Forum Topic

Realistically, if the owners/occupiers of the premises don't take steps to resolve any breach of planning control, any formal action the Council might take under planning legislation is likely to take months.Whilst I appreciate you might think differently, this type of breach of planning wouldn't be one which a Council would issue a 'stop' notice in respect of under planning legislation.  So if the owner/occupiers declined to take any remedial action following the initial investigation by the Planning Enforcement Team (and standard practice is for a Council to request such action to be taken within 28 days) the Council would then have to decide the expediency of taking enforcement action with a view to serving an enforcement notice.  Under planning legislation an enforcement notice cannot come into effect for at least 28 days after being served, and a recipient of the notice must be given a period of at least 28 days once the notice takes effect to remedy the breach.So in the very best scenario, if the owner/occupier didn't take any remedial action over the coming weeks, you are still looking at an absolute minimum of 2 months (and quite probably longer) for the planning enforcement powers available to the Council to yield a result.From an Environmental Protection perspective (which, unlike planning, isn't my specialism), it all comes down to whether the noise is a statutory nuisance and therefore whether an abatement notice can be pursued.  As Loraine has suggested I know Steve Maunders (and others) within LBH's Environmental Health team and I'm sure they can advise accordingly.  Essentially the statutory nuisance route is the best route to be pursued, along with any attempt to engage proactively and directly with the owner/occupiers of the restaurant (which I note you've tried without success).But I do need to stress that you shouldn't hope or expect for a quick resolution via the planning enforcement route, it could happen if the owner/occupier immediately takes remedial action, but if they don't the mechanisms available to the Council under planning enforcement legislation are slow (and that's the fault of the legislation, not the Council).Hence you really would be wasting time and money pursuing any kind of legal action against the Council, indeed the only action you could pursue would be, having exhausted the Council's internal complaint procedures, a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman for maladministration, but it's way too early for that.

Adam Beamish ● 2346d

Hi Mr Beamish,Thank you very much for your extremely useful advice, much much appreciated. In part, that is what I am trying to do too. The one thing I am not clear about is, how can I prove privately that the noise here is statutory noise? I am pretty sure it is since some rudimentary measurements that I made, using paid apps, suggest without a doubt that the criteria is reached and surpassed. I mentioned earlier, I have contacted a company which seems to specialise on this kind of thing to provide Grade 1 they call it, equipment to measure noise. I have tentatively booked them for next Monday, but I have a call scheduled towards the end of this week. I want to make sure the evidence they will provide can stand in court, but I am not sure what to look for to make sure that it is. At this point I have a lawyer too, but I don't want to involve them yet as the costs can accumulate very quickly. Eventually, I will have no choice but to involve them and just bear the costs whatever they may be.Also, I am struggling to get the complaint moving through the stages. Mr Maunders surfaces once every two weeks and then very quickly submerges not be seen again until after a few more weeks. This means that I am being put on hold as "things are being assessed", so I cannot move to the next stage of the complaint - which is presenting my case in front of three councillors. Having seen the councillors , a few of them, over the past two months, I am very very hopeful they can actually understand the issue and intervene to help me solve it.Thank you so much again,Dritan

Dritan Nikolla ● 2346d

Dritan,Environment Protection isn't my specialism, but Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act defines a statutory nuisance as 'any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance', and goes on to clarify that this includes noise emitted from a premises.'Prejudicial to health' is defined as 'injurious, or likely to cause injury, to health.'It's unusual, in my experience (and whilst I'm not an expert in these matter when I worked in planning enforcement at Councils I regularly liaised with Environmental Health Officers and at Hounslow spend several years sat in the same part of the offices as the EHO's) for a resident to go to the extreme of commissioning a private company.  Ultimately that company is only going to be able to record and assess the sound levels, but as they aren't the regulatory authority they can't determine whether it is or it isn't a statutory nuisance.  Which in turn would, I suspect, undermine any legal action you might be thinking of taking.Usually when I get planning permission for restaurants and takeaways there's a condition imposed requiring the noise of the plant to be a specific level (typically 5 db) below the background noise level.  Obviously as the plant is already operational it's hard to assess what the background noise level is without that plant (although to be honest whilst I could clearly hear the plant on your video there did also seem to be considerable background noise from traffic movements, people talking etc).Also, and this isn't intended as a criticism of Councillors, but they are not the experts or indeed even the decision makers in terms of what is or isn't a statutory nuisance.  That's the job of the Officers, although of course the Councillors can and will pursue those Officers on your behalf.My only advice at this stage would be to keep chasing up the EHO and keep your Councillors in the loop, whether you want to pursue an independent noise survey or legal action is entirely up to you, but to me such steps are premature, are not going to resolve matters any quicker, but are to incur significant expense for you without any recourse.

Adam Beamish ● 2346d