NIMBYS win @ croft
 

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

.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

Birdy isn't to happy with the decision
http://www.bikesportnews.com/article...O FT_DEMISE_1

There are only four "noisey" days at Croft in 2009 for bike trackdays at 105db.

All the other other days are 100db. Looks like I'll be be having a quiet year again. That or seeing what effect the standard pipes have on me bike along with the standard pipe ECU. Not bothered about a few BHP or lb less just the effect on the AFRs.

I'll be in the crazy situation of putting "road" pipes on for the track and "track" pipes for the road:confused:

Or maybe just not bothering to use the Ducati at all at Croft.

Ray.

How about we organise a 'meet' outside their house Ray-might give them something to complain about.............:devil:

John

Track day companies both on two wheels and four have stopped taking bookings for croft.

There are gonna be a handful of trackdays.

So far only the legal eagles are sitting pretty in this.

There was a two page spread in motorpsort news formerly Motoring news about the implications this had for every circuit in the country.

Ray

Croft will close imo Ray. They cannot survive on so few days. If they manage to survive, you'll have to book a year in advance to get a place.

Be interesting to see what happens going forward as it looks from the outside like anyone near to any sports venue can now quote this as a case and have the place restricted or closed.

WeeJohnyB

I support this action.....At least then any future actions from other residents that choose to live near a track will know they are going to have a few people turning up for a ride/drive past

Craig

I reckon that will be on the cards at some stage, someone will organise regular local rideouts and club meets in the field next to them.

I do sympathise to an extent, not if they moved there recently, but if they have been there for many years they will have seen an incredible increase in the amount of use and also in the noise level from a race circuit. I’m guessing, but, going back a few years, trackdays didn’t exist, now most tracks want to try to be used every day if they can get away with it.

I live on a busy road and have only just moved here and fully expected a lot of noise, sure, and I accept it of course, but I’d love to ban the use of loud pipes on the Nova’s and Saxo’s and sometimes their music is so loud it makes things in my house vibrate. On the other hand, the Abbey is next door and the noise from the bells is incredible, particularly when they are practicing on a Sunday, but luckily I think it’s a wonderful sound.

WeeJohnyB

I'm not sure I sympathise at all. The money was awarded to them to make up for the loss of value on their house. Bet they dont move and I bet the house has'nt lost that amount of money compaired to what they were awarded.
I lived with the M4 at the end of the field, plenty of noise there as well, but unlike You and I with 24/7 noise the tracks close at 5pm. I'm not sure either how this has helped the problem from the judgement side of things. Surely the longer you live where you do now its going to get busier as more cars take to the roads, the road gets widened, they put traffic lights by your house so cars start and stop. Can you sue in 15yrs time ??
How long before Rockinham gets a complaint when it was built so isolated away from eveything and now everything is growing up around it.

Craig

They had trouble just to get planning permission for Rocky Craig-that's why it is built in a big bowl-to use the 'walls' as a noise barrier.

John

Croft is fighting back by coming up with stuff they can do "quietly"

Off up tomorrow afternoon with a group from a Turbo nutter car club for some on track noise testing to see if they might be quiet enough to run a sprint in the Future.

They have been doing a few other tests to see what and how they can operate on a "quiet" day.

It's not over yet for the circuit. They just need to see what they can do over and above the 40 "noisy" days they are currently allowed.

Ray.

They could get the Electric Bikes that they raced at the TT, they're quiet