy the property (he himself has indicated he regrets it), is it right for his daughter to suffer for it? Isn't there a saying about the sins of the father? It doesn't seem very 'Christian' to me to disturb a child's sleep with amplified sermons and drums, especially once you've been made aware of the issue.
***You have to ask yourself what gain does the Church have in falsifying information on the basis of a religious clash. Why would they spend thousands on soundproofing and improvements according to the Councils recommendations, only to drop a statement about religion on the offset it will help their case.***
It seems to me like sour grapes, they lost the case and are hurting in more ways than one because of it. As is often the case with many religions, they then cry persecution. This case has been all over the papers and I've seen the comments sections of some of these articles, and there is a lot of hostility towards Mr Uddin based on the fact that he's a Muslim. That fact has been primarily brought up by....the Church! They are the ones pushing the idea that they've been silenced to appease 'the Muslims'.
***This is a situation that could have resolved by both Mr. Uddin and the Church sitting down and discussing how they can accommodate each other. It looks like the Church has taken all measures to do this.***
I agree, it probably could have been settled amicably but I think there's more to it on both sides. The Church said it took all measures and yet according to the Council's prosecutor:
“However, officers visited on numerous occasions and tried to work with the church. I believe the council has been more than reasonable in this instance.”
Melwhite
says...
10:48pm Fri 9 Oct 09
"It doesn't seem very 'Christian' to me to disturb a child's sleep with amplified sermons and drums, especially once you've been made aware of the issue."
It is to my understanding that the Church has reduced all amplified sounds hence my point a reduced session of music. Secondly the Church Service starts at 11.00am, I am speculating that most children are not asleep at this time on a Sunday Morning and I believe it is not very "Muslim" to attack another religion by shouting or threatening them during their time of worship. We have all have regrets and sometimes you have to live with the consequences but not try to attack another for Your mistake.
"It seems to me like sour grapes, they lost the case and are hurting in more ways than one because of it."
I disagree with your statement I believe the media is contributory to making this case more hype and also we should point out it was the officer himself that made the statement re disturbing the Muslim community not the Church...they just quoted....and obviously he is not going to admit to it when interrogated.
"a lot of hostility towards Mr Uddin based on the fact that he's a Muslim." Whether the word Muslim was said or not...unfortunately his name speaks volumes and people who may not necessarily be religious are commenting as they are passionate to the belief that the institution of a Church is to be respected. If Mr. Uddin wants to defend the right to have peace in his property and then he has to suck up the hostility that comes with it....
After all how many individuals have had to suffer the call to prayer that are called by a Mosque, the traffic and the noise....
The Council have been less than reasonable What is evaluated at "excessive noise". What equipments are used to measure them? Have your read any of the officers reports on the visits and how they evaluated the noise from Mr. Uddin's house and inside the Church?
My question still remains....where are the complaints from the other neighbours? That in itself is suspicious...and how come several neighbours attended court in support of the Church and not one neigbour supported Mr. Uddins claim???
This seems like a one mans fight against a Church which compromises of the community which are his own neighbours.....
faro0485
says...
5:23pm Sat 10 Oct 09
Adamblack
says...
6:17pm Sat 10 Oct 09
In this regard, prophet Mohammad ordered his fellow Muslims to salute others Muslims or non-Muslims with peace when he said: "Peace Before Speech"
Mr Uddin has not shown ant signs of peace, but aggression, uncompromise.
"If only this church had made more monks and scribes/scholars rather than night club fanatics." We are in the 21st century...what are you talking about monks and scribes.....?...and lets not even go there about fanatics in religion...you are taking it to a level I don't think you want to go.
Mr Uddin does not need a verse in the Quaran to tell him if you buy a vicarage adjoined to a church...you will expect noise...period....Th
e housing market is getting better...its a good time for him to move and save himself and his family the "hostility and embarassment" the media and the public are giving him.
He was better off just compromising with the church...because I cant imagine that once a week is that bad...also he said in court he works away from home and he is at home 2 sundays in a month......go figure...
Morris Hickey
says...
7:48pm Sat 10 Oct 09
Gossop wrote:No - for defending free speech, something in which you evidently do not believe.
Morris Hickey wrote: I just wonder what the council would have done, if anything, had it been a complaint about noise coming from a non-Chistian place of worship? Probably arranged classes in racial tolerance for the complainants.Another stupid comment from you, Morris Hickey. Can you ever give a constructive argument about anything? Why are you speculating about a matter that did not take place and hypothesising. Make a comment, but please stop being a Clever Dickey all the time. Are you still in politics or did they throw you out for being monotonous?
Ashiq
says...
11:31pm Mon 12 Oct 09
Also why has no one questioned why a council official has supposedly claimed that this is something that is being done to placate "the Muslim community" when the reality is that it is one individual who has complained? Perhaps it is the individual and the Pastor who are trying to stir up things?
PS someone made a statement about why the guy should be complaining about his childs sleep being disturbed at 11 on a sunday as they are awake at that time. I'm afraid that you have missed the point. The article said that his child is one year old. Children do have a tendency to sleep during the day as well.
hans moleman
says...
8:23pm Tue 13 Oct 09
Melwhite
says...
7:45pm Wed 14 Oct 09
Mr. Uddin has called the council on the church even when they are not playing music according to congregation members, complained about church signage and other ridiculous things. I can't wait till this case goes to a higher court because there is a lot more about Mr. Uddin and his behaviour that the public does not know about.
Church pastor Dunni Odetoyinbo
Baha Uddin, who complained about noise coming from the church next door
Immanuel International Christian Centre
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
GoldGold says...
5:55pm Wed 7 Oct 09
Regards,
http://www.goldcoins
gain.com