In Lawrence v Coventry (T/A RDC promotions) [2012] EWCA Civ 26; [2012] PLSCS 46 the Court of Appeal summarised the law of nuisance in the context of planning permission in the following way: – (1) A planning authority, by the grant of planning permission, cannot authorise the commission of a nuisance (2) Nevertheless, the grant of planning permission followed by the implementation of such permission may change the character of a locality (3) It is a question of fact in every case whether the grant of planning permission followed by steps to implement such permission does have the effect of changing the character of the locality (4) If the character of a locality is changed as a consequence of planning permission being granted and implemented then (a) the question whether particular activities in that locality constitute a nuisance must be decided against the background of its changed character and (b) one consequence may be that otherwise offensive activities in that locality cease to constitute a nuisance. The claimants in Thomas v Merthyr Tydfil Car Auction Ltd [201] EWHC 2654 (Admin) sought damages for nuisance from the defendant company, which operated a motor auction business on land adjoining their home. Planning permission had been granted on appeal for such use in 1997. The particular nuisance alleged was from noise and fumes during the period of six years prior to commencement of the proceedings. In deciding whether the defendant company had unduly interfered with the claimants’ “comfortable and convenient enjoyment of their land”, the court of necessity had to address the relevance – if any – of that planning permission in the context of the claim. Had the grant of planning permission, followed by its implementation, had the effect of changing the character of the locality? The court concluded that it had not. It was clear from the inspector’s 1997 decision letter that, at that time, the locality was mainly residential. There were substantial numbers of houses in close proximity to the appeal site. In fact, the inspector had found that the activities for which planning permission had been sought were compatible with the nature and character of that locality. The court further concluded that the present character of the locality remained essentially the same. It went on to allow the claim in part, and awarded damages in respect of the noise nuisance. John Martin is a freelance writer
In Lawrence v Coventry (T/A RDC promotions) [2012] EWCA Civ 26; [2012] PLSCS 46 the Court of Appeal summarised the law of nuisance in the context of planning permission in the following way: –
(1) A planning authority, by the grant of planning permission, cannot authorise the commission of a nuisance (2) Nevertheless, the grant of planning permission followed by the implementation of such permission may change the character of a locality (3) It is a question of fact in every case whether the grant of planning permission followed by steps to implement such permission does have the effect of changing the character of the locality (4) If the character of a locality is changed as a consequence of planning permission being granted and implemented then (a) the question whether particular activities in that locality constitute a nuisance must be decided against the background of its changed character and (b) one consequence may be that otherwise offensive activities in that locality cease to constitute a nuisance.
The claimants in Thomas v Merthyr Tydfil Car Auction Ltd [201] EWHC 2654 (Admin) sought damages for nuisance from the defendant company, which operated a motor auction business on land adjoining their home. Planning permission had been granted on appeal for such use in 1997. The particular nuisance alleged was from noise and fumes during the period of six years prior to commencement of the proceedings. In deciding whether the defendant company had unduly interfered with the claimants’ “comfortable and convenient enjoyment of their land”, the court of necessity had to address the relevance – if any – of that planning permission in the context of the claim. Had the grant of planning permission, followed by its implementation, had the effect of changing the character of the locality?
The court concluded that it had not. It was clear from the inspector’s 1997 decision letter that, at that time, the locality was mainly residential. There were substantial numbers of houses in close proximity to the appeal site. In fact, the inspector had found that the activities for which planning permission had been sought were compatible with the nature and character of that locality. The court further concluded that the present character of the locality remained essentially the same. It went on to allow the claim in part, and awarded damages in respect of the noise nuisance.
John Martin is a freelance writer