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 abatement notice referring to the transmission of noise and vibration through the structure from the nearly industrial premises which in terms read ‘Do hereby require you to abate the said nuisance within 56 days . . and for that same purpose require you to carry out such works as may be necessary to ensure that the noise and vibration does not cause prejudice to health or a nuisance, take any other steps as may be necessary for that purpose’
Held: The notice was defective. It left unspecified what works were required. The court expressed misgivings about the stringency of the law, but went on ‘As the law stands, local authorities are not, in any event, obliged to require works to be done or other steps to be taken; they can simply require the nuisance to be abated; the obligation to specify the ‘works’ and the ‘steps’ only arises if they choose to include in their notices a requirement for works to be done or steps to be taken.’
Judges:
McCullough J
Citations:
[1996] Env LR 121
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Wheatley 1885
If the magistrates think it necessary for things to be done to abate a nuisance they must specify them in their order. When failure to comply with an order will constitute a criminal offence this should cause no surprise. . .
Cited – McGillivray v Stephenson 1950
The court upheld a notice requiring a person to abate a nuisance constituting stinking pigs, which said ‘and for that purpose to remove the whole of the pigs from the premises, clear up the effect of their past presence, and cease for the future to . .
Cited by:
Cited – Surrey Free Inns Plc v Gosport Borough Council Admn 28-Jan-1998
The local authority issued a noise nuisance abatement notice. By the time the matter came to the court, the nuisance had been abated.
Held: The background situation justifying the issue of a nuisance abatement notice was to be assessed at the . .
Cited – Budd v Colchester Borough Council CA 30-Jan-1997
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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance
Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.184805