Over Taylor Biggs

Though the operators had obtained planning permissions and took on an obligation under a Section 106 Agreement in order to use the property for motor racing, this was no defence to claims of nuisance made by local residents.

This case establishes that decisions of planning authorities are not able to authorise legal nuisance.  However, decisions may change the character of a neighbourhood and such a change in character may be able to defeat a claim in nuisance.  As ever much depends on the particular facts of the case in question.

The Court decided against ordering an injunction against the owners of the motor racing circuit, and instead awarded damages to those local residents whose rights to quiet enjoyment had been affected.  Motor racing activities could continue, even where on approximately 140 days of the year racing activity produces  levels of noise sufficient to amount to a legal nuisance. 

It is thought unlikely that awarding damages instead of an injunction in nuisance cases will become a settled principle, and instead will only be used in exceptional circumstances.  In this instance there had been a considerable delay in bringing the proceedings and the local residents had indicated that they would be prepared to be compensated for the nuisance.

In considering noise related nuisances it may be sensible for those complaining against nuisance to consider carefully their objectives before embarking on litigation.  If they wish to stop the nuisance, this case suggests that a claim should only be brought for an injunction without damages.  For those causing nuisance there is a real prospect of being able to continue the activities complained of, in return for paying a one off payment in damages. 

The total damages payout in this case was under £150,000.  The owners of the circuit are now free to continue using the site in a way that causes nuisance, and apparently potentially bringing in millions of pounds for good measure!