Whether or not something constitutes a legally actionable “nuisance” is a question that will always be answered with reference to the facts at hand. In the case of Jones v Ministry of Defence [2021] EWHC2276 (QB), it was held that the training of fighter pilots, at low altitudes, over a children’s nursery did not constitute a nuisance.

The case does not establish new law. However, it is a helpful demonstration of how the principles established by Lawrence v Fen Tigers Limited [2014] UKSC 13 should be applied in practice.

Facts

Mr and Mrs Jones acquired a site in Anglesey known as Parc Cefini in 2003. Prior to the acquisition, Parc Cefini had primarily been used for agricultural purposes. However, Mr and Mrs Jones’ ambition was to turn it into a holiday park. Planning permission was obtained and two lodges were built on the site. A number of pre-existing outbuildings were also converted for ancillary commercial use, e.g. a gym, restaurant and nursery. 

Mona Airfield, an RAF training facility, sits roughly a mile to the west of Parc Cefini.  It has been used by trainee pilots for the purpose of undertaking circuit drills since the 1950s. Typically, a circuit drill involves a pilot taking off from the airfield, rising to about 1,000 feet, performing a 60° banking turn, and then dropping back onto the runway. Needless to say, this makes a lot of noise – up to 130db, to be precise.

Mr and Mrs Jones first complained to the RAF about the noise in 2010 and, in particular, about the effect it was having on children in their nursery. As a result, the trainee pilots were given instructions to avoid flying directly over the nursery and to ensure that they were always more than 500 feet above Parc Cefini. However, Mr and Mrs Jones remained dissatisfied and issued a claim against the Ministry of Defence.

Application of the Law

Lord Neuberger in Lawrence v Fen Tigers confirmed that:

“it may well be wrong to hold that a defendant’s pre-existing activity gives rise to a nuisance provided that (i) it can only be said to be a nuisance because it affects the senses of those on the claimant’s land, (ii) it was not a nuisance before the building or change of use of the claimant’s land, (iii) it is and has been, a reasonable and otherwise lawful use of the defendant’s land, (iv) it is carried out in a reasonable way, and (v) it causes no greater nuisance than when the claimant first carried out the building or changed the use”.

Applying this to the present scenario, HHJ Sephton QC found that:

• The overflying jets could only be said to be a nuisance because they affected the senses (i.e. hearing) of people on Parc Cefini;
• The overflying jets were not a nuisance, prior to Mr and Mrs Jones changing the use of Parc Cefini from agricultural to leisure;
• The use of Mona Airfield as an RAF training site was a reasonable and otherwise lawful use of the Ministry of Defence’s land;
• The training of pilots was being carried out in a reasonable way; and
• The overflying jets were causing no greater nuisance than when Mr and Mrs Jones first started their development.

Consequently, Mr and Mrs Jones’ claim was dismissed.

HHJ Sephton QC concluded by saying that:

“If an occupier of land has conducted an activity in a reasonable manner for many years, I do not consider it fair that a new neighbour who wishes to start doing something that is sensitive to the occupier’s activity can complain that the activity in question will disrupt the sensitive use of his land that the neighbour wishes to introduce.”

Comment

We do not know whether Mr and Mrs Jones were fully aware of the implications of Parc Cefini being located next to an airfield when they acquired the site. However, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of careful site selection and due diligence at the outset of any development project.

The headline is that high-speed jets performing manoeuvres at under 1,000 feet above Mr and Mrs Jones’ property did not constitute a nuisance. However, in another case they might. Equally, much quieter and less-invasive activities could amount to a nuisance in other scenarios. As stated above, the question of whether a nuisance is legally actionable or not is highly fact-sensitive. 

If you think that you (or your neighbour) may be causing a nuisance, we recommend that you take legal advice at the earliest opportunity.