Facts an abatement notice was served on each appellant as the person responsible for nuisance arising out of amplified music and the use of a public address system at a public house notice required abatement of the nuisance, prohibited its recurrence, and required the carrying out of a schedule of works the schedule was in the following terms: "1. Within 14 days from the service of this Notice install and have set by officers from the Environmental Service Department a sound restricting device which shall be operational any time music is played in the function room. 2. Within 14 days ensure that noise from the public address system or amplified music from the premises does not exceed at any time the one-third octave Leq (15 minutes) as measured in any residential premises. 3. Within 14 days ensure that levels of music and raised voices from the function room are adequately controlled at all times so that amplified music and raised voices are not intrusive in nearby or adjoining properties. Notes 1. Noise measurements shall be made in any habitable room with the windows open. 2. Measurements shall be made in correct acoustic conditions at a height of 1.2 metres. 3. Noise measurements shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and competent person." Validity of the notice challenged on the grounds that 1. Paragraph 1 of the schedule fell outside the powers contained in section 80(1)(b) EPA 1990 because it neither required the execution of works or the taking of steps 2. Paragraph 2 was invalid because the words "in any residential premises" were either meaningless or absurd, and the paragraph contained no reference to volume criteria, but only to pitch 3. Paragraph 3 was invalid because the main body of the notice did not relate to voices at all, and because the use of the words "controlled" and the word "intrusive" was unduly vague The Magistrates’ Court dismissed the appeal and refused to quash the notice In relation to the challenge to paragraph 2, the Magistrates found that the requirements of this paragraph were "clear and reasonable and did not go beyond what was necessary to abate the nuisance" and further that the Appellants "did not adduce cogent evidence to justify a finding that the measurement provided was not reasonable"

• The limit on the Council’s powers under section 80(1) EPA is that it must properly conclude that a requirement of the notice is necessary for the abatement of the nuisance
• In the instant case the Justices had concluded that the Council had properly considered that issue
• The words "the taking of such other steps as may be necessary" were wide enough to include a requirement on the addressee of the Notice to permit another person to perform a task
• the entry of an officer to the premises to set a device, where such a requirement was considered to be "necessary" to achieve the abatement of the nuisance, fell within section 80(1)(b) EPA

• in challenging the absence of a reference to volume, the appellant was in effect challenging the rationality of the finding of the Magistrates’ Court on this issue and doing so without any evidence to support it
• accordingly this ground of challenge was dismissed
• the reference to "in any residential premises" was unclear
• the paragraph could only stand if amended to make it specific
• there was no doubt as to the address of the flat most affected by the noise
• the notice could be cured by amendment to replace the words "any residential premises" with the address of that flat

• there was no finding that raised voices were a nuisance
• nothing was said about how voices could be controlled and the word "intrusive" was unduly vague
• however, in substance this paragraph added nothing to paragraphs 1 and 2
• it could therefore be struck out of the notice without leading to the notice being quashed

• the power to vary the notice was very broad
• the power can only be exercised where the notice was validly served and therefore when there was a statutory nuisance at them time of service of the notice
• in exercising its discretion the court should have in mind the extent of any defects in the notice which it may be asked to cure and whether the substance of what the notice requires remains valid and appropriate or is itself tainted by valid objections
• The question is one of degree
• In this case the substance of the abatement notice was to be found in Paragraphs 1 and 2
• Accordingly it was within the Courts powers to vary the notice as proposed

Return to home page