Denham - Court decision

[Heliport]

Norman and Lorna Peires win battle with airfield over roar of helicopters (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3496825/Millionaire-couple-win-battle-airfield-door-shattering-roar-helicopters-stopped-Tess-Daly-Vernon-Kay-buying-4million-mansion.html)


Flying has been taking place at Denham since the early 1900s.
It has been operated by Bickerton's Aerodromes Ltd since the 1930s and was first licensed by the CAA in 1938.

The whinging owners bought their house in 2006.

[paco]

You have to be some sort of idiot not to realise there may be some noise.

No disrespect, but you must also question the person making the judgment.

Oh well.

Phil

[OvertHawk]

Absurd and a truly disturbing precedent to set. :ugh: Not only for aviation!

Apparently at least one other house owner nearby has already jumped on the bandwagon :(

Here's hoping it gets thrown out on appeal.

[Reverserbucket]

Coincidentally, it has been stated in the local press that Lorna Peires undertook some fixed wing lessons at Denham. The principal fixed wing school is managed by the aerodrome owner, although she may not have flown with them.

[Wander00]

So when is someone going to try to shut Heathrow or Gatwick? Did they do no research before they bought the house, did their solicitor make no enquiries - aah there's an idea, sue the solicitor

[fairflyer]

I really hope Denham has the nerve and finances to take this to appeal. An appalling decision and a really bad precedent. It raises the question though about any changes to normal practices at an aerodrome, the re-positioning of say a training area or FATO etc. which results in a change in noise footprint at the periphery of the aerodrome. From time to time, such zones need to move for a number of reasons and if the consequential impact can result in these kinds of legal challenges, then there's a very tricky road ahead.

[SilsoeSid]

So they now have £600,000 in their pocket, doesn't take the noise away though does it! :confused:

A high price to have to pay, but at least now the airfield operators/owners can continue as normal, I wonder with all the press coverage, whether there will be a large uptake on helicopter lessons/trial flights :E

Money ... some haven't enough, others have too much :mad:
Hearing ... some haven't enough, others have too much :ooh:


Interesting to find out if either of them had a hearing test prior to the case, terrible to think that they may be registered as deaf and claiming benefit :eek:

[SilsoeSid]

Mmm,
From Mr Peires' Twitter page;

https://mobile.twitter.com/normanpeires
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/Mobile%20Uploads/2BFD70AB-7823-4EF9-8300-021374ED5462.png_zpsxcy6fgmn.jpeg

[megan]

Yet I bet these prats will happily use a helicopter to make a grand entrance at a venue of their choice and damn the consequences to any plebs. We're celebrities you know and we've got a status to maintain.

[dsc810]

Seems all quite reasonable.
No she does not get £600K - they operators were order to either cut the racket OR pay.

I'll bet they knew perfectly well that the heli's were going to make a racket and hoped that the locals could be persuaded to shut up on the basis they we have "always been there" and they could not stop them.
The other game in this sort of thing is to start small and when you get no complaints them gradually rack up the amount of disturbance. Eventually someone will complain but then they will have undermined their case by initially accepting the small amount of disturbance in the first place without complaining.
So you need to nail this sort of thing at the very first instance as they have done.

The applicants already stated they had no objection to the fixed wing operations on the site - it was just the b*eeding heli's outside their back yard.
The Judge even went and experienced it for himself - you might have though the numnuts at Denham might have toned it down once they knew the case was progressing!

Good decision and good on the Judge I'd say.

[Wander00]

Does their planning consent allow helicopter operation - hmm, started so long ago probably a Certificate of Lawful Use or whatever it is called. But, on what we know (and I spent a lot of time lurking at Denham as a teenager) I find it hard to believe that these people can march in presumably having checked out the local scene and then whine, and potentially get compensation. Strange times my masters

[megan]

Posted by Pace on another threadI am amazed at some of these court rulings and feel so sorry for this couple who paid £1.5 million when they bought it I presume with helicopter noise at at a knock down price
Without helicopter noise it's worth £4 million so a tidy little profit in 5 years ?

Get rid of the helicopters you bought it with at a knock down price,then walk out with £600 k compensation plus sell the property at a huge profit once you get rid of the noise

If someone buys a house in a peaceful setting and someone builds a runway at the end of their garden yes they should get compensation!

But those who knowingly buy at a knock down price because the runway and active airport sits at the end of their garden ? In my opinion you knew what you were buying! Maybe they bought when there were no Helicopters but looking at what they paid and what they value it at over five years then it all looks very suspiciousThe guy is an entrepreneur, and that means using all means to line your pockets whenever and wherever you see an opening.

Be interesting to know when the house was built. The field has had helos in residence for a long time.

History of Denham Aerodrome (http://www.egld.com/history.php)

[Heliport]

I'll bet they knew perfectly well that the heli's were going to make a racket and hoped that the locals could be persuaded to shut up on the basis they we have "always been there" and they could not stop them.
The other game in this sort of thing is to start small and when you get no complaints them gradually rack up the amount of disturbance. Eventually someone will complain but then they will have undermined their case by initially accepting the small amount of disturbance in the first place without complaining.
So you need to nail this sort of thing at the very first instance as they have done.

I'm having difficulty understanding how your comments apply to what has happened here.

Helicopter schools are not a new development at Denham.
By the time these owners bought their house, there had been at least one helicopter school there for about 40 years. When Mike Smith owned HeliAir it was one of the busiest, probably the busiest, helicopter schools in the country.

The price of houses adjacent to airfields/airports is always lower, for obvious reasons. The complaining owners would have benefited from that when they bought their house.

I hope the airfield owners appeal.

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

well if operations are reduced because of this then maybe the operators should take a class action against the couple and the rest of the aviation world refuse to fly them should they ask

[MaxR]

Perhaps if, as stated above, they did chose to arrive somewhere by helicopter, they should be flown there by an untrained pilot. Obviously they wouldn't object to that.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Sad about Denham but as one door closes another one maybe ajar -

Aerohub at Cornwall Airport Newquay UK (http://www.aerohub.co.uk)

Nothing quite like a pastie to set you up for an hour or two of circuits, you will find it difficult to get lost on your NAVEX when your base is located on a peninsular and you will be just 50 minutes away from LGW courtesy of the FLYBE service.

G :-)

[cloudpusher]

Guess you can't get rid of old habits......

Vacondo Defendant Gets 7-year Prison Sentence - tribunedigital-orlandosentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1985-12-07/news/0340640033_1_mcgrew-sentence-peires)

Seriously, buying a home next to an airfield and then complain about noise.
Going for easy money if you ask me!

If due to less airfield activity the value of his house goes up, can the airfield and/or operators sue him for a part of that money..... :)

[megan]

Good find cloudpusher. You get the measure of the man where he is boss of the outfit/criminal endeavor and rats on his underlings in order to get his sentence cut. Proof positive there is no honour among thieves, and you'd never want to do business with this creep. Wonder if the judge knew of his prior?Under Peires' agreement with prosecutors, he received a shorter sentence for his Vacondo conviction than Cremata or McGrew.

But he agreed to waive his right to appeal his conviction and has agreed to testify against McGrew and Cremata if they are granted new trials by an appeal court.

Peires also pleaded guilty to defrauding investors in an unrelated popcorn franchise investment operation in which he was accused of misappropriating investors' money. He must repay investors $65,000 or Cycmanick will sentence him to an additional two years in prison on that charge.

[rattle]

Bonkers. I learnt to fly rotary at Denham 20 years ago with Heliair. It certainly wasn't a case of start small and see if anybody complains.

One commentator in the local press said he lived near the M25 so could they close it for all but two 15 minute sessions a week too?

The fact that anybody is stupid enough to buy a (cheap) house near noise pollution and then complain is bad enough. To take it to court and win is beyond insane. How is this any different to the hundreds of houses on the North Circular or A40? If anything, their owners would have a better case for increased noise over the years as the roads have become busier.

If Denham can't afford the appeal or do appeal and lose, the floodgates are well and truly open for so many more ridiculous claims.

[dsc810]

Here is the full judgement for your reading and dare I say it eduction on the exact ins and outs of the case.
Peires v Bickerton's Aerodromes Ltd [2016] EWHC 560 (Ch) (17 March 2016) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2016/560.html)

[SilsoeSid]

I'm sure there are plenty of discussion points in there, but I find it hard to believe that all this ...


THE COMPLAINT

The complaint basically is the noise emanating from these training operations. The Claimant's case is that the noise is a nuisance and seriously affects her enjoyment of the Property both in respect of the garden and the major parts of the house. The most important living and bedrooms face towards the Aerodrome. As I have said above the Claimant has always accepted that there will be noise from the other operations of the Aerodrome, but her case is that the noise from the helicopters is very different being extremely loud and continuing for such periods as make it unacceptable.


LAW ON NUISANCE

The Claimant contends that the activities of the Defendant in relation to this training is an undue interference with her comfortable and convenient enjoyment of her land (category 3 of Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (21st Edition) paragraph 20-26).

The latest analysis of nuisance in this area is to be found in the decision of Lawrence & Anr v Fen Tigers & Anr [2014] AC 822. In that decision Lord Neuburger said this about this type of nuisance:-

"2 As Lord Goff of Chieveley explained in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, 688, "[t]he term 'nuisance' is properly applied only to such actionable user of land as interferes with the enjoyment by the plaintiff of rights in land", quoting from Newark, The Boundaries of Nuisance (1949) 65 LQR 480 See also per Lord Hoffmann at pp 705-707, where he explained that this principle may serve to limit the extent to which a nuisance claim could be based on activities which offended the senses of occupiers of property as opposed to physically detrimental to the property "

3 A nuisance can be defined, albeit in general terms, as an action (or sometimes a failure to act) on the part of a defendant, which is not otherwise authorised, and which causes an interference with the claimant's reasonable enjoyment of his land, or to use a slightly different formulation, which unduly interferes with the claimant's enjoyment of his land As Lord Wright said in Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880, 903, "a useful test is perhaps what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or more correctly in a particular society"

Accordingly I need to balance the right of the Claimant to the undisturbed enjoyment of her property but balance that against the right of the Defendant to use its property for its own lawful enjoyment.

It is also important to take in to account the Claimant and the Defendant. As regards the Claimant she is the owner of a substantial property with substantial grounds. In the grounds are to be found a tennis court a barbeque area and ground where one would ordinarily expect to be able to sit in private contemplation or have outside barbeque activities and the like.



…. has nothing to do with this ….

Buckingham County Council - List of Approved Wedding Venues

Come in number 48;
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-20%20at%2018.58.41_zpsfwdkw7s1.png

https://www.buckscc.gov.uk/media/3186413/register-of-approved-venues.pdf



Funny how there appears to be one particular venue on the 'active list', conspicuous by it's absence;

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/community/births,-deaths,-marriages-and-civil-partnerships/wedding-venues/

[SilsoeSid]

Mmmm, granted the approval in April 2015.


Mr Peires, who made his fortune in the travel industry, said they ended up letting Shepherd’s Holt between 2013 and 2015.
Super-rich couple win landmark High Court victory after Tess Daly and Vernon Kaye pull out of buying Denham mansion - Get Bucks (http://www.getbucks.co.uk/news/local-news/super-rich-couple-win-landmark-11055664)


So, leave in 2013, return in 2015 with wedding venue approval, try to sell the house to celebrities …. I'm getting a bit lost in all this intrigue :suspect:

[Flying Lawyer]

Here is the full judgement for your reading and dare I say it eduction on the exact ins and outs of the case.
Peires v Bickerton's Aerodromes Ltd [2016] EWHC 560 (Ch) (17 March 2016) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2016/560.html)

Not really.
Wading through about 13,000 words merely gives more details about what has already been accurately summarised in this thread.

You said in a post a few weeks ago: what you get in court is 'law' and not 'justice'
I suspect that is precisely what the airfield owners, and many other people, think about the decision in this case.


NB: I intentionally make no comment about the Judge's decision.
However, I would be very interested to know what view the Court of Appeal takes of it.

[f0xhunter]

Reading the judgement, what is more worrisome is the way the judge interprets the ANO with regard to helicopter operations. For example, hovering is not flying... Really?????
This would be a ridiculous precedent.

[xrayalpha]

Not in bold in the law on nuisance post:

"as an action (or sometimes a failure to act) on the part of a defendant, which is not otherwise authorised"

I thought flying - and heli ops - at Denham are authorised: it is a licensed airfield!

[stickandrudderman]

As one of the hanger residents who was recently told at very short notice that Bickertons were no longer prepared to offer me hangarage for my wooden aeroplane, I confess that I start from a position of little sympathy.
However, if you read the judgement with an open mind you will see that, apart from the rather strange comment about "not flying" the judge has produced a very well thought out and pragmatic report. He has also drawn, entirely independently of my own situation, the same conclusions as I have about how arrogant and contemptuous Denham's owners are. They display an an extraordinarily cavalier attitude to the well being of their staff, neighbours and customers alike. They were offered restricted time periods for that particular training activity which were actually more generous than they claimed was their current use but refused to co-operate. The claimant went out of his/her way to impress upon them and the court that he had no issue with general day to day operations of both fixed wing and rotary, only this tiresome and very noisy practice. When reason is met with stubborn refusal it doesn't go down well in court.
My aeroplane was based immediately between the two major helicopter operations and even I, an aviation participant and enthusiast found the noise of them landing irritating very quickly.

[212man]

Interesting that the previous owner (and neighbours) made an identical claim 12 years ago in the European Court of Human Rights): Michael Ashworth and others v. United Kingdom | Richard Buxton (http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/transcripts/michael-ashworth-and-others-v-united-kingdom)

I wonder why it wasn't referred to in this latest case?

[homonculus]

I certainly do not agree with a lot of the judgement, but that is the risk of litigation. However, as often is the case, it seems to me the defendant has shot himself in the foot by unnecessarily claiming that the duration of hovering was far less than a witness presumably called on his behalf stated. Judges like nothing less than an attempt to pull the wool over their eyes, and he appears to have called their bluff in telling them they can carry on with no problems and even allow hovering for longer than currently occurs BUT we all know in reality he has called for a curtailment

The defendant will be tested at appeal to argue that being allowed MORE hovering is affecting his business. Q and others may argue their commercial operations are being affected, but they were not parties to the case.

If I were Denham I would borrow some diggers and build a slope elsewhere. Sad common sense didnt prevail before a hearing, but may be one party was not as reasonable as the judge believed...

[SilsoeSid]

I wonder if someone's found their baggage yet;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Smith_(judge)

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/comment-and-opinion/a-judge-needs-judgement/5050805.fullarticle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557197/Law-Mr-Justice-Peter-Smith-loses-his-judgment.html

[Flying Lawyer]

stickandrudderman

So, starting from "a position of little sympathy" for the "arrogant and contemptuous" airfield owners, and having just recently had your hangarage peremptorily terminated by them, and as someone who is very quickly irritated even by the noise of helicopters landing, the judge's ruling was "very well thought out and pragmatic" - in your 'open minded' opinion?

Not surprisingly, people commonly praise judges' wisdom when they are pleased by decisions and regard them as out of touch fools when they don't.

A north of England judge, now retired, once told me that he always knew what the city's newspaper thought of a decision he'd made. When they approved, they used an official stock photograph of him in his working 'short' wig - much smaller than the ceremonial version. When they didn't, they used a picture snapped by a press photographer when he attended a ceremonial occasion held outdoors on a windy day which, in his words, made him look like a demented spaniel.
The photograph below is not of him but illustrates his point.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/spanielwig.jpg


He didn't mind in the slightest. He thought it was very amusing.
So did I. :)


Whatever may be said, justifiably or otherwise, about the Paul family which owns Denham airfield, they have demonstrated their commitment to general aviation over many decades. I have no idea of their net earnings from the airfield but I suspect they would be much richer if, as many airfield owners around the country have done, they sold the land to developers.
Very pleasant area 40-45 minutes drive/25 minutes direct rail link from the centre of London?

What you regard as being stubborn might reasonably be regarded by others as making a stand, albeit unsuccessfully on this occasion, against Nimbyism.
As homonculus points out, whichever way the decision went wouldn't affect their business. The adverse decision disadvantages their helicopter school tenants.

[stickandrudderman]

Flying Lawyer, you surprise me.
Their pram, their toys, free country.
From personal experience and listening to the experiences of other residents and employees, I am perfectly comfortable with my views.
Neither the judge nor the claimant have set out to target GA generally and indeed I believe that this judgement is actually good for GA.
Nice location, nice cafe, not nice owners (and believe me my opinion is not unique, ask the young grounds man who was recently reduced to tears).

[Cows getting bigger]

In defence of the Pauls, I've always found them to be absolutely straight. They have a nice airfield which, in many respects, has done well to survive; how many other truly private airfields still exist? For sure, they manage it their own particular fashion but that's never really bothered me.

Regarding the recent judgement, it does sadden me to see how this progressed and I'm left wondering whether a pragmatic solution involving a few tonnes of topsoil could have been brokered. Right now we should be standing with the owners and not just taking shots at some of the personalities.

[Flying Lawyer]

Flying Lawyer, you surprise me.


I'd be interested to know which parts surprised you.
Everything?

I've never had any dealings with the owners - my contact with them is limited to a few passing exchange of greetings when I used to fly from Denham, fixed wing initially and then rotary - but I am aware that your opinion of them is not unique.
Given the extremely strong terms in which you expressed your low opinion of them, perhaps understandably exacerbated by the recent peremptory termination of your hangarage, I can't help but wonder if you read, or were even able to read, the judgment with the 'open mind' you claim.

Their pram, their toys, free country.Not entirely accurate, as this decision amply demonstrates.

The feisty Beatrice Paul has always tended to generate strong reactions, favourable and unfavourable. However, people with shy retiring personalities do not, in my experience, make stands of principle - they tend to give in/compromise, particularly when threatened with being sued. I respect Mrs Paul for making a stand, even though she was unsuccessful, and particularly in circumstances where she had little or nothing to gain financially from doing so, and much to lose. High Court actions are very expensive for unsuccessful parties.

Opinions about the complainants and their motives will understandably differ.

-

I wonder if it would be as easy as suggested to reposition the slope training area? It would be a relatively simple exercise physically but other neighbours are unlikely to warm to the idea. They would be entitled to argue, correctly, that they were there before the nuisance (a new slope training area) was created.

[stickandrudderman]

My unqualified opinion is the "non flying" statement by the judge is the weakest part of it. I'm sure any appeal will zero in on that because AFAIUI, it is the premise that this activity does not constitute "flying" and therefore is outwith the precedent set by the historic flying activities that has led to the success of the claim.


Don't get me wrong, I like the guys at HQ and am happy for their success. I just think the Pauls have treated the court in the same way that they treat everybody and have come unstuck. Karma.

[wsmempson]

I'm afraid I'm with Stickandrudder here - the Owners have a pretty unlikeable autocratic management style (think Fawltey Towers as a training video) and for some years have basically been apt to stick two fingers up at locals who have had the temerity to complain about any aspect of the airfield. It does seem extraordinary, reading the judgement, that they couldn't bring themselves to engage in a meaningful way over this particular matter (and remember, it isn't as if the complainant was beefing about the airfield in general, but just one specific aspect) and it was sadly a matter of time before they came up against someone with sufficient money and bile to take them on. As someone who used to have an aircraft based at Denham, I think that I can safely say that I wouldn't choose to do that again, given the aggro involved with dealing with them

[ShyTorque]

My aeroplane was based immediately between the two major helicopter operations and even I, an aviation participant and enthusiast found the noise of them landing irritating very quickly

Perhaps the noise emanating from some fixed wing aircraft was irritating the airfield owners?

[Heliport]

been apt to stick two fingers up at locals who have had the temerity to complain about any aspect of the airfield.

= complain about aircraft using the airfield.

eg Demanding that circuits are changed so that aircraft don't fly over their house, demanding that the number of consecutive circuits flown by training aircraft be restricted etc etc

Complaints by Nimby types who chose to buy houses near a long established active airfield, and paid significantly less for them because of it.

As Cows getting bigger said: Right now we should be standing with the owners and not just taking shots at some of the personalities.

[chevvron]

= complain about aircraft using the airfield.

eg Demanding that circuits are changed so that aircraft don't fly over their house, demanding that the number of consecutive circuits flown by training aircraft be restricted etc etc

Complaints by Nimby types who chose to buy houses near a long established active airfield, and paid significantly less for them because of it.
:
You could say that about other airfields too. When Fairoaks use 06, there are numerous complaints about both fixed wing circuits (left hand) and helicopter circuits (right hand) invariably the same persons in each case. The local houses are often just as posh and expensive as those close to Denham too and the airfield has been in constant use since 1936.
I even had someone phone up one day and ask me not to accept any turboprops for an hour as he had a sales viewing scheduled!!

[paco]

What about Wycombe? You get shot at there! :)

Phil

[Hughes500]

Paco

But Leon makes a great moving target though ;)

[flight beyond sight]

At least I now know who my friends are !!

[VeeAny]

Don't you mean "who your friend is" ? ;)

[megan]

At a certain military jet training base (Vampires) students and instructors were surprised to receive orders that all were required to work over the weekend, and that all training would be circuits. Came to light that the rural land, in which the base was situated, would be subject to an on site sales campaign for residential development. The OC wanted to get the point across, buyer beware.

[Bull at a Gate]

I would have thought that actually reading the judgment might be a good idea before complaining about it. Yes, the judge did know about the prison sentence (it's clearly mentioned in the judgment). No, they are not getting the money - the judge granted an injunction. And what is also very clear is that the defendants tried to deceive the court about the frequency and duration of the noises, but were found out. Not at all surprising that they lost.

[Senior Pilot]

I heard from a reliable source ​that the owners of Denham airfield won their case in the Court of Appeal yesterday and that a written judgement will be published in due course.

[Hedski]

I heard from a reliable source ​that the owners of Denham airfield won their case in the Court of Appeal yesterday and that a written judgement will be published in due course.

Well at least one airfield in the m25 region might survive then. We can all pile in when Fairoaks, Redhill and Dunsfold all turn into houses.

[oleary]

.... is a member of the tribe.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

Got shot at and spotlit doing night circuits at Redhill in '94. Mind you, that was in a 212 !

NEO

[Senior Pilot]

31. The Judge then turned to the statutory defences.
32. He rejected the defence based on section 76(1) of the CAA 1982 for reasons which he stated very shortly (at para. [94]) as follows:
“I do not accept that the training exercise on the slope is “flight” or any part of it. The section is plainly designed to cover journeys with aircraft passing over other property and the associated take off and landing.”
33. The Judge then turned to the defence based on section 77(2) of the CAA 1982. He referred to, and quoted, the former regulations, the current versions of which are quoted above, conferring exemptions from the low flying prohibitions. He said (at para. [100]) that he did not accept that the exemptions applied to the operations on the Slope because he did not accept that those operations involved flying. He said that the helicopters “at best are hovering for a defined period”, and that
“they are not by the operation on the slope carrying out any operation involving take off [because they] do not need to do the exercise to take off…It follows that the procedures are not part of any normal incident of flying or taking off.”



45. My reasons for allowing the appeal on the first ground of appeal are as follows.
46. The Judge gave two reasons for rejecting the application of section 76(1) of the CAA 1982. The first was that the exercise in which the helicopters were engaged on the Slope did not involve “flight” or the ordinary incidents of “flight”. The second was that section 76(1) only applies to flight and the ordinary incidents of flight which are reasonable. I do not agree with either qualification.
47. The Judge said that “flight”, for the purposes of section 76(1), is confined to “journeys with aircraft passing over other property and the associated take off and landing”. He therefore confined “flight” in this context to lateral travel from one fixed point to another. He gave no justification or explanation for that limitation. I can see no justifiable basis for it. The statutory definition in section 105(1) of the CAA 1982 contains no such limitation unless it is to be found in the word “journey”. The word “journey”, however, has no such usual limitation.


53. If the Judge’s definition was correct, it would not cover a captive balloon or kite. Yet, the CAA’s published exceptions to the SERA minimum height requirements specifically authorise a captive balloon or kite “to be flown at heights below the minimum height requirements specified in SERA 5005 and SERA 5015” and describe a captive kite as “a kite that, when in flight, is attached by a restraining device to the surface”.

Conclusion
67. Those are my reasons for allowing this appeal and dismissing the cross appeal.
Lord Justice Underhill:
68. I agree.
Lady Justice King:
69. I also agree.



Hovering helicopters are apparently in flight. Still awaiting judgment on whether the pope is catholic and whether bears continue to do their business in the woods.

Couple who won court battle after 'shattering' helicopter noise caused Tess Daly to pull out of buying £4m home have ruling overturned by Court of Appeal (http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/15220020.Judge_s_ruling_on__shattering__helicopter_noise_tha t_caused_Tess_Daly_to_pull_out_of_buying___4m_home_is_revers ed/)

A couple who said "shattering" helicopter noise ended their hopes of selling their £4m home to "Strictly" presenter, Tess Daly, will just have to live with the racket after a court ruling.

Norman Peires and his wife Lorna said the nightmare din of chopper blades coming from Bickerton's Aerodrome, near their Denham home, blighted their happiness and slashed the value of their luxury home.

A judge agreed with them last year when he ordered the aerodrome's operators to cut the noise or pay the couple almost £600,000 in damages.

The couple attempted to sell the mansion to Strictly Come Dancing presenter Tess and her husband Vernon Kay, but the move fell through when they stepped out into the garden, the court heard at the time.

After visiting the six-bedroom property, called Shepherd’s Holt, Mr Justice Peter Smith said: “I found the noise excruciating in the garden and clearly noticeable to a significant degree within the rooms.

"It was simply impossible to have any kind of conversation or do any kind of activity in the gardens when the helicopters were there".

He added that there was "compelling" evidence that the helicopter noise amounted to a legal "nuisance" that had to be stopped.

Mr Justice Smith was also told that another potential buyer, Gabby Logan, did not even make it past the front gate because of the noise.

He issued an injunction against Bickerton's Aerodromes Limited, restricting it to only two 15-minute weekly training sessions close to the boundary.

Now, however, the judge's ruling has been reversed by the Court of Appeal in a decision which leaves Mr and Mrs Peires powerless to stop the noise.

The Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, ruled that the Civil Aviation Act 1982 made the helicopter flights immune from legal action.

The couple complained about the aerodrome’s use of a slope just a hedgerow away from their home for pilot training.

But Sir Terence said such exercises were a "mandatory part of the training skills to obtain a helicopter pilot's licence."

Landing and taking off manoeuvres on the slope were "conducted in accordance with normal aviation practice", he added.

He today pointed out that the Civil Aviation Act rules out trespass and nuisance claims relating to aircraft flights.

Subject to height and distance limits, the immunity applies to noise and vibration caused by aircraft on an aerodrome.

Flights did not have to be carried out "reasonably" for the immunity to apply, added the judge, who was sitting with Lord Justice Underhill and Lady Justice King.

The aerodrome's appeal was allowed and the orders granted in favour of Mr and Mrs Peires were overturned.

[pedroalpha]

Hooray!

Common sense at last. Well done Denham and your legal team.

[Legalapproach]

The full Judgement can be found here:

Peires v Bickerton's Aerodromes Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 273 (12 April 2017) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/273.html)

And some background about the original trial Judge:

Joshua Rozenberg: Look out for a retirement announcement from the High Court's Mr Justice Peter Smith - Legal Cheek (http://www.legalcheek.com/2017/04/joshua-rozenberg-look-out-for-a-retirement-announcement-from-mr-justice-peter-smith/)

[Jettiejock]

.... is a member of the tribe.

Does this make a difference for you?