Nuisance

Abatement notice requiring noise level to be controlled so as not to create nuisance - notice not specifying works to be undertaken - not ambiguous or uncertain...Abatement notice requiring noise level to be controlled so as not to create nuisance - notice not specifying works to be undertaken - not ambiguous or uncertainCambridge City Council v Douglas: DC (Waller LJ and Sir Edwin Jowitt): 21 December 2000The council served on the licensee of a public house an abatement notice under section 80(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 prohibiting the recurrence of a statutory nuisance arising from amplified music emitted from the premises and requiring him to exercise such control over the level of such music as was necessary not to cause a nuisance.

The notice stated that regulation 3(2) of the Statutory Nuisance (Appeal) Regulations 1995 applied so that, in the event of an appeal, the notice would not be suspended because the cost of carrying out works in compliance with it would not be disproportionate to the public benefit, and that if the licensee failed to execute all or any of the works in accordance with the notice the council could execute them and recover from the licensee the necessary expenditure incurred.

Justices allowed the licensee's appeal against the notice on the ground that it was ambiguous and uncertain and so defective.

The council appealed by case stated.Peter Miller (instructed by Head of Legal Services, Cambridge City Council, Cambridge) for the council.

Angus Piper (instructed by Overburys) for the licensee.Held, allowing the appeal, that the requirement in the notice to exercise control did not constitute a requirement to carry out works; that a notice was capable of being suspended under regulation 3 of the 1995 Regulations even though the council was proceeding under section 80(1)(a) and the notice accordingly did not require the execution of any works; that it could not therefore be inferred from the reference in the notice to regulation 3(2) that the council was proceeding under section 80(1)(b) and requiring works to be executed; that the reference in the notice to failure to execute works in accordance with it did not imply that the notice was requiring works to be executed or create ambiguity or uncertainty; and that, on its true construction, the notice unambiguously required the licensee to control noise emitting from the public house so as not to create a nuisance but did not specify any method of control or require any works to be done.