Halifaxtiger Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Perhaps Mr Coventry just ran out of money to get really good legal advice, no idea if that's the case but it's possible. It's also possible that we are paying the costs of the whinger! Maybe that's true but I regard that as utterly beside the point. How can it be that someone moves into an area, finds that they don't like aspects of it and then demands that the area changes to suit them be judged to be in the right ? To make such a ruling completely disregards the responsibility that a person has to ensure that the place they are moving to is right for them before they move. The activities at the stadium might be a nuisance, but they should have established that prior to buying the house. Any fault or blame here lies totally with the house purchaser. The ruling is ridiculous, bizarre and flies in the face of common sense, reason, logic and responsibility. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 The more detail they get immersed in and the longer they can drag things back and forward without either side being successful the more money they make, exactly opposite to most jobs! Common sense and the law will be strangers for as long as lawyers are allowed to keep it that way. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Sometimes the lawyers get so immersed in detail that they lose all sight of truth. It becomes a question of procedures and quality of debate, not justice. Sadly, Rob, you and Vince are right. The only thing is that the Court of Appeal came to the common sense conclusion. How is it that the supreme court came to something that was completely the opposite ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Stadia Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 The more detail they get immersed in and the longer they can drag things back and forward without either side being successful the more money they make, exactly opposite to most jobs! Common sense and the law will be strangers for as long as lawyers are allowed to keep it that way. I agree Vince, but that is why we have judges and in this case there were 3, apparently. The judges have the overall say, not the solicitors/barristers. What defence did Mr Coventry put up and what did the couple put up? At the end of the day, the 3 judges were convinced that the couples argument was stronger. But does all sound bonkers, based on what we know and have been told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 There is one further sad twist of the knife should this couple ultimately get their way. When they rebuild the house it will likely take at least 6 months of constant noise and nuisance. Lorries,mechanical mixers,sawing ,hammering etc etc Thats about 1000 hours at 8 hours a day 5 days a week of noise and nuisance to rebuild their house. Or in context about 20 SEASONS of speedway!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 The Mildenhall-West Row situation reminds me of a similar happening 65 years ago. Then 11 local residents managed to get Hastings, who were using the Pilot Field Stadium, closed on the grounds of noise. I think that was the first speedway to be closed on that issue? Ironically, within just a few years the complainants had all gone from the area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruffdiamond Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Mr Nimby aka Raymond Shields is a fireman (rather ironic given his property was destroyed by fire) - I hope they don't put the sirens on when on a 999 call as no doubt he would lodge a complaint against his employer! really ???,,, so where was he and his colleagues at the time the house burned down, hope they were'nt at West Row watching the speedway,,, more likely to be away on their jollies,,, mmm Maybe that's true but I regard that as utterly beside the point. How can it be that someone moves into an area, finds that they don't like aspects of it and then demands that the area changes to suit them be judged to be in the right ? To make such a ruling completely disregards the responsibility that a person has to ensure that the place they are moving to is right for them before they move. The activities at the stadium might be a nuisance, but they should have established that prior to buying the house. Any fault or blame here lies totally with the house purchaser. The ruling is ridiculous, bizarre and flies in the face of common sense, reason, logic and responsibility. its a bit like me buying a house by the beach, then asking for the tide to be stopped, as the sea crashing against the rocks at night keeps me awake,,, then asking that all the fish are removed, because I don't like fish,,, this world is one big bowl of soup :-( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 The Mildenhall-West Row situation reminds me of a similar happening 65 years ago. Then 11 local residents managed to get Hastings, who were using the Pilot Field Stadium, closed on the grounds of noise. I think that was the first speedway to be closed on that issue? Ironically, within just a few years the complainants had all gone from the area. Very similar to Romford as well. Although to be fair the objector did live there prior to speedway he was virtually a loan voice campaigning against it and he still won only to move away not long after Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddy2706 Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 How many active speedway supporters are there in the UK? Have we an organisation to make our collective voices heard? Any thoughts on this please? Maybe that's true but I regard that as utterly beside the point. How can it be that someone moves into an area, finds that they don't like aspects of it and then demands that the area changes to suit them be judged to be in the right ? To make such a ruling completely disregards the responsibility that a person has to ensure that the place they are moving to is right for them before they move. The activities at the stadium might be a nuisance, but they should have established that prior to buying the house. Any fault or blame here lies totally with the house purchaser. The ruling is ridiculous, bizarre and flies in the face of common sense, reason, logic and responsibility. Sadly, this sort of thing happens all of the time in Britains nanny state, where politicians prefer us all to spend our time at home or having sunday lunch at Tesco's instead of letting us discuss things and practice dissent. I know of at least two places close to where I work where houses have been built next to existing factories. In both cases residents then complained about early morning noise, smells, vehicles etc. In one case the factory spent an absolute fortune to placate the residents, the other moved to an industrial estate well away from Nimbies.This judgement endangers every speedway track, MX track, road racing venue and grass track in the country that has any sort of residential development close or planned for the future. It will open the gates for complaints countrywide, something that the Supreme Court are perfectly aware of. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruffdiamond Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 How many active speedway supporters are there in the UK? Have we an organisation to make our collective voices heard? Any thoughts on this please? Sadly, this sort of thing happens all of the time in Britains nanny state, where politicians prefer us all to spend our time at home or having sunday lunch at Tesco's instead of letting us discuss things and practice dissent. I know of at least two places close to where I work where houses have been built next to existing factories. In both cases residents then complained about early morning noise, smells, vehicles etc. In one case the factory spent an absolute fortune to placate the residents, the other moved to an industrial estate well away from Nimbies.This judgement endangers every speedway track, MX track, road racing venue and grass track in the country that has any sort of residential development close or planned for the future. It will open the gates for complaints countrywide, something that the Supreme Court are perfectly aware of. well,,, that will safeguard their jobs for a while, and all of those compensation grabbers, has anyone ever thought that this is causing a 'black hole' in the economy,,, maybe it's time to teach this subject at schools, 'how to make money from moaning about stuff',,, seems the only way forward these days,,, anyway I'd better see how my PPI claim is doing, and how much is really waiting, (with my name on it),,, for the accident I can't even remember having,,, must of got amneasia,(can't mind how to spell it) ,,, it all end in tears :-( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Stadia Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 I personally do not believe this case will set a precedent for other situations, including other tracks. There has to be a point that we are missing, for the supreme court to find in the couples favour. Maybe, when the couple moved in, the track was not operating? Mildenhall Speedway have been open and closed a few times. Or when they moved in, perhaps, the stadiums activities were at a tolerable level for the couple to accept, but due to stock cars, MX and speedway, the activity has increased and for the couple, it has become unacceptable. If this is the case, it does put a slightly different slant on the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 I personally do not believe this case will set a precedent for other situations, including other tracks. There has to be a point that we are missing, for the supreme court to find in the couples favour. Maybe, when the couple moved in, the track was not operating? Mildenhall Speedway have been open and closed a few times. Or when they moved in, perhaps, the stadiums activities were at a tolerable level for the couple to accept, but due to stock cars, MX and speedway, the activity has increased and for the couple, it has become unacceptable. If this is the case, it does put a slightly different slant on the situation. Might be. I find it sad and annoying that in towns and cities, sports like speedway are banned due to new neighbours on new estates like the ones surrounding Edinburgh Speedway. It's on peoples doorsteps, and can be termed a local facility. Instead protestors get tracks closed down, and new speedways have to be built in the countryside, and followers then have to have a means of travel to the new venue. Like this case and IOW, someone down a valley or some distance away can hear some noise and then try to get the out of town venue closed down. Why doesn't football grounds, in or near towns, get closed down for an even greater nuisance of traffic, noise, smell, and of course 'excitement'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityrebel Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) The Mildenhall-West Row situation reminds me of a similar happening 65 years ago. Then 11 local residents managed to get Hastings, who were using the Pilot Field Stadium, closed on the grounds of noise. I think that was the first speedway to be closed on that issue? Ironically, within just a few years the complainants had all gone from the area.walthamstow's short season in 1934 ended with a court injunction due to noise complaints. This led to the club relocating to hackney wick in 1935, you see the nimby's were with us even in those far away days! Edited February 28, 2014 by cityrebel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Stadia Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Might be. I find it sad and annoying that in towns and cities, sports like speedway are banned due to new neighbours on new estates like the ones surrounding Edinburgh Speedway. It's on peoples doorsteps, and can be termed a local facility. Instead protestors get tracks closed down, and new speedways have to be built in the countryside, and followers then have to have a means of travel to the new venue. Like this case and IOW, someone down a valley or some distance away can hear some noise and then try to get the out of town venue closed down. Why doesn't football grounds, in or near towns, get closed down for an even greater nuisance of traffic, noise, smell, and of course 'excitement'. But have there really been tracks closed down, when houses are built in the vicinity of an existing operating track? I can understand that if the track closes for even just one season, you then leave the door wide open for the complainers, but if the track is operating in a similar way it has done year in year out, there is no way, that I can see, that a court or council can close the track. But if the track somehow changes the goal posts, i.e. changes start and finish time or puts on more meetings or introduces stocks when it was just speedway, I can see that you may be inviting trouble. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruffdiamond Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 But have there really been tracks closed down, when houses are built in the vicinity of an existing operating track? I can understand that if the track closes for even just one season, you then leave the door wide open for the complainers, but if the track is operating in a similar way it has done year in year out, there is no way, that I can see, that a court or council can close the track. But if the track somehow changes the goal posts, i.e. changes start and finish time or puts on more meetings or introduces stocks when it was just speedway, I can see that you may be inviting trouble. I see what your saying, but in a democratic society, why should 1 or 2 people's voices be heared over 100's of others ?,,, put it to a vote and the biggest gang should win,,, if it does'nt, get a bigger gang, lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Stadia Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 I see what your saying, but in a democratic society, why should 1 or 2 people's voices be heared over 100's of others ?,,, put it to a vote and the biggest gang should win,,, if it does'nt, get a bigger gang, lol That could be more dangerous for speedway. If you have permission to run a motor sport and you have houses nearby, you should be doing as much as you can to keep them reasonably happy, but it would be dangerous to go door knocking and saying 'would you like to see the speedway stop', the majority, in my opinion would say yes. However, the majority will tolerate it, unless the stadium changes something to pee them off and then the stadium ignores the complaints. I wonder how many promoters are equipped to be diplomatic? From what I have heard on the forum, many are not diplomatic with the paying fans, so what chance a few complainers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch958 Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 longer term, motorsport should form a lobby to try and get parliament to encourage local authorities to make areas for motorsport in their local development plans, much in the way that they designate industrial areas, housing areas etc that way everyone knows the score. Just about every local authority has a tucked away area suitable for such things, like former steelworks at Redcar and Newport, green field sites like Scunny, etc What about national bodies like ACU? Do they still exist? Shouldn't this be part of their remit? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Stadia Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 longer term, motorsport should form a lobby to try and get parliament to encourage local authorities to make areas for motorsport in their local development plans, much in the way that they designate industrial areas, housing areas etc that way everyone knows the score. Just about every local authority has a tucked away area suitable for such things, like former steelworks at Redcar and Newport, green field sites like Scunny, etc What about national bodies like ACU? Do they still exist? Shouldn't this be part of their remit? That would be a good idea. An area that is ring fenced and protected from future closure due to complaints. That would also possibly mean, more promoters coming forward to promote, rather than living in fear that one day their investment could have the rug taken away. On the other hand, perhaps some promoters take on a stadium/buy land, in the hope the land will be valuable allowing them to cash in? As with all things, 2 schools of thought! But for the promoter who truly loves his sport, would be a great idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyOfBrum Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 How can it be that someone moves into an area, finds that they don't like aspects of it and then demands that the area changes to suit them be judged to be in the right ? To make such a ruling completely disregards the responsibility that a person has to ensure that the place they are moving to is right for them before they move. The activities at the stadium might be a nuisance, but they should have established that prior to buying the house. Any fault or blame here lies totally with the house purchaser. The ruling is ridiculous, bizarre and flies in the face of common sense, reason, logic and responsibility. Because English law is ridiculous, bizarre and flies in the face of common sense, reason, logic and responsibility. The law is clear - it gives equal rights to those idiots who move next to a speedway track (in effect inviting the noise into their lives) as it does to those who have a noise imposed on them. The supreme court has made it clear that the issue of who was there first, and who knew what about the local area, doesn't even enter into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 But have there really been tracks closed down, when houses are built in the vicinity of an existing operating track? I can understand that if the track closes for even just one season, you then leave the door wide open for the complainers, but if the track is operating in a similar way it has done year in year out, there is no way, that I can see, that a court or council can close the track. But if the track somehow changes the goal posts, i.e. changes start and finish time or puts on more meetings or introduces stocks when it was just speedway, I can see that you may be inviting trouble. A mini-snag here if that's a road to go down - losing one of the motor sports at West Row. The stadium is owned by the stock car company. longer term, motorsport should form a lobby to try and get parliament to encourage local authorities to make areas for motorsport in their local development plans, much in the way that they designate industrial areas, housing areas etc that way everyone knows the score. Just about every local authority has a tucked away area suitable for such things, like former steelworks at Redcar and Newport, green field sites like Scunny, etc What about national bodies like ACU? Do they still exist? Shouldn't this be part of their remit? Where's that representative body that was set up to look after speedway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.