Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Ah, I see.  Noise bylaws are there just to protect the wealthy. 

You are an odd bird Jos. 

Quite the opposite.
Protecting established noise makers from new comers.
More usually it's small grotty venues for  less high brow music and the complainers are newly built flats for the wealthy.

[Barrister]

Those local planning authorities seeking to protect their nighttime economies are requiring developers to impose lease terms preventing objections of this sort by purchasers/tenants of the new built residential properties. 

Whatever happened to the principle that if you have new construction you can't object to a nuisance that was there beforehand?

I had to google the name - Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966, famous for Lord Denning waxing poetic about cricket.  In that case (which Gups I'm sure you must know, probably CC and Sheilbh, but not anyone else) a family built a new house next to a cricket field, then complained when cricket balls kept flying into their yard.  They initially obtained an injunction against cricket being played, which was then overturned in the Court of Appeal.

But of course planning law is not something I know hardly anything about.

[Sheilbh]

Be interested to see how enforceable that is - and some of those areas are likely to have residents in a position to challenge it.

In Vienna they built new apartments near a long established concert venue that also features open air concerts in summer. The venue almost had to shut down due to noise complaints and because it couldn't afford to modernize their setup to lower the noise pollution. The city stepped in to finance a new sound system in the end.

Westminster Council licensing officials turned off the sound system at Bruce Springsteen's concert in Hyde Park because his encore overran

An ironic (or perhaps ignorant - Grumbler will hopefully tell me which word is more correct) comment made in a thread dedicated to discussing the dramatic rise in property prices due, in large part, to a lack of supply.

Sure - but nightlife areas are normally among the most expensive. They're normally city centre and even if they're not they're normally far more expensive than surrounding areas. Very few people are forced by their circumstances to live in Soho or Temple Bar (though there are some council houses for example in Soho - my view is the council should think about prioritising those for younger people eligible for council housing, not families).

It's funny I think lots of people move to those areas precisely because they like the nightlife and the buzz etc - and then their lives change. Which happens, but I think the correct response is to move, rather than force everyone around you to change.

I had to google the name - Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966, famous for Lord Denning waxing poetic about cricket.  In that case (which Gups I'm sure you must know, probably CC and Sheilbh, but not anyone else) a family built a new house next to a cricket field, then complained when cricket balls kept flying into their yard.  They initially obtained an injunction against cricket being played, which was then overturned in the Court of Appeal.

Yes - but I think Lord Denning's was a dissenting judgement. The court found there was a nuisance.

But - while acknowledging his many problems as a judge, I'm broadly on Denning's side (and it's a lovely intro)

[Barrister]

I had to google the name - Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966, famous for Lord Denning waxing poetic about cricket.  In that case (which Gups I'm sure you must know, probably CC and Sheilbh, but not anyone else) a family built a new house next to a cricket field, then complained when cricket balls kept flying into their yard.  They initially obtained an injunction against cricket being played, which was then overturned in the Court of Appeal.

Yes - but I think Lord Denning's was a dissenting judgement. The court found there was a nuisance.

But - while acknowledging his many problems as a judge, I'm broadly on Denning's side (and it's a lovely intro)

Going off the wiki entry (dangerous!) Denning was in the majority, which said there was a nuisance / negligence, but that damages would be appropriate, not an injunction.  The minority would have upheld the injunction against playing cricket.

[Sheilbh]

Sorry. You'll be absolutely right - I'd say Wiki is considerably less dangerous than my memory of a case that I only remember because of Lord Denning's intro paean to village cricket

I think I had that in my category of Denning judgements: some lovely writing, but wrong (I feel like every country must have that judge somehwere on their curriculum).

[crazy canuck]

I had to google the name - Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966, famous for Lord Denning waxing poetic about cricket.  In that case (which Gups I'm sure you must know, probably CC and Sheilbh, but not anyone else) a family built a new house next to a cricket field, then complained when cricket balls kept flying into their yard.  They initially obtained an injunction against cricket being played, which was then overturned in the Court of Appeal.

Yes - but I think Lord Denning's was a dissenting judgement. The court found there was a nuisance.

But - while acknowledging his many problems as a judge, I'm broadly on Denning's side (and it's a lovely intro)

Going off the wiki entry (dangerous!) Denning was in the majority, which said there was a nuisance / negligence, but that damages would be appropriate, not an injunction.  The minority would have upheld the injunction against playing cricket.

The case became more famous here because it was relied on by residents and businesses here who sought damages for the nuisance caused by construction of the light rail line to the airport.  Their suit was largely unsuccessful because the construction had been authorized by law.

Which bring me to the interesting observation by Gups that it the right to complain is being restricted by contract.  Here the right to complain is a statutory right given by local bylaws and so it would be unlawful to restrict that right.

@Sheilbh, I am not sure it is safe to assume these units are premium units.  But assuming they are, are the residents not permitted to rely on the local noise bylaws in any event?  Here event holders get exemptions form the noise bylaws.  There could still be complaints and that would weigh against granting another exemption.

[crazy canuck]

I think I had that in my category of Denning judgements: some lovely writing, but wrong (I feel like every country must have that judge somehwere on their curriculum).

Agreed.  But we don't need anyone else - we can just use Denning 

[Gups]

Sorry. You'll be absolutely right - I'd say Wiki is considerably less dangerous than my memory of a case that I only remember because of Lord Denning's intro paean to village cricket

I think I had that in my category of Denning judgements: some lovely writing, but wrong (I feel like every country must have that judge somehwere on their curriculum).

The old joke was "This is an appeal, my Lords, against the judgement of Denning LJ. But there are other grounds"

From recollection the Miller v Jackson case is a tort not a planning case.

@CC we don't have noise restriction bye-laws (or if we do, they are rare). We do have licensing laws which may restrict noise emissions from specific premises as well as opening hours, sale of alcohol etc. 

[Sheilbh]

Which bring me to the interesting observation by Gups that it the right to complain is being restricted by contract.  Here the right to complain is a statutory right given by local bylaws and so it would be unlawful to restrict that right.

Yeah - as I say I'd like to see how enforceable those provisions are.

@Sheilbh, I am not sure it is safe to assume these units are premium units.  But assuming they are, are the residents not permitted to rely on the local noise bylaws in any event?  Here event holders get exemptions form the noise bylaws.  There could still be complaints and that would weigh against granting another exemption.

Sure - people are entitled to do whatever they want with legal rights they have. Although herre it's less people suing or relying on local regulations, as much as lobbying and campaigning for them to be changed having moved into an area. Again that's they're right in a democratic society.

But I think those people need to be beaten, their campaigns fail and other wider interests should win.

Hackney is an extreme example - interestingly Diane Abbott is good on this. On the noise point specifically there's a big festival in Victoria Park which is a lovely partk with a lot of very beautiful houses around the edge that are among the most exensive properties in the borough. Those residents have been campaigning against the festival but also against noise generally. The point Abbott has made is that Victoria Park and the things that go on there including the festival is not just for the people who can afford to live overlooking it but actually the rest of the borough (who can't and might not have any access to their own outdoor space) and London more widely. I think in the case of Victoria Park but also, say, Notting Hill Carnival there is a definite element of race too.

But I think also there have been successful campaigns that mean in Hackney the "core" hours when there'll be a license granted run up to midnight (on Fridays and Saturdays, and 11 on weeknights) at the latest. I think there may be special zones and exceptions if you can make a good enough case and argue for the mitigations you've put in place. So far it only applies to new businesses, but as current licenses expire and they have to apply for new ones, existing venues will also be brought into line.

I think it's difficult to overstate how bad London is at night as well - not just commpared with other cities in other countries, but even with the rest of the UK. A lot of London boroughs (Westminster and Hackney being the two at the extreme end that I can think of) basivally seem to be very susceptible to an organised campaign by residents v other interests like the businesses, the nightlife economy, the communities who go out and also I think the liveability/fun of the city more broadly.

[Gups]

In other (slightly stale) planning law news, Michael Gove got absolutely slaughtered in the High Court in the judicial review against his decision on the Marks & Spencer Oxford St store redevelopment (discussed earlier on this thread). The Judge (Natalie Lieven, like Denning a rare example of a working class judge) was pretty frank about the quality of Gove's decision making - "transparently wrong", "nonsensical", "astonishing", "thoroughly confused".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2y5mm70l6o

Judgement here

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2024/452

[Gups]

Sure - people are entitled to do whatever they want with legal rights they have. Although herre it's less people suing or relying on local regulations, as much as lobbying and campaigning for them to be changed having moved into an area. Again that's they're right in a democratic society.

Most commonly it's opposition to the renewal of licences.

[crazy canuck]

@CC we don't have noise restriction bye-laws (or if we do, they are rare). We do have licensing laws which may restrict noise emissions from specific premises as well as opening hours, sale of alcohol etc. 

Ah, that explains it

[Sheilbh]

Most commonly it's opposition to the renewal of licences.

Yeah - also change of use.

But there is other stuff such as Hackney where a lot of this is in their licensing strategy/framework policy. That provides a very helpful tool in opposing licenses in the future if you shape it.

It still seems slightly mad that M&S plan could even hit a Secretary of State's desk. I can see the justification for something that has national importance or that cuts across several councils. Not really sure what it would be here.

[Gups]

He called it in. Then overruled his inspector.

[Legbiter]

In latest news from Orkney.

An order blunder by a shop on the Orkney island of Sanday has left it with hundreds of Easter eggs - far more than the population.

Only 80 were needed, but 80 cases were mistakenly ordered by Sinclair General Stores.

It now has 720 chocolate eggs for an island population of about 500 people.

Embarrassed shop owner Dan Dafydd is now raffling off 100 of the eggs to one lucky winner, in aid of the RNLI.

..."I was doing our Easter egg orders and was looking at doing 80. Having put the order through I thought nothing more of it.

"But when it arrived in store it turned out I'd ordered 80 cases of Easter eggs, meaning I had 720 rather than the 80 required."

Mr Dafydd said their Easter egg stock now out-numbered the population of Sanday.

"I don't think conventional means is going to get rid of them," he said. "We've been thinking outside the box a little bit.

"We're doing a 'guess the number' square to win 100 Easter Eggs, with proceeds going to the RNLI."

He added: "If you won them you'd probably just give them all away, but a couple of customers were pretty set on the idea of trying to eat all 100."

The RNLI said it wanted to say thank-you for the fundraising idea.

'We're eggstremely grateful to Dan at Sinclair General Stores in Sanday for this incredibly generous gesture after a rather unfortunate delivery of 720 chocolate eggs," the lifeboat charity said in a statement.

Are these eggs any good?