Amsterdam: sound of children playing not a valid reason for complaint, say experts
Residents in one of Europe's most densely populated cities who complain about the noise of children playing should be ignored, according to a sports advisory group which says outdoor activity is vital for their health.
In new outdoor play advice, Sportraad Amsterdam (Sports Council Amsterdam) says local bylaws should be changed so that the sound of children playing is no longer a valid reason for complaint by vexed neighbours.
'Especially in an urban environment like Amsterdam, the sound of playing children is a natural, desirable and unavoidable part of daily life. The municipality's communication needs to position the sound of playing children as a positive and healthy aspect of the city,' says the report by the independent advisory body.
Changing the legislation would 'help prevent unnecessary restrictions or the closure of playgrounds due to a few complaints', it added.
As the Netherlands aims to build almost 1m homes to address its housing crisis, bodies such as Sportraad Amsterdam are campaigning for authorities to factor in outdoor space for children to those plans.
According to city research, many in the Dutch capital already live in small, single-glazed houses without gardens. National figures suggest 38.5% of Dutch children aged four to 12 do not meet national guidelines of at least an hour a day of intensive movement.
Nick Romeijn, the general secretary of Sportraad Amsterdam, said: 'Public space is becoming ever more scarce, including outdoor playgrounds. Existing playgrounds are being used more, leading to complaints about noise pollution. As a result, politicians sometimes scale back or move playgrounds. But if in 15 years, we want to have a city where children are welcome, we have to make choices … And if you have [daytime] noise from a playground because children are playing, you need to embrace it.'
Amsterdam municipality welcomed the report and said it was working to address the concerns. Rob Hofland, a D66 party councillor who has proposed a new policy to stimulate rough-and-tumble play, said it was vital to give children play spaces. 'And yes, playing children make a noise,' he said. 'That is part of the city.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Russia is already at war with Britain and we can no longer rely on Trump, defence adviser warns
Britain is at war with Russia already, one of the authors of the government's strategic defence review has warned, while arguing that we can no longer depend on the US as a reliable ally. Dr Fiona Hill, who served as the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump 's first term in office, said the UK is in 'pretty big trouble', warning that the country is stuck between 'the rock' of Russia and the 'hard place' of an increasingly unreliable US under Mr Trump. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Dr Hill told the Guardian, concluding that 'Russia is at war with us'. Arguing that the Kremlin has been 'menacing the UK in various different ways' for years, she pointed to 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber-attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' Unveiling the SDR last week - authored by Dr Hill, Lord Robertson and General Sir Richard Barrons - defence secretary John Healey said Britain's army needed to become '10 times more lethal' in the face of the 'immediate and pressing threat" from Russia and the rise of China. 'We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence,' he told MPs. The review found that the armed forces are not ready to fight its opponents as a result of inadequate stockpiles of weapons, medical services that cannot cope with a mass-casualty conflict and a personnel 'crisis' that means only a small number of troops are ready to be deployed. Meanwhile, General Sir Richard Barrons, warned that a cruise missile was 'only 90 minutes away from the UK'. But Sir Keir Starmer vowed to make Britain "a battle-ready, armour-clad nation' as he unveiled the SDR at the Govan shipbuilding yard in Scotland, which included an army boosted to 100,000 personnel, 12 new submarines, drones and a rollout of Artificial Intelligence. But questions were raised over the government's big ambitions to make Britain 'safer and stronger' after Sir Keir refused to commit to spending 3 per cent of Britain's gross domestic product on defence by 2034 — which the review warned was essential to ensure the plans were affordable. Dr Hill, who was highly critical of the Trump administration, said Britain could no longer rely on the US's military umbrella as it did during the cold war, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. It comes after the SDR contained a similar warning, saying: 'The UK's longstanding assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain.' The defence adviser argued that the US president 'really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. Speaking about Mr Trump's White House, Dr Hill warned it is 'not an administration, it is a court', arguing that the president is driven primarily by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. Speaking about the rise of the populist right in the US, she expressed concerns it could do well in British electoral politics if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to grow in influence. Warning of the impact of Reform UK, she said: 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steelworks and coalmines.' Doge (the Department of Government Efficiency) is an initiative by the second Trump administration, which aims to cut wasteful spending.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
LGBT veterans will not lose other benefits after compensation
Veterans due to receive payments from the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme will not lose out on other benefits after a change to Scottish government has confirmed that 1,200 armed forces members who suffered under the ban on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) personnel have now applied to the UK government's payment ban was in place within the UK military from 1967 to 2000 and, after years of campaigning, the UK government announced the payments last December. Up to £75m has been set aside to acknowledge hurt and discrimination, with affected veterans able to receive awards of up to £70,000 each. Some veterans currently receive financial help, on a means-tested basis, through the council tax reduction scheme. But Finance Secretary Shona Robison said regulations would be now changed to ensure any compensation payments do not affect eligibility for Robison said: "As we mark 25 years since the lifting of the ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces, it is important to recognise the hardship that so many faced, with widespread homophobic bullying and harassment."Nothing will make up for the difficulties that LGBT veterans faced, however, our action will ensure those in Scotland receive every penny that they are entitled to."Under the UK government scheme, those who were dismissed or discharged from the armed forces because of their sexual orientation or gender identity could receive £50, service personnel who suffered harassment, intrusive investigations or even imprisonment could receive further payments of up to £20,000. Peter Gibson, chief executive of Fighting with Pride, said the group had "campaigned for justice for LGBTQ+ veterans for many years, helping to secure reparations and financial recognition of their horrendous treatment prior to 2000".He added: "As we slowly see the UK government deal with those financial payments, protected from benefit and taxation impact, it is wonderful to see the Scottish government taking action to ensure other benefits such as council tax benefit is also protected too."We continue to seek out veterans who were discharged or dismissed from the military to support them, and this news is one more step towards helping those in Scotland."
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Crystal Palace's European dream is at risk – it's time for football to wake up
Steve Parish 's face at Uefa this week probably said enough. He didn't need to repeat a view he has pressed on people in private - and now to Uefa executives in Nyon - that Crystal Palace are technically not part of a multi-club ownership. A very different interpretation may now cost his club a place in the Europa League, or perhaps European competition altogether. The challenge for the club this week has arguably been more complicated than beating Pep Guardiola's Manchester City in the FA Cup final. They have had to convince Uefa that John Textor does not have 'decisive influence' on the club. This is due to his 43 per cent stake in Palace, while he also holds 88 per cent of fellow Europa League qualifiers Lyon. That situation could fall foul of Uefa's rules that no one may be simultaneously involved in the management, administration or sporting performance of another club in the same competition. The rules evolved out of EU competition law, which is where the definition of 'decisive influence' is so important. In reality, as Textor himself insisted in Switzerland this week, everyone knows that is just not the level of control the US investor has. His 43 per cent equity only translates into 25 per cent of the votes, where it's basically known that co-owners Josh Harris and David Blitzer go with Parish, who has the casting ballot. Textor himself has publicly complained about this many times. That doesn't necessarily hold much weight, however, next to the legal documents that show his stake. It is quite a grim next chapter to one of the most romantic stories of the season, and yet the real tragedy is that this was one of modern football's inevitabilities. The sport is working against itself as a game, and a cultural value, due to its insistence on business. Palace fans themselves warned of this over a year ago, holding up a banner complaining about 'multi-club ownership', and directly criticising Textor. Parish, Blitzer and Harris might now regret leaving the situation unresolved for so long. This is still the kind of mess football was long headed for, because it is not governed properly, and has a lack of proactive regulation. Uefa's ongoing failure to deal with multi-club ownership is the most pressing illustration. And these situations are simply going to become increasingly more common. Current estimates suggest more than 400 clubs around the globe are involved in almost 150 multi-structures. Like state ownership, it was a problem that became embedded before football even realised it existed, let alone the need to address it. There is frustration even within Fifa about this specific issue, as detailed in this writers' book 'States of Play', with one source claiming 'everyone could see multi-clubs coming'. When some staff raised this, there was pushback. It really goes even deeper than that. Despite the club operating as the basic unit of football, due to its social importance, Fifa has never defined exactly what one is. That is one of many reasons that football has developed what is really an ownership problem, which has been discussed on these pages at length. A multi-faceted issue like multi-club ownership is a natural evolution from that. Football has long since been taken over by capitalist and political interests, so this was always going to the next level. The worst part is not just how the clubs are used. It is how their identities are subsumed. They are not just Strasbourg or Troyes anymore, after all, but Strasbourg and Troyes that serve bigger structures in Chelsea and City Football Group. And the model is almost always going to best serve the biggest club in those structures. Now, we reach the next stage of this, where a club's actual dreams might be denied. It should be a wake-up call for football, but will it be? A further problem is that multi-club ownership straddles so many of the game's major faultlines. Above anything, industry sources complain about the 'vagueness' of the enforcement of regulations around this. There's no legal framework in place. Some in football were already pointing to how 'this never happens to the big clubs'. Others have referenced how Parish worked with the Union of European Clubs, a body casting itself as a voice for those clubs not represented by the European Club Association. Paris Saint-Germain's Nasser Al-Khelaifi is, of course, the chair of the latter, who has been locked in a number of battles with Textor in France. It is ultimately galling that Palace may miss out because they didn't meet the March deadline to put the club in a blind trust, as Evangelos Marinakis did with Nottingham Forest to avoid a similar clash with his Olympiakos. On the other hand, Palace's oversight could just be cast as another consequence of the modern game. The wealthiest clubs almost always win, so why tempt fate - and potential schadenfreude - by opting for a blind trust as early as the FA Cup quarter-final? It would certainly have gone against the sense of romance and defiance. And while multiple lawyers and football officials might point to the absurdity of such a sentiment, it is surely all the more absurd that the situation even exists. There is still hope. Uefa might come down on Palace's side, given the pressure, given the sense of romance. Fans didn't want this. Only a certain type of investor wants it. Multi-club ownership goes against everything football should be, to the point it might somehow sour one of football's great modern stories. It's an almost fitting parable for the modern game.
