Mildenhall Stadium-bad News

[Triple.H. 1,986]

The Law is an ass

That creates a lot of manure

[uk_martin 1,606]

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 5,318]

 

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 186]

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 3,454]

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 1,678]

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 3,454]

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 63]

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 1,071]

 

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 3,454]

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.

[oldace 1,678]

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.

 

 

No doubt the whole thing escalated as it went on but had more (some) consideration been shown and the noise restricted to no later than 10PM I doubt their complaint (assuming they would have even made one) would have got very far.

 

Motor sport venues are very much at risk from this type of action but as long as they comply with the (ever more restrictive) conditions of planning they are unlikely to fall foul like Mildenhall have. It is why some speedway tracks have curfews and they know the risk of consistently breaking it

 

It isn't just motor sport though. Any business operating within a residential area who's activities are likely to create noise nuisance still have to maintain a reasonable strategy with regard noise.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Oldace

[uk_martin 1,606]

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.

Good point, but if 'the nuisance' was behaving unreasonably and beyond the terms of the planning permission, ...

 

I don't suppose it helped show the stadium owners in a good light when it was shown that they ran Stock Cars for 10 years WITHOUT Planning Permission, and only afterwards went back to the Council to hold them over a barrel and say "no-one's objected in the last 10 years so give us retrospective planning consent please".

 

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.

 

It may indeed be possible even then to run a NL team on 12 "events" a year - as long as every event is a league meeting...however one thing has been overlooked here. Whether or not the injunction ever takes force, the costs still have to be met. The lawyers want paying. That £500,000 bill from NoiseLaywers4U has to be stumped up from somewhere or the whole shooting match goes down in flames.

 

Blame the house owners for starting the action. Blame the lawyers for finishing it all off.

[Ray Stadia 1,071]

 

I don't suppose it helped show the stadium owners in a good light when it was shown that they ran Stock Cars for 10 years WITHOUT Planning Permission, and only afterwards went back to the Council to hold them over a barrel and say "no-one's objected in the last 10 years so give us retrospective planning consent please".

 

 

It may indeed be possible even then to run a NL team on 12 "events" a year - as long as every event is a league meeting...however one thing has been overlooked here. Whether or not the injunction ever takes force, the costs still have to be met. The lawyers want paying. That £500,000 bill from NoiseLaywers4U has to be stumped up from somewhere or the whole shooting match goes down in flames.

 

Blame the house owners for starting the action. Blame the lawyers for finishing it all off.

That is true, but if the entity can't pay, who will pay? I would suggest someone will go hungry!

[mikebv 10,293]

Maybe the owners of the Stadium and the House could go on 'Judge Rinder'..

 

I think he is now the 'highest court in the land' isn't he??...!!!!!

[arnieg 3,651]

Maybe the owners of the Stadium and the House could go on 'Judge Rinder'..

I think he is now the 'highest court in the land' isn't he??...!!!!!

I think you mean campest