Planning Permission Does Not Create Rights

The judge in a nuisance case in relation to noise generated by a local business raised some very interesting issues which could have relevance to those considering similar types of action.

In this case, a local resident complained about noise nuisance from a speedway venue that was situated close to their property. The speedway venue had originally been built, and had received planning permission, in 1975; albeit that there had been some issues over the years relating to its use vis-à-vis the original activities for which planning permission had been granted. A residential property, called “Fenland” was about 500m from the venue and had been purchased by the complainants. Two months after moving in to their property, the complainants raised the issue of noise nuisance with the local authority with the result that a noise enforcement notice was served on the venue and various modifications to the venue were required to mitigate the noise emanation. This did not resolve the matter, which ultimately ended up in court.

The court examined the arguments and came to some very interesting findings:

  • It is not a defence to a claim in nuisance to show that the claimant had acquired, or started to occupy, their property after the nuisance had started: that is, it is no defence that “the claimant had come to the nuisance”. 
  • It might be a defence for a defendant to contend that, as it was only because the claimant had changed the use of, or built on, their land that the defendant’s pre-existing activity was claimed to have become a nuisance, the claim should fail (albeit that this argument was not applicable in the present case).
  • It is not a defence, in and of itself, to a claim in nuisance that the activity which is said to give rise to the nuisance has the benefit of a planning permission; albeit that this would be a factor that would be taken into account (in this case, in relation to the noise levels referenced in the planning permission).

The court, in this case, found for the complainant and issued an order for damages and placed an injunction on further operation of the venue in its current form (allowing for the injunction to be lifted if certain specific changes were made).

Matthew Bailey comments: “this judgement gives hope to the beleaguered and also sends a message to local businesses not to rest simply on the paperwork for their planning permission. As the judge said in this case, the speedway venue had not achieved the right by dint of its planning permission to make noise”.

If you would like assistance in relation either to a planning application, or to a nuisance complaint, call Matthew on 01329 822333 for further information.

 

 June 2017

 

 

Up to a third of user reviews on consumer websites are said to be fake. However, a landmark fraud ruling in the European courts has signalled a fight back to regulate the honesty of reviews.

More Info

Christopher Matthews comments on the collapse of Universal Wealth Management

More Info

Wills and Planning for the future

Research just published underlines how ill-prepared most people are in terms of their end of life planning.

More Info

Around-the-clock care set to double by 2035, according to study

According to a recent study published by The Lancet, it is estimated that in the next twenty years, the number of over-85s requiring around-the-clock care is set to double. 

More Info

Reviews

We’re proud to be associated with

  • The Law Society, Conveyancing Quality Accredited logo
  • The Law Society, Children Law Accredited logo
  • The Law Society, Criminal Litigation Accredited logo
  • The Law Society, Family Law Accredited logo
  • The Law Society, Family Law Advanced Accredited logo
  • The Law Society, Lexcel Accredited logo
  • Solicitors For The Elderly Accredited logo
  • Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners logo
  • Dementia Friends logo
  • Resolution logo