Thursday 17th May 2007

Bruntingthorpe track days back

First track day scheduled at the aerodrome since noise case

---

Brunters track days back

Following the recent good news that Bruntingthorpe aerodrome had won its appeal against the Noise Abatement Notice, track days are back on the Bruntingthorpe agenda.

On Saturday 4^th August the 2 mile sprint circuit will be used for an open pit lane track day. The noise restrictions will be strictly enforced on the day with a 98db static limit – 87.5db drive by – to make sure the facility keeps operating within its limits.

The ex-USA air base has not seen a track day since 30^th September 2006 and after nearly a year PH is pleased to see the venue back on the track day calendar.

If you fancy lapping around this aerodrome then call Fay on 0116 2799318 or visit the Big Thunder website at:

http://www.bigthunder.co.uk/

[daverichmond1]

The link for the trackday doesn't work! Any ideas?

[dazren]

Works on my computer.

[Plotloss]

dazren said:

Works on my computer.

Too many concurrent users.

Which accounts for why it works for some and not others.

And just goes to show how many people read the PH news.

[Brink]

1) There should no noise limits!

2) An old jet engine should be run every now and again pointing its thrust and noise at the idiots who caused all the trouble.

[gtdc]

That's just got to be good news. Bruntingthorpe is a great place.

Melindi
www.goldtrack.co.uk

[robmug]

98dB is a bit low though...I think my standard 964 is normally around this mark though...I get in at Castle Combe on a quiet day...is that 98?

[robinoz]

That seems low to me. To put that in perspective when I had the new exhaust put on (it was a bit loud) it was 105 and now it's quieter (hotdog) it's 98 so would struggle (if I was in the UK). However wouldn't a Ferrrari or other supercar blow straight over?

[shim]

great news but maybe the website should be renamed 'silenced squeak' rather than 'big thunder'

[hardboiledPhil]

Will the locals still be allowed to complain about tyre squeal?

[rimmer]

why should they have to bother woth noise limits so long as its not too loud and obtrusive then it should be fine i reckon.

[Furyous]

It is fantastic news they have won the battle, but I fear not the war.

98 static isnt really the problem, the 87.5 drive by is.I reckon a dead car doing 90 odd mph would make very nearly that, just from tyre and wind noise.

F

[steveeriches@aol]

About bl**dy time to !!!!

I was at Dony on Sunday in the P*ssing rain and was black flaged for niose as a Jumbo went overhead, PATHETIC !!!

[gtdc]

It's a real shame that they've had all the problems. I bet it's cost them an arm and a leg to fight it all too.

Melindi
www.goldtrack.co.uk

[GregE240]

I think the sooner the protagonist moves out of the village, the better the owners life will be.

The person who brought the NAO is clearly mad (from what I've heard).

[craigw]

gtdc said:

It's a real shame that they've had all the problems. I bet it's cost them an arm and a leg to fight it all too.

Melindi
www.goldtrack.co.uk

its cost them a fortune

[GregE240]

Wouldn't surprise me if the owner could bring a private prosecution for loss of earnings....

[gtdc]

GregE240 said:

The person who brought the NAO is clearly mad (from what I've heard).

What's an NAO?

[jleroux]

noise abatement order?

[hollypop]

craigw said:

gtdc said:

It's a real shame that they've had all the problems. I bet it's cost them an arm and a leg to fight it all too.

Melindi
www.goldtrack.co.uk

its cost them a fortune

£140,000. The council refused to pay back costs.

Harbourough District Council Newsletter said:

A family is angry it has been landed with a £140,000 legal bill after it battled a council in court and won. The case took place after family firm C. Walton, which runs Bruntingthorpe Proving Grounds, was served a noise abatement order by Harborough District Council… The firm appealed against the order, and the issue went to court, clocking up thousands of pounds in legal fees and investigations into noise levels at the site. However when the judge found in the firm’s favour, he decided not to make the council pay the firm’s £140,000 legal bill, saying he feared the huge payout might stop authorities going to court over environmental cases…