A £4,000 claim for noise mitigation costs has resulted in £60,000 legal costs for Reading Borough Council, and the county court has yet to hear the claim.
According to Collins J, property owner Geoffrey Andrews “stirred up a potential hornets’ nest” when he sought to recover the costs incurred for soundproofing his house in London Road, Reading.
Andrews maintained that, in contravention of human rights legislation, an increase in traffic noise resulting from a traffic regulation order made by the council in 2000 had seriously affected his family’s ability to sleep.
Although he was interested only in obtaining the £4,200 he had paid for noise insulation, the council were faced with the prospect that, if the claim were to succeed, the cost of traffic regulation orders would escalate.
Andrews initially issued proceedings in Reading County Court on 22 October 2001. The court dismissed a strike-out application brought by the council, and ordered that, because the issues were of such public importance, the claim would be heard under the multi-track system, and an expert appointed to report on noise levels at the property.
A number of adjournments ensued, including a stay until judgment had been given on the government’s appeal in Hatton v United Kingdom, the Heathrow aircraft noise claim before the European Court of Human Rights.
On 18 August 2003, the council issued an application for summary judgment. Judge Bishop, sitting at Guildford County Court, adjourned the application, and ordered that the proceedings be transferred to the Administrative Court.
Collins J has now dismissed the summary judgment application on the ground that the defendants had failed to show that the claim had no real prospect of success.
The judge said: “I have no doubt that an increase in traffic noise that seriously affects an individual may engage Article 8 [of the European Convention on Human Rights]. Whether the increased level of noise in this case does cross the threshold is a matter of fact that will depend upon the assessment of the claimant’s, and his family’s, evidence, coupled with the objective evidence of the actual levels.”
He also held that, in assessing whether the right balance has been struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community, the court would take into account the availability of measures to mitigate the effects of noise, including noise insulation grant schemes. He maintained that it was by no means certain that the council would be unable to make such grants if a failure to do so would breach an individual’s human rights.
The case has been remitted to the county court for consideration.
Andrews v Reading Borough Council Queen’s Bench Division: Administrative Court (Collins J) 29 April 2004.
Adrian Jack (instructed by Barrett & Co, of Reading) appeared for the claimant; Gillian Carrington (instructed by Clarks, of Reading) appeared for the defendants.
References: EGi Legal News 04/05/04
