It would suggest the cricket club isn’t liable for any damage their balls cause.
Has no one heard of netting? Lots of golf driving ranges have 50ft high netting running along the sides
Welcome to Britain. I hope that pitch is closed soon. Can’t cope knowing she is unhappy.
There was a similar story in Leicestershire a couple of years ago. The club erected a huge fence but the woman complained about the fence being ugly.
That’s on the cricket pitch. They should put up some netting or something to prevent rogue balls from potentially injuring someone or damaging property. They can do some serious damage to a person and it’s a matter of time before an injury occurs.
Does look a bit small to be a cricket pitch, I’d be more concerned about them hitting balls into the road.
£15 grand for a new seems a bit obscene
Reading the article it appears that the underlying reason for stopping cricket being played is the cost of insurance to the club. I don’t understand this. If you buy a house you get searches done which might tell you of a flood risk, and that may affect *your* house insurance. I believe the same thing should happen here – there is a risk of cricket balls because of an **existing** cricket club – therefore caveat emptor. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of the club as they are not being negligent by playing cricket on a cricket ground.
Basically this sucks.
Edit. Also, my local cricket club had to stop nets for a while as someone who bought a house called “The Wickets” complained about the noise.
A cricket ball on the head could easily kill a person. Does the person deserve to potentially die in their garden because they brought a home near to a cricket pitch? Not sure. Presumably the house existed before the pitch. Possible the old owners moved out specifically because of this occurance? Would anyone be comfortable with cricket balls flying into their garden?
To paraphrase the old song – I don’t like cricket…… I fucking hate it.
Stupid, boring, largely played by middle class bores who literally cannot talk about anything else other than cricket.
But I’ll strongly defend their right to continue playing their sport over some idiot who didn’t understand what cricket was before moving in. If she didn’t know what cricket was, she had the chance to Google it, hell go to a library, ask someone on the street.
I hope the club doesn’t shut. But if it does, I hope someone gets planning permission for a high rise block and puts the entrance to the car park opposite her house.
A few years ago now, someone in Dorset bought the house next to the clay pigeon school, then put in noise complaints and had half the ground shut down.
People are entitled to be safe in their own garden, and the cricket club have no right to put them at risk of harm.
The fact that the previous owner apparently didn’t care, for whatever reason, doesn’t mean the new owner is obliged to accept the risk.
The statement from the club, according to the article appears to agree:
>In recent years it has become apparent that the risks of ball strikes at Colehill were increasing and that we need to take action to mitigate the risks involved
They also quote the team captain:
>initially we started playing away from her part of the field. That just broadened the risk to other neighbours.
If it’s unacceptable to put those other neighbours at risk, surely that applies to every neighbour?
The club seem to know what they need to do, they just don’t want to do it.
A question for the more legal aware persons here;
– there’s a variety of stories like this that float around (people moving next door to cricket grounds/churches/pubs/etc) – how come no one has ever successfully used the same legal arguments against an airport?
Could the cricket club not at least try to fundraise the amount for the net rather than immediately giving up?
I hate this. You wanting to move there, you do your due diligence.
Same with people who move into the town and then complain about noise from pubs.
Stop it.
There sure are a lot of people happy to sign this petition but not happy to stump up £1 to help fix it. Perhaps if your signature is worth so little then the petition is a little too easy to ignore?
“Ah, so that’s why the house price was a bit on the lower side.” said the woman as she sees a cricket ball landing in her garden.
thats not unreasonable. The cricket club should put up nets.
its not noise like bells or whatever. its a big heavy cricket ball moving at a fast velocity, landing in her garden, potentially causing damage or injury.
Just because the cricket pitch was there first does not absolve the club of responsibility to not infringe on neighbouring properties.
People have a right to enjoy their gardens for normal uses, and being free to use their gardens and not be pelted by cricket balls is a normal expectation. Regardless of if the cricket pitch was there first or not.
If she were complaining about noise from games, tough shit, but they are infringing on her property and normal enjoyment of her garden, and have not taken reasonable steps to mitigate any impact, ie installing a boundary net, so they are the ones being unreasonable here.
I cant help but think there is some sexism here, wanting to portray her as a “Karen”.
I’ll be honest, I don’t like cricket and I do like people being able to comfortably and safely live in their own homes.
It’s a boring sport, ok. It kills people occasionally by hurling a blunt object projectile at them, at speed. Yet the sport lacks any sense of excitement whatsoever. How is that possible?
So I think they should put up the £15k net. They can do what they want on their land but not on somebody else’s.
If I built a contraption to hurl cricket balls at 10 Downing Street from my flat in greater London, I suspect I might end up with a knock at my door. Somehow that would not be in my rights, despite having invented the great sport of pneumatic Tory bothering (which in 100 years time would surely have become an unassailable part of our culture).
I don’t think the age of a nuisance necessarily exonerates it, either. There are plenty of old activities which we’ve banned, often for good reasons, and many of them more enjoyable than cricket.
English judges have views on cricket cases.
In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practise while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there any more. He has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that when a batsman hits a six the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at week-ends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the judge to stop the cricket being played. And the judge, much against his will, has felt that he must order the cricket to be stopped: with the consequence, I suppose, that the Lintz Cricket Club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.
This is a chap who had a cricket ball hit into his house.
The cricket ground in question has been there for years, and he had only moved in the year previous.
I viewed this house when it was on the market. I used to play cricket regularly at a local level many years ago. The small ground and garden backing onto the ground were a major red flag.
Details aside, any sports facility where equipment could reasonably be expected to exceed the bounds, should legally be required to have netting.
The other old local cricket pitch in Wimborne 10 minutes down the hill from Colehill (where the angry neighbour has made their complaints) was built over by Waitrose who made the council and land owner an offer they couldn’t refuse (big brown envelopes of cash) : (
we had a “neighbour” sit on the middle of the pitch during the game and demand action for a “six” into his garden.
now we put a net up and down every Sunday, not the easiest of jobs and possibly should be a permanent net.
Knew an ex pig-farmer who had a townie buy the house next door. Then complained about the smell of pigs and got him closed down.
So many stories of this nature… buy a house in a village and complain about church bells, the village pub, a farm, a lorry yard etc and complain and get them shut down.
29 comments
Why is the cricket club pandering to Karen?
​
Should grow a pair and tell her to swivel. Maybe award the batter double points if he can knock her garden gnome over.
This is like people who complain about church bells, pub noise, race tracks or whatever that else existed long before they moved next door.
The club was there first, and unless there has been some radical change in cricket, suck it up. Or move.
That said, the story does say they were having issues with other neighbours as well. So maybe something was changing?
I actually disagree with some.of the comments here,
A cricket ball is surprisingly hard and if it were to hit somebody whilst in their garden could do considerable damage
There was a similar problem with a driving range near houses where I live, the driving range owners ended up putting up a net
I have a side gig idea for her, cheapcricketballs.com
There’s a famous piece of case law that’s similar to this: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/bolton-v-stone-1951.php
It would suggest the cricket club isn’t liable for any damage their balls cause.
Has no one heard of netting? Lots of golf driving ranges have 50ft high netting running along the sides
Welcome to Britain. I hope that pitch is closed soon. Can’t cope knowing she is unhappy.
There was a similar story in Leicestershire a couple of years ago. The club erected a huge fence but the woman complained about the fence being ugly.
That’s on the cricket pitch. They should put up some netting or something to prevent rogue balls from potentially injuring someone or damaging property. They can do some serious damage to a person and it’s a matter of time before an injury occurs.
Does look a bit small to be a cricket pitch, I’d be more concerned about them hitting balls into the road.
£15 grand for a new seems a bit obscene
Reading the article it appears that the underlying reason for stopping cricket being played is the cost of insurance to the club. I don’t understand this. If you buy a house you get searches done which might tell you of a flood risk, and that may affect *your* house insurance. I believe the same thing should happen here – there is a risk of cricket balls because of an **existing** cricket club – therefore caveat emptor. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of the club as they are not being negligent by playing cricket on a cricket ground.
Basically this sucks.
Edit. Also, my local cricket club had to stop nets for a while as someone who bought a house called “The Wickets” complained about the noise.
A cricket ball on the head could easily kill a person. Does the person deserve to potentially die in their garden because they brought a home near to a cricket pitch? Not sure. Presumably the house existed before the pitch. Possible the old owners moved out specifically because of this occurance? Would anyone be comfortable with cricket balls flying into their garden?
To paraphrase the old song – I don’t like cricket…… I fucking hate it.
Stupid, boring, largely played by middle class bores who literally cannot talk about anything else other than cricket.
But I’ll strongly defend their right to continue playing their sport over some idiot who didn’t understand what cricket was before moving in. If she didn’t know what cricket was, she had the chance to Google it, hell go to a library, ask someone on the street.
I hope the club doesn’t shut. But if it does, I hope someone gets planning permission for a high rise block and puts the entrance to the car park opposite her house.
A few years ago now, someone in Dorset bought the house next to the clay pigeon school, then put in noise complaints and had half the ground shut down.
People are entitled to be safe in their own garden, and the cricket club have no right to put them at risk of harm.
The fact that the previous owner apparently didn’t care, for whatever reason, doesn’t mean the new owner is obliged to accept the risk.
The statement from the club, according to the article appears to agree:
>In recent years it has become apparent that the risks of ball strikes at Colehill were increasing and that we need to take action to mitigate the risks involved
They also quote the team captain:
>initially we started playing away from her part of the field. That just broadened the risk to other neighbours.
If it’s unacceptable to put those other neighbours at risk, surely that applies to every neighbour?
The club seem to know what they need to do, they just don’t want to do it.
A question for the more legal aware persons here;
– there’s a variety of stories like this that float around (people moving next door to cricket grounds/churches/pubs/etc) – how come no one has ever successfully used the same legal arguments against an airport?
Could the cricket club not at least try to fundraise the amount for the net rather than immediately giving up?
I hate this. You wanting to move there, you do your due diligence.
Same with people who move into the town and then complain about noise from pubs.
Stop it.
There sure are a lot of people happy to sign this petition but not happy to stump up £1 to help fix it. Perhaps if your signature is worth so little then the petition is a little too easy to ignore?
“Ah, so that’s why the house price was a bit on the lower side.” said the woman as she sees a cricket ball landing in her garden.
thats not unreasonable. The cricket club should put up nets.
its not noise like bells or whatever. its a big heavy cricket ball moving at a fast velocity, landing in her garden, potentially causing damage or injury.
Just because the cricket pitch was there first does not absolve the club of responsibility to not infringe on neighbouring properties.
People have a right to enjoy their gardens for normal uses, and being free to use their gardens and not be pelted by cricket balls is a normal expectation. Regardless of if the cricket pitch was there first or not.
If she were complaining about noise from games, tough shit, but they are infringing on her property and normal enjoyment of her garden, and have not taken reasonable steps to mitigate any impact, ie installing a boundary net, so they are the ones being unreasonable here.
I cant help but think there is some sexism here, wanting to portray her as a “Karen”.
I’ll be honest, I don’t like cricket and I do like people being able to comfortably and safely live in their own homes.
It’s a boring sport, ok. It kills people occasionally by hurling a blunt object projectile at them, at speed. Yet the sport lacks any sense of excitement whatsoever. How is that possible?
So I think they should put up the £15k net. They can do what they want on their land but not on somebody else’s.
If I built a contraption to hurl cricket balls at 10 Downing Street from my flat in greater London, I suspect I might end up with a knock at my door. Somehow that would not be in my rights, despite having invented the great sport of pneumatic Tory bothering (which in 100 years time would surely have become an unassailable part of our culture).
I don’t think the age of a nuisance necessarily exonerates it, either. There are plenty of old activities which we’ve banned, often for good reasons, and many of them more enjoyable than cricket.
English judges have views on cricket cases.
In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practise while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there any more. He has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that when a batsman hits a six the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at week-ends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the judge to stop the cricket being played. And the judge, much against his will, has felt that he must order the cricket to be stopped: with the consequence, I suppose, that the Lintz Cricket Club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson
https://youtu.be/G78Ylf9OXk4
This is a chap who had a cricket ball hit into his house.
The cricket ground in question has been there for years, and he had only moved in the year previous.
I viewed this house when it was on the market. I used to play cricket regularly at a local level many years ago. The small ground and garden backing onto the ground were a major red flag.
Details aside, any sports facility where equipment could reasonably be expected to exceed the bounds, should legally be required to have netting.
The other old local cricket pitch in Wimborne 10 minutes down the hill from Colehill (where the angry neighbour has made their complaints) was built over by Waitrose who made the council and land owner an offer they couldn’t refuse (big brown envelopes of cash) : (
we had a “neighbour” sit on the middle of the pitch during the game and demand action for a “six” into his garden.
now we put a net up and down every Sunday, not the easiest of jobs and possibly should be a permanent net.
Knew an ex pig-farmer who had a townie buy the house next door. Then complained about the smell of pigs and got him closed down.
So many stories of this nature… buy a house in a village and complain about church bells, the village pub, a farm, a lorry yard etc and complain and get them shut down.