header-logo header-logo

Nuisance abatement notice can be varied

02 August 2023
Issue: 8037 / Categories: Legal News , Nuisance
printer mail-detail
A local authority can vary a nuisance abatement notice against noisy premises even where that reduces its restrictions, the High Court has held

The abatement notice, issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, concerned Mallory Park Racing Circuit on the edge of the Leicestershire village of Kirkby Mallory. The notice set limits on the number and frequency of motor racing at the circuit, including that there be a minimum one-hour continuous lunch break on race days.

The variation reduced the lunch break to half an hour on the race circuit’s Boxing Day Plum Pudding event. A person who lived in the village objected on the basis it would be too noisy.

Counsel for the complainant, Piers Riley-Smith, of Kings Chambers, submitted there was no express provision in the 1990 Act for variation, and no implied power under caselaw.

Counsel for the defendants, Gordon Wignall, of Six Pump Court, submitted that an implied power existed under both caselaw and statute.

Ruling in R (Ball) v Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council & Real Motorsport [2023] EWHC 1922 (Admin), Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the claim and held the council did have the power to make the variation, by reason of necessary implication into the statutory nuisance regime of Part III of the 1990 Act.

Eyre J held the case of Ex p Everett R v Bristol City Council [1999] 1 WLR 92, [1999] 1 WLR 1170 (CA), which established that an abatement notice can be withdrawn, applied. He held there was no reason to distinguish the power to vary a notice from the power of withdrawal, since the power of withdrawal is a greater power.

Delivering his judgment, he said: ‘The variation of an abatement notice is a lesser step than its withdrawal.

‘As a matter of strict logic it does not necessarily follow that the power to take the greater step must carry with it the power to take the lesser. It would be possible to have a regime which allowed withdrawal of an abatement notice but not its variation. That would, however, be highly unusual arrangement and the normal approach is to regard a power to take a greater step as carrying with it a power to take a lesser step.’

Eyre J did not address the position where a variation might be used to increase the restrictions.

Issue: 8037 / Categories: Legal News , Nuisance
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll