Halifaxtiger

Its truly astonishing that someone buys a property next to a silage pit and then complains about it 3 weeks after moving in. I hope it stinks to high heaven. While the farmer was absolutely right to take the action that he did and the local authority equally so to impose the conditions that they did, that really shouldn't have been totally necessary. I doubt if there is anyone that would disagree that both planning permission and the fact that someone moves in next to a stadium should be highly relevant factors in determining a nuisance claim whatever the circumstances might be. Hopefully, this petition will be the first step in ensuring that they are.

I agree - I think that's a good team. King is obviously one of the top riders in the PL, I was very impressed with Manzares last season and Heeps still has a lot of potential. Covatti was very disappointing at Sheffield last year but he's better than that - the last time I saw him ride for Birmingham he went round the outside of Craig Cook at Belle Vue, no mean feat.

It doesn't matter what he has done or hasn't done. Plymouth need every fan they can get so anyone who says that they aren't going (or aren't going as much) will be missed.

Part of Mildenhall Stadium's defence was that they had planning permission to make noise. That's why the judgement had to deal with the issue. The thing is here is that the arguments put forward by the stadium seemed to me to make perfect sense and the petition reflects that. Firstly, planning permission should not just be treated as irrelevant. When a planning application is made, it details what precisely is being requested and what it is going to happen. The application is usually published in the press and the locality (on lamp posts and the like). Its then considered by the councils planning officer after making a number of tests, and his results are similarly published. Finally, the application itself is judged by a committee of elected officials at a hearing which is also public. It should count (and I'd say for an awful lot) otherwise the stadium (or whatever) can be nicked for not having planning permission and if they have it............they can be nicked anyway. The second point is purchaser responsibility - because, basically, there isn't any. 'We were here first', to me, is entirely relevant and, indeed, persuasive. In this case, it was shown that the home owners were told about the existence of stadium by the estate agent and the previous owner and, as anyone who has been to Mildenhall will tell, its almost impossible to believe that they didn't see it, given that they had to drive right past to get to the house. Surely there must be some onus on a person buying a house to ensure that it is suitable for them before they move in ? Finally, in this case those who created the problem have been found to be in the right. The stadium had been there for 30 years before they moved in and although it is my understanding that there had been complaints before hand, they never got to the legal stage. Thus, the fact that they moved in created the issue with the noise. It must be rare in the legal world for a person to create a problem yet be given judgement. I think there were attempts to solve the matter and much was made of the intransigence of the stadium owner. I have, admittedly, only one side of the story but my understanding is that the stadium would have been uneconomic if the house owners had got their way, so restrictive were the conditions that they wanted. The way I see it, this petition is an attempt to both ensure that planning permission has considerable weight and that there must be a responsibility on the part of someone moving in to establish the circumstances relating to their new home before they move in. To me, that is entirely reasonable when the law at the moment is anything but. I certainly heard noise as late as that and, to be fair, that is unreasonable. At present, the law relies on binding case law - the judgement is full of it. That means that you can actually initiate legislation to change the legal position. For what its worth, I don't think you can make a homeowner sign some sort of legal guarantee that they won't complain. What you can do, though, is ensure that planning permission is given the weight it deserves if a complaint is made and the fact that a person has moved in next to a stadium is treated as an important factor. In the Mildenhall case, both of those arguments were entirely brushed aside as worthless and that simply can't be right.

I'd check the court determination if I was you. Planning permission counted for nothing. 'Accordingly, I consider that the mere fact that the activity which is said to give rise to the nuisance has the benefit of a planning permission is normally of no assistance to the defendant in a claim brought by a neighbour who contends that the activity cause a nuisance to her land in the form of noise or other loss of amenity'.

Nothing wrong with that, but I think you will find that Mildenhall Speedway's planning permission counted for absolutely nothing. So its reasonable to say,then, that if a business has planning permission if is worth sod all but if they break it they can be closed down. What this will do is ensure that there is a responsibility on the part of a purchaser of a property to establish the circumstances in the locality before they move in and that that will have some force should legal proceedings take place. What on earth is wrong with that ?

http://www.britcar24hr.co.uk/home/hm-government-issue-e-petition-mandatory-noise-complaint-waiver/

I don't know the ins and outs of this situation and don't propose to comment on them, but in my experience Tsunami's view of the way Kus was treated by the Redcar fans is much closer to the truth.

I think you are dead right here and that's the point I have been trying to make all along. Its not that Somerset are right so much as the situation is confused. One simple public announcement would have killed this stone dead and the fact that there was no such announcement is entirely down to the BSPA. No reason why it could not have been changed online, though, or in particular a proper announcement made. I do know that all hell broke loose last year when the UKBA (or whatever they are called) confronted the BSPA regarding foreign - in particular Australian - riders competing in British Speedway and that they regarded the visas that some were using as illegal. I also know nothing was done by the BSPA which merely made the situation worse. What you say, though, does rather conflict with the SCB's response that no decision has been made by the immigration authorities at all. I am not sure why a public statement could not be made regarding the change from 5 to 7 when it appears that the Visa and Immigration Service were well aware of what had been going on anyway. Had that been the case, there would have been no issue here at all.

Not disputed for a single second, but I'd say a fan who helps and sponsors riders and travels to Glasgow to watch the Devils is an exceptional one. I suspect the Plymouth promotion and riders would like a few more like that. Not sure I will be.............but I think the attendance will be up on last years average. On a separate note, if you see Brian would you pass on my best wishes for a speedy recovery, please.

The situation turns again. How is that all clubs have been informed of a UKBA decision that apparently hasn't even been made ? If that is the case my source is right and the UKBA haven't done anything. Could it be the case that certain clubs thought that the UKBA would impose a 7.00 ruling so didn't pursue particular riders and have now been left looking daft ?

He has now, you cheeky bleeder and if we're talking dodgy clothing, what about that jumper that you haven't taken off for 3 seasons

You said that in his last spell at Plymouth Fisher did not show the form of a No1. Given that he averaged just under 9 per match and was 6th in the PL averages that season, I am not sure how you worked that out. I am also wondering if there were 'quite often' a number of zeros or exclusions how he managed to reach that average. Must have won every other race, it seems. It also seems that there are genuine reasons why his average slipped last year and, from that, he could be a bargain on that 7.80 or so. Where Skippy is concerned, if you'd been banned from the pits - especially by a crook like Bowden - would you pay to go in and give him money ? To me, it says everything about Skippy that Sam Simota gave him a bottle of champagne at the presentation evening and that I had the pleasure of his company at Glasgow last season. To be fair, he should not have suggested you won't be missed, because you would be. After all, every single fan counts. I agree we'll have agree to disagree about Fisher, time proving one of us right. Risager might look like a bit of an unimpressive signing, but I don't think many would dispute that he is an SBA expert.

There is a change, though, and you only have to read the SCB Regs (18.6) for that. There's no doubt that based upon that Holder is a 5.00. If it wasn't announced as part of the press release (and as far as I am aware it wasn't), it bloody well should have been. We wouldn't even be having this argument if it had. The question is whether Sheffield knew that (and, indeed, if its true). If they did, you would have thought that they would have mentioned it in their press release when he signed. Both Sheffield and Berwick can accommodate Allen & Sissis at this point on a 7.00 (if necessary). The question remains whether they knew that they were coming in on a 7.00 or a 5.00. To me, its not Somerset (or any other club) that are to blame, its the BSPA because what we have is the usual secrecy and back door dealings. If this had been made public after the AGM, there would be no dispute whatsoever. Or alternatively its some unnamed person at the BSPA - because Somerset apparently have confirmation from them (as they did last season regarding Kurtz) that Holder is a 5.00 - making those mistakes. Part of the problem with this is that its always 'someone at the BSPA' - names are never mentioned. When will it be the case that someone actually takes responsibility for decision making ?

Lets not forget this isn't just about Jack Holder. There are two other Australians - Sissis and Allen - to whom this applies. This isn't about Somerset, its about how 3 clubs believe one thing and three others something else.

I genuinely did believe that Plymouth would regret losing Barker and still do to an extent. I was wholly unaware that he potentially was signing for a Friday night EL club when I made those remarks. Fisher averaged almost 9 per match in his last spell at Plymouth, and was 6th in the PL averages that season. You might not think that is the form of a No1, almost everyone else would disagree. To suggest that he was 'inconsistent' that year is clearly nonsense and to suggest that a rider of that sort of ability relied on Ben Barker is even worse. If Fisher averages the same in 2015, he'll be a point up on his starting average. I doubt there are many fans across the country who wouldn't be very happy with that from a No1. On a final note, Skippy would be very much missed if he stayed away.

To turn that round, do you think John Anderson would sign a rider as a 5.00 knowing it was a 7.00 ? Would Damian Bates ? Perhaps Rob Godfrey thought it was a 7.00. My point here is that this is not a con by Somerset, its more likely to be a misunderstanding. Until I see the relevant regulation changed - because there is no evidence that it has - I think Somerset are in the right.

..............and at least three promotions have signed young Australians on what they believe to be 5.00 averages too. If its a con by Somerset, its a con by Sheffield - who make absolutely no reference to Sissis having a Greek (apparently) passport and thus qualifying for a 5.00 - and Berwick too. They didn't sign those riders on 7.00 averages. Were the regulations changed ? There's no sign of it and there was no public announcement of it. The two questions are how do three clubs think that they come in on a 7.00 and three think they come in on a 5.00, and are Somerset really so stupid as to build a team that exceeds the points limit in the full knowledge (and there's no grey area this year) that that is the case ?

In contrast to what you have said and indeed what I have said, I have heard this is nothing to do with the UKBA at all and that they have not issued any direction regarding riders averages. It seems the truth of the matter is a matter of confusion at the BSPA AGM. My money is now on Somerset being proved right.

You'd think Grajczonek would simply have had the honesty to tell the truth, wouldn't you ? Very good point about failing to make a pretty important regulation change public. This is beyond the reach of the BSPA, SCB or any other speedway authority (I have little doubt that the 7.00 point ruling is correct because Steve Whitehead is a promoter and barnecooseboy is close to the Plymouth promotion) because its to do with the UKBA. They set that ruling apparently and it seems unlikely to change. I do know last season the UKBA came down on the BSPA like a ton of bricks last season over Australian riders using what seemed to them to be illegal visas. A promotion ignoring their directives could, as Steve Whitehead has said, create an awful lot of trouble. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they are ignorant. If they knew about this rule then they are pretty much what you have said. I don't really care about giving a two finger to the BSPA (which of hasn't done that ?) or even other promotions. The UKBA is very much another matter. I suspect what we will get is something like 'the BSPA told us a 5.00 was correct' like we had last season. No names mentioned so no-one has to take responsibility, of course. What's up with these people, don't they have a rule book ?

Sounds to me like the UKBA are unlikely to change their mind. I think the thing is Somerset have announced a team based upon a rider having a 5.00 average when they clearly knew he would be on a 7.00. That's not cheating or rule bending, its stupidity. For all those saying Somerset have built an excellent team and all credit to the promotion, I am sure anyone can build such a team by ignoring the rules of the sport. To me, Kurtz's 5.00 average last season could be seen as correct. Holder's 5.00 most certainly is not.

There's a lot of talk about Barker riding for Lakeside next season, so it could easily be the case that Plymouth couldn't sign him and had to go elsewhere. Personally, I think Fisher is an excellent signing. True, he can be over aggressive but he's genuine number one material, people will go just to watch him and he's on a bargain average. I am not sure how you can make a prediction about where the Devils will be with only 3 riders signed. I hope you are right because in most of the away matches last season that I saw he was dreadful and never even looked like beating anyone.

He's probably worth a shot on a 3.00pt average with some sort of direction that he has to improve in the first couple of months or so or he's out. The improvement must in particular come away, because last season he was truly appalling - I am sure I was told he was averaging under 1.00 per match. It'll be interesting to see who they bring in to replace Barker. Personally, I think they will regret letting him leave.

You obviously didn't go to Belle Vue last season. Palm Toft was an unqualified success, way exceeding anyone's expectations. He became hugely popular, simply because in every race he absolutely refused to give in. I was astonished when Nicholls got rider of the year. To suggest that he gained two points on his average because in two races he had fast track opponents - often of the calibre of Newman, Worrall, Garrity & Kerr - in races with him is nonsense. If he rides like he did for the Aces - and there's no reason why not - Workington have made a good signing.

I don't agree. For the first couple of seasons, STMP was one of the best racing tracks in the country and only went disastrously downhill when Havelock took over (by most accounts, due to the influence of his son). That descended into farce the season before last with two meetings (Newcastle was one) that were almost abandoned due to the state of the track and I heard that the SCB got involved. In 2014 I saw some cracking speedway there and would say that it was one of the most improved tracks anywhere.