Cum On Feel The Noise?

While marshalling at the Eastwood Stages rally at Mallory Park a month ago I started to pick up the first rumblings of potential issues regarding noise levels at the circuit. In the last week I read on the Motorsport Musings blog that, sadly, there are indeed issues around noise at Mallory, which could see in-week testing being restricted, amongst other petty restrictions on the circuit.

We tend to think of any litigious trend as being a thoroughly modern phenomenon, alongside the rise in personal injury claims by people lacking the required intelligence to walk walk down a street without being attacked by inanimate objects. However, noise complaints about motorsport probably started on the day the first internal combustion engine was fired up, and will no doubt be with us for a long time to come (ironically the likely long-term trend towards the much reviled electric / hybrid cars could actually help save the sport from noise issues in the future).

Noise complaints from local residents stopped the Crystal Palace circuit in London from getting back to its pre-war halcyon days when the Second World War ended, restricting the circuit to only 5 days racing a year - a condition that lasted for most of the post-war racing years at the venue (1). Although there was a clear history of racing at Crystal Palace, the intervening years of the Second World War saw huge social change in the country. Pre-war people 'knew their place' and had little power to complain about noise even if they chose to. The war changed all that, and you can see why those living around a tranquil London city park would have concerns about racing being held on too regular a basis. Only five days a year seems harsh though which ever way you look at it!

When reopening Donington Park in the 1960s, Tom Wheatcroft also came up against noise complaints, from both residents of Castle Donington and from Rolls-Royce, who had set up a base at the venue in the years the circuit had fallen fallow. The complaints from both sides however were dismissed when it was considered that Donington is smack-bang next door to East Midlands Airport. Tom Wheatcroft gives an example of the ridiculousness of the noise complaints in his entertaining autobiography (2), recalling how Rolls Royce told an inspector race engines would stop their staff communicating safely, only for an incoming plane to virtually deafen the inspector. When the inspector enquired when the Rolls Royce manager didn't seem too perturbed he answered, foolishly, that they'd all got so used to the planes they didn't even notice them! Despite winning this earlier fight however the circuit still, frustratingly, had more issues after the recent troubles. Despite becoming a key venue in the British (and World) motorsport scene over the 40 years since Tom reopened it, it seems the gap in racing of less than a year caused by the failed British GP bid was enough to give the NIMBYs a new chance to attack Donington, with last year's race schedule needing to be cut back due to restrictions on the number of loud days it could hold.

Some of the complaints made are even more blatant examples of NIMBY-ism than at Donington however, with people seemingly determined to have their own way no matter the consequence on others - such people often seem to be in a minority of the local population too. In recent weeks an appeal court judge ruled in favour of Mildenhall Speedway, when a local couple complained that noise from the venue was causing them distress. The couple had claimed not to know when moving in that the speedway was so close to their house. It's pretty astounding to think that anyone could move into a house without doing enough research on the area to know a motorsport venue is only 500 yards away. Even more astounding is that the case needed to get to appeal - the original High Court ruling was in favour of the couple, leaving Mildenhall Stadium facing costs of £1 million. In this instance justice was, eventually, done, and it has to be hoped the judgement can be called upon as precedent in any future case. (See Matt Salisbury's blog for a more commentary on the Mildenham case.)

As a motorsport fan I find these noise complaints depressing in the extreme. The actions of a few grumpy neighbours can have a serious effect on the sport - not to mention the livelihood of those involved in both running the venues and the wider motorsport industry. Motorsport technology is one of the success stories of modern British manufacturing. That success story is built upon a bedrock of sporting activity over the past century (and more) at circuits across the UK. The track days and experience events that have become so popular over the last decade also fuel British industry, from the cottage-manufacturing level all the way up to some of the country's major manufacturing companies, employing thousands of people. Motor racing is a part of the UK's recent heritage (especially, ironically, its rural heritage) and its such a shame to see it being restricted by the complaints of a minority of people.

Despite my natural reaction to noise complaints, the legal cases for noise complaints are rarely cut and dry, as the well-known case at Croft illustrate. While we fans may want to characterise each complaint as being clear cut, historic agreements around the number of days allocated to noisy events can often underpin cases, as seems to be the case in the Croft example (though there were many 'intricasies' to that case, including defendants and claimants being divorced from each other!). I can understand why someone would not be happy if they saw a constant increase in the number of days their peaceful meditation was disturbed. Plus, although the sound of race engines is a key reason we love the sport, in some instances a small reduction in noise levels can be enough to satisfy planning conditions. In the Mallory case quoted above it seems that increased enforcement of an existing 105db limit for testing could prevent the sessions being removed. At Croft there have been indications that keeping cars under a 100bd limit could enable some races (in certain circumstances at least) to run outside of the restrictions on the number of 'noisy days' the circuit can host. Would we really rather see events being canned than stick to these noise levels? How much would we really lose in terms of car performance and the sound of the cars by sticking to such limits? If sticking to these noise levels could safeguard racing at the great venues we have across the UK I would be in favour, but this would need to be seen as a clear commitment from the sport - with a corresponding commitment from planning authorities to respect the sports efforts to reduce its impact and to reject speculative complaints from minorities in the local population which go against decades of motorsport precedent.

References

(1) - Motor Racing Circuits in England, Peter Swinger

(2) - Thunder in the Park, Tom Wheatcroft

Highway to Hell?

In Autumn 2011 the BBC ran a short series looking at threats to the country's National Parks. One of these looked at the conflicts caused by off-road vehicle users driving on 'green lanes' for recreational driving. It's no longer available on iPlayer, but the programme's web page is still up, with some information and clips.

Green Laning involves navigating roads which are know as 'Byways Open to All Traffic' (BOAT). These are usually unpaved roads, looking more like a Bridleway or even a footpath, but which are legally open to all road users. Getting a 4x4 or trial bike down these can be a challenge, which makes Green Laning a popular activity for owners of off-road cars and bikes. Fairly predictably however not everyone loves the idea of cars navigating these lanes, with campaigners saying the practise damages the environment and endangers the safety of other users of the lanes.

The issue first came to my notice when it was featured on Countryfile (OK, so Sunday night telly isn't just about Top Gear for me, live with it!), which featured a pretty one-sided debate weighing down heavily on the side of Green Laning's detractors. The National Parks programme, based in my beloved Peak District, was much more even handed - but no side came out of it smelling like roses. Like the stuff you use to help your roses grow perhaps! The anti-Green Laners were a bunch of classic Middle England NIMBYs, determined to stop the use of the lanes for any activity not endorsed by their good selves (picking berries to make sloe gin = good; anything with an engine = bad). The Green Laners started out trying to engage, but after getting the full force of people's angry they instead fell back to resting on the legality of their hobby. Relying on what are fairly antiquated laws that were never intended to allow Land Rovers on country lanes just didn't seem like a particularly safe strategy. In fairness to the National Park Authority they were stuck in the middle doing what seemed a good job of dispassionately taking each reported issue on a case-by-case basis and trying to find solutions. This inevitably led to both sides deriding the authority as ineffectual and biased to the opposite camp.

What bothered me most about the programme though was the desire among Green Laning's opponents to see it stamped out in its entirity. The Peak District Green Lanes Alliance (PDGLA) campaign group seems, for example, to indicate that it accepts a blanket ban isn't possible - but it lists its primary aim as being to, 'campaign for the exclusion of mechanically propelled vehicles, driven or ridden for pleasure (‘offroading’), from the green lanes of, primarily, the Peak District.'

Now, I may write this blog as a motorsport fan, but that isn't where my interests end. I walk most weekends, especially in the Peak District. If you met me on a walk you'd think I'm very much the stereotypical rambler - big boots, map case, flask of tea, bobble hat, vaguely-lost-but-refusing-to-admit-it, that kinda thing. Last year alone I spent many fine weekends walking in the Peaks, from Matlock in the south up to Castleton and Edale. I've been known to mountain bike too - but this really is too much like hard work for me, so I stick to the walking. So I'm certainly not simply a petrol-head demanding the natural environment be turned into a vehicular-playground. I'd lose as much from that as anyone. In all my walks however I have only come across Green Laners once. It was a group of trial bikers, on a lane at Dirtlow Rake near Castleton. I wouldn't say the group went out of their way to doth their helmets to us - but they certainly didn't cause my group of walkers any more hassle than a group of mountain bikers or horse-riders would have.

In many countries National Parks are almost pristine and untouched landscapes, sheltered from human contact and often greatly restricted. In the UK our parks are a more human environment, with towns and villages, and a much wider recreational use. They have huge natural beauty sure - but people are also a key part of their charm. We also dedicate more of our land to our parks than the vast majority of other European countries - not bad for a 'crowded' little island. Visitors are encouraged and the environments are there to be enjoyed by us all. And that's where the campaigns against Green Laning are, in my opinion, at their most dangerous. If one group of users is banned from accessing National Parks (or any environment) a precedent is set that can then be used against others too.


Erosion is a concern in all popular recreational environments - walkers and cyclists cause huge erosion to the Peak District (see this photo of Peak District erosion too). Who is to say these groups won't be the next to get restricted? On the recently reopened sections of the Monsal Trail there have been complaints about cyclists riding without consideration for other users. Again, if one user group is banned, who is to say more can't be in the long term? I'd be surprised if many farmers and landowners aren't keeping an eye on this issue too. If 4x4s can be banned for causing erosion, why not walkers for damaging crops and fields or threatening livestock? We are living in times when our ability to access the countryside for our leisure is being extended ever more, with Open Access areas, new footpaths and better facilities for all groups. We should be celebrating this and finding ways we can work together to ensure this trend continues for many years to come.

All the above may sound like a monologue against those who don't like Green Laning. It isn't intended to be. The groups involved do have many valid concerns which deserve to be heard. My issue isn't with the fact that different groups have concerns, but only that the way to rectify these concerns is to involve the Green Laning community rather than seek to ban it. I hope the Green Laning community does find ways to engage with such groups to find ways of working together where possible.

This spur to write this blog came from a link I spotted to a consultation currently being run by Derbyshire County Council (which covers most of the Peak District), which is gathering feedback on their new Policy for the Management of Motorised Vehicle use in the Countryside. To my eye this looks like a good effort at balancing the use of the countryside for all the different groups that wish to have access, with reasonable provisions for monitoring different routes to assess damage being caused. The coucil has a survey which is available for anyone to complete to give their views on the proposed policy. I would encourage anyone with an interest in this problem to fill it in (it takes 5 minutes at most) and help contribute to a lasting solution.

Eastwood Stages, Mallory Park

The BMMC held their annual marshal training days at Donington Park last weekend, Iand since attending I've been looking forward to getting back out on the banks again this year. I only did two events last year, but caught the bug, and getting the orange overalls out on Sunday got me in the mood for the year to come. This despite me busting the zip open on them trying to squeeze my carcass in after lunch!

It's a while until the circuit racing season starts, but this weekend I'll be marshaling on my first rally, the Eastwood Stages at Mallory Park. I've been to the rallies in Sherwood Forest a few times but never to a single venue rally, so I'm quite excited about getting down there and getting involved. Thankfully rally marshaling doesn't need the orange overalls either so I have some time to get the zip fixed (my pride will take longer to heal)! With this being a single-venue rally, there should also be more chances to be involved on the stages - without dragging myself across half of England to keep up!

The event has over 40 cars confirmed, including classic Escorts (it wouldn't be a rally without classic Escorts), Evos, Imprezas, and an RS2000. But most exciting for me is the Metro 6R4 taking part, which is the hot favorite to take the victory. I've seen static 6R4s at displays before, but never seen one of the snarling little beasts in action before, relying on You Tube video like the one here.

Who could possibly pass up the chance to see one of these tearing up the tarmac?!

The Eastwood Stages is open to punters, with the first car off at 9.30. Its only £5 per car entry - so fill a car up and its only a quid each. You really can't say fairer than that! If you've never been to Mallory Park I can wholeheartedly recommend it. The place is the very definition of small but perfectly formed, with a great view of a large proportion of the track from most of the banks. The cafe is open and the paddock is free to access.