Council told to pay out £8k+ and instruct barrister over race track noise

The Local Government Ombudsman has told a local authority to pay out more than £8,000 after residents of a village suffered excess noise for several years from a motor racing track nearby.

Motor racing has been held at the track since the 1950s. The operators changed in 1984 and in 2005. Last October, the operators went into administration. New operators took over the following month.

Mr and Mrs Y complained to the LGO on behalf of 47 residents, accusing Hinckley & Bosworth Council of failing to take action when operators breached a notice issued in 1985 that set out the permitted frequency and noise level of events at the track.

The residents claimed that they were unable to enjoy their homes and gardens for much of the year because of the number and duration of events at the track, which they argued had increased sharply in recent years.

According to the Ombudsman, the complainants, another couple (Mr and Mrs X) and the villagures had suffered an injustice through additional noise nuisance as a result of the council’s delays in taking enforcement action.

The LGO report said that in 2012, events were planned for 27 of the 32 Saturdays between April and October when the 1985 notice said there should have been only four.

In April 2013, when one of the complainants reviewed the track calendar for that season they found there were 60 days when activity was planned that would breach the notice.

The LGO said Hinckley & Bosworth failed to take any enforcement action against planning breaches “and adopted an approach of trying to get residents to agree with operators on an increased level of use for the track rather than prosecute for breaches”.

Although the council had received complaints from residents in March 2011, it only started collecting evidence for a prosecution in August 2012.

The authority started proceedings in February 2013 against the then race track operator. The case went to court in August 2013.

Following the LGO’s investigation, Hinckley & Bosworth has agreed to instruct a barrister to provide legal advice on the contents of a new notice. Any new notice will have to be served on the new track operators once they start activities.

The Ombudsman has also recommended that the council should:

• consider how to address the outstanding queries over the impact the spectator bunds and track alterations have had on noise levels, and how to address the outstanding planning matters and unapproved alterations to the track. "The council should advise the complainants and the Ombudsman how it intends to address these issues within three months of the date of this report";
• pay £2,500 to Mr and Mrs X for their avoidable loss of amenity from March 2011 to February 2013 when the council took formal enforcement action;
• pay £5,000 to Mr and Mrs Y as a contribution towards their receipted expenses for legal advice and noise reports; and
• make a donation of £1,000 to the village schoolroom committee “to use as it sees fit” for the benefit of the residents who had joined the complaint.

Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman, said: “Neighbours living in the village accept that there will be some noise from the track, but what these people had to put up with was unacceptable. 

“At times they have described the noise as intolerable. They were not able to enjoy their homes and gardens for months on end, and for them there seemed to be little respite or redress.”

Dr Martin said the council “should have acted sooner to investigate their complaints”.

She added: “Officers delayed taking any action and relied for too long on the hope that low level liaison would solve the problems – even when it became patently obvious that it would not.”