Ducati Sporting Club UK > General > Idle Chat > NIMBYS win @ croft

[Ray]

A local family have won compo of £150,000 for the noise nuisance caused.

The big winners are the lawyers...........£700,000 legal bill

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/new...acing_circuit/


How many others are gonna see this as easy money now?

Ray

.

[Monty]

Bad news mate-residents at Castle Combe have been trying to get the circuit closed for years-it needs fighting.
Apparently a new resident at Cadwell has complained about noise-can you think of a house anywhere NEAR Cadwell-I can't-but then noise travels doesn't it.

John

[skidlids]

Noise does travel but doesn't appear to affect the Heathrow area.
Residents living near circuits for the last ten years or so should be hearing lower noise levels since then as thats about the last major change that I can think of in ACU noise regs and those are getting policed more these days. If they have moved to live near a circuit since then , how can they say its spoiling there quality of life, it was there before they moved so the quallity of life in that area hasn't changed

One of the reasons I'm interested in seeing the 2009 ACU rule book is in case they change the allowed levels in their regs .

[batz748]

Originally Posted by skidlids

Noise does travel but doesn't appear to affect the Heathrow area.
Residents living near circuits for the last ten years or so should be hearing lower noise levels since then as thats about the last major change that I can think of in ACU noise regs and those are getting policed more these days. If they have moved to live near a circuit since then , how can they say its spoiling there quality of life, it was there before they moved so the quallity of life in that area hasn't changed

One of the reasons I'm interested in seeing the 2009 ACU rule book is in case they change the allowed levels in their regs .

Currently as the law stands it does not matter if you move to a nuisance - the law protects against nuisance from noise (except transportation noise - airplanes road noise etc). There is a case going through the courts at the moment where this principle is being challenged - lets hope its successful.

[antonye]

It's amazing what you can find with a bit of digging...

It doesn't appear to be quite that simple...
(apart from the fact that there aren't many other neighbours...)
http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/v3.0/?q=node/334
The couple bought the house in 1990, when the circuit was more-or-less
closed. It re-opened a few years later, and they've been in fairly
constant dispute since then - the 1998 limits on the number of days for
various noise levels came from a legal agreement with them. Somehow,
though, that didn't stop them buying the other house for their daughter
(the other claimant) in 2000 - coincidentally, the year that the circuit
saw most use...
Now, d'you think it's pure coincidence that that daughter was married to
the developer of both the circuit and those houses in the early '90s,
then underwent a messy divorce from him, BEFORE buying that house and
moving in...?

[Ray]

Yep,

I saw that after starting the thread, there was a link to the full judgement on the Northern Echo site as well in the comments on the article.

There is also a boundary dispute with the same family as well.

Looks like the circuit might becoming a football in a domestic and boundary dispute.

Ray.

[NBs996]

Originally Posted by batz748

Currently as the law stands it does not matter if you move to a nuisance - the law protects against nuisance from noise (except transportation noise - airplanes road noise etc).

Spent the afternoon reading the judges summary, I guess the same link that Ant put up, and it seems the judge disagrees with what you say batz... he seems to think there's no law on this, it's just down to the judges to decide.
The judge in this case seems to agree with the argument that if you 'move to' a nuisance then you've no right to complain about it. He goes on to say that it doesn't apply to the case made against Croft because the circuit had spent 40 years being used for just rally cross on (if I remember right) typically 20 days a year, and it was only after the claimants moved into the properties that the circuit use increased to in excess of 170 days. He therefore ruled that the nuisance was not evident before they moved in.

I see a lot of positives in the judges summary for race tracks all over the land:
- the judge seems to agree that if the nuisance is already there then you have no claim, he also cites another case where the claimant was unsuccessful because of 'moving to' the nuisance;
- The judge refused to apply any additional restrictions on the circuit use, and justified this by saying the circuit provided a safe and legal environment for people to enjoy the speed and noise of their vehicles;
- I think I remember reading that he also says systems such as motorways provide much more noise nuisance than a racetrack... which has got to be a favourable arguement for the likes of Brands Hatch, don't you think?

The way I read it... it's a financial loss for Croft circuit for sure, but on the whole there's a few precidents set within the judges summing up which can be used in favour of the circuits.

[twpd]

PPG24 (IIRC) and BS4142 are very clear on noise nuisance. I am involved at a professional level with these guidance notes and standards, but for anyone really interested go and look them up. They're easy to understand.

BS4142 deals with complaints arising from existing amenities/facilities. Batz is generally correct in what he says when it comes to the law protecting people from noise.

It does sound like the judge had a sensible head on, but I fear he might be slightly awry in his summing up if I understand NBs996's summary correctly.

If I remember I will dig out all the relevant info tomorrow.

[batz748]

Originally Posted by NBs996

.... and it seems the judge disagrees with what you say batz... he seems to think there's no law on this, it's just down to the judges to decide....

The way I read it... it's a financial loss for Croft circuit for sure, but on the whole there's a few precidents set within the judges summing up which can be used in favour of the circuits.

I was referring to law made by judges ie case law and as it stands the judge in a high court is obliged to follow precedents made in higher courts unless they can distinguish them on their facts. The case before him he obviously felt did not bring new arguments and so he was obliged to follow existing precedent.

There is currently a case going through the appeal process challenging the princples established in earlier nuisance case law that you could not move to a nuisance - but reading the facts of this one it doesnt appear that this will help the race circuit as the track was not being used as frequently as it is now.
Lets hope the case in the court of appeal is successful.

[NBs996]

Agree with you batz.

Reading again the conclusion to Issue 3, I think I've misinterpreted it in my post ^^^up there. It appears the judge is deciding whether the rule works injustice and should he overrule it. But the judge is certainly considering 'coming to a nuisance' as a defence, and says he only to reject the defence because the claimants were there before the noise, which is why such defence doesn't apply in this case.

Anyway, this is all too complicated for me... I don't even know what some of them words mean!!!