The Commission, dealing with admissibility, pointed out that noise nuisance could be so severe as to amount to a partial expropriation where it rendered a property unsaleable or unusable, severely affecting its value. Where substantial compensation was payable in a control of use case (involving substantial interference with the applicant’s enjoyment of her property) there was no infringement of Article 1P1.
References: [1990] 65 DR 250
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Trailer and Marina (Leven) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature QBD 6-Feb-2004
The claimant owned land which contained a canal. After disuse it had become subject an order declaring it a site of special scientific intrest. The owner complained that this removed his right to develop uses of the land and infringed his human . .
(, [2004] EWHC 153 (Admin), Times 19-Feb-04) - Cited – Trailer and Marina (Leven) Ltd, Regina (ex parte) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that the 1981 Act, as amended, interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its possession, namely a stretch of canal which had been declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, with the effect that it was unusable. . .
(, [2004] EWCA Civ 1580, Times 28-Dec-04)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193775
