Quote:
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.