A BID to introduce guidelines so that organisers of motocross events give more notice to nearby residents and businesses has been rejected by Forest of Dean councillors.

Cllr Nicky Packer (Green, Newnham) said guidelines would be based on those used by Stroud Council since 2007.

Introducing a motion to full council last week, she said: “No doubt motocross is an important activity in the lives of those who take part but it has a significant impact on residents living close by.

“The spirit of these suggested guidelines is to encourage co-operation of landowners and organisers with residents, local businesses and parish councils

“The aim of the proposal is to minimise the impact on residents without spoiling the enjoyment of those taking part in the sport.

“I see this motion as the beginning of a process that would, at least partially, resolve an issue that is important to residents and participants.”

Cllr Jamie Elsmore said that putting up barriers to events could cause other problems.

He said: “We’ve got to be very careful.

“If the engagement with event organisers is not constructive and our intention is to put up barriers trying to stop meetings from taking place, young kids will look at the Forest of Dean as a potential magic kingdom where they’ll take the law into their own hands.

“If the long-term vision is do away with motocross altogether that’s when you’re going to have conflict and not be able to work with organisers because they won’t trust the council.”

Cllr Simon Phelps (Ind, Westbury) said motorsport had been “a serious, contentious” issue in the ward which was only resolved when the events were moved to Monmouthshire.

He said the village still has problems with noise from events in Arlingham, which is part of Stroud Council’s area.

In summing up, Cllr Packer said: “It would give organisers professional advice from officers to encourage them to run organised events in a way that is as considerate as possible to residents.

“It is not seeking to stop events happening.

“This is a constructive attempt to try to resolve problems between people who want different outcomes.”

Councillors voted 16-8 against the motion with one abstention.