<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>
Does living in a place for many years weaken or strengthen a case for compensation of some sort?</blockquote>

Tricky one. As far as nuisance goes, then by a strict interpretation of the law, the answer is no, living somewhere for years makes no difference.

However, there are cases where people have lived with what would constitute a nuisance for years and are then deemed to have accepted it (people living near long established airfields/airports, for example) and so wouldn't have a strong case for then claiming that the noise they'd lived with for years was now causing a nuisance. The problems tend to arise when someone move to an area that's affected by noise (or maybe some other nuisance) and where the source of that noise has been in that location for many years and they then complain about it. The classic case is the person who moves to a house near an airfield and then raises a nuisance complaint about aircraft noise.

I've dealt with a few cases like this, once when I was a member of a gliding club and several times when I managed a weapons range in Scotland. The classic was the chap who applied for planning permission to build a house right on the boundary of our bombing range. We cautioned the planners that he should take steps to protect from blast damage, avoid the use of large areas of glass, fit toughened glass to windows and be prepared to experience strong pressure waves from time to time. The planners didn't make these conditions of the plans and the chap went ahead and built the house, complete with a large conservatory facing the range drop zone. Needless to say, the first time we dropped a 250kg bomb out there it blew all the windows out of his conservatory, and he tried to claim damages from us. Sensibly the courts ruled that our comprehensive warnings about possible blast damage were sufficient to makes us not liable.

My understanding is that the courts treat each case like this on its merits and apply a reasonableness test, essentially "what would the chap on the Clapham omnibus think?".

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Joiner</cite>Love it. Love it.


The guy's sitting there reading his paper and...</blockquote>

There's also the rather perverse human nature factors that creep up on people who move next to a noise source and then make lots of complaints. We had one chap who bought a holiday cottage right near the end of our main runway. The airfield had been there since the 1930's, and was the major local employer. He complained incessantly about fast jet noise, and we at first tried to divert flight paths to placate him. In the end he just became such a nuisance, and so well known to the regular pilots, that they'd mischievous fly low with full reheat right over his cottage just to wind him up.................

Bit like the chap in Wales who had a farm in the low flying training area. He wrote "F*** off Biggles" in large letters on the roof of one of his barns. Turned the farm into a fast jet magnet for years, as every new pilot flew over to check the sign out.

Military stuff (National Security) is except from most planning (T&CP) restrictions anyway. I think they have, or may be putting, Energy production under the National Security banner. That makes it a game changer.

This leg
http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/safeguarding-aerodromes-technical-sites-military-explosives-storage-areas/

Or this one
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/150982.pdf

Posted By: JSHarrisThere is still an override whereby the SoS for Defence can overrule an adverse outcome in certain cases

That is how I understand it too. Goes back to the EU legislation and how we interpret it, as well as to avoid constant conflicts with locals the MOD go along with the rules, though not strictly necessary, especially in times of 'war', which we seem to have been doing for the last few years.

It is interesting that they are putting energy production under the national security banner though (or want to). Would stop the lights going out though.

(The helicopters from your old base where slowly 'cruising' along the beach yesterday, quite low too. They don't seem to do it when people wear coats

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>
(The helicopters from your old base where slowly 'cruising' along the beach yesterday, quite low too. They don't seem to do it when people wear coats</blockquote>

When I was there there was a wall in the 771 crew room completely covered in "candid" snapshots....................

I remember a gliding club trip down to St Just that was similarly rewarding when silently soaring the cliffs above the beach.

Posted By: JSHarrisThe classic was the chap who applied for planning permission to build a house right on the boundary of our bombing range. We cautioned the planners that he should take steps to protect from blast damage, avoid the use of large areas of glass, fit toughened glass to windows and be prepared to experience strong pressure waves from time to time. The planners didn't make these conditions of the plans and the chap went ahead and built the house, complete with a large conservatory facing the range drop zone. Needless to say, the first time we dropped a 250kg bomb out there it blew all the windows out of his conservatory, and he tried to claim damages from us. Sensibly the courts ruled that our comprehensive warnings about possible blast damage were sufficient to makes us not liable.

My understanding is that the courts treat each case like this on its merits and apply a reasonableness test, essentially "what would the chap on the Clapham omnibus think?".

That actually sounds quite reasonable of the planners, as well as being amusing. They shouldn't be intervening to protect the applicant from himself, only to protect the rest of the community from the applicant. So as the rest of the community didn't need protecting, they were quite right to not impose conditions.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: CWatters</cite>Anyone know what happens to a planning application for a wind farm if a land owner pulls out after it's submitted? Are the planners required to spend £10,000's processing it?</blockquote>

If an application is withdrawn then the planners take no further action, and they just archive the application with no record of it being kept on the planning record for the site (this has just happened to me).

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: CWatters</cite>I understand that you can submit an application on land you don't own provided you issue a certificate to the land owner.</blockquote>

If you don't own the land then you normally need to give evidence that you've notified the land owner on a given date about the application and received his/her permission to submit an application. There's no need for any evidence to support this, though, it's by self-certification on the planning application form.

Posted By: JSHarrisIf an application is withdrawn then the planners take no further action, and they just archive the application with no record of it being kept on the planning record for the site (this has just happened to me).

I think that must depend on the area. I have frequently seen withdrawn applications when searching the history of various plots. Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

Right, yes, I'd agree with all that.

Doubt very much that BC would give a damn, unless you were intendting to install a wind farm on your roof, of course.

Pity you didn't check. You'd have probably found him impaled by a large shard of glazing, pinned to the sun lounger in his conservatory. Probably just a skelington by now, the Financial Times Friday supplement mouldering away between his bones.

In other words, the confirmation of something all the empirical evidence points to as a matter of fact.

Although quite why they've singled out DNA-evidenced propensity is a puzzle to me. Why not propensity to baldness, or shoe size, or colour-preference.

Why don't they just sit on the periphery of a wedding reception's evening do and note those people who are wincing with the aural pain and those who are merrily bopping away without a care in the world?

Must be funding out there somewhere, so good on them for finding it.

And in "several years" time all those currently suffering, and about to have the things imposed on them, either regardless of objections or who will soon realise their error in accepting the developer's assurances, can relax in the knowledge that someone understands.

I think you'll find that Mexican restaurants, esp burritos, may have a similar effect...

Rgds

Damon