e-Petition - motorsports venue, noise complaints

[Jay762]

So if you knowingly move next to a motor sports venue don't then complain about the noise - this petition is designed to put a mandatory no complaints clause into any contracts for individuals moving to or renting accommodation close to motor sports venues who might then decide to complain about the noise.

 

If you support this follow the link and sign the petition - if not, no drama that is your democratic right ;)

 

http://www.britcar24hr.co.uk/home/hm-government-issue-e-petition-mandatory-noise-complaint-waiver/

[Gambit]

Signed !Removed! annoys me idiots that do that. My Sister in law lives just near Cadwell I like sitting in the garden and listening to the various bikes and cars going round. 

[aucky]

Dam race drivers and their noisey cars lol if you dont like noise dont move next to a race track, simples

[Gambit]

My thoughts exactly mate :D 

[Scoobyghost]

Signed. I live close the brands hatch. I'd hate to "hear" anything change.

[tom_gr7]

lol, surely that's a bit silly, buying a house near a motorsport racetrack and complaining about the noise. Bet its the same kind of people that buy houses near airports and complain too!

[Gambit]

It's like moving next to Gatwick or Heathrow then complaining planes fly over  <_< These types of people should be dragged from their homes in the night and tied to the back of track day goers cars and used like conkers. Or hairpin markers...  And forced to leave the house to me in their will ;) 

[Scoobyghost]

Anyone had a response to this. I received an email today. Basically says you can still complain about the noise and no special no-complaint law will be issued.

[Gambit]

Nope not had anything :(

[Scoobyghost]

I got an email. Shall I post it here?

[stants]

May as well

[Scoobyghost]

Dear ScoobyGhost(Name changed for privacy)

The e-petition 'introduce mandatory noise complaint waiver for anyone who buys or rents a property close to motorsport venue' signed by you recently reached 37,927 signatures and a response has been made to it.

As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: Introduction The issues raised in this e-petition relate to land use in England and Wales. They touch on the law relating to the ownership of property and the private law of nuisance as well as the planning system, statutory nuisance and the regulation of public events. The underlying complaint is that new residents object to established activities within their new neighbourhood. Individuals are in general free to live in any part of England and Wales. They may buy, rent or be permitted to use a residence. On taking up residence they generally have the same rights as the existing inhabitants. Removing the rights of incomers to protect themselves against nuisances would discriminate against them and probably intensify the enquiries made by prospective residents, making transactions more complicated and expensive, as well as increasing the risk of post-transaction litigation about non-disclosure or limited disclosure. The Government has no plans to change the law in this respect. The law of nuisance The private law of nuisance is a long-standing common law tort, or civil wrong, which affects a person’s private rights in relation to land. The law recognises that, in general, every person is entitled to the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the land or premises owned or occupied by them. It is open to anyone with an interest in land to bring a civil claim where there has been an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land as a result of the unreasonable use of neighbouring land by another person (the defendant). Remedies available could include an injunction to moderate or cease the unreasonable use of the land and/or damages for the interference suffered. The standard to be applied by the courts in determining whether the claimant is entitled to a remedy is an objective one based on what is reasonable to the average person. It is also necessary to take account of the circumstances and nature of the locality in which the claimant is living. While any benefit to the wider community arising from the defendant’s use of their land is not a defence against a claim, it may be a factor considered by the court when assessing if the use is reasonable. The fact that the defendant may have been using the land in that way before the claimant came to the vicinity is also not a defence, although the extent to which the claimant was aware of the activity when acquiring their interest in the land may be a factor that the court will consider as part of the overall picture. Applying these general principles, the court has to reach a decision in the light of all the circumstances of the individual case. Achieving a just outcome in such civil disputes is a matter best left to the courts, and the Government has no plans to change the law in this area. There is also statutory nuisance legislation which draws on common law nuisance. It would apply to noise from premises that unreasonably and substantially interferes with a person’s enjoyment of their property or damages their health. It also places a duty on local authorities to take action, rather than individuals relying on seeking redress through the courts. Before using this legislation, the local authority would assess whether a statutory nuisance exists based on the circumstances of the case, taking into account a range of factors including how the character of the locality (including existing noise sources) affects the situation. Individuals may also bring private actions under this legislation There are safeguards for motor sport venues in relation to complaints from nearby residents. When assessing statutory nuisance and deciding on potential enforcement action and whether mitigation measures are required, the venues – or any businesses - have a defence of best practicable means if they can demonstrate that they have done all they reasonably and practicably can to minimise the noise impact. Planning The planning system has an important role to play in helping to prevent nuisances occurring in the first place. National planning policy for England as set out in the National Planning policy Framework expects local planning policies and decisions to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on heath and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions. However, it should be borne in mind that the grant of planning permission does not license a nuisance and in some cases businesses may need to do more than just comply with their planning conditions to avoid causing a nuisance. Where appropriate, the courts will look at planning decisions and compliance with any planning decisions when assessing whether a nuisance exists. Elements of an ‘agent of change” or “right of first occupant” principle already exist within national planning policy and guidance. The National Planning policy Framework, for example, states that existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established. In particular, the planning guidance supporting the Framework directly addresses the issue of noise sensitive developments, like new residential developments, where there is an existing noise source and includes advice on noise mitigation measures. In a recent update of the guidance, the Department for Communities and Local Government underlined planning’s contribution to avoiding future complaints including through looking to developers building new homes near venues giving rise to noise to include sound-proofing in the homes. Motor sports venues The Government fully recognises the huge popularity of motor sport in this country both on 2 and 4 wheels. Motor sport is important in terms sporting participation, volunteering, engineering, advancements in technology, job creation and wider economic benefits. In summary, our policies and legislation, along with existing planning guidance, allow people to enjoy motor sport while managing the noise environment and without placing an unnecessary burden on businesses that operate as motor sport venues. The Government considers that it is striking the right balance between those who welcome motor sport and those who have concerns about it. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.

View the response to the e-petition

Thanks,

HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

 

   

[Gambit]

So in other words non of the people in power or MP's like motorsport or do track days so care not one bit.

But want to keep it as it helps people learn a trade to pay more tax.

[mfnick]

Yea I got this email the other way. Pretty poor response.

Yea I agree people have rights about where they live and not having to suffer "nuisance" noise and terms to that effect. But surely it should be on those people researching the area too. Especially when that track was there decades before them.

Like you say Gambit, it's not like you can move close to a airport or train station/route and then complain about the noise and get those closed down or have noise limits placed on them. It's a load of bullshit!

[Steveuk260.Esq]

If I was looking for a house I would look for one at least 5 miles away from track unleas I worked the and wanted to be vlose by.

[Gambit]

This is my dream home.. 

 

 

Alan Wilzig is just like you and me. He has a family, he loves cars and motorcycles and he's got a mile-long, 40-foot-wide full racetrack in his front yard. Did I say just like you and me? Ok, maybe not.

And yet, who among us wouldn't at least consider building our own, full-scale racetrack if we were standing in his size-tens. Indeed, Wilzig, the son of a Holocaust survivor who turned $28 into an oil fortune during the 1960s and then bought a bank for good measure, built it because he could.

To get an idea who we're talking about, after Wilzig built a wildly opulent house (a castle, really) in the Hamptons in 1997, a New York Times reporter asked him to name something that he'd left out – a toy, a feature, anything. "Nothing," he said. "If we would have thought of it, we would have built it."

Arrogant? Perhaps to some; but the truth stands. Wilzig has ample latitude to think of and build stuff pretty much at whim. A graduate of the Wharton school, Wilzig doubled the value of his late father's bank, The Trust Company of New Jersey, during the 2000s to amass a high-nine-figure family fortune when North Fork Bankcorp bought it in 2004.

 

 

And so, when he set out, that same year, to build a private racetrack on a 275-acre plot of land he'd bought in Taghkanic, New York, all Wilzig needed was a cocktail napkin, a pen and a few good ideas. As a serious motorcycle enthusiast and IMSA Lights racer, he wanted a place where he could both stretch the legs on his collection of cars, racing karts and race bikes, and also train for IMSA competition.

Seeking inspiration for his $7.5 million project, Wilzig looked to Dutch billionaire Klaas Zwart, whose Ascari Race Resort in Marbella, Spain services hardcore and gentlemen racers as well as Zwart's own track-day cravings. Wilzig also called in motorcycle race instructor and former racer Keith Code, who convinced him what he really needed was to put in a banked turn.

"NASCAR is pretty much the only form of racing I don't watch, Wilzig said, "but the banking has turned out to be everyone's favorite turn. My four-year-old daughter calls it the "crazy turn.'"

I asked him if he's cribbed other turns from famous racetracks, a common practice among track builders. "I didn't go out and try to recreate any specific turns. But was I maybe thinking of the esses at VIR [Virginia International Raceway] when we did these?" he says, pointing to a set of corners on the back side of the track during a recent ride-along, "maybe, a little."

 

So, with a plan in place, Wilzig started building his dream racetrack, in compliance, he says, with the town's "accessory use" zoning laws. And then, a dropped decimal place jammed a wrench into the works. Some of his neighbors got wind of a "$75 million" race complex being built, and gathered in opposition. The overblown number came from a typo in a New York Postarticle, but even a correction didn't quell the uproar. And so, Wilzig would spend the second half of the decade fighting an angry group of local residents, who'd assembled themselves as The Granger Group.

There were peaks and valleys. In 2006, the local zoning board decided Wilzig's proposed track was not covered under "standard accessory use," based on Taghkanic's zoning ordinance. Wilzig then submitted a separate proposal specifying the track's use as "recreational," a subtle technical difference. The board approved it, but in 2010 a zoning board of appeals judge overturned that decision.

By then, Wilzig was sitting on a professionally graded but unpaved lobster-claw-shaped track, with an injunction against its completion. A loss to the Grangers in New York State Supreme Court set the project back further.

View gallery »

And then, in early 2011, the New York State Court of Appeals found in favor of Wilzig's rights to complete the project. "My ‘revenge' is to be so quiet that they'll look like absolute imbeciles for making such a fuss," he told a local news reporter.

While it doesn't have a long, high-speed straight, Wilzig's impeccably-finished track — with orange-white-curbing to match his racing-team color — does have nine turns threading through more than 70 feet of elevation changes. The effect is a very skills-oriented technical course that can be run in several configurations, both clockwise and counterclockwise.

The most memorable corner is indeed the banking, which ascends a natural hillside. It's a true bowl, in which a driver must start three-quarters of the way up and dive back down, curling inward to reach the exit point at full throttle. Another tricky but well laid-out corner is an uphill ess that crests early, demanding a leap-of-faith turn. Like the corkscrew at Laguna Seca, Wilzig explains, if you see where you're headed, it's already too late.

 

A long 180-degree turn forces an early throwaway, but cutting in and getting on the gas early allows a near straight line through the next two ess turns. That part was was originally set to be completely straight, but Keith Code persuaded Wilzig to kink it to add more interest. The last turn before the front straight is a downhill, decreasing-radius corner that takes patience, but the reward is a 125-mph run.

Indeed, Wilzig Racing Manor, as it's called, is the largest racetrack zoned for private recreational use in the U.S. Also on site is a combination clubhouse, museum for Wilzig's car and bike collection and race shop for his IMSA car and racing karts (including a 50-hp, 125 mph rotary-powered kart). His collection is a story for another day.

 

 

 

[Jay762]

a pretty apathetic response - hopefully it will hit 100,000 and force some debate but I doubt it