The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision confirming a noise abatement notice under the Act. He kept dogs, and neighbours had complained of the noise. He complained that the notice neither specified the nuisance complained of, nor stated what works were required to be undertaken to cure it.
Held: There were competing decisions, and the case should properly go forward to appeal.
Judges:
Lord Justice Swinton Thomas And Lord Justice Hutchison
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Civ 880
Statutes:
Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sterling Homes v Birmingham City Council QBD 1996
The operations of a mammoth press by an industrial operator in close proximity to a residential block of which Sterling were freehold owners, caused a nuisance. The city council served on Sterling (not on the neighbouring industrial operator) an . .
Cited – Network Housing Association Ltd v Westminster City Council QBD 7-Nov-1994
An abatement notice was addressed by the respondent city council to freehold owners of tenanted premises, in respect of a noise source which it was out of their power to stop. This was noise from perfectly normal everyday living, which reached one . .
Appeal heard – Budd v Colchester Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1999
A nuisance notice, requiring a householder to remove a nuisance caused by barking dogs, need not specify the manner in which the nuisance was to be abated, or the degree of reduction which would be acceptable. There was no necessary implication that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance, Environment
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141276