The race track was granted planning permission in 1963 and also in 1998. The houses were not built until 1990 (ie nearly 30 years after the circuit had fi rst been approved for motor racing). Despite that, the homeowners bought nuisance proceedings. The High Court decided:

• The mere existence of planning permission did not provide immunity from a nuisance claim. It was a question of fact and degree as to whether the planning permission had so changed the essential character of the neighbourhood that a claim for nuisance could be defeated. In this case, the area was basically rural, and the racing circuit had to be run in a manner that was consistent with that.
• A claim for nuisance can be defeated if it can be shown that it is a reasonable user of the premises (ie the activities are necessary for the common and ordinary use of the property and are conveniently done). In this case, the intensity and frequency of the noise was unreasonable and thus the race track owners were liable in nuisance.
• The court confi rmed the long-established principle that there is no defence of ‘coming to the nuisance’. Thus, the householders were not barred from bringing a claim simply because they knew when buying the property that the noisy activity was being carried out.
• Whilst the householders were therefore prima facie entitled to an injunction, the facts of this case were within those limited circumstances where an injunction was not appropriate. On the facts, an award of damages was appropriate.

This case is a good illustration of how an existing noisy business in a rural area can fi nd itself under attack because of new housing developments. In simple terms, the fact that a landowner legitimately operates a noisy business in accordance with planning permission will not prevent a nuisance claim. Accordingly, it is important for rural landowners to be aware of proposed developments and to make the necessary representations to the council regarding noise mitigation measures. For instance, if you operate a noisy factory, and there are proposals to build residential apartments next door to it, then the best advice would be to discuss with the LA whether this is in fact a suitable location for residential development – and, if so, then to demand conditions requiring the residential development to be adequately sound-proofed so as to limit the chances of claims arising in the future. But, at the end of day, if planning permission is granted then the noisy neighbour may well face a nuisance claim from the new arrivals. [2008] 211 Property Law Journal 12 ; Watson v Croft [2008] EWHC 759(QB)© Practical Lawyer