Steep staircase in property – Environmental health officer claiming property constituted statutory nuisance – Council serving abatement notice – Council taking legal advice and withdrawing notice – Applicant seeking judicial review of council’s decision – Whether steep staircase “injurious, or likely to cause injury, to health” – Section 79 Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Application dismissed – Appeal dismissed
On 21 February 1994 the respondent council served an abatement notice following a report by an environmental health officer that a property in Easton, Bristol, constituted a statutory nuisance because of the steepness of its staircase. The alleged nuisance was claimed to be within section 79 of Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which provided that “(1) . . . the following matters constitute ‘statutory nuisances’ for the purpose of this Part, that is to say – (a) any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance . . .”. Section 79(7) defined “prejudicial to health” as meaning “injurious, or likely to cause injury, to health”. The notice required the removal of the existing staircase and the construction of a new one in compliance with the relevant building regulations.
The appellant viewed the property and accepted a tenancy from 30 September 1994. She subsequently complained to the council about the staircase because she found it too difficult to use as a result of a back injury. On 9 December 1996 the council wrote to the appellant stating that they had received legal advice to the effect that the notice dated 21 February 1994 had been incorrectly served and that an “excessively steep staircase” could not be considered a statutory nuisance. Consequently, the notice was withdrawn. The appellant applied for judicial review of the council’s decision to withdraw the notice. The judge held that the relevant statutory regime was not intended to apply to cases where the sole concern was the likelihood of an accident causing personal injury by reason of the state of the premises. On that basis, the judge concluded that the staircase was not capable of giving rise to a statutory nuisance within section 79(1)(a) of the Act.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
The law of statutory nuisance in the 1990 Act had used the same expression “injury to health” that it had used in earlier legislation, which had been interpreted and applied by the courts. In those circumstances, it was probable that parliament had intended, first, to produce the same result in similar cases under Part III of the 1990 Act as had been produced under the equivalent provisions of the earlier Public Health Acts, and, second, to leave the risk of injury by accident to be dealt with by the local authorities under other available statutory powers in, for example, the Building Act 1984 and the building regulations: Great Western Railway Co v Bishop (1872) 7 LR QB 550; Coventry City Council v Cartwright [1975] 1 WLR 845, considered.
Nigel Pleming QC and Martin Westgate (instructed by Bobbetts Mackan, of Bristol) appeared for the appellant; Timothy Straker QC and Ranjit Bhose (instructed by the solicitor to Bristol City Council) appeared for the respondents.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
