判决理由
The grant of planning permission for an activity does not, in itself, legitimise a nuisance or provide a defence to a nuisance claim. However, planning permission is relevant to the question of the character of the locality, which is one of the factors in determining whether an interference is unreasonable. The court also reconsidered the approach to injunctions, holding that damages may be awarded in lieu of an injunction and departing from the rigid approach in Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895].
事实
The claimants bought a house near a motocross stadium and speedway track that had been operating with planning permission for many years. They brought a claim in private nuisance for noise.
判决摘要
The Supreme Court held that the noise constituted a nuisance. Lord Neuberger held that planning permission does not authorise a nuisance but is relevant to the character of the locality. The court also held that the approach to granting injunctions should be more flexible than the rigid criteria in Shelfer, and that damages in lieu of an injunction could be awarded where appropriate.
关键引述
"The mere fact that the activity which is said to give rise to the nuisance has the benefit of a planning permission is normally of no assistance to the defendant."
— Lord Neuberger
后续处理
The leading modern authority on the relationship between planning permission and private nuisance, and on the court's discretion to award damages in lieu of an injunction.