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

[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!!!

[skidlids]

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

[Ray]

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

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

Ray.

[Monty]

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

John

[Ray]

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

[Gbyte666]

Originally Posted by Monty

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

John

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