The High Court has restricted the use of Tipperary Raceway after finding that its year-round, intensified motor activity breached the terms of its 1981 planning permission and caused a persistent noise nuisance to neighbouring horse breeders.
In a judgment delivered on 15 February 2008, Mr Justice Charleton ruled that the operators, Michael Barry, Breda Barry and Motors Speedway Limited, trading as Tipperary Raceway, must comply with the original permission. Racing may take place on a Saturday or Sunday for no more than three hours, from April to October. The court allowed up to two hours of practice during the week of a race. The operators must post notice of each race at the entrance to the premises seven days beforehand.
The case was brought by Robert and Deirdre Lanigan and Benghazi Ltd, trading as Tullamaine Castle Stud, under planning legislation and in nuisance. The court found the Lanigans had experienced frequent, pervasive and intolerable noise from the track, which is within one kilometre of their stud farm. It accepted evidence that the noise disrupted daily life and contributed to the loss of horse-breeding business. The judge found the plaintiffs reasonable in bringing the proceedings and rejected the defendants’ claim to a prescriptive right to make the noise.
The court contrasted the original planning application, which described seasonal weekend racing and limited supervised practice, with the later operation. It found that activity had expanded substantially, including use throughout the year, karting, drift racing and longer periods of motor activity. In 2007, monthly recorded racing ranged from 21 to 60 hours, with practice and other motor use adding considerably more. The judge concluded the intensified use had materially changed the development and required planning permission that had not been obtained.
The judgment also addressed buildings and structures at the site, including stands, a control tower, workshops and an internal track. The judge said some structures could not be made subject to an order requiring their removal because of statutory time limits. He made no order concerning the premises’ physical condition. A 2007 retention application for a small stand was awaiting processing, according to the judgment.
The court imposed the operating restrictions both to enforce planning compliance and to restrain the nuisance. It did not decide damages: that issue had been left over by consent pending the liability decision.