A local authority has a duty, under section 80(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to serve an abatement notice where it is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur, in its area. Section 79(1) sets out those matters that constitute statutory nuisances. They include: “(g) noise emitted from premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance”. In R (on the application of Elvington Park Ltd) v York Crown Court; Elvington Park Ltd v York City Council [2011] EWHC 2213 (Admin); [2011] PLSCS 220, there was a history of noise nuisance.
There the occupiers of a former military airfield, which was surrounded by private homes and farms, used the site for various activities that fell under the broad description of motor sports. This caused complaints to the local authority, which, having decided that the resulting noise constituted a statutory nuisance within the meaning of section 79(1)(g), served an abatement notice. This described the nuisance as arising as a result of excessive emissions of noise from the site affecting occupation of nearby residential premises. It referred to the emissions of noise emanating from motor vehicle activities, motor sports events and activities associated with them, including the public address system. Finally, it required the nuisance to be abated.
The occupiers’ appeals to the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court failed. One limb of the occupiers’ challenge in the High Court involved an appeal by way of case stated from the Crown Court. Perhaps the most important question for the High Court to answer arising out of that appeal was whether the Crown Court had been correct in law to decide that the local authority was not obliged to specify in the abatement notice which activities amounted to the statutory nuisance or what noise levels were excessive.
On the basis of earlier authorities, the High Court held that section 80(1) did not require this of a local authority. A notice that referred to a nuisance without stating what kind of nuisance it was, for example, noise, smoke or fumes, would be invalid. However, beyond that, the courts had set the required threshold of a description at a low level. For instance, in an earlier case where an abatement notice alleged nuisance by dog barking, it had been held unnecessary for the notice to set out the levels or times of barking that were alleged to constitute a nuisance.
John Martin is a freelance writer
