18/01/2009 18:36:51 Martin C Fears for future of racing circuit 8:00am Saturday 17th January 2009 By Neil Macfarlane » Northern Echo THE future of a North-East racing circuit that generates £3m a year for the local economy depends on an Appeal Court decision over noise levels, motorsport chiefs said last night. Barristers for Croft Circuit, near Darlington, are trying to overturn an order to pay £150,000 to a couple and their daughter, who live next to the track. The family complained that their quality of life had been ruined by screeching tyres and revving engines. Race organisers say that if the decision is upheld, it could open the gates to countless compensation claims from neighbouring residents, jeopardising the long-term future of the venue. No decision has been reached, after a hearing was held at the Court of Appeal, in London, this week. “We do feel like we have the sword of Damocles hanging over us,” said Dennis Carter, director of Croft-Promo- Sport, which organises the British Superbike Championships and the British Touring Car Championships at Croft. The events attract up to 30,000 people. “Our future really depends on what the court decides. “I do not want to sound too alarmist because I would like to think we can still find a way through this. “The people at Croft do a fantastic job for us and I would really like it to continue. We will do everything we can to keep it going. “It was a huge blow when the court decided we should pay damages. It is possible that there could be cuts if we have to pay this money out. “Once we get the decision we will have to sit down and think very carefully about what to do next.” Derek and Julia Watson and their daughter, Jill Wilson, live at Vince Moor East, Dalton- on-Tees, within about 300 metres of the circuit. The family say their enjoyment of their homes has, for years, been gravely affected by the “loud, intrusive and repetitive noise”. In an extremely rare decision last April, High Court judge Mr Justice Simon ruled all three had been victims of “noise nuisance” and ordered Croft-Promo-Sport to pay Mr and Mrs Watson £109,600 damages, and Mrs Wilson £40,000. The family’s legal costs from this hearing alone were put at about £700,000. This week, David Hart, representing the Watsons and Mrs Wilson in the Court of Appeal, said the criticism of the original ruling was wholly unjustified. The Watsons and Mrs Wilson are cross-appealing against Mr Justice Simon’s refusal to grant them an injunction restricting noisy racing activities on the racetrack to 40 days a year. In his ruling last year, Mr Justice Simon said they had been “deeply affected by the noise from the circuit for a number of years”. Their objection was not to car and motorbike racing events, which take place on the track on about 50 days a year, but to vehicle testing days and track days, when members of the public drive cars around the track at high speed. The judge awarded them damages based on the “blight” on the value of their homes caused by the noise, and for their “loss of amenity” in their homes. The Northern Echo contacted the Watsons yesterday but the family declined to comment. Richard Jones, representing Croft-Promo-Sport, said the court decision would have serious implications for the future of the racetrack and had left the company exposed to huge legal costs, and open to other potential claims by an “uncertain number” of neighbouring landowners. Larry Carter, who handles public relations for Croft Circuit, said: “If any restrictions are put on Croft it would have huge implications for the local sporting fraternity and the local economy. “It brings thousands of people to the area every year and is the only facility south of Knockhill, in Scotland, and north of Donnington. Motor sports fans from a huge catchment area go there. “Financially, the circuit is probably worth £3m to the local economy. People come and stay in nearby hotels, eat at local restaurants and fill up their cars at the garages. “If racing at Croft goes, it would be a blow to everybody in the region.” Given the difficulty and importance of the case, ruling judges at the Court of Appeal are expected to reserve their decision until later this year.

27/01/2009 15:46:18 GForce2010 Taken from another forum. [quote="Tracy"][quote]Croft Circuit loses noise appeal 11:24am Monday 26th January 2009 By Hannah Chapman » A RACING circuit today lost its appeal against a legal case brought by a couple and their daughter who say their lives have been blighted by noise from the track. Croft Circuit, near Darlington, was also hit with an injunction, restricting "noisy activities" at the track to just 40 days-a-year. Derek and Julia Watson and their daughter, Jill Wilson, all live within about 300 metres of the circuit, in Dalton-on-Tees, and say their enjoyment of their homes has for years been gravely affected by the "loud, intrusive and repetitive noise". In an extremely rare decision in April last year, High Court judge, Mr Justice Simon, ruled all three had been victims of "noise nuisance" and ordered the circuit's tenants - Croft Promo-Sport Ltd - to pay Mr and Mrs Watson £109,600 damages, and Mrs Wilson £40,000. Croft Promo-Sport had its appeal against that order dismissed by judges today. However the issuing of the injunction will result in a reduction in the residents' damages payouts, which were largely based on the reduction in value of their homes caused by the noise nuisance. Croft Promo Sport also faces massive legal costs bills. The Watsons and Mrs Wilson were represented by top QC, David Hart, and their legal costs bills alone have been put at around £700,000. At London's Appeal Court, Croft Promo-Sport had argued that Mr Justice Simon was "plainly wrong" to rule in favour of the Watsons. Richard Jones QC, for the company, argued that 1963 and 1988 planning permissions granted for the race track - formerly a World War 2 aerodrome and first used for racing in 1949 - had "changed the character" of the area to such an extent that the noise levels were reasonable. He added that noise and other issues relating to the racetrack had been carefully considered by expert planning inspectors during two public inquiries and a balance struck between the interests of local residents and the public amenity value of the circuit. The QC said the court decision would have serious implications for the future use of the racetrack and had left Croft Promo-Sport not only exposed to enormous legal costs bills, but also open to other potential claims by an "uncertain number" of other neighbouring landowners. However, Appeal Court judge, Sir Andrew Morritt, today said he could find no legal flaw in Mr Justice Simon's conclusion that the Watsons and Mrs Wilson had suffered an "actionable nuisance". Sir Andrew, sitting with Lord Justice Richards and Lady Justice Hallett, also ruled it was "illogical" of Mr Justice Simon to deny the trio an injunction, restricting the number of days to 40 on which "noisy activities" can take place at the racetrack. Croft Promo-Sport were refused permission to appeal further to the House of Lords and ordered to pay more than £120,000 in legal costs straight away. That will be only a fraction of the total lawyers' bills faced by the company. The objection by the Watsons and Mrs Wilson was not to car and motorbike racing events, which take place on the track on about 45-50 days-a-year, but to "vehicle testing days" and "track days", when members of the public drive cars around the track all day long at high speed. Croft Promo-Sport Ltd has a leasehold interest in the circuit, which is managed by Croft Classic and Historic Motor Sports Ltd (CCHM). CCHM was set up in 1994 by Mr Jimmy Wilson - who was married to Jill Wilson between 1987 and 1994 - along with Trevor Chaytor-Norris and his wife Katherine, who is the owner of the Croft Motor Circuit. [/quote] I don't suppose this has anything to do with it though....... hmmmmmm [quote]Derek and Julia Watson and their daughter, [B]Jill Wilson[/B], all live within about 300 metres of the circuit, in Dalton-on-Tees, and say their enjoyment of their homes has for years been gravely affected by the "loud, intrusive and repetitive noise". [/quote] [quote]Croft Promo-Sport Ltd has a leasehold interest in the circuit, which is managed by Croft Classic and Historic Motor Sports Ltd (CCHM). [B]CCHM was set up in 1994 by Mr Jimmy Wilson - who was married to Jill Wilson between 1987 and 1994 [/B]- along with Trevor Chaytor-Norris and his wife Katherine, who is the owner of the Croft Motor Circuit. [/quote][/quote]

27/01/2009 15:49:02 Dave Croft have a meeting on Tuesday 3rd Feb to decide what they are going to do. Our provisional date for a track day at Croft on 16th August is now obviously under threat.

24/03/2009 21:38:02 j0hn [b]Croft[/b] The Downing Street petition is [URL="http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/saveCroft/"]http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/saveCroft/[/URL] and on facebook [URL="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=56260629746"]http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=56260629746[/URL] Hopefully these work

30/03/2009 16:02:23 mattpc Signed.. Most upset this circuit is in trouble.

23/04/2009 17:27:03 Dave [b]Croft cancelled[/b] Unfortunately, we have now had to cancel this day.

26/06/2009 11:01:54 Mike Hall Response to the epetition: Friday 26 June 2009 Savecroft - epetition response We received a petition asking: “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to save our Motor racing circuits.” Details of Petition: “Save our long standing Motor racing circuits from heavy restrictions on use and noise limits.” 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.