The appellants, owners of a motor sport racing circuit, appealed against a finding that their activities constituted a nuisance, given that they had planning permissions for the use.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had erred in holding that the actual use of the Stadium and the Track over a number of years, with planning permission, or a CLEUD, could not be taken into account when the assessing the character of the locality for the purpose of determining whether an activity is a nuisance.
Lewison LJ expressed a provisional obiter view that, contrary to the judge’s conclusion, it is possible to obtain by prescription a right to commit what would otherwise be a nuisance.
Judges:
Mummery, Jackson, Lewison LJJ
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Civ 26, [2012] Env LR 28, [2012] 1 WLR 2127, [2012] 3 All ER 168, [2012] WLR(D) 49, 141 Con LR 79, [2012] 1 EGLR 165, [2012] 10 EG 88, [2012] PTSR 1505
Links:
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 171B
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Appeal from – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
See Also – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance, Planning, Land
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451500
