If the Night and Day is acting outside the terms of their license or agreed noise levels as is being alleged, then hopefully them sticking to the terms of their license and agreed noise levels should practically resolve it. If in fact they are operating within the terms of their license and agreed noise levels, the court should find in their favour and it'll all be sorted. If they can't operate within the terms of their license or agreed noise levels without going bust then I guess they aren't actually a viable business.
Night & Day: Manchester music venue sweating on noise court hearing outcome because of one posh resident
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
Except that lack of 'viability' has only come about by the trendy flats being built next door, long, long after they were already operating.
And here's where the problem lies:
‘It would be the death of culture’: Manchester’s Night & Day venue faces moment of truth
Court battle over noise complaint will decide future of famous music club, which has hosted Johnny Marr, the Charlatans, Arctic Monkeys and Ed Sheeran
Raheem
Well-Known Member
It is difficult to say what the solution should be without knowing every last detail tbh.
But I think there's a clue in the fact that the flats were originally let in 2002, and there wasn't a complaint until 2014. That's 12 years of people living there without a problem.
So what changed?
But I think there's a clue in the fact that the flats were originally let in 2002, and there wasn't a complaint until 2014. That's 12 years of people living there without a problem.
So what changed?
The complaint from the neighbours is that the night and day are operating outside their agreed noise levels late at night. Should all venues be able to play music as loud and late as they like if they think they need to to make ends meet?editor said:
there's reference to multiple complainants in some news stories, including the court report in the MEN from today. Many of the media reports on the story are basically just repeating the night and day's version of events, which is disputed.
twistedAM
Left Of The Dial
New occupant of the flat?
previous tenant was deaf?
Raheem
Well-Known Member
As mentioned above, there are three flats adjoining N&D.
twistedAM
Left Of The Dial
Have all three complained? I assumed it was one flat that complained. Apologies if wrong.
klang
klang
shame
I do think it too though tbf. The list of leaden indie bands who seem to have got their start there is not a list I'd use to demonstrate how vital a venue is to a city's music sceneshame
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
Makes no odds a new occupant has the same rights to peace and quiet as someone who predated the venue and the fact that only one has complained is enough. Nor is the number of people who have signed a petition relevant since they don't have to live next to it. How many bands got their start there is also not relevant. Other bands will have to get their start somewhere else if they can't get it there.
With killer b on this.
If the venue is not breaking the terms of its license then the complainant should stop complaining.
If they are breaking the terms then they should abide by them.
If they can't without going bust then they should go bust.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
He probably could sell it. After all some Muppet bought it in the first place.
twistedAM
Left Of The Dial
So someone can move in next to a nightlife business and try it get it closed down?
Out of interest does anyone know if it is rented accommodation or someone purchased it?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
A Muppet moved in.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
Yes they can and it doesn't matter whether its rented or bought.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Sorry that's ridiculous. So if someone complains about the noise after moving into a house next to Heathrow or the M25 then they should be shut down?
What about the Muppet townies that move to the country and complain about the smell. Should farms have to close as well?
If you want to live some where peaceful don't move next to a fucking music club.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
First house I looked at buying I was told by the solicitor I couldn't complain about the noise from the factory at the end of the street.
I'm sure the flat that's in all the newspapers this week because it's sound insulation is so poor you can clearly hear the music from the venue next door until 4 in the morning should be no problem to sell at all.He probably could sell it. After all some Muppet bought it in the first place.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
Presumably they were keeping to the terms of their license then or possibly the house was built with a covenant which may or may not be totally enforceable. Did you ask him why?
You'd be within your rights to complain if they started operating 24 hours without warning or permission having previously operated 9-5 tho
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
He probably could sell it. After all some Muppet bought it in the first place.
Not now - when selling it you've got to declare any disputes with neighbours over noise etc... And this, now it's splashed all over the internet, is unlikely to slip under the radar.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
No, but they might well be.
Originally, they were housing association flats designed for people on modest incomes, but with shared ownership options, so you could eventually own outright if you wanted to. It was slightly before you needed a lot of money to live somewhere like that. I would bet most of the original tenants did this and then sold, though, so that would make it social housing only historically. But idk, they might be one of the original tenants.
Not sure how much it affects the issues, though, except fairly cheaply in terms of perception.
Last edited:
WouldBe
Dislicksick
I was told it was because the factory was already there so I couldn't complain about something that should be obvious.
Same goes for those Muppets that buy a house next to a church then complain about the bells.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Yes you could but that doesn't appear to apply to the venue in question.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Noise should be obvious if moving next door to a music venue though. Property may appeal to music lovers or the deaf.
The complainant and the council claim the venue is operating outside it's agreed licensing terms and noise level agreements. Have you read the thread?
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
The council has presumably been round with their little meters and took measurements, they wouldn't have gone to all this trouble if they didn't think there was a problem.
Clearly the developer who did the flats has been a bit of a wide boy but that doesn't distract from the tenants rights.
Clearly the developer who did the flats has been a bit of a wide boy but that doesn't distract from the tenants rights.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Yes I have read the thread. I was responding to your comment about switching from 9-5 to 24 hour operation which the venue hasn't done.
I can't see that it's operating outside it's licensing terms if it previously had late night music previously or is the Muppet complaining about the occasional 5 min overrun?
Regardless planning permission shouldn't have been granted without substantial sound proofing to the flats.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
I would have thought that myself but it may not have all that obvious if he/she viewed it during the day. I presume the flat is one of those in the grey building next doorNoise should be obvious if moving next door to a music venue though. Property may appeal to music lovers or the deaf.
Similar threads
