Track activity restricted after ONE complaint??
Discussion
I just came across this story:
http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/rac...
Does anyone know the full story? I can't quite believe that a venue that was operating perfectly within its limits has had those reduced after just one complaint? Or was there something else going on as well that isn't reported?
http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/rac...
Does anyone know the full story? I can't quite believe that a venue that was operating perfectly within its limits has had those reduced after just one complaint? Or was there something else going on as well that isn't reported?
If one household is prepared to bring a a civil nuisance claim then that could be sufficient.
What amazes me is that the lawyer and others are so surprised by the outcome. Coming to a nuisance has never been a defence and planning consent does not give anyone the ability to commit nuisance. There really isn't anything new in that, most of that is law degree law.
The issue is "what is a nuisance" and it looks like the Local Authority didn't consider it a nuisance or it would have been a LA prosecution rather than a civil nuisance case.
What amazes me is that the lawyer and others are so surprised by the outcome. Coming to a nuisance has never been a defence and planning consent does not give anyone the ability to commit nuisance. There really isn't anything new in that, most of that is law degree law.
The issue is "what is a nuisance" and it looks like the Local Authority didn't consider it a nuisance or it would have been a LA prosecution rather than a civil nuisance case.
The track isn't closed, still operating until further notice. It has it's biggest event of the year this weekend in fact.
The following is taken from snippets around the web and their website...
The road it is on is a dead end I believe, and can only be accessed from one end. The house in question is actually passed the stadium so the owners of the house would have to drive past the stadium (Which isn't exactly hidden, visible signage etc...) to get to the house - Something surely obvious when viewing the house?! The couple claim no knowledge of the track being there, but the estate agents say it was made clear to them.
April 2006, first complaint is made.
January 2009, a "sound barrier" (In reality it looks like a big fence) was installed to the cost of £70,000. This has since been used against the track/stadium as an admission of guilt that they do in fact produce to much noise.
In June 2010, there was suspected arson on their house. It didn't completely burn down but it has been inhabited ever since. The couple had not been living in the house for quite a few months before the attack. It was also subject to some previous vandalism as well.
February 2011 sees the High Court ruling in favour of the couple. Stadium should pay £20,000 in damages and is only allowed to run 12 events a year over a certain noise level on Sunday afternoons only. Unsurprisingly this is appealed and so the restrictions are frozen.
February 2012 and the case goes to the Court of Appeal. The ruling from the High Court over restrictions is overturned and the case recommended to go no further. The couple however, take it to the Supreme Court.
February 2014, the Supreme Court rules in favour of the couple and it is now down to the judge to decide on restrictions and costs - This will likely result in the stadium closing down.
A petition was ran to try save the track, this got over 14,000 signatures (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62894)
The stock car side website with the info on is here: http://www.rdcpromotions.com/ Scroll down to the bottom and there is a "Parliamentary Petition" page with all the information on (Which I used for the above).
The most ridiculous part of this? It is a stones throw away from RAF Mildenhall which has planes flying over which are far louder than the cars...
Ironically, with this year looking very uncertain it has got larger crowds (Creating more traffic) and larger car numbers (Creating more noise) than other years past.
TL;DR
Couple move into house near racetrack, try to get it shut down. 1 complaint beats 15,000 signatures saying no so it looks like crippling court costs will force it to close.
The following is taken from snippets around the web and their website...
The road it is on is a dead end I believe, and can only be accessed from one end. The house in question is actually passed the stadium so the owners of the house would have to drive past the stadium (Which isn't exactly hidden, visible signage etc...) to get to the house - Something surely obvious when viewing the house?! The couple claim no knowledge of the track being there, but the estate agents say it was made clear to them.
April 2006, first complaint is made.
January 2009, a "sound barrier" (In reality it looks like a big fence) was installed to the cost of £70,000. This has since been used against the track/stadium as an admission of guilt that they do in fact produce to much noise.
In June 2010, there was suspected arson on their house. It didn't completely burn down but it has been inhabited ever since. The couple had not been living in the house for quite a few months before the attack. It was also subject to some previous vandalism as well.
February 2011 sees the High Court ruling in favour of the couple. Stadium should pay £20,000 in damages and is only allowed to run 12 events a year over a certain noise level on Sunday afternoons only. Unsurprisingly this is appealed and so the restrictions are frozen.
February 2012 and the case goes to the Court of Appeal. The ruling from the High Court over restrictions is overturned and the case recommended to go no further. The couple however, take it to the Supreme Court.
February 2014, the Supreme Court rules in favour of the couple and it is now down to the judge to decide on restrictions and costs - This will likely result in the stadium closing down.
A petition was ran to try save the track, this got over 14,000 signatures (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62894)
The stock car side website with the info on is here: http://www.rdcpromotions.com/ Scroll down to the bottom and there is a "Parliamentary Petition" page with all the information on (Which I used for the above).
The most ridiculous part of this? It is a stones throw away from RAF Mildenhall which has planes flying over which are far louder than the cars...
Ironically, with this year looking very uncertain it has got larger crowds (Creating more traffic) and larger car numbers (Creating more noise) than other years past.
TL;DR
Couple move into house near racetrack, try to get it shut down. 1 complaint beats 15,000 signatures saying no so it looks like crippling court costs will force it to close.
rdjohn said:
1 complaint beats 15,000 signatures saying no, so it looks like crippling court costs will force it to close.
That's democracy for you!
It's not supposed to be democracy. It's law, not a vote. I bet those 15000 do not live next door to the stadium.That's democracy for you!
But I agree it is a shame that it has come to this.
radical78 said:
if the stadium gets closed the house goes up in value . thats always whats behind these complaints
I think that's a lot of it. But also people buy cheaper property in the belief that they can put up with the location (i.e. miles from anywhere, in a flood plain, near somewhere smelly or noisy etc) Sometime down the line it dawns on them that they have nothing to lose if they complain - rather than accept the reasons that they bought the property in the first place.
For some reasons issues with houses are often pursued with a religious like fervour and become the total focus of the house owners
They are appealing this absurd judgement to the House of Lords
http://mildenhalldogs.co.uk/news.php
Time to write your MP for a change in the law to halt this stupidity.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Whilst we would all like to be able to enjoy our hobbies to the full, I do think that the pretty reasonable requirements on circuits not creating excessive noise are understandable in a small overpopulated country. Many local circuits have to rigidly apply noise limitation to their activities. Curborough, near to me, really does try to prevent excessive noise and the club makes every effort to limit noise and nuisance. Thus far they have succeeded.
Whist I can understand that the proximity of the airfield to this circuit and the complainants is somewhat galling the question of whether excessive noise is being generated to the detriment of neighbours is an entirely separate issue. Clearly the Court thinks so. The appeal may be successful but at Castle Coombe for example there are effective restrictions on excessive noise because the club here are aware of the risk of any complaints.
In a crowded country like the UK, a compromise can sometimes assist in resolving such issues. In this case, like it or not, the Court clearly felt that the noise was excessive. The appeal may be successful. It may not. But disagreeing with the decision because you do not like it is most unlikely to result in a reversal of that decision. I hope the appeal is successful. I also hope every avenue of compromise has been exhausted and all reasonsle steps to reduce noise that can be effected had been effected.
Consequence of living in an overcrowded country I regret to say. Something that every leisure activity has be be aware of.
Whist I can understand that the proximity of the airfield to this circuit and the complainants is somewhat galling the question of whether excessive noise is being generated to the detriment of neighbours is an entirely separate issue. Clearly the Court thinks so. The appeal may be successful but at Castle Coombe for example there are effective restrictions on excessive noise because the club here are aware of the risk of any complaints.
In a crowded country like the UK, a compromise can sometimes assist in resolving such issues. In this case, like it or not, the Court clearly felt that the noise was excessive. The appeal may be successful. It may not. But disagreeing with the decision because you do not like it is most unlikely to result in a reversal of that decision. I hope the appeal is successful. I also hope every avenue of compromise has been exhausted and all reasonsle steps to reduce noise that can be effected had been effected.
Consequence of living in an overcrowded country I regret to say. Something that every leisure activity has be be aware of.
Steffan said:
Whilst we would all like to be able to enjoy our hobbies to the full, I do think that the pretty reasonable requirements on circuits not creating excessive noise are understandable in a small overpopulated country.
Totally agree but you are ignoring the fact that the Race Circuit was there before these people moved in.Andy 308GTB said:
Steffan said:
Whilst we would all like to be able to enjoy our hobbies to the full, I do think that the pretty reasonable requirements on circuits not creating excessive noise are understandable in a small overpopulated country.
Totally agree but you are ignoring the fact that the Race Circuit was there before these people moved in.Currently I think his position might be rather more soto voce. There have been several cases recently where nuisances have been stopped following complaints. I think that is why the circuit clubs are so tight on noise control nowadays. They want to continue in business. To do do they must, rightly in my view, take every step to minimise nuisance.
Coming to a nuisance is not a defence to the nuisance, hasn't been since eighteen hundred and something so the fact that the nuisance was already happening does not allow it to continue. You might think that's barking mad but that is very established law and trying to overturn that is a huge and very expensive ask.
Unless there is more to this than is published I really don't understand why they have fought this so long, all they are doing is setting higher level precedents that confirm the existing law.
Unless there is more to this than is published I really don't understand why they have fought this so long, all they are doing is setting higher level precedents that confirm the existing law.
Steffan said:
Andy 308GTB said:
Steffan said:
Whilst we would all like to be able to enjoy our hobbies to the full, I do think that the pretty reasonable requirements on circuits not creating excessive noise are understandable in a small overpopulated country.
Totally agree but you are ignoring the fact that the Race Circuit was there before these people moved in.Currently I think his position might be rather more soto voce. There have been several cases recently where nuisances have been stopped following complaints. I think that is why the circuit clubs are so tight on noise control nowadays. They want to continue in business. To do do they must, rightly in my view, take every step to minimise nuisance.
What gets most people wound up is that some home owners are trying to close race circuits in order to boost the value of their property. Sure, everyone has to be reasonable and I believe most race circuits understand their responsibilities. But every restriction placed on them makes the circuits less viable. Brands Hatch has done a lot to accommodate the nearby residents but I feel the residents are fighting a war of attrition.
Andy 308GTB said:
Steffan said:
Andy 308GTB said:
Steffan said:
Whilst we would all like to be able to enjoy our hobbies to the full, I do think that the pretty reasonable requirements on circuits not creating excessive noise are understandable in a small overpopulated country.
Totally agree but you are ignoring the fact that the Race Circuit was there before these people moved in.Currently I think his position might be rather more soto voce. There have been several cases recently where nuisances have been stopped following complaints. I think that is why the circuit clubs are so tight on noise control nowadays. They want to continue in business. To do do they must, rightly in my view, take every step to minimise nuisance.
What gets most people wound up is that some home owners are trying to close race circuits in order to boost the value of their property. Sure, everyone has to be reasonable and I believe most race circuits understand their responsibilities. But every restriction placed on them makes the circuits less viable. Brands Hatch has done a lot to accommodate the nearby residents but I feel the residents are fighting a war of attrition.
Andy 308GTB said:
radical78 said:
if the stadium gets closed the house goes up in value . thats always whats behind these complaints
I think that's a lot of it. But also people buy cheaper property in the belief that they can put up with the location (i.e. miles from anywhere, in a flood plain, near somewhere smelly or noisy etc) Sometime down the line it dawns on them that they have nothing to lose if they complain - rather than accept the reasons that they bought the property in the first place.
For some reasons issues with houses are often pursued with a religious like fervour and become the total focus of the house owners
Steffan said:
Relevant to this discussion I think: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28838...
Confirms to me that such actions are inevitable if venues disregard the rights of others. Small country big population requires individuals to act reasonably and fairly.
I was about to quote that too.Confirms to me that such actions are inevitable if venues disregard the rights of others. Small country big population requires individuals to act reasonably and fairly.
There is a good case to be had against developers who do not put enough soundproofing near noisy venues.
But the Government seem not to care too much about this.
Next up someone will complain about Brands Hatch...
mistakenplane said:
Steffan said:
Relevant to this discussion I think: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28838...
Confirms to me that such actions are inevitable if venues disregard the rights of others. Small country big population requires individuals to act reasonably and fairly.
I was about to quote that too.Confirms to me that such actions are inevitable if venues disregard the rights of others. Small country big population requires individuals to act reasonably and fairly.
There is a good case to be had against developers who do not put enough soundproofing near noisy venues.
But the Government seem not to care too much about this.
Next up someone will complain about Brands Hatch...
Currently an awful lot of track day participants moan constantly about the noise levels being reg idly enforced by many circuits. Not surprising when you understand the downside risk which really is no circuits except when literally miles from everywhere. Hence the tight noise level checks on many circuits. I cannot see this getting to be any less of a problem.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff