Skip to main content
Shelter Logo

Local authority statutory nuisance duties

Occupiers may be able to get help from the local authority or take action themselves if poor housing conditions amount to a statutory nuisance.

This content applies to England

Statutory nuisance under Environmental Protection Act 1990

Statutory nuisance is defined in section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990).

The Act contains a specific list of matters that amount to statutory nuisances and a more general category comprising 'any other matter declared by any enactment to be a statutory nuisance'.[1] Specific matters include issues like smoke, fumes or dust from premises, noise and light and accumulation of waste.

The matter that is most relevant for occupiers experiencing poor housing conditions is 'any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance'.[2]

State of the premises

The definition of premises in the EPA 1990 includes all land and most vessels.[3] It covers both private and public sector housing. The courts have held that the EPA 1990 focuses on the condition of the premises rather than the way that they are used.[4]

Premises may be an individual flat or a number of flats where there is a block of flats. A statutory nuisance in relation to the entire block can only be alleged where the occupiers are complaining of the condition of the common parts, or where there is a problem that is only related to the block as a whole.[5]

A site without any permanent buildings can also be premises. For example, a caravan site.[6]

The premises as a whole have to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance in order for a statutory nuisance to occur. This can be due to a single major item of disrepair, such as a leaking roof, or a number of minor items. Although there may be disrepair to premises, it is actually the effect of the defect that gives rise to the nuisance rather than the disrepair itself.

A nuisance can be from outside the premises, such as where the noise from local traffic penetrates the property due to lack of or poor insulation.[7]

Prejudicial to health

Prejudicial to health is defined as 'injurious, or likely to cause injury, to health'.[8] This means that both actual and potential injury to health is covered by the EPA 1990. It includes both physical and mental ill health, for example the effects of stress caused by poor housing conditions.

Where the state of the premises is enough to cause a well person to become ill or the health of a sick person to deteriorate, the courts will normally be satisfied that it is prejudicial to health. The premises do not have to be occupied in order to be prejudicial to health.[9] However, the EPA 1990 does not cover the risk of accident or physical injury, for example, from very steep stairs.[10]

The test of whether premises are prejudicial to health has been held by the courts to be an objective test, and the person's particular circumstances or needs cannot be taken into account.[11]

Dampness, condensation or mould growth are all examples of defects in premises that are considered prejudicial to health. However, the landlord is not liable if these occur because the tenant has failed to use the heating system properly.[12]

Interference with comfort or decorative defects, such as stained wallpaper, is not considered prejudicial to health.

The location of rooms does not in itself make premises prejudicial to health. In one case, the toilet, which had no sink was off one side of the kitchen and the bathroom was off the other side. The nearest sink was in the kitchen, which meant there was a risk of cross-infection. The court found that the prejudice to health arose from the fact that it was not possible to wash hands or use a sink in the toilet, not from the location of rooms.[13]

Definition of nuisance

Nuisance is not defined in the EPA 1990. Case law has held that a nuisance within section 79(1)(a) must either a:[14]

  • private nuisance at common law: this is a substantial interference by the owner or occupier of property with the use and enjoyment of neighbouring premises. This could also include common parts retained by the landlord

  • public nuisance at common law: this is where an act or failure to act adversely affects the comfort or quality of life of the public generally or a class of citizens

Neither public nor private nuisance occurs if what has taken place only affects the person or persons occupying the premises.[15] If the conditions in the premises are only causing problems for the occupier, a statutory nuisance does not arise unless it can be proved to be prejudicial to health.

A nuisance at common law does not have to be prejudicial to health or cause physical damage. It might be enough that the problem interferes with the neighbours' right to quiet enjoyment of their property or has an adverse effect on members of the public.[16] Offensive smells, noise and refuse may fall within this definition.[17]

Private nuisance

The general principles of private nuisance have been clarified by case law.[18] Private nuisance occurs when something in one property interferes with the use and enjoyment of a neighbouring property, or constitutes a violation of legal rights of the owner or someone else with exclusive possession of that property. This could be encroachment on a neighbour's land, direct physical injury to a neighbour's land or interference with the neighbour's quiet enjoyment of their land.[19]

Examples of private nuisance:

  • the encroachment of Japanese knotweed and its rhizomes onto a property from a neighbouring land was held to constitute private nuisance, even in the absence of actual physical damage, because the risk of future damage given by the invasive nature of the plant and high costs of removal constituted an immediate interference with the use and enjoyment of land[20]

  • where a waste disposal company complied with the relevant permit but the occupiers of the nearby estate were affected by the smell coming from the waste disposal site, the High Court was wrong to dismiss their claim of nuisance[21]

Where owners of flats with floor-to-ceiling windows brought proceedings against a nearby gallery whose guests frequently looked into their flats and invaded their privacy, the Court of Appeal examined the relevant case law and found that mere overlooking was not capable of giving rise to a cause of action in private nuisance. The Court held that the core issue was invasion of privacy rather than damage to interests in the property and occupiers affected by overlooking could use other remedies, such as laws relating to privacy, confidentiality or harassment.[22]

Private nuisance in common parts

If the landlord has control of part of the building let to the tenant then the landlord is liable in nuisance if defects in that part cause interference with the tenant's reasonable use and enjoyment of the property let. Nuisance can therefore arise from defects in the common parts and in neighbouring premises owned by the landlord. For example, where the landlord:

  • had control of the roof and gutters but did not maintain them and as a result rainwater leaked into the property and caused damage, the landlord was found to be liable in nuisance[23]

  • knew and was responsible for the existence of a nuisance before the letting, the landlord could not give up liability against third parties by letting the property to a tenant[24]

Tenant's ordinary use of the land and private nuisance

A landlord may also be found liable if the nuisance is a consequence of the tenant's ordinary use of the land for the purpose for which it was let.

Where defective tiling caused a nuisance by noise to an occupier of the flat below and the noise was caused by the normal use of the property as indicated in the lease, the landlord was found to be liable in nuisance.[25]

Public nuisance

This is when the act or omission causing offence, annoyance trouble or injury affects the public generally or a class of persons. In order to prove a public nuisance it is necessary to show that the nuisance affects a number of people. It is therefore unlikely to be used in relation to residential accommodation except in limited circumstances.

Legal remedies for statutory nuisance

Legal action can be taken under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deal with a statutory nuisance. The Act is primarily concerned with the effects of housing conditions, rather than the housing conditions in themselves.

Unlike some other remedies for disrepair, such as under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which requires landlords to carry out repairs, there is no requirement for the problem to have resulted from any deterioration in the condition of the property.

Breaches of the EPA 1990 are criminal offences. Action is taken in the criminal courts, and the burden of proof is 'beyond all reasonable doubt' rather than on the 'balance of probabilities'.

The EPA 1990 can be used by local authorities or by individuals including occupiers and other affected people.[26]

Action by local authorities

Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) imposes a duty on every local authority to inspect its area for statutory nuisances and to take reasonable steps to investigate any complaints of statutory nuisance that it receives.[27] The task of detecting statutory nuisances is usually delegated to Environmental Health Officers,[28] who are often made aware of statutory nuisances by complaints from residents.

In these circumstances, the local authority has rights of entry to inspect the property. If necessary, the local authority can obtain warrants to force entry, and it is a criminal offence for anyone to prevent access.[29]

Where a local authority is satisfied of the existence of a statutory nuisance or the likelihood of a statutory nuisance arising or recurring, it then becomes legally bound to take action.[30]

Although obliged to follow the statutory procedures to tackle statutory nuisances, some authorities will first serve an informal notice that action will be enforced using the EPA 1990 if works are not carried out to abate the nuisance within a reasonable time.

Evidence from an Environmental Health Officer is not conclusive evidence of statutory nuisance. It is only one of the factors that the court takes into account when assessing whether nuisance exists.[31]

Local authority abatement notice

An abatement notice is a notice served by a local authority's environmental health department telling a person responsible for a statutory nuisance to take the steps necessary to stop the nuisance. An abatement notice remains in force until it has been complied with.

An abatement notice must be served where a local authority is satisfied that a statutory nuisance either:[32]

  • exists and is likely to occur, even where it does not exist at present and has not occurred previously

  • has existed and is likely to recur even if it does not exist at present

The notice is not required to specify exactly what works are required to abate the nuisance, but must give time limits for the completion of remedial works. The notice must give sufficiently clear information for the person responsible to be able to identify the problem and the works required.[33]

Service of an abatement notice

The notice must be served on the person responsible for the nuisance.[34] This could be the tenant if they unreasonably refuse the landlord entry or prevents the landlord from carrying out works. requiring them to carry out any works and take any steps necessary to abate the nuisance.[35] Where the statutory nuisance arises from any structural defect, the abatement notice should be served on the owner of the premises.[36]

If the person causing the nuisance cannot be found the authority can serve notice on the owner or occupier.[37] If this happens, the occupier will need to try to find the person who is responsible for the nuisance and inform the local authority.

Where more than one person is responsible for a statutory nuisance, the notice may be served on each person whether or not their conduct alone would amount to a nuisance.[38]

Appeals against an abatement notice

The Court of Appeal held that a local authority has no power to vary the terms of an abatement notice once it has been satisfied a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to occur.[39]

There is a right of appeal against an abatement notice.[40] The appeal must be brought in the magistrates' court within 21 days of the notice being served. Any appeal must be based on one of nine specified grounds.[41] These include a defect in the notice, where the requirements of the notice are unreasonable or unnecessary and where it should have been served on another person.

The magistrates' court has the power to quash or vary the abatement notice, or to dismiss the appeal.

There is a further right of appeal to the Crown Court against any decision that the magistrates' court may have made on an appeal against an abatement notice. This is available to anybody involved in the proceedings.

Failure to comply with abatement notice

There is nothing in the EPA 1990 that states that the local authority must take any action to enforce the abatement notice. However, if the statutory nuisance still exists, or is still likely to occur, then the local authority remains under a duty to do something to remedy the nuisance.

If the person served with the notice has not complied with it and does not have reasonable excuse, then they are guilty of an offence.[42] The local authority can seek to prosecute that person through the magistrates court. A justification advanced that loud music was played to drown out noise from building works was held not to be capable in law of being a reasonable excuse. Had such a justification been allowed, a statutory scheme intended to stem nuisance would have perversely led to its multiplication.[43]

The local authority can also:

  • bring proceedings in the High Court to ensure the abatement, prohibition or restriction of the statutory nuisance[44]

  • abate the statutory nuisance itself by carrying out works to satisfy the requirements in the notice. This is commonly referred to as 'works in default' and the local authority is entitled to recover the costs it incurs from the person served with the abatement notice[45]

A person who is convicted of an offence for breach of an abatement notice can appeal to the Crown Court against that conviction. In one case, the High Court (on an appeal by way of case stated) upheld the decision of the Crown Court to quash the conviction of a person for breach of an abatement notice for excessive noise and disturbance in using the property as a synagogue, despite evidence in support of the conviction from an Environmental Health Officer.[46] The High Court acknowledged that expert evidence would not determine the outcome of a case, the court had to decide a case on the whole of the evidence placed before it.

Breach of an abatement notice by a secure or assured tenant, or by someone living or visiting the property, can lead to eviction under the mandatory grounds for antisocial behaviour for both assured and secure tenants.

Where a failure to comply is proven, the offender is liable to a fine which may continue to rise for each day on which the offence continues after conviction.[47] Any costs can be recovered from the person served with the notice or the present owner of the property.[48]

Emergency notices and action

Delays in the enforcement procedures within the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can make it inappropriate for tackling situations that are of immediate prejudice to health, such as leaking waste pipes. The Building Act 1984 includes a streamlined procedure for use in urgent cases.[49]

A local authority may serve the landlord with a notice outlining the defects and stating its intention to do the works necessary to remedy the defects is satisfied that:[50]

  • a statutory nuisance exists

  • following the usual procedure would cause unreasonable delay

Nine days after service of the notice, the local authority may carry out all the necessary work identified and may recover its costs and expenses from the person on whom the notice was served.[51] Landlords can prevent this procedure taking effect only if, within seven days of service of the notice, they serve a counter notice upon the authority that they intend to remedy the defects.[52]

The authority then cannot act unless the landlord fails to start the remedial works within a reasonable time or, having been started, the remedial works proceed unreasonably slowly or make no progress at all.[53]

The local authority must therefore closely monitor the situation. In either of these circumstances, the local authority can carry out the works in default and recover the full costs from the landlord. In cases of serious statutory nuisance, this procedure is often the most effective way to get works carried out.

Statutory nuisance in local authority accommodation

Local authority powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) are usually delegated to their environmental health department. It is not possible for environmental health departments to take action against their own local authorities under the EPA 1990, although they still have a duty to inspect for statutory nuisance. However, some environmental health departments may serve 'informal abatement notices' on their own local authorities.[54]

If a statutory nuisance arises that is the fault of the local authority any action under the EPA 1990 needs to be taken by the tenant themselves. For example, if a local authority tenant is experiencing conditions in their property that are prejudicial to health.

Complaints against the local authority for failure to enforce

Occupiers can make a complaint to the local authority if the environmental health department:

  • does not inspect, or an inspection is unreasonably delayed

  • does not agree that a statutory nuisance exists

  • agrees that a statutory nuisance exists but will not take further action

If the occupier is still dissatisfied, they can complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Complaints can also be made to the  Chartered Institute of Environmental Health about individuals who are members.

Alternatively, it may be appropriate for the aggrieved person to start proceedings themselves or to arrange an inspection by an independent environmental health officer, or to gather medical evidence in order to try to persuade the local authority to take further action.

It may also be possible to take the actions of a local authority or a magistrates' court to judicial review on a legal or procedural point. Judicial review is a general legal remedy that can be used to challenge all administrative decisions of local authorities and other public bodies. It can only be used to challenge the manner in which decisions have been made, rather than the actual decision itself.

Statutory nuisance action by individuals

Tenants, other occupiers,[55] and certain other persons aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance can also take action under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) by obtaining an abatement order in the magistrates' court.[56] This is particularly useful for local authority tenants, as a local authority environmental health department cannot take action against its own local authority.

These are criminal proceedings, and can result in a nuisance order being made.[57] A nuisance order sets out works required to deal with the statutory nuisance, and may also include an order for compensation, if losses can be shown.[58] Breach of a nuisance order is a criminal offence and subject to fines.[59]

Any 'person ... aggrieved' by the statutory nuisance may initiate proceedings.[60] Although this is usually the tenant or licensee, case law has established that the provision extends to most people in actual occupation of the premises regardless of weather their occupation is lawful,[61] and may also include any person who comes on to land.[62]

This could also include occupiers of neighbouring premises in the case of private nuisance, or a member of the public in the case of public nuisance.

Notice of intention

The aggrieved person must serve a notice of intention to bring proceedings on the person responsible for the statutory nuisance[63] except where:

  • the nuisance arises from any structural defect. In this case, the notice should be served on the owner of the premises[64]

  • where the person responsible cannot be found. In this case, the notice should be served on the owner or occupier of the premises.[65]

In order to be effective, the notice may be: [66]

  • addressed to the chief executive or town clerk of the local authority

  • delivered or posted to the local authority’s registered or principal office without naming a specific addressee

The local authority can provide the tenant with an alternative address specifically for the service of notices of statutory nuisance .[67]

There is no prescribed format for the notice of intention, but it must contain the matter complained of and must be in writing.[68] The notice should also make it clear that unless the nuisance is abated or a reasonable proposal for abating the nuisance is given, proceedings will be commenced without further notice. The notice must be for 21 days, and court proceedings cannot be commenced until the notice has elapsed.[69]

The laying of information

Where the notice of intention is ignored or where there is no satisfactory response, the aggrieved person may then apply for a summons in the magistrates' court.[70]

The procedure for doing this is called the 'laying of information'. It involves completing a form and providing details of the problem and the person responsible for the problem. It is crucial at this stage that the court is informed of the existence of the statutory nuisance at the time that the notice expired, as this could have an impact on any request for a compensation order the client may make later on.[71]

It is also advisable to include a copy of the relevant section of the EPA 1990 and to request an early hearing date.


At the hearing, independent witnesses (such as neighbours or Environmental Health Officers) may be called upon to verify the existence of statutory nuisance. The existence of a statutory nuisance and the cause of the nuisance must be proved to the criminal standard of proof, eg beyond reasonable doubt. If this is proved then the court must make a nuisance order against the landlord requiring works be carried out to either abate the nuisance within a specified time limit, or to prevent a recurrence of the nuisance.[72] The court makes a decision on what works are required on the basis of the evidence provided, and any agreement that may have been reached between the parties prior to the hearing. The required works must be made specific in the order.[73]

The court has wide discretion as to the form and content of the order and in considering the works to be specified can have regard to the future life of the property. Where the only effective way of abating the nuisance would be to demolish the property, a nuisance order requiring demolition can be made.[74]

In addition to the order, the court may impose a fine, make a compensation order[75] and, where the person responsible for the nuisance can not be found, direct the local authority to do the works instead.

It is a criminal offence to contravene an order without reasonable excuse. The penalty is a fine that may rise for each day on which the offence continues after conviction. It is possible for an appeal to be made to the Crown Court if a decision is unsatisfactory to either party.

Advising clients about court action for statutory nuisance

Although provisions exist for individuals to take action themselves using the EPA 1990, they can be difficult to use. The need for independent expert reports, medical evidence, and proof 'beyond all reasonable doubt', coupled with complex court procedures, can make this procedure daunting for clients. Eligibility for assistance with legal costs will also be a factor in deciding upon this course of action.

Tenants should obtain specialist independent advice before taking action. There are several factors that tenants should be aware of before commencing. These include the:

  • need for expert evidence

  • burden of proof ('beyond all reasonable doubt'). This means that the court must be sure that the person accused is guilty of the offence before a conviction can be made. If there is any reasonable doubt (even if unlikely), no conviction can be made.

  • risk of incurring the landlord's costs if they are acquitted (eg if the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, or if the correct procedure is not followed)

  • risk that the court makes an order prohibiting the tenant's return to the property

  • risk that the court may consider 'patch' repairs to be sufficient.

  • risk of prejudicing civil proceedings for damages if repairs are carried out as a result of action under the EPA 1990 and the remainder of the damages claimed do not exceed £5,000[76]

Statutory nuisance and human rights legislation

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998, gives everyone the right to respect for private and family life. Local authorities are only able to infringe this right when it is in accordance with the law, necessary in a democratic society, or for the protection of others.

An occupier who believes that their human rights have been or would be infringed by a public authority in the UK can bring a claim against that public authority in the domestic courts.

Several cases have raised the issue of nuisance in relation to human rights. In one case the court stated that interference by a local authority with an occupier's enjoyment of their property may be an infringement of their human rights.[77] In another case the court refused to accept that the local authority could be held liable for the actions of a tenant who was causing nuisance to a neighbouring occupier.[78]

Last updated: 3 June 2024


  • [1]

    s.79(1)(h) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [2]

    s.79(1)(a) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [3]

    s.79(7) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [4]

    Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v Hill [1881] 6 App Cas 193; Fulham Vestry v London CC [1897] 2 QB 76.

  • [5]

    Birmingham DC v McMahon [1987] 19 HLR 452.

  • [6]

    R v Secretary of State for Environment, ex parte Ward [1984] All ER 556.

  • [7]

    Southwark LBC v Ince (1989) 21 HLR 504.

  • [8]

    s.79(7) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [9]

    Lambeth LBC v Stubbs [1980] 255 EG 789.

  • [10]

    R v Bristol CC, ex parte Everett [1998] 3 All ER 556.

  • [11]

    Cunningham v Birmingham CC (1998) 30 HLR 158.

  • [12]

    Pike v Sefton MBC [2000] QBD.

  • [13]

    Oakley v Birmingham CC [2001] 1 AC 617, HL.

  • [14]

    Salford CC v McNally [1976] AC 379.

  • [15]

    National Coal Board v Thorne [1976] 1 WLR 543.

  • [16]

    Williams v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1514; EWCA Civ 104; Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655, HL; R v Neill [1826] 2 Carrington and Payne 485; R v White and Ward [1757] 1 Burr 333.

  • [17]

    Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312; Joyce v Hackney LBC [1976] 24 June (unreported).

  • [18]

    see, for example Fearn & Ors v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2020] EWCA Civ 104; Williams v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1514; EWCA Civ 104; Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655, HL; R v Neill [1826] 2 Carrington and Payne 485; R v White and Ward [1757] 1 Burr 333.

  • [19]

    Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v (1) Williams (2) Waistell [2018] EWCA Civ 1514.

  • [20]

    Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v (1) Williams (2) Waistell [2018] EWCA Civ 1514.

  • [21]

    Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312.

  • [22]

    Fearn & Ors v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2020] EWCA Civ 104.

  • [23]

    Tennant Radiant Heat Ltd v Warrington Development Corporation [1988] 11 EG 71, CA.

  • [24]

    Brew Bros v Snax [1970] 1 All ER 587.

  • [25]

    Sampson v Hodson-Pressinger (1981) 12 HLR 40.

  • [26]

    ss. 79-83 Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [27]

    s.79(1) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [28]

    s.101 Local Government Act 1972.

  • [29]

    Sch 3, para 2 Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [30]

    Cocker v Cardwell [1869] LR 5 QB 15.

  • [31]

    R (on the application of Hackney LBC) v Rottenberg [2007] EWHC 166 (Admin).

  • [32]

    s.80(1) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [33]

    Stanley v Ealing LBC (1999) 32 HLR 745.

  • [34]

    s.79(7) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [35]

    s.80(1)(a)(b) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [36]

    s.80(2) Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Southwark LBC v Ince (1989) 21 HLR 504.

  • [37]

    s.80(2)(c) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [38]

    s.81(1) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [39]

    Ball, R (On the Application Of) v Hinckley & Bosworth Council (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 433.

  • [40]

    s.80(3) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [41]

    Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995 SI 1995/2644.

  • [42]

    s.80(4) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [43]

    Waltham Forest LBC v Mitoo [2016] EWHC 2159 (Admin).

  • [44]

    s.81(5) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [45]

    s.81(4) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [46]

    R (on the application of Hackney LBC) v Rottenberg [2007] EWHC 166 (Admin).

  • [47]

    s.17 Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  • [48]

    s.81(4) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [49]

    ss.76-83 Building Act 1984.

  • [50]

    s.76 Building Act 1984.

  • [51]

    s.76(2) Building Act 1984.

  • [52]

    s.76 (3) Building Act 1984.

  • [53]

    s.76 (3) Building Act 1984.

  • [54]

    Cardiff CC v Cross (1982) 6 HLR 1.

  • [55]

    Pemberton v Southwark LBC [2000] CA, 13 April 2000.

  • [56]

    s.82 Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [57]

    s. 82(2) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [58]

    s. 82(12) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [59]

    s.82(8) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [60]

    s.82(1) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [61]

    Watkins v (1) Aged Merchant Seamen's Homes (2) Historic Property Restoration Ltd [2018] EWHC 2410 (Admin); Gould v Times Square Estates Ltd [1975] Legal Action Group Bulletin 247.

  • [62]

    Coventry CC v Cartwright [1975] 1 WLR 845.

  • [63]

    s.82(4)(a) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [64]

    s.82(4)(b) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [65]

    s.82(4)(c) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [66]

    ss 82(6) and 160 Environmental Protection Act 1990; Allen v Ealing LBC [2021] EWHC 948 (Admin)

  • [67]

    Hall v Kingston upon Hull [1999] Env LR D19.

  • [68]

    s.82(6) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [69]

    s.82(7) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [70]

    s.82(1) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [71]

    R v Liverpool CC ex p Cooke (1997) 29 HLR 249.

  • [72]

    s.82(2) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  • [73]

    R v Horrocks ex parte Boustead [1900] 69 LJ QB 688.

  • [74]

    Brown v Biggleswade Union [1879] 43 JP 554.

  • [75]

    s.35 Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

  • [76]

    Rule 26.6 Civil Procedure Rules.

  • [77]

    Pemberton v Southwark LBC [2000] CA.

  • [78]

    Mowan v Wandsworth LBC [2000] CA.