salty Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Historic moment! That must be A FIRST for me on the BSF! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Yes OK you made that point before and you are quite right. But - apart from that - do you not agree she made a couple of very valid points?? She made two very valid points. But only for us chatting about it here, I'm afraid. Not in law. According to the judgement in this case the Supreme Court ruled that legal precedent has been set. And that any legal case along these lines could well end up being settled in favour of the nimbys. We can moan and whinge all we like. But it will make no difference to that. What we could do is learn from it. It would seem that one of the major reasons why these people got judgement on their favour was specifically because of the noise nuisance occurring at such an unreasonable time, in the early hours of the morning. Without such an obvious cause for complaint they may have lost. Surely the main thing for all track/promotions/track curators/stadium owners is to make sure they never give these people that sort of ammunition at other venues. Concerted efforts to reduce and eliminate noise nuisance; and a demonstrable commitment to prevent it at unsociable hours will not only help foster better relations with neighbours. It will also form a very robust defence at Court if tested. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 The scary bit is that if Mildenhall is not safe, virtually nowhere is - and that's not just speedway, either. At least in principle someone could close down Old Trafford or Anfield on the same grounds. Indeed so but I guess "reasonable use" came into play. 3AM is not reasonable to expect a motor sport stadium to be operational Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 She made two very valid points. But only for us chatting about it here, I'm afraid. Not in law. According to the judgement in this case the Supreme Court ruled that legal precedent has been set. And that any legal case along these lines could well end up being settled in favour of the nimbys. We can moan and whinge all we like. But it will make no difference to that. What we could do is learn from it. It would seem that one of the major reasons why these people got judgement on their favour was specifically because of the noise nuisance occurring at such an unreasonable time, in the early hours of the morning. Without such an obvious cause for complaint they may have lost. Surely the main thing for all track/promotions/track curators/stadium owners is to make sure they never give these people that sort of ammunition at other venues. Concerted efforts to reduce and eliminate noise nuisance; and a demonstrable commitment to prevent it at unsociable hours will not only help foster better relations with neighbours. It will also form a very robust defence at Court if tested. Accept your points, but still feel in the case of the Supreme Court judgement that good common sense had left the building. If I recall correctly, there was mention that having won the original ruling the case presented by the Stadium owners solicitors at the Supreme Court was somewhat less than robust? Maybe somebody with more knowledge can elaborate? As you say - a precedent has now been set and it might lead the way for other cases of a similar nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddy2706 Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Upon reading the posts so far, have I understood correctly that the complaint came because of noise nuisance at 3a.m. on only one occasion, or was this an often repeated issue? Surely this issue cannot pivot on a single occasion of noise nuisance? How odd that a complaint can be upheld from someone who no longer lives adjacent to the stadium, in a house that burnt down and a stadium moreover that has a Moto X track in its backyard and an airbase in its front yard! Noise nuisance cannot ever be regarded as pollution in my opinion, as the issue disappears immediately the noise ceases with no residual harm (unless the level is so high that hearing damage is the result). Finally, making rash threats on this Forum towards the complainants will only end in tears and possibly criminal proceedings, as someone who was threatened with prosecution by my local Council for "harassing" them on Facebook, I know better than most where such utterings may lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) No, I think you slightly misunderstand. The Mildenhall case did not make the legal precedence here. That had already been established by other cases in the past. Not Motorsport cases but ones involving unreasonable noise nuisance being complained about by 'newcomers' who could have 'known before they bought'. The defence may have been presented poorly in this case. But then it would appear that they did not have much of a case if the noise really was being created unreasonably and at ridiculous times of the night. Edited July 24, 2014 by Grand Central Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WembleyLion Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Am I correct in remembering that this couple's house was actually burnt down a couple of years ago??! Yes and Mr Nimby was/is a fireman! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skodaman Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Accept your points, but still feel in the case of the Supreme Court judgement that good common sense had left the building. If I recall correctly, there was mention that having won the original ruling the case presented by the Stadium owners solicitors at the Supreme Court was somewhat less than robust? Maybe somebody with more knowledge can elaborate? As you say - a precedent has now been set and it might lead the way for other cases of a similar nature. As I have said before, my feelings are that if the planning consent for the site was not broken then there should not be a case to answer but we do not know what conditions wer in the consent at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 What are you on about?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 The continual sniping at my Posts. A friend of some status in speedway quit or the same reason and he said to me "I cannot understand why you still keep going on there!" Oh behave yourself! You yourself said "Historic moment! That must be A FIRST for me on the BSF!". By replying "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" its hardly sniping is it? Surely even the most thinned skin person could see that is not a malicious comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruiser McHuge Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 There's a case going on in Manchester whereby the Night and Day club is being sued by a local resident in a flat above it over noise from the bands in the club.....bearing in mind the club has been a music venue for years and the flats are very recent and obviously the resident knew he was moving over a live music venue when he moved in....now one resident is threatening the future of one of Manchester's iconic music venues and it could be closed.......very similar to this...it surely shouldn't be allowed 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 There's a case going on in Manchester whereby the Night and Day club is being sued by a local resident in a flat above it over noise from the bands in the club.....bearing in mind the club has been a music venue for years and the flats are very recent and obviously the resident knew he was moving over a live music venue when he moved in....now one resident is threatening the future of one of Manchester's iconic music venues and it could be closed.......very similar to this...it surely shouldn't be allowed On the face of it, no it shouldn't be allowed but without the full facts its hard to judge. Have they, like Mildenhall, pushed the boundaries of "reasonable expectation" to the point where a complaint is legitimate, Have a look around at other motor sport venues and you will see that, even though they were there long before any houses, the restrictions on how many days a year they can operate and the hours they can operate are very stringent. Noise nuisance isnt treated lightly (nor should it be) and the owners of mildenhall must have known they were on dangerous ground with their 3am operations Looks like the time has arrived for me to quit yet another BSF debate? And so a fond farewelll... The time for you to quit the bsf was long ago but you insist on continuing to make a fool of yourself on here day in day out. Do us all a favour and make your fond farwell permanent 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 I have now taken your advice and quit this debate as you may note? My advice was for you to quit the forum altogether Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Do you have Moderator status to do this? No, just the status of someone sick to death of a soppy old duffer cluttering up the forum with inane crap, making posts and later deleting them after they have been responded to making threads hard to navigate, constantly playing the "woe is me card" when anything on the forum isn't to his liking. And that's just your good points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandorum Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Does this mean that the Yanks have to pull out of their base as well as I am sure that the noise from the airbase is louder than any from the speedway. I remember several times being blasted out of my slumber crashing in the car park as a Galaxy transport flew about what seemed like 10 feet above my head. With idiocy like this from the justice system speedway will have to shut up shop or just move over to pedal bikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatwick Rocket Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Sadly it is true that being there first counts for nothing in UK law, and a number of defendants have felt unjustly treated as a result. I recall a petition to then prime minister Gordon Brown to have this aspect of the law reviewed but I don't think anything became of it. The test is one of whether the noise disturbance is reasonable and in many people's view the noise of motorbike racing is unreasonable. I'm not a legal expert but I would have thought one-off instances would result in a warning and persistent complaints would result in action. Years ago I recall a situation where someone regularly complained about the speedway noise from Barrow stadium on nights when there was no racing taking place! They were deliberately complaining even when there was nothing to complain about to try and get the speedway closed down. One lesson from this is that speedway promoters could usefully measure their own noise so they have a record to aid their defence if needed. It leaves me feeling that without support of the local authority (or the local people!) speedway tracks will ultimately disappear. I wonder what would happen if a case was brought against a major football club over the noise and traffic disturbance made on Saturday afternoons and midweek evenings. I'm not pretending the complainants might win but the reasons given by the judge for allowing the football to continue would be valuable precedents for action against speedway stadiums. Maybe cases like this exist already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyJ Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 There's a case going on in Manchester whereby the Night and Day club is being sued by a local resident in a flat above it over noise from the bands in the club.....bearing in mind the club has been a music venue for years and the flats are very recent and obviously the resident knew he was moving over a live music venue when he moved in....now one resident is threatening the future of one of Manchester's iconic music venues and it could be closed.......very similar to this...it surely shouldn't be allowed Apparently nearly 75,000 people signed the "Night and Day" petition - still shy of the 100,000 needed by an epetition for House of Commons debate. It'd be interesting to see the outcome should a popular football club be embroiled in a similar case. Maybe that's what is needed to get this daft law rewritten.. source: http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/180769816-night-and-day-row-finally-over-noise-nuisance-ends-seven-nights-residents-claim-it 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.