Page 31 - br-nov-2021

November 2021 November 2021

Christchurch and Poole Council area and better reflect the demand for these
services.

Statutory Nuisance
I have been asked to clarify what is a
statutory nuisance (often loud noise)
how it is determined and why there are
not clear guidelines in terms of sound
decibels to judge it by. The article below
clarifies explains it.
The determination of a statutory
nuisance is informed by and developed
from approaching 200 years of English
case-law, which continues to evolve as
further decisions are made in courts of
various jurisdiction across the
country. As a consequence, one long-
established principle of nuisance cases
is that local authorities & the courts remain free (and in some senses are required)
to determine each case according to local circumstances, which will inevitably
be different in each case. As a learned Judge put it “What might be a nuisance
in Berkeley Square would not necessarily be one in Bermondsey” – and that
principal remains to this day. Parliament has explicitly avoided regulatory
prescriptiveness when producing legislation for this.

Statutory Nuisance is a subjective assessment undertaken by an authorised
(qualified and competent) officer that considers frequency, duration and severity
on the material effect of the nuisance in someone’s home. It needs to consider
the time that the nuisance is occurring and the day of the week, the nature and
location of the nuisance, for example does it prevent sleep? It has no decibel
level since this does not consider tonal qualities of sound, varying background
levels, or the emotional impact of times and types of sound.
Statutory nuisance does not consider a person’s sensitivities as the officer must be
seen, in their deliberations, to consider the matter from a ‘normal’ person’s
perspective and the ‘normal’ use and enjoyment of their home. Seemingly
similar circumstances, to the untrained eye, are frequently very different when
examined under the microscope of a nuisance investigation undertaken by an
experienced practitioner. Officers must therefore be free to make such decisions
having regard to the individual circumstances involved in every case, and not be
constrained by arbitrary ‘benchmarks’ which might well serve to produce an
inappropriate decision which might later be overturned.
That is not to say that such matters are not subject to peer review to achieve a

66 31