Dovenby Village

Know your past, appreciate what is special, preserve our environment

All content are opinions and objections that were raised as part of the response to Msport planning application to Allerdale planning ref 2/2014/0350.  If you have any comment or disagreement then first realise that opinion is just that, opinion in a public planning process.  You may email factual errors to Contact @

A rural village with a medieval heritage - but an industrial estate imposed beside it

   Information & action to preserve rural tranquility

Contact email | Terms & conditions

Chasing The Noise

Exposing Flawed Noise Management Plans

In 2002 Msport applied for workshops etc and the Environmental Health Officer made recommendations including a strict noise limit of 45dbA.  See Web page

Original document: 2002 06 12 Environmental Health Officer Sian Tranter objects to noise

Twelve years later the same EHO is heavily critical of Msport’s application especially the lack of adequate noise information.

2014 06 10 From Allerdale Env Health FOR further noise information from MSport

The noise section of the application was:

ACS Assessment of Community Levels

ACS Draft Accoustic Strategy Issue 4 Sept 2013

ACS Noise Management Plan Strategy

There should not have been any issues because the requirements for the application were discussed and stipulated in

2011 SCOPING Opinion Decision SCR_2011_0031

But the application was so flawed that the Planning Officer wrote 2014 07 03 From Allerdale Planning TO Northern Developments request additional information

In September 2014 an amended set of application documents were submitted.  The application form was blank in some places and it is possible that the spray painting that the EHO mentioned in 2002 and June 2014 may be “not declared”.

The first version of a Noise Management Plan appears.

ACS - Noise Management Plan Strategy - Rev A (amended 29-8-14) Supersedes original

ACS - Assessment of Community noise - Rev A (amended 29-8-14) Supersedes original

Environmental Statement (Volume III) Noise (amended 29-8-14) New Document

Objectors commissioned two Environmental Consultants who specialised in noise issues and wrote peer reviews of Msport’s noise sections.

2014 10 17 From Ed Clarke PEER REVIEW of Noise Impact Assessment

2014 10 28 From Ed Clarke Allerdale Noise SCOPING requirements not met

2014 11 05 From Ed Clarke Allerdale July resubmission requirements not met

2014 11 05 From Mike Stigwood Simon Clothier MAS noise review Msport

The response from Northern Developments was

2014 11 26 From Northern Developments rubbishing MAS Clarke Saunders reports

An amended noise section of the application was made in November 14th

Noise Management Plan - Issue 1 (amended 14-11-14) (Supersedes Rev A) NEW DOCUMENT

Noise New Pyramid - Letter Correspondence received 14-11-14 CHANGES HIGHLIGHTED

Noise Assessment of Community Noise Rev B (amended 14-11-14) (Supersedes Rev A) CHANGES HIGHLIGHTED

Noise Environmental Statement Volume II Main Statement - 14 11 14

Noise Technical Appendix Volume III Rev A (amended 14-11-14) (Supersedes Original)  CHANGES HIGHLIGHTED

Allerdale Environmental Health Officer response to the application was recommendations

2014 11 27 Environmental Health Officer recommendations including Noise Management Plan

Our response to the November application was

2014 12 04 From Simon Clothier MAS resubmitted noise proposal

After the application was permitted on December 23rd 2014 we asked the Secretary of State to call in the application and commissioned MAS to comment on the national significance of the siting of a race car testing track next to residential properties.

2014 12 05 From Mike Stigwood for SecState National Issue

2015 01 12 From Mike Stigwood to Dept Communities and Local Government

At Judicial Review at The Royal Courts of Justice a new NMP was produced and the judgement allows & advises for the final NMP to be based on both documents.

Noise Management Plan - Issue 1 Nov 14th 2014

Noise Management Plan 2e July 31st 2015

If MSport ignore expert advice

And cause noise nuisance precedent then ...

Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13

Also known as

Lawrence & Anor v Fen Tigers Ltd & Others - 4th March 2011

An action for nuisance in the High Court involving motor-sport noise.  Nuisance was found and decibel limits were set of 45dB LAeq, 15min during the day and 37dB LAeq, 15min in the evening.  The judgement considered in detail the application of the WHO Guidelines as a benchmark for nuisance and effectively rejected reliance on their guideline values as a level below which nuisance cannot arise.  Mike Stigwood acted for the complainant.

Croft refers to Watson v Croft Circuit

Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 759 (QB)

Watson v Croft

Mr David Hart QC and Mr Jeremy Hyam (instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental & Public Law) for the Claimants

An action for nuisance in the High Court.  Mike Stigwood acted as expert for the claimant’s although was not called to give evidence in the end as the level of intrusion was accepted by the defendants. 

Elvington Case No: CO/8833/2009

Elvington v York City Council 2009

This was an Enforcement Notice Appeal regarding motor sport noise.  The appeal was upheld.  Mike Stigwood gave evidence for the Local Authority.

 Bruntingthorpe [2014] EWHC 1952 (Admin)Case No: CO/7746/2013

Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground and Harborough District Council 2009

This was an Enforcement Notice Appeal regarding motor sport activities.  Mike Stigwood gave evidence for the Local Authority.

Bontoft and others and East Lindsey District Council 2008

An action for nuisance by noise in the High Court.  Mike Stigwood acted as expert witness for the claimant’s.  This was a case of intrusion by exiting refuse collection vehicles from a depot in Manby which occurred early in the morning.  The claim of nuisance was upheld.

Roper v Tussauds Group 2004 & 2005 (Alton Towers)

View the judgement. (Requires Acrobat Reader)

North Staffordshire Magistrates Court, subsequent de novo appeal at the Stoke on Trent Crown Court followed by further challenges in the High Court.  This was a private nuisance prosecution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 involving a number of noise sources.  I acted as the prosecutions principal expert witness at both hearings where the allegation of nuisance was upheld.  Prosecution appeals to the High Court were partially successful.  

Some Noise Nuisance Cases

SEE Buxton Solr and MAS Environmental