Croft under threat!!!!! (merged) and merged again!

[Al Weyman]

In which case the business model is unviable and cloth will have to be cut accordingly and its no good just saying they will have to hike prices up because i think we all agree that they are now at a limit in fact they really need to drop substantially. If they cannot survive with out the recent phenomina of trackdays how did they survive in the past and I ask this as no doubt the people sitting on the council hearing this case asked the same question i.e. how did they survive when it was restricted to just 40 days and basically why can't they now and just why do they need the trackdays?

[phoenix]

"The Court of Appeal recognised that the implementation of planning permission may alter the nature and character of the locality as to shift the standard of reasonable user which in turn governs whether a nuisance is being caused to third parties. However, the mere grant of planning permission does not in itself affect the private law rights of third parties or the nature of the area, even where the grant follows an exhaustive consideration of the consequences of the development in question."


The appeal court judgment makes me wonder, and in particular this interpretation of the rights of third parties, how would people's rights to receive compensation and/or injuctions be ruled on if the complaint were against noise from adding more lanes to a motorway, or a third runway at an airport, or the addition of a high speed train link through Kent?

[JimW]

Originally Posted by FISCracer

I suspect that loss of trackdays and restriction to just 40 days will mean

a) circuit fees will go up substantially for racing

b) in the longer term the circuit will not be financially viable

This is a big issue for all of us, as it sets a precedent for other circuits

Sadly, I fear that you are over optimistic. The circuit needs track days to provide income to cover costs.

Unless there are moves behind the scenes to try and overturn this (pretty unlikely) I'd be surprised to see Croft circuit complete a full year in 2009. Run 40 days early on and then close.

Jim

[fasted]

I signed the No !0 Downing St. petition through a link from the 750MC website
I was disappointed to see less than 4000 signatures. Not much of a message to send to those running the country.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/saveCroft/

[dtype38]

Originally Posted by phoenix

The appeal court judgment makes me wonder, and in particular this interpretation of the rights of third parties, how would people's rights to receive compensation and/or injuctions be ruled on if the complaint were against noise from adding more lanes to a motorway, or a third runway at an airport, or the addition of a high speed train link through Kent?

Isn't that why doing any of those things in this country takes at least 10years of arguments, and many millions of pounds in enquiries and legal actions before anything ever gets built. How long did the M3 through Twyford Down take?

[alee]

Originally Posted by diddy100

As mentioned in the Snett thread - pressure is being applied here as weel with local residents now involving the local MP. One of the main complaints here is as well the track days which continue until 8pm in the summer months, If these we stopped at 5pm like the normal test days this would be great help

There were 18 evenings run until 8.00pm in 2008 not including the 24hr race weekend. - hardly onerous. The majority of those were car evenings. The new Noise Management Plan means evenings in 2009 will be restricted further and most run at the lower limit of 102 decibels.

[Eddy V]

Yes, but still annoying if you get home after a days work and you can hear cars or bikes on track in the evening.
I'm a very big racing fan, but do not want to live next to a racetrack.
I can't stand noisy racecars anyhow. In the old days, I was one of the first guys to run a silencer on my car.

[Icebaby]

Originally Posted by Eddy V

Yes, but still annoying if you get home after a days work and you can hear cars or bikes on track in the evening.
I'm a very big racing fan, but do not want to live next to a racetrack.
I can't stand noisy racecars anyhow. In the old days, I was one of the first guys to run a silencer on my car.

I agree but if you didn't like noise you would not move near a race track/airport etc.

What about people who have a bypass built near there home, they cannot limit the cars on it based on noise so I fail to see the argument.

Limit the race track to what it can do and it potentially closes, this effects the local economy something the residents might want to consider.

[Al Weyman]

And if you moved near the race track when it ran an acceptable 40 days of the year then increased it to 170 and some as we now hear till 8pm could that not change your outlook? I think the case was lost by the increase in activity or thats how it looks to me not saying I agree with the decision but am beginning to see how a non-racing committee of people may arrive at it.

[alee]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

And if you moved near the race track when it ran an acceptable 40 days of the year then increased it to 170 and some as we now hear till 8pm could that not change your outlook? I think the case was lost by the increase in activity or thats how it looks to me not saying I agree with the decision but am beginning to see how a non-racing committee of people may arrive at it.

And to keep your racing affordable for you or I, just what do you propose the circuits do with the other 300 or so days a year - or do you expect them to sit and do nothing until it suits us to come a play? The days when it was easy for a landowner to decide he wanted to run a track a few days a year for a few of his friends and like minded individuals are long gone - certainly in terms of the infrastructure required even for a club race event - The government and local councils expect their tax income and rates etc for the full year.

I'm pretty certain that if you have overheads which have been shared between 170 days or whatever and then you have only 40 days - the cost of those 40 days is going to go up - the only way to balance those bills, is by us, the remaining customers, having to pay more. Even assuming some of those overheads could be reduced - it will still cost us more to go to Croft.

I do agree though that if any operation, be it race track or airport or other commercial activity, significantly changes its terms of use - it might not sit well with the neighbours. And it is up to that organistation to sort that out with those neighbours.

I feel that the correct forum for that is via the planning process - there is plenty of time then for consultation/public enquiries and for all to air their views. If an approved planning permission allowing you to do something, then doesn't always mean you can - it is very difficult for any commercial organisation to plan what they can and can't afford to do - it stifles any investment in future facilities and even stops repairs of existing ones - that was always the answer to complaints about lack of facilities/poor quality facilities when Snetterton was only leasehold on a short term back in the 80's and early 90's. (Don't build anything new or spend more than is absolutely necesary on repairs, as we may not get chance to use it!)

[Al Weyman]

(Don't build anything new or spend more than is absolutely necesary on repairs, as we may not get chance to use it!)

Don't think they did, did they? Even Lydden has better facilities. As I said I don't agree with the decision but can see how it was arrived at.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by phoenix

The appeal court judgment makes me wonder, and in particular this interpretation of the rights of third parties, how would people's rights to receive compensation and/or injuctions be ruled on if the complaint were against noise from adding more lanes to a motorway, or a third runway at an airport, or the addition of a high speed train link through Kent?

This is not my area of expertise, but it is likely that having a motorway or railway (i.e. a constant noise barrage) would be considered to alter the environment to a degree that an increase in noise would not be a nuisance.

The way it works is that if an area has a character - say an industrial character - then activities which are within that character are not a nuisance. So you couldn't move next to a farm and complain about being aroused every morning by an insistent cock.

The defence here seems to be that having a circuit meant Croft ought to be considered a "noisy" area, and that planning permission merely cemented that, but the judge rejected that argument. Otherwise all sorts of quasi-industrial activities could be allowed.

But the argument about moving to a nuisance is certainly one area of English law I would change like a shot. It is ludicrous and dates back to a really iffy 1870s verdict about boiled sweets that ought to have been legislated out of existence long ago. If Croft take it to the House of Lords they might revisit it.

[Al Weyman]

Which is why they ought to put an appeal out for support and donations to do that.

[ensign14]

And potentially be liable for the costs if they lose? No ta. No, Croft will have done all the work necessary at least to petition the Lords as part of the appeal process, it's just tidying it up and reformatting, given the amounts at stake it's a no-brainer at least to try. It'll be maybe £30k tops to seek leave to appeal.

[Al Weyman]

Why would one be liable if you donated to a fund to raise money for legal representation???

[ensign14]

Champerty. If you fund someone's legal case, and they lose and are ordered to pay the other side's costs, that other side might look to you for those costs. It's unlikely but possible (the backers of Neil Hamilton had to fight to stop Fayed executing the costs order against them).

In fact there are professional funders who do this in exchange for a cut of any proceedings. They get around it via insurance.

[TheSpiderMan]

Perhaps we should be trying a different method/logic for defending race circuits. As race car drivers, surely it is an infringement of our human rights not to allow us to race our cars on tracks that are built for doing just that. Everyone else seems to be able to use "Human Rights" to get their way.....can we??

[ensign14]

Human Rights is, legally speaking, the last refuge of the scoundrel. If you run out of arguments throw the Human Rights Act into the picture. And it is used by jobsworths to avoid actually doing their jobs. There are many competing rights all the time; my human right to have Piers Morgan eviscerated by a rabid wombat is unfortunately outweighed by Piers Morgan's human right to exist. With this one it's a balance between Croft being able to operate their business without let or hindrance and the interests of the neighbours suddenly faced with an increase in noise and so on by their homes.

In this case, if you tried to challenge on the basis that it was your human right to use private land to race on, the judges would say that it did not sufficiently outweigh the residents' right to a proper amount of peace and quiet. It would be simple enough for the judges to say that planning restrictions and so on dealt with the balance to be observed between the competing rights and there were no grounds to interfere.

[John Newman]

I have just received the official No 10 reply to the Save Croft petition which I have copied below:

The Government recognises that motor sports are enjoyed by a great number of people across the country and does not seek to curtail that enjoyment if a site operator operates within the planning conditions.

However, if the Local Authority finds that a nuisance interferes with a person’s reasonable use of their property or is prejudicial to their health the operator can be told under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 to abate a reported nuisance.

Under section 79(1)(g) of the EPA 1990, local authorities have a duty to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate complaints of ‘noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance’. If satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists or is about to occur or recur, the local authority must serve an abatement notice under section 80 requiring that the nuisance is abated or restricted to prevent its occurrence or recurrence

Or in English..........Sod Off!

[JEP]

The answer from number 10 is not surprising and while in general the act can save people from noise pollution; in this case the answer is not specific to the situation at Croft as I understand it.

At Croft the law has (allegedly) been invoked by three people with a grievance against the circuit, other than the noise, in this situation the law is an ass or maybe the local council is, for putting the rights of the few in front of the enjoyment and employment of the many.

If my understanding of this incorrect no doubt tenthers will educate me!

JEP

[ChrisA]

After this ruling, what chance of the government investing ANY money in British Motorsport? Does this also mean that Silverstone will not receive anything to permanently secure the GP?

[NICK ALLISON]

Originally Posted by ChrisA

After this ruling, what chance of the government investing ANY money in British Motorsport? Does this also mean that Silverstone will not receive anything to permanently secure the GP?

Yep it sure does.

[bdwoody]

just a thought , why cant the organising club and or others just buy the property from the complainers.........what ever it cost ! i'm sure that would be cost effective in the end , if more people moan buy them out as well .l recon the houses could be sold on later to motorsport fans or competitors later to recoup the money outlaid ,and without all the hassel that they now find them selfs in ... either that or just knock em down flat, the houses that is not the moaners ....

[Ty Nicholson]

This has been a long ongoing issue with a number of 'behind-the-scenes' things coming to light (i.e the daughter is ex-wife of circuit Operations Manager, the farm owners plans for opening/expansion into a hotel we rejested). All covered elswehere, especially in "Stockton & Darlington Times". As a Croft regular I hope things improve for both BARC and motorsport in general.

[Asp]

Yup, most of this is covered elsewhere and it isn't a marshalling specific issue.
The established thread was made in Racers, so keeping everything together this is going for a merge...