It is not necessary for a noise abatement notice under section 80(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to specify the steps required to be taken in order to abate the noise nuisance.
The High Court has determined this issue on a case stated from the London Borough of Enfield v Beckford [2025] EWHC 1218 (Admin).
Section 80(1) provides that where a local authority is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to occur or recur it shall serve a notice requiring the abatement of the nuisance or prohibiting or restricting it and/or requiring such works or steps to be executed as may be necessary. The notice shall specify the time or times within which the requirements are to be complied with.
Beckford lived at 13 Rochester Close Enfield an end of terrace property sharing a party wall with neighbours. He moved in around 2010 and the current neighbours arrived in 2017. Both complained about the noise generated by the other. The council’s environmental health officer corresponded with Beckford about the level of noise emanating from his property and unsuccessfully sought an informal resolution. Beckford received a final warning on 22 March 2022 and on 31 March 2022 a notice under section 80(1) of the 1990 Act was issued in respect of the “production of noisy music”.
The notice required Beckford to abate the noise and prohibit its recurrence and for that purpose required him to “exercise proper control of the volume of sound generated at the premises to ensure that the total volume of sound emitted was not likely to cause a nuisance to persons residing in the vicinity”.
Beckford successfully appealed the notice arguing that the authority had refused unreasonably to accept compliance with alternative requirements or that the requirements of the notice were otherwise unreasonable in character/extent or were unnecessary.
The judge decided that while the issue of the notice was justified since it omitted to specify the steps to be taken to abate the nuisance it was invalid. Consequently, the notice requirements were unreasonable in character or extent, the wording was unfair and unreasonable.
The Administrative Court considered the law was clear. Section 80(1) simply requires abatement, restriction or prohibition of the nuisance. However, if the local authority requires the execution of works or steps to be taken for any of those purposes, as a matter of fairness the steps required must be spelt out clearly. This was not a steps case. Beckford was required to abate the nuisance. Nothing more, nothing less.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant
