Private Nuisance And Planning Permission
The Court of Appeal has awarded damages and an injunction to
local residents affected by noise from a nearby racing circuit.
The Court of Appeal decided that the racing circuit was causing
a nuisance even though it had planning permission and was operating
within the terms of a binding agreement with the local council.
The claimants in Watson and ors v Croft Promo Sport
Limited (26 January 2009) lived just to the north of a
motor circuit managed by Croft. The circuit, formerly an
aerodrome, had been used for car racing of one sort or another
since 1949.
From 1949 to 1962, it was used as a relief airfield and for car
racing.
In 1963, planning permission was granted (following a local
enquiry and subject to conditions) for motor and motorcycle events,
for driving tuition and as a sports centre.
From 1963 to 1979, it was used for car racing on not more than
20 days per year, together with additional associated practice
days.
From 1980 to 1994, it was used for rallycross on 10 days per
year.
Croft became interested in the circuit in 1994 and started to
intensify activities there. From 1995 to 1997, it was used
for sporadic race meetings interspersed with track alteration and
improvements.
In 1998, there was a further enquiry as Croft tried to remove
some of the conditions that had been attached to the 1963 planning
permission. Croft entered into a unilateral undertaking (the
"Section 106 Agreement") as to the frequency and
intensity of noisy events. The inspector decided to grant
planning permission for the continued use of the circuit for motor
and motorcycle events and as a sports centre free from the 1963
planning conditions, but subject to the conditions set out in the
Section 106 agreement.
From 1998 until 2007, the circuit was used for between 144 and
207 days per year, with most activity concentrated in the summer
months.
In 2006, the claimants brought an action in nuisance against
Croft. Forty to fifty days per year of car and motorcycle
racing was fine, but the vehicle testing and track days on top were
excessive. They sought damages for the nuisance that they had
endured in the past and an injunction to restrain future excessive
activity.
Croft's defence was that, although its activities did cause
noise and some discomfort and inconvenience to the claimants, there
was no actionable nuisance because the use of the circuit was
reasonable having regard to the nature and character of the area
arising from the grant of planning...
To continue reading
Request your trial