The decision in Lawrence v Coventry (T/A RDC promotions) [2012] EWCA Civ 26; [2012] PLSCS 46 (see PP 2012/24) warrants further comment in the context of planning law. In that case, the respondents had successfully brought proceedings against the appellants seeking an injunction and damages on the ground that the noise generated by motor sports activities at the appellants’ stadium situated near a house that the respondents had bought amounted to a private nuisance.
The appellants had the benefit of both planning permission and a lawful development certificate in respect of the motor sports activities. Their principal ground of appeal to the Court of Appeal was that the planning permission and the lawful development certificate had changed the character of the locality, and that the first instance judge should have taken that changed character into account when assessing whether the noise constituted a nuisance.
The Court of Appeal upheld this ground, and allowed the appeal concluding that the first instance judge had erred in law. In so doing, the appeal judges usefully summarised the present law in this context as follows: –
1. A planning authority, by the grant of planning permission, cannot authorise the commission of a nuisance.
2. Nevertheless, the grant of planning permission followed by the implementation of such permission may change the character of a locality.
3. It is a question of fact in every case whether the grant of planning permission followed by steps to implement such permission does have the effect of changing the character of the locality.
4. If the character of a locality is changed as a consequence of planning permission being granted and implemented then (a) the question whether particular activities in that locality constitute a nuisance must be decided against the background of its changed character and (b) one consequence may be that otherwise offensive activities in that locality cease to constitute a nuisance.
One final comment is necessary. On two occasions, the local planning authority in this case had served breach of condition notices on the appellants but these had apparently been complied with. As the Court of Appeal acknowledged, if these had been ignored and the stadium had been operated at noise levels above those permitted by the planning permission, the respondents might have been able to make out a case in nuisance.
John Martin is a freelance writer