Agenda item

Report of the Chief Executive attached.

The Executive received a report which provided the background to the issue of noise control at Mallory Park and also outlined the current position in order to reach a resolution. In presenting the report, the Chief Executive referred to the unique position of the venue in the village compared to other tracks around the country, the wish of the residents for the circuit to be a ‘good neighbour’ without the track having to close, the value of Mallory Park as a tourist venue and the duties placed upon the council with regard to protecting members of the public and their right to a quality of life.

It was reported that the management of Mallory Park had made a suggestion – a “best offer” – which had been put to the residents of the village for consultation. There was a high 52% response rate, and the majority did not accept the proposals (yet most also confirmed that they did not wish the track to close). Officers felt that to continue negotiations could lengthen the process which would not be fair on residents, yet considered that the matter could still be resolved amicably to the satisfaction of all parties.

During discussion, the following points were raised:

• Members were supportive of Mallory Park and did not wish it to close;
• Representations had been received from a few residents who felt that to enforce the 1985 notice would be too harsh. In response officers explained that this was the only statutory notice in place, therefore the only one that could be enforced;
• The Local Government Ombudsman’s report into the matter was unlikely to be favourable towards the Council due to the length of time taken for the Council to investigate and enforce;
• A Member suggested procuring independent arbitration, but officers felt that this could only be successful if all parties were committed to it, and Members indicated they would not have been happy to delay action being taken further to allow for arbitration which wasn’t guaranteed to be successful;
• Local industry, innovation and engineering should be supported, but not at the cost of residents’ quality of life.

In concluding the debate it was explained that the action proposed was for historic breaches, and progress was required to be able to move forward. It was felt that the thriving business should be supported, but at acceptable noise levels, which was a difficult balance but it was felt that it was possible to achieve it.

The Leader of the Council thanked attendees for taking the time to express their views in the consultation and for attending the meeting.

It was moved by Councillor Gould, seconded by Councillor Bill and

RESOLVED –

(i)         the proposal from MPML/BARC, circulated to residents of Kirkby Mallory on 15 May 2013 be not supported;

(ii)        the current court case be pursued vigorously by the Officers of the Council on the terms of the 1985 Notice;

(iii)       subsequent to the successful conclusion of that case, the 1985 Notice be subject to continuing enforcement, but under the interpretation now understood by the Council, with the Council seeking an immediate injunction should there be further breaches identified;

(iv)       this position remains unless and until noise attenuation measures are introduced by MPML/BARC, with the necessary planning permissions, to reduce the noise and activity levels experienced by residents to the levels set out in the 1985 Notice as understood since January 2013;

(v)        MPML/BARC be encouraged to consider the practical potential and community benefits of significantly reducing the extent of the ‘hairpin’ element of the track.