E Petition On Noise And Residency Near Motor Sport Stadiums

[Halifaxtiger]

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

[Tsunami]

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

 

Great news, bring it on.

[Guest]

How many of these petitions have there been in recent years and how many are currently 'floating around.' NOT a criticism on my part before "our gang: come out of the woodwork! The objectives of these petitions are crucial to the survival of stadium motor sport.

[Aces51]

An issue I suspect many of us will want to support. It is ridiculous that people can buy a new house close to an existing stadium and then take successful legal proceedings over the noise.

[The White Knight]

Thank you for putting this e-Petition on this Forum HT.

 

I've signed.

[A ORLOV]

Done

[MattK]

An issue I suspect many of us will want to support. It is ridiculous that people can buy a new house close to an existing stadium and then take successful legal proceedings over the noise.

 

What absolute nonsense. Anyone who moves close to an existing motorsports stadium should reasonable expect the facility to operation within the boundaries of their planning permission. If they flaunt that, then the resident is perfectly entitled to complain about the noise.

[Halifaxtiger]

 

What absolute nonsense. Anyone who moves close to an existing motorsports stadium should reasonable expect the facility to operation within the boundaries of their planning permission. If they flaunt that, then the resident is perfectly entitled to complain about the noise.

 

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 ?

Edited December 7, 2014 by Halifaxtiger

[MattK]

 

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.

 

Did Mildenhall's planning permission allow them to operate until 3am, as that's what was claimed in court?

[Halifaxtiger]

 

Did Mildenhall's planning permission allow them to operate until 3am, as that's what was claimed in court

 

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'.

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2014 by Halifaxtiger

[Aces51]

What absolute nonsense. Anyone who moves close to an existing motorsports stadium should reasonable expect the facility to operation within the boundaries of their planning permission. If they flaunt that, then the resident is perfectly entitled to complain about the noise.

OK, so perhaps I should have spelt out that my comments applied only to stadiums that operated within the terms of their planning permission. I thought unnecessary to include that qualification on the basis that most people would realise that it was not intended to support anyone who might act illegally in that regard.

[cyclone]

Signed and made other like minded friends aware.

[sussex bulldog]

I have also signed

[MattK]

 

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'.

 

 

You're right, but wasn't it more the case that Mildenhall didn't have any specific noise restrictions in their planning permissions, therefore they had to ensure they were not causing a nuisance due the usual course of their actions? Coupled with the fact that their whole defence seemed to be "we were here first" which the courts roundly rejected.

 

As an outsider, it would seem that an amicable arrangement could have been agreed long before this reached court.

[Ray Stadia]

 

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'.

 

 

 

These legal statements never seem to make sense, however, I would suggest, had the owners of Mildenhall Stadium abided by the extent of their planning permission and had used common sense, had bent over backwards to try and keep their neighbours happy, the court would have been more likely to have been on the side of the stadium.

 

I have signed the petition.

[MattK]

These legal statements never seem to make sense, however, I would suggest, had the owners of Mildenhall Stadium abided by the extent of their planning permission and had used common sense, had bent over backwards to try and keep their neighbours happy, the court would have been more likely to have been on the side of the stadium.

 

I have signed the petition.

 

I don't think it was even a case of bending over backwards. Holding banger racing til 1am and then cars being loaded onto trailers until 3am is clearly unacceptable in any reasonable human being's book.

 

As for this petition, the fact that the Supreme Court has rules than Mildenhall couldn't use the fact that the neighbours had come to the nuisance as a defence, suggests it is highly unlikely a law will be passed forcing homeownsers to waive their right to complain about the noise from a nearby venue.

[Daniel Smith]

Done.

[weatherwatcher]

This whole issue of people buying houses and then making complaints after they move in have been a constant problem over the last 20 or so years Not just with sports stadiums, but general run of the mill things in life.

I remember quite well a case near to me where they built a new estate, behind some existing houses. One old man who lived in those houses had kept and shown poltry all his life, living in his house for over 50 years. A few of the residents of the new houses, who where white colour workers who brought property around here and commuted to work in Birmingham, because property prices around here where so much cheaper. Complained about his cockerals crowing and waking them up early in the morning.

They took it to court and the poor old sod lost his case and had to get rid of his life's hobby.

I knew him quite well and it broke him, he died that same year, all because of a few heartless sads that had moved in.

They should look before they buy, it is very sad that we now live in a society, of winging winers, that have nothing better to do, than try their best to stop people enjoying the things that they have been doing, at that very place that is offensive to them.

If they don't like what is around them then they should, pack up their belonings and go and live in a house miles away from anything.

But with a bit of luck, they would them build a moterway at the bottom of their garden.

[Halifaxtiger]

 

You're right, but wasn't it more the case that Mildenhall didn't have any specific noise restrictions in their planning permissions, therefore they had to ensure they were not causing a nuisance due the usual course of their actions? Coupled with the fact that their whole defence seemed to be "we were here first" which the courts roundly rejected.

 

As an outsider, it would seem that an amicable arrangement could have been agreed long before this reached court.

 

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 don't think it was even a case of bending over backwards. Holding banger racing til 1am and then cars being loaded onto trailers until 3am is clearly unacceptable in any reasonable human being's book.

 

As for this petition, the fact that the Supreme Court has rules than Mildenhall couldn't use the fact that the neighbours had come to the nuisance as a defence, suggests it is highly unlikely a law will be passed forcing homeownsers to waive their right to complain about the noise from a nearby venue.

 

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.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Halifaxtiger

[Sotonian]

This whole issue of people buying houses and then making complaints after they move in have been a constant problem over the last 20 or so years Not just with sports stadiums, but general run of the mill things in life.

Don't I know it. Turns out that a new neighbour of mine is very anti-motorbike and has complained time and again to me about the 'excessive noise, which must be illegal" of my BSA. He's even tried to get other neighbours to side with him, with no success so far. It's no coincidence that the last time I rode it, the police were waiting in the next road to stop me and check that I and it were road legal because they had had a report of "anti-social, possibly illegal biking". They found nothing untoward. I only ride it in daylight hours so why can't he live and let live?