References:  3 All ER 923,  QB 343,  3 WLR 449
Coram: Cumming-Bruce LJ
Neighbours complained at the development of a new commercial port on the site of a disused naval dockyard. Heavy vehicle traffic at night had a seriously deleterious effect on the comfort of local residents.
Held: Although a planning consent could not authorise a nuisance, it could change the character of the neighbourhood by which the standard of reasonable user fell to be judged.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Hunter and Others -v- Canary Wharf Ltd HL (Gazette 14-May-97, Times 25-Apr-97, Bailii,  UKHL 14,  AC 655,  Fam Law 601,  2 All ER 426,  2 FLR 342,  2 WLR 684,  Env LR 488,  54 Con LR 12,  84 BLR 1,  CLC 1045, (1998) 30 HLR 409)
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
- Cited – Wheeler and Another -v- JJ Saunders Ltd and Others CA (Times 03-Jan-95,  Ch 19, Bailii,  EWCA Civ 8, Bailii,  EWCA Civ 32,  3 WLR 466,  2 All ER 697)
The existence of a planning permission did not excuse the causing of a nuisance by the erection of a pighouse. The permission was not a statutory authority, and particularly so where it was possible it had been procured by the supply of inaccurate . .
- Cited – Lawrence and Another -v- Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD (Bailii,  EWHC 360 (QB),  4 All ER 1314)
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. . .