THE owners of an airfield near York have been thwarted in a fresh legal bid to overturn a ruling which leaves them facing prosecution if they fail to keep the noise down at the site.

The brakes were put on the noise levels being created by high-powered vehicles at Elvington Airfield last year after City of York Council secured a noise abatement notice in the wake of protests from the village’s residents.

In June, Elvington Park Ltd (EPL) and Elvington Events Ltd (EEL) lost an appeal against the order, which leaves them facing criminal proceedings if noise from motor sport events staged at the airfield rises above a certain point. . They later made a fresh attempt to reverse the decision.

However, a judge at York Crown Court has ruled the order should stay in place after hearing evidence from council officers and residents that noise nuisance had continued to be created at the site since last October, despite Formula One testing at Elvington having been suspended the previous year.

The companies have also been ordered to pay the council’s legal costs arising from the two appeals, which come to more than £22,000.

EPL and EEL took over the airfield from the Ministry of Defence in 2000 and introduced F1 testing, as well as increasing the motor sport activities taking place there, which led to a noise abatement notice being served in 2005.

After two appeals against it were dismissed, the High Court ultimately overturned the order, but fresh notices were served last October after the council continued to receive complaints about noise and monitored the situation.

Mike Southcombe, the council’s environmental protection manager, said: “Five court judgements over more than five years have found a noise nuisance exists and continues at Elvington Airfield.

“We will continue to respond to further residents’ complaints.

“If the abatement notice is breached, the airfield are committing a criminal offence for which they can be prosecuted.”

The companies claimed the council should have specified which events and sound levels caused the nuisance and that they had taken steps to deal with it, but the court dismissed these. Neither company was available for comment.