A very interesting analysis of case for nuisance against a motorsports operation

This "Case Note"¨  [Ned Westaway (2014) Coventry v Lawrence: Nuisance Redefined. Environmental Law Review: July 2014, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 211-218.] has some very interesting things to say about "amenity nuisance" in relation to motorsport noise.

There is also some very interesting stuff on pages 214 and 215 about the character of the locality and the relevance of planning permission in relation to seeking damages for nuisance.  For example:


"The court signalled a move away from the ‘character of the locality’ as a yardstick in considering the reasonableness of a defendant’s activities in nuisance claims; instead it settled on a more nuanced gauge – ‘the established pattern of uses’ in the locality.(17) Lord Carnwath referred to the ‘varied pattern of uses all of which need to coexist in a modern society’.(18)  This must be welcomed: it provides a more fact-sensitive framework against which nuisance may be assessed."

and

"If demonstrating compliance with conditions may indicate that a party is not responsible for a nuisance, so 'evidence of failure to comply with such conditions, while not determinative, may reinforce the case for finding for nuisance under the reasonableness test.(28)'

It makes an interesting read.

Allowable noise levels should be related to the frequency of the noise event

It is not uncommon for regulatory authorities to consider the frequency of noise events in determining the allowable noise levels.  From memory, this was the approach taken by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in determining how often the McAdam Park motocross facility at Barrabool would be allowed to operate during the "wind-up" phase prior to their legally mandated closure.


The extract below is from a New Zealand study.

"To prepare this noise management plan an event schedule was developed in an attempt to achieve a balance between how loud each motor racing event was and how often they occur. In the example given, Council decided that 50 events with a noise level of “background plus 5dB” would be permitted in any 12 month period. Where events were likely to be noisier than this, the number of events would reduce in accordance with Graph 1 below which is taken from the Guide. An event that exceeds the background noise level by 8dBA would count as two events. An excess of 30dBA is deemed to have a noise exposure equivalent to 10 events."

dB above background vs annual events

Citation: Marshall Day Acoustics (2007).  Ruapuna Park and Christchurch Kart Club Noise Assessment. Christchurch, New Zealand.  http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/districtplanning/cityplan/proposedplanchanges/PC52AcousticsReportOctober2007.pdf

p.16

A good overview of noise issues, measurement and regulation

Here's a really good technical (but very readable) article on noise: it's impacts on health; the measurement of different aspects of noise; enforcement of compliance with noise controls; and a whole lot more.

A whole lot of it is relevant to motocross noise, even though the article is focussed on traffic noise, and there are many things that will give you ideas to follow up in relation to motocross noise issues.

Just as a small taste of a much longer document:

"Unwanted noise has wide-ranging effects on human health to a far greater extent than merely to cause damage to hearing. Noise results in cardiovascular issues, sleep disturbance, headaches, nausea, impaired task functioning, depression and is implicated in many other health problems as well as inducing anti-social behaviours. (references 3,4,12,13,17,23) These unwanted health problems occur with noise levels which are a lot less loud than that which would cause hearing damage. Effects are also cumulative. The costs to health-care systems is enormous and researchers are finding more and more stress related problems that can be attributed to noise.

Governments, city planners and local councils are, in general, aware of the noise problem, and try to provide urban planning guidelines and rules to mitigate noise, but prefer to take 'baby-steps' and are over-cautious in order to avoid the creation of higher compliance costs. In most cases, authorities do not apply sufficient urgency or big enough solutions to the problem. There are already a large number of studies and comprehensive research documents published on the subject. No more are needed. Instead, some definitive progress is called for, which will certainly have a cost. However, studies have already shown that the costs of healthcare triggered by unwanted noise is more than a hundred times than what is currently spent on reducing or mitigating noise from vehicular traffic."

The article is from the website of a New Zealand company (Axino-tech Consulting and Services Ltd) and appears to be offered as a contribution to wider understanding of noise issues.  There should be more companies sharing their expertise in such an altruistic way.

Aspects of motocross tracks

Just a couple of things that came across my computer screen while researching fire risks posed by motocross tracks - if you're wondering, the general consensus seems to be "high".

That's the sign the Motorcycling Australia requires to be posted at motocross venues as part of its "Guidelines for Inspection and Licensing of Tracks".  I didn't see any mention of that in the Gatton Star article promoting the track to kids and families.

And then, on Molalla Blog I found a long and sad story about what it is like live near a motocross track.  If you want an idea of how many people are out there combing the internet for material on motocross tracks, Molalla has had 62,478 "hits".  This little blog has had 1,110 hits in six weeks.  I hope not to be writing about motocross in the Lockyer 61,000 hits from now.

The following are just a few excerpts from the blog.

"In essence, the lack of code enforcement, the total disregard Thomas has shown for the land and the lives of the people who surround the site, Thomas’s failure to get permits before creating a facility and the fact that this “park” has already been commercially promoted now has created a state of high anxiety between local residents and the motocross users. Thomas has no connection to the local community since he lives in Happy Valley instead of at the subject property.

The tension and fear caused by the motocross users has completely changed the way local residents must live their lives. The culture of commercial motocross is not conducive to the safety, piece of mind, commercial farm/forest activities and the general well being of local long time residents."
 ...
"All of the neighbors I have met are distressed about the years they have had to endure the noise, dust, trash, worries about fire and general disruption to their legal farm/forest activities due to the motocross track in their midst. Rural people like to spend lots of time outdoors, especially in the dry months, now families hesitate to invite visitors over for summer events for fear of being subjected to noise and dust. Families can’t trust the safety of children playing in the woods and fields adjoining tracks; if the motocross “fans’ are willing to verbally abuse and menace neighbors, what might they do to children or adults who confront them if trespassing should occur? Given the camping with up to 250 site users/4 days week proposed by Thomas, and the location near private adjoining woods and fields that aren’t readily visible from owners’ residences, there is little doubt that “camping” use would eventually spill over fence lines as park “users” seek new grounds to explore."
 ...
 "I contacted numerous other Counties about existing motocross facilities and it is obvious that even permitted facilities have on going problems with complaints from neighbors. The growing piles of complaints against Mr. Thomas, including the finding of “guilty” on a noise violation in May, prove that the community would have little faith in Mr. Thomas’s interest in complying with “conditions, and that the community would further endanger itself by having to serve as the conditional use code “police’ in a place far from the offices of code enforcement, agency reps, and the Sheriff.

The August 5, 2010 “Findings and Final Order” for the Thomas Noise Control Citation No. 10-2531 noted “five pages of CCOM detail reports showing numerous complaints of noise” on the Thomas property – yet Thomas, who failed to appear, sent a message that he was “not aware of the noise ordinance”."
 ...
"... it is clear that MX has been poisoning its own well around the world for years."

Earthworks on the motocross property

Overlay of track plan from the Application to Council onto Google Earth

There have been persistent reports of major earthworks having been done on the Adare Road property where the motocross training facility is proposed.

Even during the public notification period there were rumours that huge amounts of earth had been excavated from part of the property and trucked to the proposed motocross track location and laid out in mounds along the proposed course of the track.

Lockyer Valley Regional Council officers attempted to inspect the property some time just before the end of the notification period (i.e. before 18 December), but the gate was locked and when they attempted to contact the owner to gain access they were told he was overseas.

Then, just before Christmas there was a report that the track had been completed.

Council officers visited the property again on 7 January and, as a result of their investigations, on 8 January "compliance action was initiated against the owner of the property in relation to operational works being undertaken without development approval."

It will be interesting to see where this leads.