croft circuit in trouble!!
18-01-2009, 09:16 PM
#41
15000
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: cheshire
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I live near oulton an you can hear it miles away it sounds great and just reminds me to book my next trackday. Cant believe people can buy these houses an moan you would of thought the people who buy houses near race circuits would have an interest in motorsport.
18-01-2009, 11:21 PM
#42
I'm Finding My Feet Here Now
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=56260629746
Someone posted it before but didn't work properly so I'll try again
Someone posted it before but didn't work properly so I'll try again
18-01-2009, 11:43 PM
#44
fook me I have just worked out mr wilson who has sued croft used to fooking own it!!!!!!!
** edit no it isn't.. mr wilson who ran the track in 1994 is the husband or ex husband of mrs wilson who was awarded 40k...
something fishey going on here!!! read below!
Those involved in the case
4. The First Claimant, Mr Watson, is the owner and occupier of a house at Pond House, Vince Moor East. The Second Claimant, Mrs Watson, is his wife and is also the owner and occupier of Pond House. The Third Claimant, Mrs (Jill) Wilson is the daughter of Mr and Mrs Watson and is the owner and occupier of The Granary, a property adjacent to Pond House. Between 1987 and 1994 she was married to Mr (Jimmy) Wilson.
5. Croft Promosport Ltd (The Defendant) is a company with a leasehold interest in the land occupied by the Circuit. Croft Classic and Historic Motor Sports Ltd (‘CCHM') was a company incorporated on April 1994 by Mr Wilson, Mrs (Katherine) Chaytor-Norris and Mr (Trevor) Chaytor-Norris. It was the initial corporate vehicle for the development of the Circuit; and at some stage in 1996 CCHM was awarded the management contract for Croft Circuit by the Defendant. Mr Chaytor-Norris, as well as being a former director of CCHM, is a director and shareholder of the Defendant. His wife, Mrs Chaytor-Norris is the owner of Croft Motor Circuit.
steve
** edit no it isn't.. mr wilson who ran the track in 1994 is the husband or ex husband of mrs wilson who was awarded 40k...
something fishey going on here!!! read below!
Those involved in the case
4. The First Claimant, Mr Watson, is the owner and occupier of a house at Pond House, Vince Moor East. The Second Claimant, Mrs Watson, is his wife and is also the owner and occupier of Pond House. The Third Claimant, Mrs (Jill) Wilson is the daughter of Mr and Mrs Watson and is the owner and occupier of The Granary, a property adjacent to Pond House. Between 1987 and 1994 she was married to Mr (Jimmy) Wilson.
5. Croft Promosport Ltd (The Defendant) is a company with a leasehold interest in the land occupied by the Circuit. Croft Classic and Historic Motor Sports Ltd (‘CCHM') was a company incorporated on April 1994 by Mr Wilson, Mrs (Katherine) Chaytor-Norris and Mr (Trevor) Chaytor-Norris. It was the initial corporate vehicle for the development of the Circuit; and at some stage in 1996 CCHM was awarded the management contract for Croft Circuit by the Defendant. Mr Chaytor-Norris, as well as being a former director of CCHM, is a director and shareholder of the Defendant. His wife, Mrs Chaytor-Norris is the owner of Croft Motor Circuit.
steve
Last edited by The Youth.; 18-01-2009 at 11:50 PM.
18-01-2009, 11:44 PM
#45
The historical background to the claim.
6. Croft aerodrome was build during the Second World War and was designated a relief airfield in 1951. From 1949 to 1957 it was used intermittently for car race meetings.
7. In July 1962, the North Riding of Yorkshire County Council received a planning application from, Mr Robert Ropner, the owner of the airfield to make a material change of use of the land so as to permit motor trials, motor and motor cycles races and sporting events (including pedal cycle races, athletic meetings, aircraft, helicopters and gliders) to take place. The runways and tracks were at that date derelict and new access was required to be constructed. The application was refused on the grounds of the anticipated noise levels.
8. A second application was made in September 1962. The basis for this application was explained in a covering letter dated 22 September.
Our client then amended his application to provide for not more than four race meetings per annum for formula cars and this had apparently provided the reassurance which the Croft Council required because we understand that they have now approved the Application.
9. Planning permission was refused by the County Council; and there was then an appeal to the Minister. At this point the development was described as:
(I) the holding of motoring events including driving tuition, driving tests and motor trials, also motor and motor cycle races provided that cars not licensed for road use are not included in more than four race meetings a year (II) the holding of sporting events including athletics meetings pedal cycle races and games and sports generally (III) to provide runways and facilities for the taking off and landing of aircraft, helicopters and gliders.
10. The Minister allowed the appeal and granted planning permission in a decision dated 15 August 1963. The permission, which made no reference to the limited basis of the application, allowed the use of the airfield for motor and motor cycle events subject to a number of various conditions which are not material to the present case.
11. Following the grant of permission, the site was used for motor racing on not more than 20 racing days per year up to 1979. There were also some days on which practising for those racing days took place.
12. In June 1979 Mr (William) Chaytor (on behalf of a family trust) bought the airfield and, what had by now become, a racing circuit within its area.
13. In 1981 an application was made and permission granted for
the formation of spoil heaps of concrete and stone from runway and perimeter tracks of disused airfield and return area to agricultural use at disused airfield, Croft.
In the description of the proposed development in the Application Form it was stated that
... the whole area is being returned to Agricultural use - Arable Cropping
14. Between 1982 and 1994, apart from rallycross (the racing of modified production cars on a mixture of sealed and loose surfaces) on a small part of the circuit for less than 10 days a year, and some engine testing during some of the period, there was no motor racing at Croft.
15. In 1989 Mr Wilson's company, JF Wilson (Developments) Ltd, bought Vince Moor East. At the time this was a farm complex consisting of a number of derelict buildings. The company was subsequently granted planning permission to convert the buildings into 3 dwelling houses, which became Pond House, the Old Farm House and the Granary; and in 1990 Mr and Mrs Watson purchased Pond House from the developers for Ł350,000.
16. In 1994 Mr Trevor Norris (who later changed his name to Chaytor-Norris), with his wife-to-be, Katherine Chaytor and Mr Wilson, incorporated a company, Croft Classic and Historic Motorsport Ltd (CCHM) for the purpose of upgrading and managing operations at the track. An application for planning permission to re-develop the circuit was made on 10 June 1994. On 27 June 1994, a Parish Council meeting was held at which Mr Norris and Mr Wilson presented proposals for development of the Circuit. They told the meeting that rallycross would be reduced and that it was expected there would be about 22 days of racing and 5 practice days per year. This proposed use was backed up by an undated letter from CCHM (dated some time in the summer), in which it offered
to restrict motor car and motor cycle activity on the site with regard to local concern. We are prepared to consider a 25% reduction in the above activity.
The ‘above activity' was made up of 11 events over 15 days during the course of 1994.
17. In October 1994 CCHM informed the Local Planning Authority, Richmondshire District Council (RDC) about more extensive plans for the use of the circuit, following a new application for planning permission [1A/151]. The new plans were for 37 race days, 24 exclusive test days and 120 days when the track would be used for other purposes. In March 1995 Mr Wilson applied to develop the land at Vince Moor East as a hotel.
18. In May the first race meeting run by CCHM was held on the resurfaced circuit; and on 7 July 1995 planning permission was granted in respect of the October 1994 application.
19. A number of planning decisions followed, which were challenged. This led to a Public Inquiry, which began in October 1996, continued for 4 days and was then adjourned. Improvement works were carried out over the winter/spring of 1996/7. These works involved changing the configuration of the track and the construction of a control tower and the pit-stops.
20. On 29 January 1998 the Defendant made a further application for planning permission on the basis that it was prepared to enter into an enforceable planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act so as to set limits to the amount of noise from racing on the Croft Circuit.
21. s.106 provides:
(1) Any person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority may, by agreement or otherwise, enter into an obligation (referred to... as ‘a planning obligation') enforceable to the extent mentioned in subsection (3) ...
(3) Subject to subsection (4) a planning obligation is enforceable by the (planning) authority ...
22. The Defendant's second appeal on a further application to vary conditions imposed in the 1995 permission (relating back to the terms of the original application for permission in 1963) was finally heard in September 1998.
23. The Planning Inquiry on the 1998 appeal was heard between 1 and 3 September by the same inspector who had heard the earlier 4 day appeal (in October 1996).
24. On 8 October 1998 the Defendant gave its unilateral undertaking under the provision of s.106 the 1990 Act. This Agreement contained a detailed set of measurement criteria by which noise from the Circuit would be assessed and monitored. It also prescribed the racing activities which could be undertaken, and when quiet and rest days were to be held. The activities were divided into N1 to N5 activities, according to the noise levels which were generated, as follows:
N1 activities (no more than 95dBA over an hour) shall not exceed 10 days a year
N2 activities (no more than 93dBA) shall not exceed 40 days a year.
N3 activities (no more than 85dBA) shall not exceed 70 days a year.
N4 activities (no more than 78dBA) may not exceed 110 days a year.
N1-N4 days therefore may take place on 230 days a year.
N5 activities (no more than 70dBA) are unlimited in number.
In all cases, the noise levels are measured at an identified point adjacent to the track.
25. In a Report dated 26 October 1998 the Inspector decided to allow the Defendant's appeal. The Inspector's Report is relied on by both sides; and it is necessary to quote (extensively but selectively) from various enumerated paragraphs.
[24] ... from the evidence before me and from my inspections of the site and the surrounding area I consider that the principal issues in this matter are, first, whether the project would accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and, second the effect of the project on the amenity of local residents by reason of noise and disturbance ...
[25] I consider that the Development Plan policies weigh heavily against the project. National guidance that seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and to encourage sustainable development also weighs against the enterprise. National and local policies rule against recreational development that would cause environmental harm or conflict with other uses ...
[30] I am fully satisfied that the noise has at times been of such character, duration and intensity and tone as to seriously harm the amenity to which residents reasonably feel they are entitled ... the evidence of local residents should be accorded considerable weight. I conclude that the project would seriously diminish residential amenity in a rural area especially in the summer and at weekends.
Nevertheless, he considered that
[33] ... the weight to be given to previous planning permissions is undoubtedly of great significance... [the Defendants] seek to have a series of tighter and more detailed controls imposed upon their enterprise.
He also noted [34],
The reality is that the local residents face a fundamental problem. If this appeal fails, or if I impose more rigorous controls than [CPL] suggest, they say that they will operate under existing permissions. I am asked to accept that to allow the appeal would not cause additional harm to residential amenity.
[35] In the Council's opinion the overall noise climate in the locality emanating from the proposed use of the circuit would not be controlled to an acceptable level.
[36] [The Local Planning Authority] consider the unilateral undertaking by [the Defendant] would not constitute a reasonable compromise in terms of noise experienced by the community, particularly in terms of the number of days at various noise levels.
[37] Bearing in mind the very wide planning use rights which the site now enjoys, I am very firmly convinced that the project would strengthen significantly the ability of the local planning authority to control noise at this long established circuit.
[38] By the s.106 Agreement a series of measures would control the nature and intensity of the use of the site, as well as noise impact on the locality, compared to virtually no controls provided by the existing planning permission ...The Council's concern about noise ... is echoed by local residents who are worried that significantly higher noise levels than occasionally occur now would happen on many days... Without the undertaking, however, there could be racing every day and, what is more significant, little control by the Council over unsilenced vehicles.
26. In forming his conclusions he observed:
[42] Dispute about the use of the site has continued in my personal experience for some years ... It is clear that to continue this uncertainty for its own sake would benefit no one. ... I consider it wrong to withhold a grant of planning permission that would strengthen the local planning authority, benefit the community and reduce the developer's rights, just to keep [the Defendant] in a state of doubt.
27. He concluded:
[43] If this appeal were allowed, objectors would be very upset. If it were dismissed their experiences would be very likely to remain the same; the Council would only have the planning controls that they could have enforced under the existing planning permissions. ... The complaints indicate there has been a serious loss of amenity, which the Council as the local planning authority have not remedied. ... It is clear to me that the project would effectively reduce the almost unrestricted rights which the operators now enjoy to operate the circuit. .. I conclude that the project would achieve a reasonable compromise between amenity, particularly in terms of noise experienced in the local community, and the operation of the racing community ...
[46] I consider no planning purpose would be served if I were to impose by conditions the tighter controls suggested by the Council and [the Objectors] or to demand such clauses in the section 106 unilateral offered by [the Defendant]. They would disclaim the permission and, as they are entitled to, operate the site under their existing planning permissions. ...
28. The Inspector's decision did not end the dispute about the noise generated from the Circuit. Mr Watson, among others, continued to be highly discontented about the noise levels from the Circuit. In this he was supported by Richmondshire District Council which served, but later withdrew, abatement notices. These actions were the subject of a subsequent complaint by Mr Watson to the Local Government Ombudsman which failed.
29. In 2000 Mr and Mrs Watson purchased the Granary from Barclays Bank; and in 2001 they transferred it to Mrs Wilson, who has lived there since then.
30. Since 1998 the activity at the Circuit has ranged between a low 144 days in 2001 (of which 98 days were N1-4) and 207 days in 2000 (of which 147 days were N1-N4), concentrated in the summer months.
check out the part in bold!!!
steve
6. Croft aerodrome was build during the Second World War and was designated a relief airfield in 1951. From 1949 to 1957 it was used intermittently for car race meetings.
7. In July 1962, the North Riding of Yorkshire County Council received a planning application from, Mr Robert Ropner, the owner of the airfield to make a material change of use of the land so as to permit motor trials, motor and motor cycles races and sporting events (including pedal cycle races, athletic meetings, aircraft, helicopters and gliders) to take place. The runways and tracks were at that date derelict and new access was required to be constructed. The application was refused on the grounds of the anticipated noise levels.
8. A second application was made in September 1962. The basis for this application was explained in a covering letter dated 22 September.
Our client then amended his application to provide for not more than four race meetings per annum for formula cars and this had apparently provided the reassurance which the Croft Council required because we understand that they have now approved the Application.
9. Planning permission was refused by the County Council; and there was then an appeal to the Minister. At this point the development was described as:
(I) the holding of motoring events including driving tuition, driving tests and motor trials, also motor and motor cycle races provided that cars not licensed for road use are not included in more than four race meetings a year (II) the holding of sporting events including athletics meetings pedal cycle races and games and sports generally (III) to provide runways and facilities for the taking off and landing of aircraft, helicopters and gliders.
10. The Minister allowed the appeal and granted planning permission in a decision dated 15 August 1963. The permission, which made no reference to the limited basis of the application, allowed the use of the airfield for motor and motor cycle events subject to a number of various conditions which are not material to the present case.
11. Following the grant of permission, the site was used for motor racing on not more than 20 racing days per year up to 1979. There were also some days on which practising for those racing days took place.
12. In June 1979 Mr (William) Chaytor (on behalf of a family trust) bought the airfield and, what had by now become, a racing circuit within its area.
13. In 1981 an application was made and permission granted for
the formation of spoil heaps of concrete and stone from runway and perimeter tracks of disused airfield and return area to agricultural use at disused airfield, Croft.
In the description of the proposed development in the Application Form it was stated that
... the whole area is being returned to Agricultural use - Arable Cropping
14. Between 1982 and 1994, apart from rallycross (the racing of modified production cars on a mixture of sealed and loose surfaces) on a small part of the circuit for less than 10 days a year, and some engine testing during some of the period, there was no motor racing at Croft.
15. In 1989 Mr Wilson's company, JF Wilson (Developments) Ltd, bought Vince Moor East. At the time this was a farm complex consisting of a number of derelict buildings. The company was subsequently granted planning permission to convert the buildings into 3 dwelling houses, which became Pond House, the Old Farm House and the Granary; and in 1990 Mr and Mrs Watson purchased Pond House from the developers for Ł350,000.
16. In 1994 Mr Trevor Norris (who later changed his name to Chaytor-Norris), with his wife-to-be, Katherine Chaytor and Mr Wilson, incorporated a company, Croft Classic and Historic Motorsport Ltd (CCHM) for the purpose of upgrading and managing operations at the track. An application for planning permission to re-develop the circuit was made on 10 June 1994. On 27 June 1994, a Parish Council meeting was held at which Mr Norris and Mr Wilson presented proposals for development of the Circuit. They told the meeting that rallycross would be reduced and that it was expected there would be about 22 days of racing and 5 practice days per year. This proposed use was backed up by an undated letter from CCHM (dated some time in the summer), in which it offered
to restrict motor car and motor cycle activity on the site with regard to local concern. We are prepared to consider a 25% reduction in the above activity.
The ‘above activity' was made up of 11 events over 15 days during the course of 1994.
17. In October 1994 CCHM informed the Local Planning Authority, Richmondshire District Council (RDC) about more extensive plans for the use of the circuit, following a new application for planning permission [1A/151]. The new plans were for 37 race days, 24 exclusive test days and 120 days when the track would be used for other purposes. In March 1995 Mr Wilson applied to develop the land at Vince Moor East as a hotel.
18. In May the first race meeting run by CCHM was held on the resurfaced circuit; and on 7 July 1995 planning permission was granted in respect of the October 1994 application.
19. A number of planning decisions followed, which were challenged. This led to a Public Inquiry, which began in October 1996, continued for 4 days and was then adjourned. Improvement works were carried out over the winter/spring of 1996/7. These works involved changing the configuration of the track and the construction of a control tower and the pit-stops.
20. On 29 January 1998 the Defendant made a further application for planning permission on the basis that it was prepared to enter into an enforceable planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act so as to set limits to the amount of noise from racing on the Croft Circuit.
21. s.106 provides:
(1) Any person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority may, by agreement or otherwise, enter into an obligation (referred to... as ‘a planning obligation') enforceable to the extent mentioned in subsection (3) ...
(3) Subject to subsection (4) a planning obligation is enforceable by the (planning) authority ...
22. The Defendant's second appeal on a further application to vary conditions imposed in the 1995 permission (relating back to the terms of the original application for permission in 1963) was finally heard in September 1998.
23. The Planning Inquiry on the 1998 appeal was heard between 1 and 3 September by the same inspector who had heard the earlier 4 day appeal (in October 1996).
24. On 8 October 1998 the Defendant gave its unilateral undertaking under the provision of s.106 the 1990 Act. This Agreement contained a detailed set of measurement criteria by which noise from the Circuit would be assessed and monitored. It also prescribed the racing activities which could be undertaken, and when quiet and rest days were to be held. The activities were divided into N1 to N5 activities, according to the noise levels which were generated, as follows:
N1 activities (no more than 95dBA over an hour) shall not exceed 10 days a year
N2 activities (no more than 93dBA) shall not exceed 40 days a year.
N3 activities (no more than 85dBA) shall not exceed 70 days a year.
N4 activities (no more than 78dBA) may not exceed 110 days a year.
N1-N4 days therefore may take place on 230 days a year.
N5 activities (no more than 70dBA) are unlimited in number.
In all cases, the noise levels are measured at an identified point adjacent to the track.
25. In a Report dated 26 October 1998 the Inspector decided to allow the Defendant's appeal. The Inspector's Report is relied on by both sides; and it is necessary to quote (extensively but selectively) from various enumerated paragraphs.
[24] ... from the evidence before me and from my inspections of the site and the surrounding area I consider that the principal issues in this matter are, first, whether the project would accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and, second the effect of the project on the amenity of local residents by reason of noise and disturbance ...
[25] I consider that the Development Plan policies weigh heavily against the project. National guidance that seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and to encourage sustainable development also weighs against the enterprise. National and local policies rule against recreational development that would cause environmental harm or conflict with other uses ...
[30] I am fully satisfied that the noise has at times been of such character, duration and intensity and tone as to seriously harm the amenity to which residents reasonably feel they are entitled ... the evidence of local residents should be accorded considerable weight. I conclude that the project would seriously diminish residential amenity in a rural area especially in the summer and at weekends.
Nevertheless, he considered that
[33] ... the weight to be given to previous planning permissions is undoubtedly of great significance... [the Defendants] seek to have a series of tighter and more detailed controls imposed upon their enterprise.
He also noted [34],
The reality is that the local residents face a fundamental problem. If this appeal fails, or if I impose more rigorous controls than [CPL] suggest, they say that they will operate under existing permissions. I am asked to accept that to allow the appeal would not cause additional harm to residential amenity.
[35] In the Council's opinion the overall noise climate in the locality emanating from the proposed use of the circuit would not be controlled to an acceptable level.
[36] [The Local Planning Authority] consider the unilateral undertaking by [the Defendant] would not constitute a reasonable compromise in terms of noise experienced by the community, particularly in terms of the number of days at various noise levels.
[37] Bearing in mind the very wide planning use rights which the site now enjoys, I am very firmly convinced that the project would strengthen significantly the ability of the local planning authority to control noise at this long established circuit.
[38] By the s.106 Agreement a series of measures would control the nature and intensity of the use of the site, as well as noise impact on the locality, compared to virtually no controls provided by the existing planning permission ...The Council's concern about noise ... is echoed by local residents who are worried that significantly higher noise levels than occasionally occur now would happen on many days... Without the undertaking, however, there could be racing every day and, what is more significant, little control by the Council over unsilenced vehicles.
26. In forming his conclusions he observed:
[42] Dispute about the use of the site has continued in my personal experience for some years ... It is clear that to continue this uncertainty for its own sake would benefit no one. ... I consider it wrong to withhold a grant of planning permission that would strengthen the local planning authority, benefit the community and reduce the developer's rights, just to keep [the Defendant] in a state of doubt.
27. He concluded:
[43] If this appeal were allowed, objectors would be very upset. If it were dismissed their experiences would be very likely to remain the same; the Council would only have the planning controls that they could have enforced under the existing planning permissions. ... The complaints indicate there has been a serious loss of amenity, which the Council as the local planning authority have not remedied. ... It is clear to me that the project would effectively reduce the almost unrestricted rights which the operators now enjoy to operate the circuit. .. I conclude that the project would achieve a reasonable compromise between amenity, particularly in terms of noise experienced in the local community, and the operation of the racing community ...
[46] I consider no planning purpose would be served if I were to impose by conditions the tighter controls suggested by the Council and [the Objectors] or to demand such clauses in the section 106 unilateral offered by [the Defendant]. They would disclaim the permission and, as they are entitled to, operate the site under their existing planning permissions. ...
28. The Inspector's decision did not end the dispute about the noise generated from the Circuit. Mr Watson, among others, continued to be highly discontented about the noise levels from the Circuit. In this he was supported by Richmondshire District Council which served, but later withdrew, abatement notices. These actions were the subject of a subsequent complaint by Mr Watson to the Local Government Ombudsman which failed.
29. In 2000 Mr and Mrs Watson purchased the Granary from Barclays Bank; and in 2001 they transferred it to Mrs Wilson, who has lived there since then.
30. Since 1998 the activity at the Circuit has ranged between a low 144 days in 2001 (of which 98 days were N1-4) and 207 days in 2000 (of which 147 days were N1-N4), concentrated in the summer months.
check out the part in bold!!!
steve
Last edited by The Youth.; 18-01-2009 at 11:50 PM.
19-01-2009, 12:39 AM
#46
yoofy,
it sounds just like what i thought, a cantankerous old git who knows his rights,thinks they will get compo if they cause a stink because they can get the circuit over a barrell like noise pollution, sometimes you wonder why people get hurt or maimed and the bloke who is complaining needs to wind his neck in.
someone needs to find out his car reg and watch him go out, then phone the old bill and say the git has done a hit and run.
my bruv had that in liverpool just because he threatened to twat a taxi driver,he claimed he hit and run,had no proof,yet it went right through the insurance system and showed up when he renewed 4 months later as it wasn't sorted. it nearly went to court until the dozy taxi driver found out my bruv had witnesses that would testify.
it sounds just like what i thought, a cantankerous old git who knows his rights,thinks they will get compo if they cause a stink because they can get the circuit over a barrell like noise pollution, sometimes you wonder why people get hurt or maimed and the bloke who is complaining needs to wind his neck in.
someone needs to find out his car reg and watch him go out, then phone the old bill and say the git has done a hit and run.
my bruv had that in liverpool just because he threatened to twat a taxi driver,he claimed he hit and run,had no proof,yet it went right through the insurance system and showed up when he renewed 4 months later as it wasn't sorted. it nearly went to court until the dozy taxi driver found out my bruv had witnesses that would testify.
19-01-2009, 01:00 AM
#47
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Stockton-on-tees
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prick, anyone up for going up everynight doing burnouts etc outside the fuckers house untill the sad old twat fucks off and wines somewhere else.
19-01-2009, 07:12 PM
#49
Regular Contributor
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Darlington
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cant believe this, absolutely shocking.
I went to school with jill wilsons lad and i knew the stuck up cow quite well and she was married to the owner of croft circuit so she knew exacltly what she was getting into, she got divorced and they stayed in the house right next to croft knowing full well of the race circuit
I went to school with jill wilsons lad and i knew the stuck up cow quite well and she was married to the owner of croft circuit so she knew exacltly what she was getting into, she got divorced and they stayed in the house right next to croft knowing full well of the race circuit
19-01-2009, 08:01 PM
#52
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colchester, Essex
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brands Hatch has been suffering from local homeowners for years. I believe that's why the brilliant full GP circuit is not used as often as, in my opion, it should be.
If ya don't like noise why buy a house near a racing circuit????
Don't figure.
If ya don't like noise why buy a house near a racing circuit????
Don't figure.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
The Youth.
Pictures, video & Photoshop Forum
6
30-09-2015 09:59 PM
