Noise; final report : Presented to the Parliament ... July 1963.
- Great Britain. Committee on the Problem of Noise
- Date:
- [1963]
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Noise; final report : Presented to the Parliament ... July 1963. Source: Wellcome Collection.
32/256 page 18
![whether or not a noise is a nuisance are so many and so subtle that it is possible in only a few instances to attempt to fix a quantitative limit to noise. Where it is practicable with present knowledge we have recom- mended such limits. NOISE ABATEMENT ACT, 1960 75. Our views on a number of matters relating to the Noise Abatement Act, are contained in the following paragraphs. COMPLAINT TO A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE IN ENGLAND AND WALES 76. The requirement that in the case of noise nuisance a complaint to a Justice of the Peace must be made by at least three occupiers of land or premises before proceedings can commence (except when the proceedings are initiated by a local authority—see paragraph 64) is intended to prevent vexatious proceedings, which is especially important in view of the subjective nature of noise nuisance. In theory, it appears that the safeguards for an aggrieved individual who cannot find two neighbours to join with him in a complaint to a Justice of the Peace are civil action and the local authority’s power to take proceedings whether or not they have received a complaint. However, some local authorities are reluctant, other than in flagrant cases, to use their powers where a nuisance is alleged by an individual against his neighbour. These local authorities consider that, generally, they should use their powers in cases of public nuisance and not where the alleged nuisance involves a dispute between neighbours. While we understand the point of view of these authorities, the fact that these domestic noise nuisances often affect only one or two households makes it impossible for an aggrieved individual to obtain redress under the Act unless the local authority take action for him. Other local authorities feel that the requirement that at least three aggrieved persons must complain to a magistrate is undesirable and an unnecessary safeguard because, in practice, people are reluctant to take, or even be witnesses in, legal proceedings against their neighbours. We have considered whether the balance of advantage lies in the present provisions of the Act or in empowering single individuals to initiate proceedings by complaint to the magistrate. We have concluded that there is, as yet, insufficient experience of the working of the present provisions of the Act to justify disturbing them. SERVICE OF Norse ABATEMENT NOTICE 77. Under Section 93 of the Public Health Act, 1936, a local authority must be satisfied of the existence of a statutory nuisance before serving an abatement notice. They cannot, therefore, serve a notice where a nuisance has ceased, even if they are satisfied that it has ceased only temporarily and is likely to recur. In Scotland a local authority may serve a notice “ notwithstanding that the nuisance may for the time have been removed, if the local authority consider that it is likely to recur on the same premises” [Section 20(2) of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897.] The Scottish powers greatly strengthen the local authorities’ hands in dealing with intermittent noise nuisance, and we recommend that local authorities in England and Wales should also have power to serve an abatement notice where they are satisfied that a noise nuisance which has been abated is likely to recur on the same premises.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32177756_0032.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
