Nuisance — Construction site noise — Noise suffered by neighbours — Notices served by local authority under section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 — Noise made by trade not subcontractors — Whether main contractor proper defendant — Whether deliberate and flagrant flouting of the law — Whether excessive delay in bringing proceedings — Whether injunction should be issued against contractors
The defendants are the main contractors responsible for the “administering and managing” of a construction site in Middlesex Street in the City of London. The noise generated from the site was the cause of many complaints from neighbouring residents, and it was so serious that even with double glazing, watching television or normal conversation was impossible. The local authority issued a number of notices under section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 requiring steps to be taken to reduce the noise. Although the defendants stated that they had done all they could to control the noise, breaches of the section 60 notices were continual. Summonses had been issued in respect of the alleged breaches.
The local authority sought an injunction or injunctions to prevent the recurrence of breaches of the section 60 notices and to require that building work was carried out in the best practicable means. The defendants argued that the noise was made by trade contractors and not their sub-contractors and that therefore they were not the appropriate defendants. They also alleged there had been excessive delay in bringing the proceedings.
Held 1 The defendants were the proper defendants as they had responsibilities for the administration and management of the contract. 2 The defendants had not done all they could to reduce the noise as some steps were taken only after proceedings were commenced. 3 There had not been excessive delay in bringing the proceedings as there had been more incidents since the proceedings were commenced and such delay as there had been was not such as to indicate an absence of urgency such as to be a ground for refusing interlocutory relief. It followed that an injunction should be granted, with seven days’ grace before it comes into effect, to restrain the works to specified hours and subject to a proviso exempting emergency work. A second injunction requiring building work to be carried out in the best practicable means was refused as being too vague.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council v B & Q (Retail) Ltd
[1984] AC 754 considered.
Stephen Bickford-Smith (instructed by the Comptroller and City Solicitor, Corporation of London) appeared for the plaintiffs; and Vivian Ramsey (instructed by Masons) appeared for the defendant.
