Save Mildenhall Stadium-online Petition

[FTM 146]

Signed good luck hope we can all bring enough clout to make the change

Edited April 3, 2014 by FTM

[Deano 1,318]

Anyone read the ministerial response?

 

Copied below for anyones benefit...

 

The e-petition 'Save Mildenhall Stadium and give rights to existing activities with planning permission and local residents’ support.' signed by you recently reached 13,475 signatures and a response has been made to it.

As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: The Government cannot comment on or intervene in cases which have been the subject of judicial consideration. The judiciary are constitutionally independent of the Government and to do so would be a breach of this fundamental principle. We do not propose to make changes to the law of private nuisance as it already enables an appropriate balance to be struck between the protection of an individual’s private rights and the needs of business. Private nuisance is an age-old common law tort, or civil wrong, which affects a person’s private rights in relation to land. The wrong is committed where an act generally connected with the use or occupation of land causes damage to another person in connection with their use of land, or interference with the enjoyment of their land or of some right connected with that land. This includes causing physical damage to property or injury to the occupier’s health and comfort. A person whose rights are affected by a private nuisance can issue legal proceedings. A civil court will deal with the case and may grant relief such as an injunction or damages if the nuisance is proven. The law of private nuisance recognises that, in general, every person is entitled to the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the premises owned or occupied by them. The act of a person’s neighbour will be an actionable nuisance if it materially interferes with the ordinary comfort of that person’s existence when judged by a certain standard. This standard is an objective one based on what is reasonable to the average person. It is also necessary to take account of the circumstances and nature of the locality in which the complainant is living. Since the late 1800s, it has become well established in case law that once it is established that a particular act amounts to a nuisance it cannot be justified on the basis that the complainant ‘came to the nuisance’. In other words, legal proceedings can be taken in relation to issues that can constitute a nuisance, regardless of whether those circumstances arose before the complainant became the occupier of the affected premises. This principle applies equally between two business occupiers or two residential occupiers as between a resident and a business. However, as stated above, the standard for determining whether an interference with comfort amounts to a nuisance is an objective one and the nature of the locality will be taken into account by the court. The planning regime has an important role to play in helping to prevent nuisances. Planning policies and decisions should avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on heath and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions. However, the grant of planning permission does not license a nuisance and in some cases businesses may need to do more than just comply with their planning conditions to avoid causing a nuisance. Where appropriate, the courts will look at planning decisions and compliance with any planning decisions when assessing whether a nuisance exists. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Deano

[ruffdiamond 6,115]

so,,, in lamens term's, that means what, exactly ???,,, a passing of one's buck,,,

[Ray Stadia 1,071]

Anyone read the ministerial response?

 

Copied below for anyones benefit...

 

The e-petition 'Save Mildenhall Stadium and give rights to existing activities with planning permission and local residents’ support.' signed by you recently reached 13,475 signatures and a response has been made to it.

As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: The Government cannot comment on or intervene in cases which have been the subject of judicial consideration. The judiciary are constitutionally independent of the Government and to do so would be a breach of this fundamental principle. We do not propose to make changes to the law of private nuisance as it already enables an appropriate balance to be struck between the protection of an individual’s private rights and the needs of business. Private nuisance is an age-old common law tort, or civil wrong, which affects a person’s private rights in relation to land. The wrong is committed where an act generally connected with the use or occupation of land causes damage to another person in connection with their use of land, or interference with the enjoyment of their land or of some right connected with that land. This includes causing physical damage to property or injury to the occupier’s health and comfort. A person whose rights are affected by a private nuisance can issue legal proceedings. A civil court will deal with the case and may grant relief such as an injunction or damages if the nuisance is proven. The law of private nuisance recognises that, in general, every person is entitled to the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the premises owned or occupied by them. The act of a person’s neighbour will be an actionable nuisance if it materially interferes with the ordinary comfort of that person’s existence when judged by a certain standard. This standard is an objective one based on what is reasonable to the average person. It is also necessary to take account of the circumstances and nature of the locality in which the complainant is living. Since the late 1800s, it has become well established in case law that once it is established that a particular act amounts to a nuisance it cannot be justified on the basis that the complainant ‘came to the nuisance’. In other words, legal proceedings can be taken in relation to issues that can constitute a nuisance, regardless of whether those circumstances arose before the complainant became the occupier of the affected premises. This principle applies equally between two business occupiers or two residential occupiers as between a resident and a business. However, as stated above, the standard for determining whether an interference with comfort amounts to a nuisance is an objective one and the nature of the locality will be taken into account by the court. The planning regime has an important role to play in helping to prevent nuisances. Planning policies and decisions should avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on heath and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions. However, the grant of planning permission does not license a nuisance and in some cases businesses may need to do more than just comply with their planning conditions to avoid causing a nuisance. Where appropriate, the courts will look at planning decisions and compliance with any planning decisions when assessing whether a nuisance exists. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.

Reading the above and it is woolly, but I do wonder whether the stock car operators, pushed the envelope and operated outside their planning permission.

[Deano 1,318]

Reading the above and it is woolly, but I do wonder whether the stock car operators, pushed the envelope and operated outside their planning permission.

 

 

Yes it is woolly, but how I read it:

 

It doesn't matter whether you have permission to make noise. If someone moves in and finds it a nuisance, they have a right to put in a complaint and get the status quo changed. The law has been like this since 1800 apparently.... ?

Edited May 15, 2014 by Deano

[theflyingkiwi 136]

I read the response a couple of times this morning and am somewhat surprised that planning permission can be rescinded if someone one day makes a complaint. I understand completely that if it is a new build or the circumstances of that stadium change then a complaint should have merit. Having visited West Row a quite a few times when Wimbledon rode there during 2002-05, the one thing that struck me about the place was the noise from the RAF base outweighed the noise of the Speedway track. Could a complaint be made against that as well, or is it only minority sports that suffer?

[Ray Stadia 1,071]

 

 

Yes it is woolly, but how I read it:

 

It doesn't matter whether you have permission to make noise. If someone moves in and finds it a nuisance, they have a right to put in a complaint and get the status quo changed. The law has been like this since 1800 apparently.... ?

I think it is possible, due to common sense. For example, if you live next door to a noisy engineering company, but they were there before your house was built and ordinarily they started work at 8.30 and finished at 5.00 pm. However, due to new orders, they were now starting at 7.00 am and finishing at 8.00 pm. The engineering company has moved the goal posts, therefore, you should have the right to be able to complain about the change in situation, if it affects your life, in my opinion.

I read the response a couple of times this morning and am somewhat surprised that planning permission can be rescinded if someone one day makes a complaint. I understand completely that if it is a new build or the circumstances of that stadium change then a complaint should have merit. Having visited West Row a quite a few times when Wimbledon rode there during 2002-05, the one thing that struck me about the place was the noise from the RAF base outweighed the noise of the Speedway track. Could a complaint be made against that as well, or is it only minority sports that suffer?

Probably. I think a USAF base would be considered more important to national security, than a motor sport stadium.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Ray Stadia

[ruffdiamond 6,115]

 

 

Yes it is woolly, but how I read it:

 

It doesn't matter whether you have permission to make noise. If someone moves in and finds it a nuisance, they have a right to put in a complaint and get the status quo changed. The law has been like this since 1800 apparently.... ?

well if they started banging on once or twice a week,,, I would get sick aswell, if you keep rocking all over the world there will come a time when you've covered it all,,, or I could just become an alcholic and put up with it, lol

I read the response a couple of times this morning and am somewhat surprised that planning permission can be rescinded if someone one day makes a complaint. I understand completely that if it is a new build or the circumstances of that stadium change then a complaint should have merit. Having visited West Row a quite a few times when Wimbledon rode there during 2002-05, the one thing that struck me about the place was the noise from the RAF base outweighed the noise of the Speedway track. Could a complaint be made against that as well, or is it only minority sports that suffer?

I think you could complain about the USAF base, but judging by the size of their gang, could'nt imagine getting very far,,, maybe into an orange boiler suit, and you could forget about any trips to Florida you might have planned :-)

[The White Knight 9,039]

well if they started banging on once or twice a week,,, I would get sick aswell, if you keep rocking all over the world there will come a time when you've covered it all,,, or I could just become an alcholic and put up with it, lol

I think you could complain about the USAF base, but judging by the size of their gang, could'nt imagine getting very far,,, maybe into an orange boiler suit, and you could forget about any trips to Florida you might have planned :-)

I loved the last bit. :rofl:

[Gatwick Rocket 53]

The problem speedway has is that the test of nuisance is based on what the average person considers to be a nuisance. Sadly the noise a speedway meeting makes is considered by the average person to be a nuisance. Whereas other situations that create much more noise are deemed by the average person to be acceptable. Well attended football matches being an obvious example.

 

Whilst the test is perceptions based rather than an objective measure of absolute noise levels speedway will have a problem as a minority sport. Given this test has been enshrined in law for a very long time, the option of lobbying to change the law seems extremely unlikely to succeed. Which means either overcomes people's perceptions of speedway being a nuisance or reduce noise levels even further such that it is impossible to argue speedway is noisy. There has been plenty of attempts to do the latter yet the popular perception that speedway is a nuisance continues to cause significant difficulties. Which leaves changing the average person's perception of speedway...

[weatherwatcher 664]

Just got this reply in my mail box on the outcome of the online petition. It makes it very plain that not a lot will be done to help with the matter of the stadium, until it comes to court that is. shame that we live in a world of so much red tape these days. There was no if this to content with in the 70's, bring back the good times when people where happy to let things happen. We have followed the way of the U.S.A to close over the last few years what with, public liability and the likes. I always thought we where a free country, but it just proves that we are all wrong in what we think these days.

The e-petition 'Save Mildenhall Stadium and give rights to existing activities with planning permission and local residents’ support.' signed by you recently reached 13,475 signatures and a response has been made to it.

As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: The Government cannot comment on or intervene in cases which have been the subject of judicial consideration. The judiciary are constitutionally independent of the Government and to do so would be a breach of this fundamental principle. We do not propose to make changes to the law of private nuisance as it already enables an appropriate balance to be struck between the protection of an individual’s private rights and the needs of business. Private nuisance is an age-old common law tort, or civil wrong, which affects a person’s private rights in relation to land. The wrong is committed where an act generally connected with the use or occupation of land causes damage to another person in connection with their use of land, or interference with the enjoyment of their land or of some right connected with that land. This includes causing physical damage to property or injury to the occupier’s health and comfort. A person whose rights are affected by a private nuisance can issue legal proceedings. A civil court will deal with the case and may grant relief such as an injunction or damages if the nuisance is proven. The law of private nuisance recognises that, in general, every person is entitled to the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the premises owned or occupied by them. The act of a person’s neighbour will be an actionable nuisance if it materially interferes with the ordinary comfort of that person’s existence when judged by a certain standard. This standard is an objective one based on what is reasonable to the average person. It is also necessary to take account of the circumstances and nature of the locality in which the complainant is living. Since the late 1800s, it has become well established in case law that once it is established that a particular act amounts to a nuisance it cannot be justified on the basis that the complainant ‘came to the nuisance’. In other words, legal proceedings can be taken in relation to issues that can constitute a nuisance, regardless of whether those circumstances arose before the complainant became the occupier of the affected premises. This principle applies equally between two business occupiers or two residential occupiers as between a resident and a business. However, as stated above, the standard for determining whether an interference with comfort amounts to a nuisance is an objective one and the nature of the locality will be taken into account by the court. The planning regime has an important role to play in helping to prevent nuisances. Planning policies and decisions should avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on heath and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions. However, the grant of planning permission does not license a nuisance and in some cases businesses may need to do more than just comply with their planning conditions to avoid causing a nuisance. Where appropriate, the courts will look at planning decisions and compliance with any planning decisions when assessing whether a nuisance exists. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.

View the response to the e-petition

Thanks,

HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

[Ray Stadia 1,071]

The problem speedway has is that the test of nuisance is based on what the average person considers to be a nuisance. Sadly the noise a speedway meeting makes is considered by the average person to be a nuisance. Whereas other situations that create much more noise are deemed by the average person to be acceptable. Well attended football matches being an obvious example.

 

Whilst the test is perceptions based rather than an objective measure of absolute noise levels speedway will have a problem as a minority sport. Given this test has been enshrined in law for a very long time, the option of lobbying to change the law seems extremely unlikely to succeed. Which means either overcomes people's perceptions of speedway being a nuisance or reduce noise levels even further such that it is impossible to argue speedway is noisy. There has been plenty of attempts to do the latter yet the popular perception that speedway is a nuisance continues to cause significant difficulties. Which leaves changing the average person's perception of speedway...

With respect, I think the problem with Mildenhall is being missed. I don't believe (for one minute), the problem is speedway. It is the stock cars/bangers. Speedway is wrapped up on the last heat and no more noise. Apparently, evening meetings were running at the track for bangers and they create a huge mess and the track was being prepared for speedway into the early hours, so we are told. Is that reasonable, even for the most tolerant neighbour?

[Gatwick Rocket 53]

I see. That would cause much more detriment to the neighbours.