Trouble at Field

[Erfolg]

I have sympathy with the view that conservations need to controlled by there brevity. Simply stating your position in a firm and controlled manner. No discussion or negotiating. As was explained, or instructed whist working, during a dispute with a contractor. There is the ever present possibility that anything said could be used selectively, misquoted or taken out of context. Just state the companies legal departments position, record and report any contact into a log. In this case the BMFA is probably your legal department

 

Although I have reservations with respect the BMFA, I am sure they will have the most useful experience to the club. My own view, is that the club needs to keep control of discussions, use the BMFA as consultants. Do not allow the BMFA to make decisions on behalf of the club, but be a valued adviser. Any decisions should be made by the club. As with any adviser, they are there to support and advice, not make decisions, however much some may wish to.

 

Telling some one to get ........whatever, is not useful and will be used against the club.

[Erfolg]

The noise level from an all electric club not allowing Zagi or DF models would have such a low noise threshold that banning on the basis of noise would be unreasonable.

 

If the BMFA is worth half their annual subscriptions they will have good legal grounds to challenge any ruling based on noise from electric models, which any club could make use of.

 

For those dedicated to IC, going electric would be hard, I would not dismiss the concept if it allowed me to fly models.

[Alan Cantwell]

so, do you have planning permission??

[Ernie]

Maybe, someone from BMFA might contribute

 

ernie

[Peter Beeney]

Stephen,

We’ve been here before, more than once; so there are a few pointers. I’d say the first thing is to confirm beyond doubt some of the facts, such as these distances, as measured on a large scale OS map. Do you have anyone in the club associated with the Land Registry? Or someone that would be familiar with this? Another extremely useful member to have is a solicitor, retired or otherwise, they can send an official letter, in ‘solicitor speak’, which if nothing else does imply that you are not going to be a pushover; and containing all these facts. Of course, the recipient may then employ her own solicitor, but that then starts to cost her money; and then you get a stand off situation which can go on for ages. Years, in fact. In the end, if push ever comes to a “I’m going to take out an injunction to stop you flying” type shove, if the club can afford to underwrite any costs then you can call her bluff. If she lost, she might be liable for all the costs, which might be considerable, and I’m sure that would be brought to her attention; and the fact the club’s been there there for 26 years too, also very much a plus factor!

From our experience, when officials from the council have be involved with any noise measurement they go to the complainant’s premises and take the readings. Or at least, I presume they take readings, I don’t know what they do; and, of course, they don’t tell you when they are doing it. It’s happened to us, twice, at two different sites, and in both cases nothing came of it. One point about this, if the noise source is far enough away from the point of measurement it could be extremely loud and still be considered within limits. So presumably if you are within the 82 dB rule on site, you should never be able to exceed the council measured limits at the point of complaint?

If the council do get involved, they immediately seem to want to invoke the planning permission rule, and tell the farmer that he can only use the land for ‘non-agriculture use’ on 26 days of the year. This happened to us recently, we started to use a site and out of the blue the council wrote to us, in a very heavy handed manner, basically saying that this was going to happen. Our retired solicitor member wrote back, pointing out some (doubtful) statements they’d made and the tone changed completely. We then went on to prove that model flying had taken place on that site for many years, by getting previous flyers to write letters etc. and the Council Planning Officer then almost casually agreed that we could carry on flying with no restrictions
We then lost the site straight away anyway, but that was entirely down to some unwanted in-house activities, totally within the confines of aeromodelling.

We’ve always decided not to involve the BMFA in any of these issues, I always have an uneasy feeling that we would soon be overwhelmed, and in one case that I know when it was suggested that a club, that were flying with no problems anyway, should obtain Planning Permission and they contacted the BMFA for this reason, they immediately lost the site!

With hindsight, if I’m ever involved in a similar situation to yours again, I think wanging in a solicitors letter straightaway is a number one priority, as strong as possible in these circumstances, they can take liberties as good as anyone else. Then I’m sure I would soon know where I stood.

Sincerely hope you resolve it ok!

PB

[fly boy3]

Is it possible to invite the local environmental officer to come down and test, to ensure noise levels are as required. They may charge the club, but the results could come in handy if the problem ever got as far as the council, as then they will already know about the results. Just my 2. pennorth for what it is worth. Good luck FB3

[Peter Beeney]

Yes, when we did this the Environmental Officer eventually wandered along, but he wasn’t the least bit interested in how we did any tests. So all our careful logs etc. were a complete waste of time! And maybe all the rest of the effort we’d put into it, too! But he did say that he had already been to the complainant’s house and he didn’t think we had a problem. In this instance the council were very low key, it was the Landowner that made all the running. It’s simply a case of - ‘He who has most money… …wins!’.
On the second occasion the Officer never did come to see us, although he’d said he was going to, but we did gathered there wasn’t a problem here either, when the Council just stopped mentioning any noise problem. Here they (the council) were the main factor, we think because someone had some input, but they didn’t stop us flying; just made it difficult with more and more petty restrictions so we just gave up. It was also possible the farmer had fallen foul with the council at some time in the past, not a good omen!

So we never did get to find out how the Environmental Officers actually do their noise tests.

PB

[Big Bandit]

Hi All,

 

I went to a monthly meeting with a local club last month, and they have a similar problem, new neighbor who has taken a dislike to anyone flying a model aircraft on an established field. From what I could gather noise was an issue historically, but despite the modelers being very reasonable in modifying when and how they operate they have now recieved an email or letter saying that she just wants them to go. It sounds like it could get nasty so I won't be joining them just yet.

 

It seems to me that just because we mind our own business and enjoy what we do, and try to get on with every one and be as reasonable as possible, there's always someone who doesn't like it and will do all they can to stop us flying. Just another form of unreasonable intolerance as I see it.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

This document (written from the viewpoint of making a complaint) makes interesting reading. I haven't read all of it but 2 extracts that are particularly relevant are:

 

There are defences that a defendant to a private nuisance action can rely on. The noisemaker might rely on the defence of prescription. In essence, if the noisemaker has been making his noise for 20 years and you have full knowledge of this then the law deems that you have accepted this nuisance. However, if there is any change in the noise, your neighbour might have built a noisy workshop for instance, this might dissolve this defence.

 

and:

 

The determination of your action is largely down to the notion of reasonableness. Has there been a degree of reasonableness by all parties.

 

[Shaun K]

Not being a Brit, I don't know your laws, but surely the fact that the club is operating on private land must be a key factor. Am I right???

 

If the complaints are noise-related then there are DoE/ council rules around this, but if flying models that meet the DoE requirements is being conducted on private land I would think the land owner is key to the issue. Keep him on your side and you should surely have good grounds to continue.

 

In Australia it's very different picture if you're on private land, particularly if the land is in a rural area. We have different regulations depending on whether you're in suburbia or in a rural area. In short, we've got a bit more free reign in rural areas - you can be asked to stop making noise if it's above the relevant legal limits, but there's no way you could be stopped from carrying out an activity on private land if you're not breaking any specific environmental or other laws or endangering people or wildlife etc.

 

It's certainly no free-for-all out here in the colonies, but there's a very big difference in your rights to do things on private land compared to public land.

 

What you want to do is encourage some motorcycling friends to start up a motocross / dirt bike racing club somewhere nearby. Your model planes would soon be forgotten, or at least not heard over the noise...

 

Good luck!

 

 

[Ben B]

How long has the club been flying from that land and how long has she been living there? If she moved in when the club was already flying from there (as Martin H says) then there is a good case for defense. It would be the same if I bought a house right under the flight path of Heathrow airport then complained about the noise...

I'd go on the offensive. Compile a list of dB logs, explain the history of flying on the site, print off a map of the area showing the where the flight line is compared to her house, maybe even impose a no-fly zone at the end of the field near her house, if you could demonstrate that no plane would be flying within X metres of her house you could even use the logs and the inverse square law to try and work out the dB at her house etc etc. I wouldn't speak to the lady, she'll just say she's been harrased and threatened. But I'd print all that off and then send it to the council.

 

In situations like this I'm a firm believer that the councils tend to do whatever is easiest for themselves. And usually that means saying you can't fly. If you can make them realise (without antagonising them) that stopping you flying would infact make their lives harder they'll probably let you stay flying. So I'd pro-actively get in contact with the council, maybe see if it's possible for a small representation from the club to come to the next appropriate council meeting to discuss the problem with them, invite the environmental health person down to check your dB readings and do some readings around the perimeter of the field, chat up the local rag to see if they'll do an article on your unreasonable neighbour, get your local MP involved, get the BMFA to contact the council (in the BMFA rag recently there were saying that they were happy to get involved in these situations) etc.

 

We fly from a council-run site so I have frequent dealings with the council. It's amazing what you can get them to do if you (in a nice, polite way) make them realise you're going to be a PITA until they do what you want

 

If you really want to drive home the message send them a Freedom of Information Act request asking them to confirm how many complaints there have been about flying at that site in all the years it's been happening Inevitably the person dealing with your complaint with then have to look through all the paperwork and then send you a letter confirming that in X years there's just been these one complaint (hopefully!). I wouldn't necessarily do that straight away though as it might antagonise them a bit, but it's a useful last defense.

 

[Allan Bennett]

Posted by andy watson on 18/08/2011 16:27:39:

Unfortunately everyone is assuming this woman is reasonable- which from Stephens description is not the case.

 

He has stated she is claiming people are overfly her house when people aren't. ...

Is it possible that unauthorised flyers are using the site without the club's knowledge, and flying over her house? We lost a promising new flying field a few years back on that basis -- the neighbouring farmer complained to our landlord that his horses were spooked by low flying models, and that was it. The timing of the complaint was mid-week when, at that time, none of our club members flew.

[Braddock, VC]

The only way to respond to a problem such as this is to use the law to your own benefit.

Before you start you must consider raising a fighting fund, I'd suggest a minimum of £5000 before you start down this route.

Stage 1 complain to the police that this person is harassing you and ask them to deal with it under antisocial behaviour laws, effectively this is cost free hence always a good start point.

If unsuccessful stage 2, this can cost but can be effective. Take out an injunction to prevent her from entering your leased property, if she violates the injunction she is in contempt of court and the law's way of purging the contempt is either a jail term or a large fine or both. It does have its risks in that most media would see her as oppressed by a bunch of overgrown kids playing with their toys.

In all cases consult a solicitor beforehand, he will be able to advise you on the likelihood of success of your case, unless that is greater than 51% he probably will want paying up front.

As someone else has mentioned, noise is a sub issue. The cheapest way is to find a new site as it inevitably turns out that planes and the fear of them falling on her house is probably the stance she will pursue in court, a difficult issue to mitigate.

In spite of me being a model flyer, she has my sympathy as the thought of 5 planes in the air simultaneously fills me with apprehension, even 1/2 mile from the house.

Good luck in whatever you do but get the members solidly behind you before you embark on litigation.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Many years ago, our club was in a similar situation with a group of local complainers (mainly orchestrated by 2 individuals).

 

The complainants went as far as engaging a barrister to raise an injunction against the club to stop us flying altogether. The barrister went on an unannounced visit to check the local geography and introduced himself to the lone flyer (the then club secretary) who was at the field on a mid-week day. This gentleman had a pleasant conversation with him and demonstrated his model to him which was a DH60 with an OS40 Surpass. Said barrister was very taken with the demonstration and said that he couldn't see what all the fuss was about!

 

Noise measurement was carried out by the council who confirmed that as we hadn't doubled the ambient noise level measured from sensitive premises that we didn't have any problem as a noise nuisance.

 

A resolution was reached after several meetings with the complainants where the club volunteered to limit the number of i.c. models to 3 in normal circumstances and introduced a reduced noise limit on Sunday afternoons. Touching everything wooden in a 20 foot radius, we've enjoyed amicable relations with the local village ever since and now have nearly 30 years continuous operation at our (own) field to add strength to any future action against us.

 

The answer seems to be and to be seen to be reasonable in all dealings with the complainer and all bodies involved. Be certain of your facts and make sure that the other party is made aware that while you have these rights you are open to coming to an amicable agreement.

 

Whether this will work with your lady if she isn't prepared to be reasonable is a unlikely if she's as you've described but that sort of attitude should count against her if you remain assertive in the true sense of the term (which contrary to common interpretation does NOT mean shouting more loudly than she does!) Just make sure that you're fully aware of your rights AND responsibilities and don't be afraid to ask the BMFA for advice - you only have to take it if you feel it's right, after all, but they do have considerable experience in these matters.

Edited By Martin Harris on 19/08/2011 10:19:29

[Cyclicscooby]

Wish I has something constructive to say, but I feel for you, and hope it gets resolved amicabily..

We are, as noisy missile controllers, on the back foot all the time..

 

Luv

Chrisie.. xx

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Excellent post Martin and I agree 100%. In all matters such as this, which may well lead to the involvement of "officialdom", it always pays to be seen as "Mr Reasonable". And the more reasonable and well informed you come across the more your antagonist starts to look to everyone less like a "nutter"! And that does a large part of your job for you.

 

BEB

[Peter Beeney]

Generally speaking, it seems to me that no one can instantly stop you flying in a farmer’s field, whatever they choose to tell you to the contrary. Ultimately I think, they would have to take out an injunction, which costs money and is not necessarily always granted anyway.
If the council do get involved, they have rules on agricultural use and noise abatement, both of which can be overcome, but in the case of the change of use you would have needed to have been flying there for a number of years. I’m sure it’s possible to challenge this ‘change of use’ ruling, after all, it’s difficult to see how this this is happening, particular if the farmer is continuing his normal activities there. It also works both ways maybe, the council also perhaps not wanting to get involved in expensive court cases. It depends on how good your legal representative is, and that is perhaps wholly dependant on how much money you’ve got! But, unfortunately there is also the ‘Just see how difficult we can be when we really try,’ factor! There was a case when the action of a farmer training his sheepdogs was deemed not to be strictly for ‘agricultural’ use and thus he was prevented from doing so. Sheepdog training does not appear on the official list of agricultural activities! I imagine he’d upset someone on the council! A lady council member raised the issue to start the ball rolling. Difficult to overcome a mindset like this.

I’d personally like to see any fighting fund virtually unlimited. If I had to pull out and give up halfway through some expensive litigation because of a shortage of money I’d be very disappointed. It’s a bit like a game of Bluff, I’m sure that in that first episode we were involved in, if we’d had enough clout to be able to say “See you in court!’, the landowner might have chickened out. We were told we had a good case, and the farmer and the landowner were at daggers drawn. Certainly it was a case of jackets off for a punch up if they happened to meet in the street. Fortunately that was nothing to to with us, we were just a side issue. The landowner might not have wanted to lose out to the farmer in this way, plus the fact it would have given us carte blanche to continue flying unmolested. He would have needed to stay in a position to be able to continue his threats.

Every case is probably different, I’ve also belonged for years to a club that fly on council owned land, a very public recreation field shared with footballers, there are a number of football pitches there, walkers and everyone else and his dog, this is in a really suburban area but it works well without incident. If you can get off to a good start that is certainly most of the battle.

Ultimately I guess money is the final answer, witness the ‘super injunction’, where it seems you can actually buy the law. Whether aeromodelling would be classed important enough to fall in this bracket is a moot point, I think I’d guess not. Imagine you were stopped flying and you weren’t even allowed to tell anyone you were an aeromodeller! Still, that might be helpful on some occasions, - “I’m not allowed to say where I’m going… dear!” Not sure I could make that work work for too long though, the other half might eventually begin to get somewhat suspicious! About two milliseconds, if I’m lucky…!

A good starting point might also be the local Citizens Advice Bureau, I’ve been there a couple of times on different matters; and as it so happened they only really confirmed what I really knew anyway, but they could not have been more helpful. They can very diligently keep on searching for information and then print it all out. A whole ink refill at the time! All free! On the second time I discovered that the consultant I saw had been at one time on the same airfield as Ken Wallace, the autogiro man, so that also helped things along.

I’m afraid that in our case no amount of soft soaping would have had any effect, our secretary at the time was renown for his light and affable touch, really Mr Nice Guy, he was also a BMFA official, (still is), and was very familiar with the rules of officialdom.
Only a metaphorical hanging would have sufficed in this case. Or even a real one!

Martin,

Unusual to see a barrister forego a fee when perhaps he didn’t need to. Although he might have thought that perhaps he just didn’t want to lose a case. Also how were the council noise checks done, at the club field or at the complainants premises?

PB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Peter,

 

As I said, it was before my time but I understand that they had a complex method of data aquisition involving measurements at several locations and times, using very expensive equipment.

 

I'm not totally certain at what point the application for the injunction was dropped but there was a great deal of activity by the then chairman and committee in meetings with the instructing solicitors and the complainants.

 

I'm going to be away for a week but I'll see if I can get some more details tomorrow before I go...

[Stephen Grigg]

In the 26 years of flying there we had a compaint 23 years ago and a bottle of whisky did the trick.We have arranged with the lady to carry out an experiment next Wednesday.We feel her visual perseption may be the problem.We all know when a model goes down a long way away it is never where it looked at where it should be.We think she thinks its over her house when its nowhere near.We have immediately banned anyone from flying in her zone,so tending to fly in the opposite direction to her now.The committee seem to have a plan in place,including not talking to the lady unless its a club committee member she talks to.She purchased the house 12 months ago and was made aware of our presence.We do not have planning permission,but the farmer does have permission to carry out other than farm use business to cover his overheads

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Beeney]

Martin,

Thanks very much for that. I’ve only asked because of what seems to be some differences on the MO. The injunction aspect is perhaps not important at the moment, but there would certainly seems to be some diversity within the noise test regime. On one hand we have your fairly comprehensive multiple tests and a report on the outcome and we had one visit from an official, admittedly a very genial chap, but he didn’t appear to have any kit, at least when he came to see us, and just a general verbal statement that he didn’t think we had a problem. Later, on the second occasion, about ten years ago, there was even less, no visit at all! But it was a different council.
So, from this, if you get tangled up in one of these altercations, - ‘noisy arguments’, it’s possible you can expect a reaction anywhere between these test ‘standards?’. As far as we were concerned, as you might expect, we thought the noise restrictions that we put a lot of effort into were just a waste of time!

Very recently, on another council encounter, they didn’t even mention noise, although we think it may have been triggered by a complaint. They just demanded that we instantly and permanently ceased flying on grounds of safety, there is a footpath running down the side of the field. We had no complaints, indeed many of the walkers would often come over for a chat. However, by dealing with the council in the proper manner, with a little help from our beagle, they quickly adopted a much more conciliatory tone and eventually agreed we could go to back flying as before. All credit, when all the paper work was sorted they were quite swift on the matter, they didn’t sit and prevaricate, which is what we fully expected.

Stephen,

It looks a though you are now on the way, lets hope you get a really satisfactory outcome!

Tom,

I entirely agree, planning permission seems to be very much a two-edged sword. It needs a lot of careful mulling over and some genuine, independent, sound advice. I think that once this particular genie is out of the bottle he won’t go back in; and he can be contrary! Certainly I know of one club that lost their site as soon as they applied for planning permission. I would definitely want to talk to someone that does it for a living, first.

PB

[Wingman]

Why don't you just agree with everything she says and then just ignore it completely as in the standard marital model.

Also she obviously isn't married so a little flattery would go a long way as would a little bit of flirting from the club lurv-machine

Seriously though, you shouldn't get too involved in countering the perceived threat until you receive a council communication of some sort and thereby have something concrete to work on, after all you are operating on private land which you don't own and are therefore not responsible for - any problems are the landowners to deal with and to balance against the income he gets from the land - don't forget he gets a guaranteed income from your patch (of land) something he can't get from planting a crop or grazing animals.

[r6dan]

For £5000 I can "fix" your problem.......

[Wingman]

Kerchiiiinnng!

[Tom T]

After reading the whole (extremely interesting thread). Isn't it that no action can be taken place towards you with out more than 3 different households with in the area have complained to the council. So surely you shouldn't even have to make any rule changes? Doesn't it work like the barking dog rule. Three complaints from three different households and the dog is removed?