Croft under threat
Discussion
Croft court case
I can see this having far reaching effects on us sadly... This bit particularly:
"Their objection was not to car and motorbike racing events, which take place on the track on about 50 days a year, but to vehicle testing days and track days, when members of the public drive cars around the track at high speed."
I expect that this is because this is a relatively new industry and they wouldn't have a leg to stand on going after racing events that had been held before they moved there.
To me though that's just bulls
t. You moved next to an active racing circuit, honestly WTF did you expect?! It's like the airport expanding down south, the sad thing there is that there's nothing in it for anyone but us so it wont get Government backing.
It makes me mad that I'm potentially losing my hobby, I suppose it's a good thing that I've started doing Euro days on nice sensible circuits with no noise limits, in countries where they don't think car enthusiasts are the spawn of Satan.
It's certainly another nail in the coffin though. First the airfields, now they're going after the circuits.
I can see this having far reaching effects on us sadly... This bit particularly:
"Their objection was not to car and motorbike racing events, which take place on the track on about 50 days a year, but to vehicle testing days and track days, when members of the public drive cars around the track at high speed."
I expect that this is because this is a relatively new industry and they wouldn't have a leg to stand on going after racing events that had been held before they moved there.
To me though that's just bulls
t. You moved next to an active racing circuit, honestly WTF did you expect?! It's like the airport expanding down south, the sad thing there is that there's nothing in it for anyone but us so it wont get Government backing.It makes me mad that I'm potentially losing my hobby, I suppose it's a good thing that I've started doing Euro days on nice sensible circuits with no noise limits, in countries where they don't think car enthusiasts are the spawn of Satan.
It's certainly another nail in the coffin though. First the airfields, now they're going after the circuits.
It gets even more interesting when you find out that one of the NIMBYs used to be married to the chap that owned the circuit... No complaints then I suspect.
last case transcript
last case transcript
Stuff like this makes my blood boil!! How fking stupid can you be moving near a racing circuit then complaining about noise, I dont understand how people dont check these things in the first place. I also dont see why the courts always side with the public, ignoring the fact that the circuit was there first!
king stupid can you be moving near a racing circuit then complaining about noise, I dont understand how people dont check these things in the first place. I also dont see why the courts always side with the public, ignoring the fact that the circuit was there first!
the people complaining are complaining about the INCREASE in days used at the track - what i still dont understand is why they moaners are taking croft to court - if they had broken the rules fine - but if they are staying within the councils guidelines why take croft to court? surely the council is not setting the 'acceptable' guidelines?
ps the woman and her husband moaning was married to the ex owner of croft circuit - they built a hotel next to the site where she now lives with her ex - in 1990 - they split up she kept the hotel - now remarried and changed hotel to a house - the circuit was already there then with planning permission but as we know for a certain amount of days running with certain amount of noise levels with different licences as required..
what i can understand is why compalin after she was awarded in the past 150,000 damages which she accepted?
ps the woman and her husband moaning was married to the ex owner of croft circuit - they built a hotel next to the site where she now lives with her ex - in 1990 - they split up she kept the hotel - now remarried and changed hotel to a house - the circuit was already there then with planning permission but as we know for a certain amount of days running with certain amount of noise levels with different licences as required..
what i can understand is why compalin after she was awarded in the past 150,000 damages which she accepted?
well this is a downer, if Croft closed the next closes proper circuits to me would be Oulton Park and Donington a good 2 1/5 hours away 
just joined the facebook group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=56260629746#... hopefully we'll beat this Bullst 
just joined the facebook group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=56260629746#... hopefully we'll beat this Bullst Edited by Cliffv8 on Sunday 18th January 17:57
Kozy said:
Wasn't there something in the news a few months ago basically stating that people couldn't do this? I.e. move next to something then complain about it?
There was a petition on the No.10 website about it, but it got the usual response to such; "piss off and let nanny get on with grownups business."man buys house A next to race circuit because its cheaper than other similar houses nearby, fails ot research circuit usage and is probably fed some bullst by estate agent desperate for sale. house prices rise exponentially around the country, house A rises in value accordingly. House market bombs, House A is devalued, Man blames circuit for loss of equity...
nothing to do with noise disturbance or traffic nuisance, but pure greed...
t by estate agent desperate for sale. house prices rise exponentially around the country, house A rises in value accordingly. House market bombs, House A is devalued, Man blames circuit for loss of equity...nothing to do with noise disturbance or traffic nuisance, but pure greed...
blackscooby said:
Anyone else notice that the date of the hearing was last year ?
Hearing dates: January 18, 21-25 2008
Oops I'd deleted my post so JuanSolo's post made no sense... put it back again
(Sorry JuanSolo)
S'alright, I'll delete mine, then you can delete yours and I'll delete this. Hearing dates: January 18, 21-25 2008
Oops I'd deleted my post so JuanSolo's post made no sense... put it back again
(Sorry JuanSolo)
Edited by juansolo on Monday 19th January 21:12
Croft Circuit loses noise appeal
11:24am Monday 26th January 2009
By Hannah Chapman »
A RACING circuit today lost its appeal against having to pay damages to a couple and their daughter who say their lives have been blighted by noise from the track.
Croft Circuit, near Darlington, were also hit with an injunction, restricting "noisy activities" at the track to just 40 days-a-year.
Derek and Julia Watson and their daughter, Jill Wilson, all live within about 300 metres of the circuit, in Dalton-on-Tees, and say their enjoyment of their homes has for years been gravely affected by the "loud, intrusive and repetitive noise".
In an extremely rare decision in April last year, High Court judge, Mr Justice Simon, ruled all three had been victims of "noise nuisance" and ordered the circuit's tenants - Croft Promo-Sport Ltd - to pay Mr and Mrs Watson £109,600 damages, and Mrs Wilson £40,000.
Croft Promo-Sport had its appeal against that order dismissed by judges today.
The company also faces massive legal costs bills. The Watsons and Mrs Wilson were represented by top QC, David Hart, and their legal costs bills alone have been put at around £700,000.
At London's Appeal Court, Croft Promo-Sport had argued that Mr Justice Simon was "plainly wrong" to rule in favour of the Watsons, who live at "Pond House", Vince Moor East, and their daughter, whose adjacent home is called "The Granary".
Richard Jones QC, for the company, argued that 1963 and 1988 planning permissions granted for the race track - formerly a World War 2 aerodrome and first used for racing in 1949 - had "changed the character" of the area to such an extent that the noise levels were reasonable.
He added that noise and other issues relating to the racetrack had been carefully considered by expert planning inspectors during two public inquiries and a balance struck between the interests of local residents and the public amenity value of the circuit.
The QC said the court decision would have serious implications for the future use of the racetrack and had left Croft Promo-Sport not only exposed to enormous legal costs bills, but also open to other potential claims by an "uncertain number" of other neighbouring landowners.
However, Appeal Court judge, Sir Andrew Morritt, today said he could find no legal flaw in Mr Justice Simon's conclusion that the Watsons and Mrs Wilson had suffered an "actionable nuisance".
Sir Andrew, sitting with Lord Justice Richards and Lady Justice Hallett, also ruled it was "illogical" of Mr Justice Simon to deny the trio an injunction, restricting the number of days to 40 on which "noisy activities" can take place at the racetrack.
Croft Promo-Sport were refused permission to appeal further to the House of Lords and ordered to pay more than £120,000 in legal costs straight away. That will be only a fraction of the total lawyers' bills faced by the company.
The objection by the Watsons and Ms Wilson was not to car and motorbike racing events, which take place on the track on about 45-50 days-a-year, but to "vehicle testing days" and "track days", when members of the public drive cars around the track all day long at high speed.
Croft Promo-Sport Ltd has a leasehold interest in the circuit, which is managed by Croft Classic and Historic Motor Sports Ltd (CCHM). CCHM was set up in 1994 by Mr Jimmy Wilson - who was married to Jill Wilson between 1987 and 1994 - along with Trevor Chaytor-Norris and his wife Katherine, who is the owner of the Croft Motor Circuit.
11:24am Monday 26th January 2009
By Hannah Chapman »
A RACING circuit today lost its appeal against having to pay damages to a couple and their daughter who say their lives have been blighted by noise from the track.
Croft Circuit, near Darlington, were also hit with an injunction, restricting "noisy activities" at the track to just 40 days-a-year.
Derek and Julia Watson and their daughter, Jill Wilson, all live within about 300 metres of the circuit, in Dalton-on-Tees, and say their enjoyment of their homes has for years been gravely affected by the "loud, intrusive and repetitive noise".
In an extremely rare decision in April last year, High Court judge, Mr Justice Simon, ruled all three had been victims of "noise nuisance" and ordered the circuit's tenants - Croft Promo-Sport Ltd - to pay Mr and Mrs Watson £109,600 damages, and Mrs Wilson £40,000.
Croft Promo-Sport had its appeal against that order dismissed by judges today.
The company also faces massive legal costs bills. The Watsons and Mrs Wilson were represented by top QC, David Hart, and their legal costs bills alone have been put at around £700,000.
At London's Appeal Court, Croft Promo-Sport had argued that Mr Justice Simon was "plainly wrong" to rule in favour of the Watsons, who live at "Pond House", Vince Moor East, and their daughter, whose adjacent home is called "The Granary".
Richard Jones QC, for the company, argued that 1963 and 1988 planning permissions granted for the race track - formerly a World War 2 aerodrome and first used for racing in 1949 - had "changed the character" of the area to such an extent that the noise levels were reasonable.
He added that noise and other issues relating to the racetrack had been carefully considered by expert planning inspectors during two public inquiries and a balance struck between the interests of local residents and the public amenity value of the circuit.
The QC said the court decision would have serious implications for the future use of the racetrack and had left Croft Promo-Sport not only exposed to enormous legal costs bills, but also open to other potential claims by an "uncertain number" of other neighbouring landowners.
However, Appeal Court judge, Sir Andrew Morritt, today said he could find no legal flaw in Mr Justice Simon's conclusion that the Watsons and Mrs Wilson had suffered an "actionable nuisance".
Sir Andrew, sitting with Lord Justice Richards and Lady Justice Hallett, also ruled it was "illogical" of Mr Justice Simon to deny the trio an injunction, restricting the number of days to 40 on which "noisy activities" can take place at the racetrack.
Croft Promo-Sport were refused permission to appeal further to the House of Lords and ordered to pay more than £120,000 in legal costs straight away. That will be only a fraction of the total lawyers' bills faced by the company.
The objection by the Watsons and Ms Wilson was not to car and motorbike racing events, which take place on the track on about 45-50 days-a-year, but to "vehicle testing days" and "track days", when members of the public drive cars around the track all day long at high speed.
Croft Promo-Sport Ltd has a leasehold interest in the circuit, which is managed by Croft Classic and Historic Motor Sports Ltd (CCHM). CCHM was set up in 1994 by Mr Jimmy Wilson - who was married to Jill Wilson between 1987 and 1994 - along with Trevor Chaytor-Norris and his wife Katherine, who is the owner of the Croft Motor Circuit.
Gassing Station | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff