Noise nuisance – Respondents serving abatement notices upon appellants – Appellants seeking to quash notices – Justices dismissing appeal – Whether requirements of abatement notices exceeded respondents’ powers – Whether requirements unreasonable or uncertain – Section 80(1) of Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Appeal dismissed
Thanet District Council (the respondents) served two abatement notices upon the appellants under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, alleging nuisance arising from amplified music and the use of a public address system at a public house. The notices were in the same terms and required each appellant, as a person responsible for the nuisance, to abate it, prohibit its recurrence and comply with an attached schedule of works. The schedule required the appellants to: “(1) install and have set by officers from the Environmental Service Department a sound restricting device which shall be operational any time music is played… (2) ensure that noise from the public address system or amplified music from the premises does not exceed at any time the 1/3 octave Leq (15 minutes) as measured in any residential premises. (3) ensure that levels of music and raised voices from the function room are adequately controlled at all times…”.
The appellants’ appeal to the magistrates’ court, requesting that the notices be quashed, was dismissed by the justices. The appellants appealed, contending that the notices ought to be quashed because, first, para 1 of the schedule of works imposed requirements that exceeded the powers of local authorities generally under the 1990 Act. The appellants contended that a requirement to “execute works” or “take steps” under section 80(1)(b) of the Act had to be a requirement that the addressee of the notice complete a specific task necessary for abating the nuisance. It was submitted that para 1 did not satisfy those requirements, as it did not require the appellants to “execute works”, but, rather, to let the authority into the premises, for which there was no relevant power in the Act. The appellants also contended that the paragraph failed to comply with the need for clarity, which required that the addressee know from the notice itself the state in which he had to put matters at his property. Second, it was submitted that the requirements of paras 2 and 3 were so unreasonable or uncertain as to justify an order to quash. The respondents agreed that para 3 could properly be deleted under the Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
1. The wording of section 80(1)(b) and Schedule 3, para 2(1)(b) of the 1990 Act was sufficiently wide to permit authorised officers to enter premises to set a sound-restricting device. The requirement to permit another person to perform a task could sensibly be described as a requirement to “take a step”, and there was nothing in the Act to justify a restriction upon the words it used. The limit of the respondents’ powers was that they had to properly conclude that a requirement was necessary for the abatement of the nuisance. They had the power to impose such a requirement, and para 1 was, accordingly, valid: R v Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority, ex parte South West Water Ltd [2000] PLSCS 71 considered.
2. The wording of para 2 was, to some extent, unclear and it had to be read in context to make it specific. However, any defect of expression could be cured, under the 1995 regulations, by substituting a reference to “flat 3” (the flat most affected by the noise) for “any residential premises”.
Thomas Roe (instructed by Boys & Maughan, of Margate) appeared for the appellants; Timothy Spencer (instructed by the solicitor to Thanet District Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
