Noise abatement notice – Service – Proper address – Section 160(5) of Environment Protection Act 1990 – Notice in respect of noise at shooting ground – Notice served at shooting ground rather than home address of respondent – Respondent previously writing to appellant council indicating that shooting ground appropriate address for correspondence – Whether amounting to notification of alternative address for service of notices – Appeal allowed
The respondent operated a shooting business in respect of which the appellant council had received a number of complaints concerning noise. In 2003, the appellants served a noise abatement notice on the respondent, under the Environment Protection Act 1990. The notice was sent to the address of the shooting ground. No further enforcement proceedings were taken and, in January 2005, the respondent wrote a letter to the appellants requesting them to lift the abatement notice. The letter stated that if a response was not received within seven days, the respondent would seek advice regarding the possibility of judicial review. The heading of the letter stated that it concerned noise issues relating to the shooting ground, and within it there was a request that the appellants use the address of the shooting ground for all further correspondence with the respondent.
The appellants served a further noise abatement notice in April 2005. This was again sent to the shooting ground on the basis that that was an “other address” at which the respondent had specified that he would accept services of notices, within the meaning of section 160(5) of the 1990 Act. Although the notice was served on 14 April, the respondent did not see it until 16 April. His appeal against the notice was dismissed by the magistrates’ court on the ground that it had not been lodged within the required period of 21 days after service. In reaching that conclusion, it took 14 April as the date of service, holding that the shooting ground was a proper address for service by virtue of section 160(5). That decision was reversed on a further appeal, the judge holding that the January letter had indicated an appropriate address only for correspondence, not for service of notices, which was a different matter.
On an appeal by the appellants, the respondent sought to uphold the judge’s reasoning and further submitted that the letter, when read in context, referred only to correspondence concerning the possible judicial review claim and not to noise abatement issues generally.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The appellants had been entitled to consider the meaning of the January letter against the entire background, beginning with the 2003 notice, service of which had been accepted at the shooting ground without complaint from the respondent. In all the circumstances, they had been entitled to take the view that the letter clearly indicated that all matters relating to noise issues arising from the activities at the shooting ground were to be dealt with at the address where those activities were carried out, and that the shooting ground was a proper address for service under section 160(5). Accordingly, service had been effected on 14 April 2005, such that the respondent’s appeal against the notice had been out of time and the magistrates had had no jurisdiction to hear it.
Thomas Crowther (instructed by the legal department of Powys County Council) appeared for the appellants; Gerard Heap (instructed by Lloyd Williams, of Swansea) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
