Mildenhall Stadium-bad News

[montie]

Mildenhall USAF base is used under the visiting forces act . This was an agreement set up by the govenment during WW2. Re confirmed in 1952 It more or less lets them do as they please.

 

And rightly so!

 

shame that deal cant be done to cover motor sports!

[Swift Saint]

This matter represents total injustice.

 

Is it not possible for the Parliamentary Committee which was set up last year for Speedway to pursue this matter in some way?

 

Malcolm Vasey

[Triple.H.]

Mildenhall USAF base is used under the visiting forces act . This was an agreement set up by the govenment during WW2. Re confirmed in 1952 It more or less lets them do as they please.

TBH that's okay but personally having not been to the FenTigers Den since the very early 80s i find it totally bizarre that local tenants can complain about noise from the stadium with all that going on even if it's far less airplane noise than years ago

Even more bizarre that people spend a fortune on a house without doing any homework on the local environment.

Very much like those who move near a farm and complain about the cock crowing and the smell of manure, my memory is reminding me of a couple of CityFolk who moved somewhere years ago and moaned about the church bells ringing on a Sunday morning.

If I lived there I'd break into the church and bring the F☆☆☆☆☆G bells all night and put cows☆☆t on their drive

Edited July 28, 2015 by Triple.H.

[uk_martin]

Very much like those who move near a farm and complain about the cock crowing and the smell of manure, my memory is reminding me of a couple of City Folk who moved somewhere years ago and moaned about the church bells ringing on a Sunday morning.

 

Not necessarily so... As it states in the judgement, and with reference to established case law...

 

In Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852, 865, Thesiger LJ, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, famously observed that whether something is a nuisance “is a question to be determined, not merely by an abstract consideration of the thing itself, but in reference to its circumstances”, and “what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”. Accordingly, whether a particular activity causes a nuisance often depends on an assessment of the locality in which the activity concerned is carried out.

 

So in your case a farmyard smell that would be a nuisance in the suburbs may not be considered a nuisance in the countryside. Music played at top volume in the "bright lights" parts of city centres are less likely to be a nuisance compared to music being pumped out at full volume from someone's bedroom in a residential street. You have to consider what is "natural" for the environment, and then ask where speedway fits in as a "natural" contributor to the environment.

 

This thing about the USAF base is such a red herring too. OK, so the planes are loud, but in this case that doesn't matter. It was a case between A v B, and was judged on the merits of A and B. Nothing else mattered really. How loud C, D or the USAF are in comparison does not form part of this judgement. This was a nuisance case between plaintiff and defendant. It wasn't an exercise in social justice.

 

A major irony here though is that the "Swedish Model" of planting speedway tracks in the middle of forests to alleviate the noise problem now comes into question. If speedway is an "unnatural" contributor to the forest environment, if the Swedish teams ever had grumpy neighbours and followed UK case law, then they would be in deep doo-doo as well.

[SimonB]

I doubt whether the "costs and expenses" will "go away" whether the people move back in or not. Those alone will cripple the stadium owners and speedway promotion.

 

Next issue is the planning permission which the verdict indicated was "personal" to the current people. So if these people bow out through bankruptcy then does the planning permission to run speedway etc expire as well?

 

AFAIK the case was against the stadium owners. Should this force them to sell the stadium the costs and expenses do not follow the ownership of the stadium but remain with its current owners.

 

Not sure about the planning issue

[SCB]

 

Not necessarily so... As it states in the judgement, and with reference to established case law...

 

 

So in your case a farmyard smell that would be a nuisance in the suburbs may not be considered a nuisance in the countryside. Music played at top volume in the "bright lights" parts of city centres are less likely to be a nuisance compared to music being pumped out at full volume from someone's bedroom in a residential street. You have to consider what is "natural" for the environment, and then ask where speedway fits in as a "natural" contributor to the environment.

 

This thing about the USAF base is such a red herring too. OK, so the planes are loud, but in this case that doesn't matter. It was a case between A v B, and was judged on the merits of A and B. Nothing else mattered really. How loud C, D or the USAF are in comparison does not form part of this judgement. This was a nuisance case between plaintiff and defendant. It wasn't an exercise in social justice.

 

A major irony here though is that the "Swedish Model" of planting speedway tracks in the middle of forests to alleviate the noise problem now comes into question. If speedway is an "unnatural" contributor to the forest environment, if the Swedish teams ever had grumpy neighbours and followed UK case law, then they would be in deep doo-doo as well.

Isn't that a contradiction? Firstly you say the area and the environment determines if something is a nuisance. Then go on to say that the environment (next to an air base) is a moot point.

[uk_martin]

Isn't that a contradiction? Firstly you say the area and the environment determines if something is a nuisance. Then go on to say that the environment (next to an air base) is a moot point.

 

It really doesn't matter what I think what's "the environment" and what isn't. What matters is what the judges thought. They didn't think that the airbase formed part of the environment, so that's all that matters in this case.

[wealdstone]

The Law is an ass

[oldace]

The Law is an ass

 

 

The law, in this case is in no way an ass and offers protection against unreasonable noise nuisance.

 

They likely purchased the property knowing a motor sport stadium was in the vicinity, the search probably highlighted it. They would see events on certain Saturday or Sunday afternoons and decided to purchase on that basis. It would be reasonable use of the stadium and be covered by the PP.

 

However when they move in they find the racket on a Saturday actually goes on until 2 AM and beyond then that is not reasonable use and they have every right to demand it stops.

 

Noise pollution is a major issue nowadays (and rightly so) have a look at Brands Hatch website and see the restricions in place on the times and number of days they can operate on. They don't flout it because they know the consequence.

 

The stadium owners seemed to think they were exempt from such things and are now paying the price.

 

The only Ass in this case is Mildenhall Stadium

[Halifaxtiger]

 

 

The law, in this case is in no way an ass and offers protection against unreasonable noise nuisance.

 

They likely purchased the property knowing a motor sport stadium was in the vicinity, the search probably highlighted it. They would see events on certain Saturday or Sunday afternoons and decided to purchase on that basis. It would be reasonable use of the stadium and be covered by the PP.

 

However when they move in they find the racket on a Saturday actually goes on until 2 AM and beyond then that is not reasonable use and they have every right to demand it stops.

 

Noise pollution is a major issue nowadays (and rightly so) have a look at Brands Hatch website and see the restricions in place on the times and number of days they can operate on. They don't flout it because they know the consequence.

 

The stadium owners seemed to think they were exempt from such things and are now paying the price.

 

The only Ass in this case is Mildenhall Stadium

 

Rubbish.

 

What you are basically saying is that if you move in next door to a cat food factory it is right that you can have it closed down because you don't like the smell, regardless of the fact that it has been there for years and employs countless people.

 

Your position also accepts that the purchasers of the property have absolutely no responsibility for ensuring that the locality suits their needs and requirements, because it is right that they can have it changed to suit them again regardless of how other local people think or how their actions might affect the community and its facilities.

 

Mildenhall Stadium has been in existence for 40 years. it is, to say the least, in the outback (only Buxton might be more remote) so it can't be placed anywhere where it is less likely to be a noise nuisance. The stock cars have been operating for years. Two people move in and demand that the stadium is restricted to just 12 operating days a year, and they win their case.

 

The fact that they moved in next door without first confirming what its usage was (although they apparently were told) is, also apparently, irrelevant.

 

Wealdstone is dead right. In this case, certainly, the law is an ass and defies reason, common sense and culpability.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Halifaxtiger

[Triple.H.]

The Law is an ass

That creates a lot of manure

[uk_martin]

Rubbish.

 

What you are basically saying is that if you move in next door to a cat food factory it is right that you can have it closed down because you don't like the smell, regardless of the fact that it has been there for years and employs countless people.

 

You're forgetting the legal principle which I quoted in post #24

 

Move in to an industrial area and you'll have problems in convincing the judges that the smell from a cat factory is a nuisance, because in an industrial area, that's what you get. On the other hand, try putting a cat food factory in the middle of leafy Richmond on Thames or somewhere like that and the objections to the smell will probably stop it ever getting built, let alone anyone putting in an action for nuisance.

 

The problem as I see it is that the judges looked at Mildenhall as a quaint little Olde English town in the rolling Suffolk countryside, and thought that something that creates noise doesn't belong there and is a nuisance to the local residents. The Counsel for the Stadium owners obviously didn't do a very good job of convincing the "learned colleagues" differently.

[Halifaxtiger]

 

You're forgetting the legal principle which I quoted in post #24

 

Move in to an industrial area and you'll have problems in convincing the judges that the smell from a cat factory is a nuisance, because in an industrial area, that's what you get. On the other hand, try putting a cat food factory in the middle of leafy Richmond on Thames or somewhere like that and the objections to the smell will probably stop it ever getting built, let alone anyone putting in an action for nuisance.

 

The problem as I see it is that the judges looked at Mildenhall as a quaint little Olde English town in the rolling Suffolk countryside, and thought that something that creates noise doesn't belong there and is a nuisance to the local residents. The Counsel for the Stadium owners obviously didn't do a very good job of convincing the "learned colleagues" differently.

 

The legal principle on which the case turned is this one:

 

The court ruled that the owner of the stadium could not raise as a defence the fact that the neighbours had “come to the nuisance”.

 

It also ruled that planning permission is irrelevant which means you can't run speedway without it..............but even if you have it it is no guarantee of being able to continue.

 

Both of those principles might be legal, but to my mind they also (to repeat) defy common sense, reason and culpability.

 

One thing was confirmed in the supreme court judgement: unless the house is re-occupied, the terms of the injunction relating number of meetings allowed has no force.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Halifaxtiger

[Swift Saint]

I don't suppose those lawyers who trundle on with these cases racking up enormous fees would be

mindful that perhaps the property was bought as an investment since its value would increase greatly if the so called nuisance was removed.

 

I thought that the Government intended to protect extant businesses which did not suit new neighbours

after their arrival which is why I suggest that the Parliamentary Committee for Speedway can be of some practical use to the sport.

 

It is clear to me that natural justice and sensible legal rulings have gone out of the window but if

some events have gone on until 2.00 am that would seem to be irresponsible. Other than that I see no justification for the outcome and I sincerely hope that at some point this is overturned

Edited July 29, 2015 by Proud Potter

[wealdstone]

It seems Judges are so divorced from reality that they live in a world all of their own. It defies belief that a Judge can rule in favour of someone who buys a house adjacent to a Stadium that has been in existence for 40 years and then complains about the noise. It may exlplain the standard of person when in a previous post their solicitors claimed it need not have got so far as they had offered that it would all go away if the Stadium owners bought their house and paid a six figure sum in compensation

 

In the last few days judges have overturned someones will in favour of a daughter that has been estranged since the 1970's and let a fellow judge off a debt which it is claimed is unaffordable despite the fact the person concerned earns in excess of £90000.

[oldace]

It seems Judges are so divorced from reality that they live in a world all of their own. It defies belief that a Judge can rule in favour of someone who buys a house adjacent to a Stadium that has been in existence for 40 years and then complains about the noise. It may exlplain the standard of person when in a previous post their solicitors claimed it need not have got so far as they had offered that it would all go away if the Stadium owners bought their house and paid a six figure sum in compensation.

No the judge lives in the real world where noise nuisance is treated like it should be treated

 

I live fairly close to a pub. Before I moved I knew it was here, it opens every day from midday to 11pm. No problem with that but rest assured if that pub suddenly decided to flout its license and stay open till 3 AM on a regular basis I would do all I could to put a stop to it.

 

The owners of Mildenhall were unreasonable and luckily for the rest of us the law has shown that, no matter how long you gave been there, you cant simply disregard other peoples right to a reasonable life

[wealdstone]

I am not sure where the 2am business comes from, from what I can gather this noise is caused by individuals not directly connected with the Stadium who seem to be carrying out reprisals against the people who complained.

[Brian]

I am not sure where the 2am business comes from, from what I can gather this noise is caused by individuals not directly connected with the Stadium who seem to be carrying out reprisals against the people who complained.

 

If I remember correctly from when this first came to light, the problem was stock car owners still making unreasonable noise in the early hours, either 2 or 3am.

[Ray Stadia]

 

The legal principle on which the case turned is this one:

 

The court ruled that the owner of the stadium could not raise as a defence the fact that the neighbours had “come to the nuisance”.

 

It also ruled that planning permission is irrelevant which means you can't run speedway without it..............but even if you have it it is no guarantee of being able to continue.

 

Both of those principles might be legal, but to my mind they also (to repeat) defy common sense, reason and culpability.

 

One thing was confirmed in the supreme court judgement: unless the house is re-occupied, the terms of the injunction relating number of meetings allowed has no force.

Good point, but if 'the nuisance' was behaving unreasonably and beyond the terms of the planning permission, maybe the Judge(s) had no option, but to agree with the complaint. If someone moves into an area, where there is speedway and 'the nuisance' is complying with their curfew, I would have thought it difficult for a court to side with a complaint from the new resident, in my opinion.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Ray Stadia

[wealdstone]

If the noise was indeed going on until 2/3am in the morning there are not many that would not have sympathy with the persons complaining. However unless I have missed something this particulat argument is a bit of a red herring. I think the complaints were aimed more at the use of the stadium in general.