Denham - Court decision
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I'm sure there are plenty of discussion points in there, but I find it hard to believe that all this ...
…. has nothing to do with this ….
Buckingham County Council - List of Approved Wedding Venues
Come in number 48;
https://www.buckscc.gov.uk/media/318...ved-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/...edding-venues/
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.
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"
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.
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;
https://www.buckscc.gov.uk/media/318...ved-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/...edding-venues/
Last edited by SilsoeSid; 20th Mar 2016 at 19:19.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Mmmm, granted the approval in April 2015.
Super-rich couple win landmark High Court victory after Tess Daly and Vernon Kaye pull out of buying Denham mansion - Get Bucks
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
Mr Peires, who made his fortune in the travel industry, said they ended up letting Shepherd’s Holt between 2013 and 2015.
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
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
Peires v Bickerton's Aerodromes Ltd [2016] EWHC 560 (Ch) (17 March 2016)
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'
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.
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.
This would be a ridiculous precedent.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
"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!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 60
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one of the hangar 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.
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.
Last edited by stickandrudderman; 21st Mar 2016 at 22:29.
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
I wonder why it wasn't referred to in this latest case?
I wonder why it wasn't referred to in this latest case?
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...
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...
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I wonder if someone's found their baggage yet;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Smith_(judge)
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis...05.fullarticle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-judgment.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Smith_(judge)
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis...05.fullarticle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-judgment.html
Last edited by SilsoeSid; 21st Mar 2016 at 20:47.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 60
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 60
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
been apt to stick two fingers up at locals who have had the temerity to complain about any aspect of 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.
= 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.
:
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.
:
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!!
