Mildenhall Stadium-bad News

[em1500uk 190]

Ironic that the american air base Mildenhall has jets flying in 24 hours a day with noise that is a 100 times louder that a speedway bike .the US base is about half a mile from the speedway track

I said this on here myself years ago when this whole saga started!

 

Can't see much hope for Mildenhall surviving this now and the funny thing is, is that with this law change, the noise disturbance thing could affect any similar type of venue where there are residents near by who might complain about the noise. More stadiums could be at risk of closure

[Alan_Jones 1,005]

A summary of the case, including a link to the 2014 Supreme Court decision (91 pages!);

 

http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=309

 

 

[uk_martin 1,606]

Seems to me that the only hope would be if the Secretary of State for the Environment (I think that's the right government department, but I may be wrong) over-rules the court judgement and decrees that the stadium can continue to do what it's always done. Short of a Government minister playing god, I can't see any hope for Mildenhall.

 

Maybe the people who brought the action will have their home address in the public domain now. Anyone made redundant by the closure of the stadium could pop round their place and ask that couple if they have got any spare change please. Make them really proud of their actions.

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

There have been suggestions in the past that there was excessive noise in the middle of the night and noise for noise sake when there were no events taking place just to piss this couple off.

 

For the record, I think anyone complaining about the noise from the speedway and stocks cars during events at a speedway/stock car stadium is a pillock and should be ignored. But I can see, if the stories are true, why some people may get upset and ask for a little more respect. If the people being asked to show some respect then do the opposite, I can see why someone may take legal action.

 

Had it been a 'little' more respect, I'd agree.

 

They didn't want a little. What they wanted was enough to make the stadium completely uneconomical. - as Iris has said, used just 12 times a year.

 

Their demands were at least as unreasonable as the stadiums, and lets not forget they moved in without making any attempt to find out just what usage there was (although both the previous owner and the estate agent told them).

 

So, in effect, they moved in next to the stadium and now want it, effectively, shut down. It beggars belief_that just two people in such circumstances can go through our legal system and have judgement made in their favour.

 

I think you have to ask yourself a question. Before buying a home, do you make sure its right for you ?

Seems to me that the only hope would be if the Secretary of State for the Environment (I think that's the right government department, but I may be wrong) over-rules the court judgement and decrees that the stadium can continue to do what it's always done. Short of a Government minister playing god, I can't see any hope for Mildenhall.

 

Maybe the people who brought the action will have their home address in the public domain now. Anyone made redundant by the closure of the stadium could pop round their place and ask that couple if they have got any spare change please. Make them really proud of their actions.

 

I doubt very much that they will move back. To my knowledge, the house has been burned down and stripped.

 

Even if locals disagree with that, I doubt very much that they have made themselves popular in the locality.

 

Also to my knowledge, the court judgement only applies if they move back in. After all, the stadium wouldn't be running now if that wasn't the case.

 

With that in mind, I am a little more optimistic. The stadium isn't going to go away, so even if the present owners lose it there's every chance it will still be open for business.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Halifaxtiger

[uk_martin 1,606]

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?

[montie 1,273]

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 186]

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. 1,986]

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 1,606]

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 55]

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 0]

 

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 1,606]

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 3,454]

The Law is an ass

[oldace 1,678]

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 5,318]

 

 

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