Campaign against Goverment laws on noise at circuits.

[mattsayle]

My friend has set up a site to save our circuits. I thought I would post it here.

(His words)

I have set up a project Save Our Circuits to help stop residents who move next door to a racing circuit and start complaining about the noise.

http://saveourcircuits.co.uk is the site where you can sign to support.

Sorry for the blatent site plug but i hope this message can get across to the councils and government (leaving politics out of course) for the good of the motor industry if theres plenty of support from every motorsport fan

[james28]

Signed
just hope it does some good

[blackscooby]

Signed.
Spoke with Croft today. Very shaky future indeed.

[appletonn]

Signed - those muppets make my blood boil!

[Dudd]

Signed.

Some people with their "i am right" attitude need to be put down a peg.

[Rill]

Signed.

Posted a link on three other sites as well.

Edited by Rill on Sunday 15th February 15:54

[gtdc]

blackscooby said:

Signed.
Spoke with Croft today. Very shaky future indeed.

That one's confusing me. I've now heard so many versions of what that case entailed but one common factor in each version is that the case related to a period before the current planning permission. Have also read that the planning permission for racing that dated from the 1960s had been superseded by a reversion to agricultural use and that’s why the claim succeeded.

Have also read that the plaintiff was the ex-wife and ex-in laws of the chap that re-started the circuit.


Melindi

[Jamz]

gtdc said:

blackscooby said:

Signed.
Spoke with Croft today. Very shaky future indeed.

That one's confusing me. I've now heard so many versions of what that case entailed but one common factor in each version is that the case related to a period before the current planning permission. Have also read that the planning permission for racing that dated from the 1960s had been superseded by a reversion to agricultural use and that’s why the claim succeeded.

Have also read that the plaintiff was the ex-wife and ex-in laws of the chap that re-started the circuit.


Melindi

You are correct there... The Ex-In Laws lived there from day 1, before the airfield was converted into a track... Then Husband and Wife got married, converted the airfield into a track (also lived next door to the track)... Divorce happend, Ex-Wife & Son moved back in with parents, and the Ex Husband (who now owns the circuit) still lives next door...

The whole arguement was because Croft wanted to put on more Public Events throughout the year... Ex-In Laws & Ex-Wife complained, which started this court case...

Now its over... final verdict was that Croft CANNOT put on any more public events... and is limited still by what they were allowed last year (40 Events IIRC)

[Cliffv8]

their limited to 40 "noisy" days, not events and most events are over 2 days

[Dr Imran T]

Jamz said:

gtdc said:

blackscooby said:

Signed.
Spoke with Croft today. Very shaky future indeed.

That one's confusing me. I've now heard so many versions of what that case entailed but one common factor in each version is that the case related to a period before the current planning permission. Have also read that the planning permission for racing that dated from the 1960s had been superseded by a reversion to agricultural use and that’s why the claim succeeded.

Have also read that the plaintiff was the ex-wife and ex-in laws of the chap that re-started the circuit.


Melindi

You are correct there... The Ex-In Laws lived there from day 1, before the airfield was converted into a track... Then Husband and Wife got married, converted the airfield into a track (also lived next door to the track)... Divorce happend, Ex-Wife & Son moved back in with parents, and the Ex Husband (who now owns the circuit) still lives next door...

The whole arguement was because Croft wanted to put on more Public Events throughout the year... Ex-In Laws & Ex-Wife complained, which started this court case...

Now its over... final verdict was that Croft CANNOT put on any more public events... and is limited still by what they were allowed last year (40 Events IIRC)

any more info? did Croft loose the court case then?

[gtdc]

Jamz said:

gtdc said:

blackscooby said:

Signed.
Spoke with Croft today. Very shaky future indeed.

That one's confusing me. I've now heard so many versions of what that case entailed but one common factor in each version is that the case related to a period before the current planning permission. Have also read that the planning permission for racing that dated from the 1960s had been superseded by a reversion to agricultural use and that’s why the claim succeeded.

Have also read that the plaintiff was the ex-wife and ex-in laws of the chap that re-started the circuit.


Melindi

You are correct there... The Ex-In Laws lived there from day 1, before the airfield was converted into a track... Then Husband and Wife got married, converted the airfield into a track (also lived next door to the track)... Divorce happend, Ex-Wife & Son moved back in with parents, and the Ex Husband (who now owns the circuit) still lives next door...

The whole arguement was because Croft wanted to put on more Public Events throughout the year... Ex-In Laws & Ex-Wife complained, which started this court case...

Now its over... final verdict was that Croft CANNOT put on any more public events... and is limited still by what they were allowed last year (40 Events IIRC)

If I'm thinking of the right people... didn't the ex wife actually work at the circuit?

Melindi

[madmatt1985]

signed.

"where else would we go? the public roads??" LOL. i for one go to track to stop doing such things on the road.