Motor Sport Noise Nuisance

Published: 14th July 2008

Watson v Croft Promo Sport Ltd [2008] EWHC (QB)

A group of local residents have been awarded damages by the High Court in a claim for noise nuisance. The defendant, Croft, was the operator of a motor racing circuit in Darlington.

The racing track owned by Croft was used for up to 200 days a year. On about 140 of those days, the racing produced a high level of noise.

The claimants lived in houses about 300 metres from the circuit and those houses were built in 1989. They asked the Court for an injunction to prevent such a high level of noise on so many days per year and they also sought damages.

Generally, if the use of a property is reasonable, the party causing a nuisance arising as a result of that use will not be liable for harm caused to a neighbour's enjoyment of their land. Where the use of the property is unreasonable, however, the party causing the nuisance can be liable for damages and may be restrained from carrying on the nuisance by a Court injunction.

Courts have the power to award an injunction against a person who commits a wrongful act but they can award damages instead of an injunction in certain circumstances, for instance, when the injury caused can be estimated in money terms and / or where it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction.

Croft argued that, whilst there was a high level of noise from the circuit, this was only to be expected in an area that had planning permissions for motor racing granted in 1963 and 1990.

The Court said that, despite the planning permissions, the locality was essentially rural in nature. The circuit had, since 1963, developed gradually and noise levels had also gradually increased. The Court also held that the defence of reasonable use could not be used by Croft because the noise was intense, repetitive, continuous and intrusive.

However, the Court did not grant the injunction to prevent the motor racing. This was because there had been a delay in bringing the proceedings and, in addition, the claimants had indicated that they would be willing to be compensated for the noise. Damages were assessed on the loss of amenity suffered by the claimants caused by the intense noise (totalling £ 22,000 for the three claimants) and also the loss of capital value to their properties (totalling £ 127,600 for the three claimants).

The High Court's decision is a reminder that having planning permission for a particular use of a property does not constitute authority to use the land in such a way as to cause a nuisance to neighbours. This is the case even where the neighbour was aware of the potential user and nuisance when they bought the property.