Elvington Park Ltd & Anor v City of York Council

Under section 80(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a local authority may require only the abatement, prohibition or restriction of a statutory nuisance, or may additionally require works or other steps. If the notice requires works or steps, it must specify them sufficiently to tell the recipient what must be done, particularly where criminal sanctions may follow non-compliance. A notice requiring unspecified steps to prevent the recurrence of noise is invalid. A local authority is not generally irrational merely because it chooses not to specify works or steps where a simple abatement notice would be lawful. The absence of irrationality is especially clear where expert evidence cannot identify the measures necessary to abate the nuisance.

Elvington Park Limited and Elvington Events Limited occupied an airfield used for motor racing and vehicle testing. City of York Council served identical noise abatement notices under section 79(1)(g) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The notices required the appellants to abate and prohibit recurrence of the nuisance and to take the steps necessary to prevent noise from motor vehicles and associated activities causing a statutory nuisance, without specifying those steps.

The District Judge dismissed the appellants’ appeal. The Crown Court at York dismissed their further appeal on 13 June 2008. On a case stated, the High Court considered whether the notices were invalid for failing to specify the required works or steps and, alternatively, whether the Council had acted irrationally in failing to specify them.

1. The notices were invalid. Section 80(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives a local authority a choice. It may issue a single-barrelled notice requiring abatement, prohibition or restriction under section 80(1)(a). Alternatively, it may issue a double-barrelled notice requiring works or other steps under section 80(1)(b). If it chooses the latter course, the works or steps must be specified.
2. The notices did more than require abatement. They prohibited recurrence and required the appellants to take the steps necessary to prevent further statutory nuisance, but gave no particulars of those steps. The reasonable recipient could not know what had to be done to avoid criminal proceedings. The notices therefore failed to meet the required standards of clarity and fairness.
3. The decisions in Sterling Homes (Midlands Limited) v Birmingham City Council, The Network Housing Association Limited v Westminster City Council, London Borough of Camden v London Underground Limited and R (London Borough of Camden) v Easynet Limited supported that conclusion. Sevenoaks District Council v Brands Hatch Leisure Group Limited was distinguishable because the notice there specified the required noise levels and how measurements were to be taken. R v Crown Court at Canterbury ex parte Howson Ball was likewise materially different because it contained detailed requirements.
4. The irrationality issue was academic once invalidity had been established. In any event, a local authority is ordinarily entitled to issue a simple abatement notice without specifying works. The expert evidence also showed that no reliable steps or level of activity could be identified which would abate the nuisance. It was therefore not irrational for the Council to omit such details.
5. The court answered question 1 “Yes” and question 2 “No”. The Council would need to consider serving new notices.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On a case stated, held that the notices were invalid because they required unspecified steps, while rejecting the alternative irrationality challenge.
• Crown Court at York: Dismissed the appellants’ appeal on 13 June 2008.
• District Judge: Dismissed the appellants’ appeal against the abatement notices on 23 November 2006.