funbobby Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 Kind of f***s any idea of doing the Northern Saloons up then. Well p****d off about this and very very angry - its madness. Quote
nikpro Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 Nikpro I take it you have never been to Croft and even as a track day atendee you probably wouldnt be aware of the permanent noise meter linked to Richmondshire council, also the council hotline for any local to ring if they sense it is too noisy. This is put in place to ensure the noise standards are met. I went for a trackday a week before a sprint and I was not allowed to run for being too noisy, the next week I was OK for the sprint. they definitely adhere to the noise limits The house in question is literally on the circuit, its the circuit owners former farm and forms part of the property. Someone today at work claims there friend has just bought it off Mrs Wilson for £950K. News from Tracy at the circuit today is that the circuit will be closing No, I've been several times and realy like it and it's a real shame that the circuit is under threat. I just would not like to pass comment on the matter without knowing the full facts of why it is no longer acceptable to have track days at the venue. There is always two sides to an arguement; I don't know how the circuit is run but if the owners have been negligent in obeying certain rules then it is these people we should be angry with and not the residents who complained. The above is speculation as I don't know what has been said at the Court hearing. Quote
jeff oakley Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 The facts were revealed in court and all revolves around the use of the track for events. Even a blind man on a galloping horse can see this is motivated by more than just a noise. This home has been there and those living there have now used the enviromental laws to their own ends, just like those at Castle Coombe and Elvington did. Kemble, still a used airfield was subjected to a noise claim from a person who lived in the only house on the airfield, it wasn't the engine noise but the tyre squeal. Inter pro in Bristol do rolling road tuning, 18 months ago builders built houses next to the this huge industrial estate with various industries. Six months ago a new man moves in and has complained about the engine noise from the garage, result is the enviromental health have been down and the business activities of this well established and run company have had to be curtailed somewhat. Now if you buy a house next door to a huge industrial site, cheaper than other areas due to it's location, there should be no way on this earth that they should have the right to complain against legitimate fully licenced business employing people just because they are dimwitted enough to buy a house next to an industrial site and expect peace and quite. The system is so screwed when this sort of thing happens, it is the selfishness that a single person can have such an affect on the majority. Quote
Bill Gates Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 The above is speculation as I don't know what has been said at the Court hearing. This should make some interesting (if time taking) reading. It is what i have manged to get from google & other forums so far after trying to read into this a little deeper than the limited info the media has reported. Court Hearing as of 16/04/2008 Direct Link http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/croft.pdf Court Hearing dated 26/01/2009 Direct Link http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/croft2.pdf This seems to be a report carried out in early 2008 by a a Solicitors about the property, The Old Farmhouse. https://files.thehipalliance.com/view?id=43268&postcode=DL22PN Quote
nikpro Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 After reading the above it does seem bizzare - basically the law says that even though something is there prior to you moving in it can still be a source of nuisance even though you know full well that it exists. The crux of the arguement is that the familly state that when they purchased the premises the activity at the circuit was considerably less than what it is now. It is like living next to a quite country road that one day the developers decide to turn into a motorway - buying a house next to a road you should expect some road noise but this would be on a different scale to the noise produced by a motorway? The people were not objecting to the 20-40 race days a year with noise levels up to 95db's; they were objecting to the other 160 days of trackdays/test days that didn't occur when they purchased the property. Quote
DanB Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 QUOTE After reading the above it does seem bizzare - basically the law says that even though something is there prior to you moving in it can still be a source of nuisance even though you know full well that it exists. Yep, Miller v. Jackson (1977), Court of Appeal. b****y stupid law, but there you go. Unless the case goes to the House of Lords and they overrule Miller v. Jackson or Parliament passes an Act changing the law, that is the law of the land, badgeringly daft though it is. Quote
cast iron Posted January 28, 2009 Author Posted January 28, 2009 the only way forward i can see is for local busnisses to counter sue watson and wilson for loss of earning as a direct result of their actions? Quote
jeff oakley Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 the only way forward i can see is for local busnisses to counter sue watson and wilson for loss of earning as a direct result of their actions? This wouldn't work, Watson and Wilson have the law on their side. They have effectivly won everything they wanted, damages, restricting the amount of days racing to a maximum of 40 days each year and their legal cost of £800kish. Plus they are on the way to getting the circuit closed down which would see the property value raise. As Nik pro say's it is bizzare that in law moving into an house next to a known activity does not mean that that activity cannot be stopped even if planning permission was granted and been in use. This is the same law where people move next to a church and complain about the bells on sunday. Truley a perverse and stupid law. Quote
cast iron Posted January 28, 2009 Author Posted January 28, 2009 they have already sold there property, i know who has bought it and the price hasnt fluctuated in 6 months, this considering the economic climate is quite an achievement. I bet that slipped past the ruddy courts Quote
pistonbroke Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 the only way forward i can see is for local busnisses to counter sue watson and wilson for loss of earning as a direct result of their actions? This wouldn't work, Watson and Wilson have the law on their side. They have effectivly won everything they wanted, damages, restricting the amount of days racing to a maximum of 40 days each year and their legal cost of £800kish. Plus they are on the way to getting the circuit closed down which would see the property value raise. As Nik pro say's it is bizzare that in law moving into an house next to a known activity does not mean that that activity cannot be stopped even if planning permission was granted and been in use. This is the same law where people move next to a church and complain about the bells on sunday. Truley a perverse and stupid law. Its a bit like moving into a lighthouse and complaining about the noise of the seagulls Quote
cast iron Posted January 28, 2009 Author Posted January 28, 2009 One thing I learned whilst attempting a part time degree was the law and common sense will never agree This case has set a new presidence and the owners of all the circuits, airports, anything established and with a noise element in this country should be quaking in their boots. emigration anyone Quote
Andrew Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 they have already sold there property, i know who has bought it and the price hasnt fluctuated in 6 months, this considering the economic climate is quite an achievement. I bet that slipped past the ruddy courts Wonder where they've moved to? Elvington, Kirkby Mallory,...somewhere near Heathrow? ... so are the new owners Croft friendly Mark? Quote
tex Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 if thats true and they have gone that only just makes it worse! What a total disgrace! Took the money and gone.. Good 'k*n riddance i say.. So does the same ruling apply? New owners car friendly? Id buy it if i could.. Brilliant pad.. Quote
cast iron Posted January 28, 2009 Author Posted January 28, 2009 there is a glimer of candelight on a very dark windy day....cant say much on a public forum....i will keep you posted Quote
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.