Facts: Case stated from Crown Court who dismissed an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates’ court which had upheld the validity of the abatement notice Facts found by Crown Court: Wooden outbuilding used as a music studio for rock bands to practice Extremely quiet rural location Only source of noise in the area was agriculture, wildlife, a river and the weather Complaint by neighbour who lived 180 metres away Noise meter could not measure any increase in noise caused by the music over that caused by haymaking in an adjacent field Abatement notice required the person responsible for the nuisance "to abate the same" and prohibited its recurrence Environmental health officer stated in evidence that the music "was annoying because it was not what you expected. It was repetitive and want on for a long time. I hardly noticed the haymaking. The haymaking did not bother me. The noise did." Court agreed that the nature of the noise made it obtrusive and annoying and it was out of character with the nature of the area, even though when measured objectively it made no significant addition to background levels Parties in the Crown Court agreed that the test for "nuisance" element of statutory nuisance is the same as that for Private Nuisance at common law The Crown Court posed 2 questions: Whether the noise in this case could be capable of amounting to a statutory nuisance Whether the notice which simply required abatement and did not specify objective criteria by which compliance could be determined was valid

• The test for "nuisance" under section 79(1) is the same as that at common law and there was no additional requirement that the matter complained of be prejudicial to health (Bishop Auckland Local board v Bishop Auckland Iron and Steel Co Ltd (1882) 10 QBD 138; NCB v Thorne [1976] 1 WLR 543)
• It is impossible to contend that a particular decibel level or noise above the naturally occurring ambient level must be demonstrated before a statutory nuisance can be shown

• The approach of English Law to the level of specification required in an abatement notice is consistent with the case law of Strasbourg relating to Art 7 ECHR (Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EHHR 397; SW v The UK 21 EHHR 363; Budd v Colchester BC [1999] JPL 717; R v Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority ex parte South West Water Ltd [2000] 3 All ER 306 considered)
• What is required is reasonable certainty in identifying what the criminal offence is and that is to be considered in the light of judicial interpretation of the statute
• The test for whether or not there was a nuisance was identified with sufficient clarity: see the Court of Appeal judgment in Murdoch v Glacier Metal Company Ltd [1998] Env LR 732 (Steel v UK (1999) 28 EHHR 603 considered)
• Therefore a notice which required the recipient to "abate the nuisance" was sufficiently certain in letting the recipient know what conduct on his part would be criminal
• There was no conflict with Art 7 ECHR

Return to home page