
EXCLUSIVE The DEATH of fun! Fury as NIMBY neighbours force council to close public basketball court for 'mad' reason after similar militant locals BAN weddings and drinking near their homes
The latest madness? A public basketball court, a lifeline for teens in the town of Walmer, Kent - has been shut down because neighbours complained it was 'too noisy'.
The town council also added that unlocking and locking the area was costing £1,200 a year, which it described as not being cost-effective for taxpayers'.
This isn't an isolated incident. Across the country, similar stories are cropping up with alarming regularity.
In Wiltshire the council refused to allow a stunning country home, Euridge Manor, an application to hold events because of complaints from locals that it would be 'like having a disco in the back garden'.
Similarly an iconic gay London nightclub, G-A-Y, has been put on the market after its owner said strict licensing conditions and NIMBYs contributed to the area 'losing its queer identity'.
NIMBYs even tried to block the conversion of a local property in Brandlesholme into a children's home as it will be 'detrimental to others living in the area'.
So MailOnline has found some some of the most ridiculous examples of residents getting their way at all costs.
A town council has sparked fury by closing a tiny basketball court in a seaside town after complaints teenagers have been making too much noise.
Angry locals now fear the teenagers who used the area will 'cause chaos' in the town of Deal in Kent.
Walmer Town Council has closed the multi-use games area (Muga) after some locals complained about noise coming from youths playing late at night.
But residents nearby described the decision as 'really sad' and 'upsetting'.
The town council said unlocking and locking the area was costing £1,200 a year, which it described as not being cost-effective for taxpayers'.
Some locals said they wanted to see action taken against youths making noise late at night but believe a total closure is 'madness'.
Dianne Begg, 77, who lives opposite, said a total closure had caused her upset.
She said: 'The noise at times could be annoying. Especially late at night when the ball hit the fence, it was bang, bang, bang.
'It could be frightening. But I am shocked to hear they have closed it all together. What use will that do? They'll have nowhere to go. It's not a good idea.'
Martyn O'Connor, 56, who has lived in the area for ten years, said the decision was 'madness'.
The plumber said: 'I can't believe they've done that. It's foolish. It's madness. There was some noise every so often. But don't move into a house opposite a sports field if you don't want to hear noise. What do people expect? It's literally ten metres away.
'Go and live in the middle of nowhere if you don't want some noise. Closing it is very foolish. There's no benefit. You'll just have youths playing on the streets and hanging around rather than doing something active.
'Walmer isn't exactly full of wonderful things to do or tourist attractions. This at least gave the kids a purpose and it's an activity. To close it is a very backward decision.'
But Kevin Gordon, 62, said the noise was 'hellish'. He said: 'I live opposite and it's a real pain. It does my head in.
'I can't get sleep because often they're playing at 10 and 11pm. It's a nightmare. It's frightening.
'It sounds like they'll be coming through the front door. They've hit my windows before, I feared they would smash.'
Another local said: 'The people complaining have got nothing better to do. In Britain, in 2025 right now, there are far more serious and pressing matters to deal with.'
WTC started a consultation on the future of the Muga in July 2024.
They say this showed that only a small number of people were using the facility.
Councilor Mike Eddy said: 'We have had complaints about the noise. Discussions are now ongoing about the future.'
Walmer council leader Trevor Bond said he was assessing the concerns of locals.
A spokesman for the council said: 'The decision was taken based on a few factors.
'We ran a survey on the usage of the Muga and found that only a minimal number of people were using the facility.
'When this was combined with the cost of opening the facility, members felt that this was no longer a cost-effective usage of the taxpayers' money.
'Walmer Town Council received regular complaints about the noise from the facility from the neighbours about the facility.
'Another factor the council took into account was that down the road there has been significant investment in the facilities at both Victoria Park and Marke Wood.
The Muga will remain locked and unused by the public for the foreseeable future, and there are no plans to demolish the site.
No parties
And Walmer locals are not the only ones waging war on their local area.
Soho has always been the life of the party for London's cocktail sippers and club-goers but not one one street.
In the heart of central London, the lights have gone out in one of the capital's most well-loved clubs.
The iconic gay nightclub has been forced to sell up after its owner said strict licensing conditions and NIMBYs contributed to the area 'losing its queer identity'.
G-A-Y nightclub in Soho was listed for sale in January by its owner Jeremy Joseph, who expressed his 'sadness' and disappointment at Soho 'losing its vibrancy'.
Mr Joseph, 58, also took aim at 'anyone with power' and said they did not care about the hospitality sector or LGBT venues which has left Old Compton Street - where the club is situated - no longer feeling like 'the gayest'.
The club, which spans 4,600 sq ft over its vast three floors is available now for a price of £410,000 per year which has been backdated from October 2024 to October 2044.
The agreement means whoever purchases the lease will pay more than £8 million to own the property in roughly two decades time.
The move to list the club for sale comes just two months after G-A-Y's sister venue, Heaven, was temporarily closed due to an alleged rape of a female by a male bouncer.
'This isn't an easy decision, to me this is more than just a bar,' Mr Joseph's Instagram statement read.
PIctured is the statement by G-A-Y's owner, posted on Instagram announcing the sale
The 58-year-old went on to take aim at The Soho Society, the police and environmental authorities after when describing how his plans to extend G-A-Y's drinks license to 3am led him fighting an 'uphill battle'.
In November 2023, Mr Joseph was forced to close G-A-Y Late, which held a license until 4am due to safety fears, and his moves to get it back he said, were blocked immediately.
'The Soho Society is the most damaging organisation to the hospitality industry,' he told MailOnline.
'As soon as you apply for a later license in Westminster, everyone objects. If you look at any way to improve your business whatsoever, they will slam the door in your face.
'Even the Mayor saying London is a 24-hour city is nonsense, there is no appetite for late venues.
'This is the worst I've seen the industry, and it's getting worse and worse'.
Care homes are banned
From clubs to care homes, cold-hearted locals have ignored the desperate plea for safe and loving homes for children in care and blocked the building of a new carehome.
More than 100 residents blasted plans for a three-bedroom children's home in a semi-detached house because it will look like a 'prison' and kids will play loudly in the park.
Bury Council's planning committee met in February to decide if Orchid Care Limited, a children's residential care business, could change the use of the property on Rudgwick Drive, Brandlesholme, so three children aged seven to 18 with no home can stay there.
Neighbours said proposals to convert the property on a quiet residential street would be detrimental to others living in the area.
One heartbroken local is planning to sell her 'forever home' if plans to change the use of the house are approved.
The mother-of-one said: 'There are very few teenagers living on the street to make friends with so they will soon become bored.
'There is nothing for them to do in the area other than hang around the park. I'd hate for that to be a no-go area.
'If the plans are approved I am going to move. I am selling up. It will be heartbreaking because I thought this would be my forever home.'
Another resident said they have worked hard and deserve to enjoy their retirement in peace.
'We have worked hard all our lives to pay to own our home in a lovely residential area,' they said.
'We want to enjoy our retirement in peace.
'We expected the house to be bought by a family so it was a bit of a shock to discover it was bought by a business.
'They have another care home not too far from here and we have been told there has been a lot of trouble with noise and anti-social behaviour. The police are having to go there regularly, which we find rather worrying and are concerned it could happen here.
'There is a little bit of NIMBY element to this but we are protective of our homes and lifestyles.
'However, we really do feel there are more suitable areas for a children's home.
'There is nothing for them to do around here. The town centre isn't really in walking distance and there aren't any other amenities to keep them entertained.
'I fear that if they become bored, that's when trouble may start.
'There is a park close by and it's nice to see families playing on there but if teenagers are hanging around they might be put off playing there.
'We are also concerned the staff employed won't be properly trained to care for the children.'
Wedding bells silenced
While wedding bells are often a cause for celebration but not for one royal couple.
Instead of wishing the happy couples a long-lasting marriage King Charles joined the army of nuptial NIMBYs to block the creation of a wedding venue near Queen Camilla's home.
The sale of a £3million house next to Camilla's Wiltshire country retreat created fears that it could become a rowdy wedding venue.
Royal sources told the Mail last month that a proposal to sell The Old Mill next door and turn it into a wedding venue caused the Queen 'great anxiety', leading Charles to intervene at the eleventh hour to block the sale and buy the property with private funds.
A source familiar with the plans said: 'Think of it – dozens of wedding guests carousing every weekend just the other side of her fence.'
The King and Queen are far from being alone in their concerns over the raucous scenes that weddings can bring - even when they are being hosted at opulent stately homes.
MailOnline has spoken to residents on the frontlines of the war between locals and wedding venues to find out just how bad it's become.
Locals say Euridge Manor hosts two huge weddings each week - even though his application to hold the events has been at the centre of controversy.
It retrospectively applied for planning permission to hold events in 2021, which the council denied. An enforcement notice was then served in August 2022, prompting an appeal by Euridge Manor.
A second planning application was then made in September 2022 that also included plans for a new access road. It went over the statutory period for determination, leaving it undecided.
That has now also been appealed alongside the enforcement notice.
Euridge Manor say the matter has been the subject of a 10 day inquiry and a decision from an independent planning officer is likely within a couple of months.
His fed-up neighbours, many of whom expressed their objections to his lucrative wedding business, are on tenterhooks as they too await the outcome of his barrister-led appeal.
They have complained about the noise and obscene language emanating from the venue and the extra traffic the weddings generate along the narrow country lanes surrounding the property.
One local told MailOnline this week it was 'like having a disco in the back garden'.
Cyclists say they have been knocked off their bikes by wedding guests hurtling along the winding lanes nearby and horse riders complain the vehicles pass too close to their animals.
One resident who lives on the opposite side of the valley to Euridge Manor said the noise from the weddings is 'intolerable'.
She said: 'We have to listen to the speeches and all the swearing those speeches often contain.
In one particular instance, a best man was giving his speech through the public address system on a microphone and shouted 'W****r, W****r, W****r' at the top of his voice. A lot of children live round here and they are being subjected to some awful language.
'They say they are putting on so-called society weddings, but they sound like an uncouth lot to me, if the swearing is anything to go by.
'Then, when the music starts up, it's like having a disco in the back garden. The noise carries across the valley and seems to amplify it. It's like the acoustic effect of an amphitheatre.
'This used to be such a lovely place to live but since he started up with his weddings, life around here has become a nightmare. Many locals are considering selling up and leaving the area if he wins his appeal.
'And if he loses his appeal, what about the people who've booked weddings there in the months ahead? They'll have to cancel their plans and find somewhere else. That would be very stressful.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Testing elderly drivers' eyesight won't make our roads much safer – but this might…
Almost exactly 60 years ago, the British government – a Labour one, as it happens – announced that it was introducing a blood alcohol limit for drivers. Although driving ' under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle', which is pretty lax, had been unlawful for some decades, that the bar had to be raised (pun intended) because of the rising numbers of booze-related incidents. There was outrage at this attack on the liberties of free-born Britons to drive their Morris Oxford into a tree, or worse, after an evening at the Old Horse, and particularly so because the new breathalyser was being introduced by 'a lady minister of transport', as Barbara Castle was regarded at the time, and she hadn't even passed her driving test. 'Women's lib' suffered significant collateral damage. All went well, though. Drivers were more sober, and huge advances in car safety cut the casualty figures (82 per cent of alcohol-related casualties are inside the car). But the past four years have seen a reversal in the encouraging post-1960s trend, and have seen a marked increase. So the government has rightly decided to look again at the drink-driving limit – and reduce it from 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath to 22 micrograms, bringing England into line with Scotland. They also propose compulsory eye tests for people over the age of 70 every three years. This is necessary if only because of the demographics – there are just going to be more and more folk on the roads who, well, aren't quite as sharp in all sorts of ways as they used to be, and you don't want the likes of the fictional Mr Magoo coming at you in the wrong direction on the motorway. The flaw in all these excellent proposals from Mrs Castle's successor, Heidi Alexander (who does drive), doesn't lie in their merit or stringency but, as ever in road safety, with enforcement. While speeding and really reckless driving on the motorways can be picked up – and deterred – by speed cameras, it's not obvious how people over the limit or with dreadful eyesight can be detected on some dark rural lane. It is an unfortunate fact that the chances of getting caught drink-driving, provided you don't hit someone or something, are fairly low. This, obviously, means that lower limits and severe penalties are no use if there are no patrol cars out there to bring you to book. The same goes for driving with poor eyesight. The answer, as with so much in motoring, lies with the technology in your car. Anyone who's driven one recently will notice the plethora of bings, pings and bongs the car will make if you exceed the speed limit, wander out of your lane, or drive too close to the car in front, which have been mandated under EU rules that the car manufacturers can't be bothered to disable for UK-market models. They're – usually – not that intrusive and surely help us drive more safely. Some cars even detect, from watching your eyes and head and measuring the journey time, if you are actually getting a bit snoozy and ought to have a break. The same sort of approach should be taken to drink-driving – so the car won't move unless its driver is legally sober. Easy to cheat with a passenger? Well, not if they've been on a session as well, and if they're sober they ought to be driving, after all. There is always a risk that any system can be cheated, but it's hassle and means you can't plead you made some sort of innocent mistake. There's quite a bit of research into the 'Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS)', as it's cosily known, and Volvo offers 'alcohol lock software' as an option in some of their models (but sadly not in Britain). Of course, one day, if Elon Musk is right, no one – drunk or sober – will need to 'drive' anyway in the new fully autonomous vehicles, which will be very good news for all those country pubs that find the current drink-drive regime restricts their clientele. A boozy night out at the Old Horse and getting home in the car may soon be – safe – a reality once again. Show me the way to go home…


Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Data centre developers hand cash to Labour in ‘Yimby' charm offensive
The developer behind one of Europe's biggest data centres has donated tens of thousands of pounds to Labour amid a race to get more properties built across Britain. DC01, a property developer that is seeking to build a £3.75bn data centre in Hertfordshire, gave £20,000 to the Labour Growth Group, which includes dozens of Labour MPs, in May, according to Electoral Commission records. The property company sponsored a reception at the De Vere Grand Connaught Rooms in Covent Garden for Labour MPs in June that was attended by senior ministers, including Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary. At the dinner, Mr Kyle spoke of the 'essential role data infrastructure will play in delivering the UK's technology ambitions', DC01 said in a LinkedIn post. Another property company owned by London-listed developer Tritax Big Box gave £25,000 to a Labour pressure group called Labour Yimby – or ' yes in my back yard ' – in June. Labour Yimby calls itself a 'grassroots pro-housing, pro-growth movement' largely made up of Labour councillors. Tritax Big Box manages billions of pounds in properties for logistics and warehousing, but has increasingly pitched its facilities as 'compelling data centre opportunities'. New planning applications The donations come amid deepening ties between Labour, developers and the technology sector as the Government seeks to boost investment in Britain, at a time when interest in artificial intelligence (AI) is booming. Labour ministers have sought to smooth over planning rules to make it easier for data centres to be built on the green belt in so-called 'grey belt' areas. Multiple new data centre applications have been waved through, despite concerns from residents and in some cases objections from local councils. It follows concerns that a glut of new data centres could ramp up the UK's emissions. Data centres for AI require racks of thousands of powerful and power-hungry computer processors. In September, the Government tweaked planning rules to classify data centres as projects critical to national security, which can help bypass planning roadblocks. Announcing the measures, Mr Kyle also hailed DC01's data centre plans as a 'vote of confidence' in Labour's approach. DC01 received outline planning permission from Hertfordshire County Council in January for its 2m sq ft facility near South Mimms. It still requires full planning permission for the project. It is not clear who funds DC01 or who its ultimate customer will be. If the project goes ahead, it could secure a deal with a technology giant such as Amazon or Microsoft. DC01 has said its project will create 200 permanent jobs and 500 construction roles. Labour Growth Group declined to comment.
.jpeg%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)

The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action demonstrators should not be prosecuted for placards
The demonstrations in support of Palestine Action were an inspired piece of public relations by that organisation, but we should not be taken in. The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as including action involving ' serious damage to property ' in support of a political objective. This definition is in line with international norms and seems entirely appropriate. By that test, Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation. It is dedicated to committing criminal damage against public and private property in protest against Israel's actions in Gaza and Britain's alleged involvement in it. It had vandalised property over on a number of occasions even before the breaking at RAF Brize Norton. Criminal damage is not a legitimate form of protest. Supporting the Palestinian cause and supporting Palestine Action are two quite separate things. Supporting the Palestinian cause is a natural reaction to the appalling scenes of destruction, deliberate starvation and indiscriminate killing by the Israeli army in Gaza. Demonstrating against that is a legitimate form of protest. Support for Palestine Action is something different. It means not just supporting the Palestinian cause but supporting a method of protest which is violent and criminal. One can express one's disgust at Israel's conduct in Gaza without adopting Palestine Action's methods. The Terrorism Act creates an offence of supporting a proscribed organization. It precisely defines what acts amount to support. One of them is wearing, carrying or displaying an article giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person supports the proscribed organisation. This is far too wide. Merely indicating your support for a terrorist organisation without doing anything to assist or further its acts should not be a criminal offence and is not consistent with basic rights to free speech. It looks as if Palestine Action has deliberately courted trouble by encouraging people to carry placards with messages specially designed to commit the offence. Martyrdom sometimes has a political value. It was necessary for the home secretary to proscribe Palestine Action if she wished to disrupt its funding and discourage people from actively assisting its programme of violence. That is a reasonable political objective. Unfortunately, the home secretary cannot proscribe an organisation without also making it a criminal offence to carry placards supporting it. For the demonstrators the solution is simple enough. Oppose Israeli violence but do not support Palestine Action's violence. For the prosecuting authorities, there is also a simple solution. The director of prosecution's consent is required for any prosecution of those who have been arrested. Where a demonstrator acted peacefully, he would be wise not to authorise a prosecution. People courting martyrdom should not be indulged. In the longer term, the right course would be to amend the Terrorism Act so as to redefine in a more sensible way the offence of supporting a proscribed organisation.