Tenant complaining of traffic noise – Whether traffic noise constituted a nuisance injurious to health – Whether nuisance attributable to council as landlords – Environmental Protection Act 1990, sections 79(1)(a), 79(1)(ga), 79(6A), 82(4)(a) – Magistrates’ court finding council liable – Appeal allowed
The appellant council owned a property at 8 Goulding Court, Turnpike Lane, London N8, which was occupied by the respondent tenant. The respondent issued a summons against the council, under the provisions of section 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which stated that, on 7 July 1997 and on sundry dates thereto, a statutory nuisance existed and continued to exist at the property. The respondent alleged that the property lacked sufficient sound insulation and acoustic ventilation to prevent the transmission of external noise and that, accordingly, the premises were prejudicial to health. The magistrates’ court found that the traffic noise constituted a nuisance that was potentially injurious to health, and that the council were responsible for the statutory nuisance by virtue of section 82(4)(a) of the Act. The council were ordered to abate the nuisance within six months and execute any works required.
The council appealed by way of case stated, contending that the complaint should have been brought under section 79(1)(ga) of the Act, which dealt specifically with noise that was prejudicial to health or a nuisance and emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in the street. It was submitted that section 79(1)(ga) of the Act did not apply to traffic noise by virtue of section 79(6A)(a), which could not be avoided by proceeding under section 79(1)(a). It was further submitted that in any event, it could not be concluded that the council were responsible for any nuisance caused by the noise of the traffic under section 82(4) of the Act.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
1. Section 79(1)(a) of the 1990 Act re-enacted the words used in section 92(1)(a) of the Public Health Act 1936, and those words were wide enough to embrace traffic noise: see Southwark London Borough Council v Ince (1995) 17 HLR 504. However, parliament had subsequently enacted the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, which by section 2 introduced into section 79 of the 1990 Act sections 79(1)(ga) and 79(6A). Since then, section 79(1)(a) was to be read together with, and in the light of, the additional provisions that formed part of section 79.
2. In the light of the additional provisions, it was clear that section 79(1)(a) did not embrace external traffic noise because, if it was intended that such noise was to be capable of constituting a statutory nuisance, section 79(1)(ga), which dealt directly with vehicle noise, would not have been limited by section 79(6A).
3. Although it might have been possible for a claimant in similar circumstances to prove that the nuisance was attributable to the landlord by virtue of section 82(4)(a) of the 1990 Act, the magistrates’ court should hesitate before coming to that conclusion in relation to a local authority with wide housing responsibilities and limited resources.
Bethan Harris (instructed by Norton & Co) appeared for the appellant; Judith Maxwell (instructed by the solicitor to Haringey London Borough Council) appeared for the respondent.
Thomas Elliott, barrister