Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Ray Stadia

Members
  • Posts

    1,956
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Ray Stadia

  1. What the above suggests, even though you have planning permission, you still need to be reasonable. Or in other words, use common sense. Perhaps when they grant planning permission, this is how they expect people to behave. Mr Coventry obviously believes he has acted reasonably.
  2. If that is true, how was it the supreme court found in favour of the couple? Surely being granted permission to make noise, doesn't mean you can do it 24/7? Surely when permission is granted, certain boundaries are put in place? For the court to have found in favour of the couple, I would suggest the boundaries were 'stepped over'.
  3. At the end of the day, Mr Coventry and the couple had a grievance. It is a pity it had to go to court and couldn't have been settled long before going down that route. Both sides are probably to blame for that. I would imagine and perhaps this is a sexist comment, the lady bent the ear of her male partner and it escalated from there! I think us men have all probably been there at some time!
  4. Why not do the clearing up the following day? Say, from 9 am? All that is needed is a bit of common sense. I have no idea who Mr Coventry is, but is he the kind of person who thinks of others or just thinks about himself? Just asking, as I haven't a clue, however, starting to build a mental picture! Interesting to note, during the second world war, some locals used to complain about the bombers taking off from their air bases. People complaining about noise and being 'unreasonable' is nothing new.
  5. So making noise at 3 am in the morning is reasonable stadium activity? The Ipswich football ground is surrounded by housing and flats etc. If the blues kicked a game off at 1 am, those dwellers would be well hacked off! And so they should, that is not reasonable and not what you would expect a football stadium to do. Likewise, a stadium running bangers, still clearing the debris and grading the speedway track at 3 am is also unreasonable.
  6. Sounds like it's the stocks/bangers are possibly the issue, but as Gustix has pointed out, Mr Coventry is a stocks/bangers man. Difficult one. I suppose that is why many stocks/banger meetings are run during the day at weekends.
  7. Sure, but would you expect there to be noise from the stadium at 3 am? I wouldn't. I wouldn't even be making investigations whether there was noise at 3 am, I would assume the operators had common sense to wrap things up at around 11.00 pm.
  8. Not casting aspersions, just suggesting that newspaper stories often don't reflect the facts. I have no doubt you have read an article or many articles possibly saying 'Muslims get church bells silenced', but is that really a true account of the situation? Similarly, with the Mildenhall situation, I feel there are things we haven't been told.
  9. The silencing of the church bells is for them to stop between 11 pm and 7 am, which is sort of fair. However, due to fact they are activated automatically, they can't be switched off between that time. Therefore, it is really a technical issue. The other complaint about the church worshippers playing loud music during sermons is not necessarily the guy being difficult because he is a Muslim, it might be flipping loud! All they need to do is keep the noise down a bit. What is interesting, is I think there is a missing part to the Mildenhall story. I wonder if the supreme court are not expecting the track to stop it's activities, but to reduce them. Which may not suit Mr Coventry if he needs to run all the activities to make money. Just being devils advocate.
  10. Perhaps it's a church, near Mildenhall Stadium?
  11. With respect, that sounds like a myth to me rather than fact. Probably put about by UKIP!
  12. Is that the group of MP's headed up by George Galloway, who will not only stand in the corner of Odsal, apparently not his constituency, but will also stand in the corner of Mildenhall! (also not his constituency, allegedly).
  13. Regarding the top line Gustix, I was merely giving an opinion as to why the couple may have a case in the eyes of the supreme court. i.e. when they moved in, activity was low, but then got stepped up. From the couples point of view, they say, moved in when speedway was run on a Sunday afternoon, they could cope with that, then, say stocks start on say a Friday night, which were not there previously. Possibly, the couple would have a case. It's like moving next to a pub and they have live music every Friday night, have done for donkeys years. Manager decides to have live music on Sunday nights as well, those in the area would probably have a case to get, at least, the Sunday live music stopped.
  14. That would be a good idea. An area that is ring fenced and protected from future closure due to complaints. That would also possibly mean, more promoters coming forward to promote, rather than living in fear that one day their investment could have the rug taken away. On the other hand, perhaps some promoters take on a stadium/buy land, in the hope the land will be valuable allowing them to cash in? As with all things, 2 schools of thought! But for the promoter who truly loves his sport, would be a great idea!
  15. That could be more dangerous for speedway. If you have permission to run a motor sport and you have houses nearby, you should be doing as much as you can to keep them reasonably happy, but it would be dangerous to go door knocking and saying 'would you like to see the speedway stop', the majority, in my opinion would say yes. However, the majority will tolerate it, unless the stadium changes something to pee them off and then the stadium ignores the complaints. I wonder how many promoters are equipped to be diplomatic? From what I have heard on the forum, many are not diplomatic with the paying fans, so what chance a few complainers?
  16. But have there really been tracks closed down, when houses are built in the vicinity of an existing operating track? I can understand that if the track closes for even just one season, you then leave the door wide open for the complainers, but if the track is operating in a similar way it has done year in year out, there is no way, that I can see, that a court or council can close the track. But if the track somehow changes the goal posts, i.e. changes start and finish time or puts on more meetings or introduces stocks when it was just speedway, I can see that you may be inviting trouble.
  17. I personally do not believe this case will set a precedent for other situations, including other tracks. There has to be a point that we are missing, for the supreme court to find in the couples favour. Maybe, when the couple moved in, the track was not operating? Mildenhall Speedway have been open and closed a few times. Or when they moved in, perhaps, the stadiums activities were at a tolerable level for the couple to accept, but due to stock cars, MX and speedway, the activity has increased and for the couple, it has become unacceptable. If this is the case, it does put a slightly different slant on the situation.
  18. I agree Vince, but that is why we have judges and in this case there were 3, apparently. The judges have the overall say, not the solicitors/barristers. What defence did Mr Coventry put up and what did the couple put up? At the end of the day, the 3 judges were convinced that the couples argument was stronger. But does all sound bonkers, based on what we know and have been told.
  19. Probably living near Lakeside Speedway and planning their next court case!
  20. Badge posted this yesterday and I have just read the BBC article. I am astonished this has been won on appeal! You do wonder if the defence was weak, due to Mr Coventry's legal team thinking it had no chance of success due to winning the previous hearing. I wonder also, whether the judges were aware of all the facts when they made their judgement? Also, the entitlement to the £20k compensation, seems to be bouncing between the couple and Mr Coventry. I suppose after the latest hearing, the couple are expecting it back. God knows what the couple (legal representatives) told the court. Bizarre!
  21. Yes, just re-read the article, the couple paid the £20k to the motorsport operators. It is all very confusing I have to say.
  22. Sounds like Mr Coventry is currently 'shell shocked' and who can blame him. When the dust settles, I would hope that he fights on. This is a ridiculous situation which does need to be fought. But not at the cost of £2m! I wonder where Mr Coventry get's that from? I wonder what the owners of the property's real agenda is? I imagine compensation beyond £20K?
  23. Well, can't see the house/bungalow being rebuilt with £20k, but they may have insurance money from the 'strange' fire which occurred. Surely, if they had no idea about the stadium they should be suing the estate agent and the vendor. Unless they bought the property when the stadium wasn't operating? But even then, surely the sellers and estate agents should have mentioned speedway used to operate and may return? Odd.
  24. Sorry, I am not going to be of any specific help, but do remember the name Van Nys. Actually, is it one or two 'y's in the Nyys or Nys? I seem to remember a rider or riders going back a couple of decades using the services? You could ring Trevor Hedge and ask him? He can be helpful, if he's not too busy! Or RTN (Tommy Nichols). He too can be helpful if not too busy! You could try Martin Hagon at Hagon Shocks. In fact, I an not sure if Martin didn't use these engines? Good luck!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy