This was a dog-barking case in which the Court had to consider an abatement notice. It was argued that a notice which did not specify the level of barking which constituted the nuisance and which did not specify precisely what was to be done to abate that nuisance was bad.
Held: The local authority did have a choice of merely requiring a result in a particular case although, it said, that might give rise to a ground of appeal that there was an informality, defect or error in the notice.
[1996] Env LR 128
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kirklees Metropolitan Council v Field; Thackray; Marsh and Wilson Admn 31-Oct-1997
An abatement notice requiring works to be carried out must state clearly what works are required or considered necessary. There was an imminent danger of the collapse onto some cottages of a rockface and wall where the notice was addressed to the . .
Appeal from – 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: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.184809