“There is no allegation that crane jibs over-sailed the aviaries or otherwise trespassed. The sight of such cranes alone cannot constitute a nuisance in law. If 3C’s falcons were likely to suffer stress from seeing such cranes operating, the duty was on the Claimants to obscure the view.”
“A man cannot increase the liabilities of his neighbour by applying his own property to special uses, whether for business or pleasure.”
‘the locality principle’
“what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey.”
“139. This shows that the concept of a reasonable user extends beyond consideration of the user’s activities as if he is splendidly isolated in the enjoyment of his own property. It is also about what the neighbour might reasonably be expected to put up with. Although Mr Wignall and Ms Jabbari did not refer to the decision, I note that the Court of Appeal has observed that “the broad unifying principle in this area of the law is reasonableness between neighbours”: see Fearn and Others v The Board of Trustees at the Tate Gallery[2020] EWCA Civ 104 , [36]. In that case the court also clarified that the “necessity” of the defendant’s acts, which provides him with a defence despite the loss of amenity of the claimant’s land, does not mean that the land would be incapable of occupation without the acts being done at all. Instead, necessity in this context draws its meaning from the common and ordinary use and occupation of land. That is why an assessment of the locality is all important. 140. The objective elements of the test to determine whether or not what the neighbour considers noisome is in law an actionable nuisance, imported by the concept of a reasonable user having regard to the locality, also mean that the court will approach the question of what the neighbour might reasonably be expected to put up with by applying the standards of the average person. On this aspect, a number of subsequent cases have applied the test formulated by Knight Bruce V.-C. in Walter v Selfe (1851) 4 DE G & Sm 315, at 322, where he put the point as follows: “… ought this inconvenience to be considered in fact as more than fanciful, more than one of mere delicacy or fastidiousness, as an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort physically of human existence, nor merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people?” 141. One of those later cases was Emms v Polva [1973] EDG 906 where Plowman J found that the plaintiff (a playwright whose work required a high degree of concentration) was more sensitive to noise than the average person and accordingly he expected a higher degree of quiet than would the average person. Nevertheless, even making allowance for the claimant’s greater sensitivity, the judge found that the noise created by the defendant’s operations did constitute a nuisance. 142. In the note of its decision in Whycer v Urry [1956] JPL 365 the Court of Appeal said the test in Walter v Selfe was not satisfied in circumstances where the plaintiff’s business and profession as an ophthalmic optician and occulist meant that his work was of an especially delicate character; and a claim in nuisance was not available to him as a result of the noise and vibration caused by the defendant’s dancing school on the floor above. 143. In Whycer v Urry the defendant had been running his dancing school for at least two years before the claimant took up occupation of the floor below. As Mrs Ray’s proposed holiday let business had not begun to operate by the start of the nuisance period, I asked Ms Jabbari whether she took any point about Mrs Ray’s concerns being nascent ones so far as the impact of the noise and smell from St Kevins upon that yet-to-be-established business was concerned. Ms Jabbari confirmed she did not and in my judgment that was the correct position to adopt when the authorities focus not upon the history (if any) of the claimant’s use of the neighbouring land but instead upon whether the defendant is unduly interfering with the use which the claimant would like to enjoy. Whether or not that use is a reasonable one to be protected against such interference should not necessarily depend upon it being an established use before the defendant’s activities commence, even though that will often if not usually be the case. 144. Past use of the parties’ respective properties must, however, feed into an assessment of the locality (the Bermondsey versus Belgravia point) for the purposes of conditioning their respective expectations when applying the principle of give and take. Similarly, the previous grant and implementation of planning permissions (and any conditions attached to them) for the development of those or other properties in the neighbourhood will be relevant to that evaluation, as the Supreme Court confirmed in Lawrence v Fen Tigers. However, the decision of the majority in that case was that the grant of planning permission for the development of the defendant’s property, which then leads to the alleged nuisance, cannot be a major determinant of the issue of liability.”
“In nuisance, conduct otherwise tolerable will be regarded as an unreasonable interference if pursued with an improper or spiteful motive.”
“It could not be right to discriminate between different cases of nuisance so as to make foreseeability a necessary element in determining damages in those cases where it is a necessary element in determining liability, but not in others. So the choice is between it being a necessary element in all cases of nuisance or in none. In their Lordships' judgment the similarities between nuisance and other forms of tort to which The Wagon Mound (No. 1) applies far outweigh any differences, and they must therefore hold that the judgment appealed from is wrong on this branch of the case. It is not sufficient that the injury suffered by the respondents' vessels was the direct result of the nuisance if that injury was in the relevant sense unforeseeable.”
“The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”
“….. if such a duty existed it would mean that a party by electing to carry on a highly sensitive operation immediately next to the boundary, could thereby impose a restrictive covenant on his neighbour’s land.”
“That however in the circumstances of this case does not necessarily conclude the matter. The point at which the work was done and the noise caused which disturbed the mink and caused the damage was under the concurrent findings at the northwest corner of respondents property and therefore well within the gap and some 300 or 400 feet closer to the mink than had the work been done according to instructions north of the gap. The grade foremen Neilson and Appenheimer and the operators of the machines were not only acting contrary to instructions given to avoid damage to the mink but were in place where as hereinafter described reasonable men would have foreseen damage would probably result and taken those precautions which under the circumstances were possible to avoid it. It was their failure to take this reasonable care that created the noise from which the damage resulted. A defendant who seeks to avoid liability for nuisance on the basis that he has pursued but the ordinary and normal course of conduct incident to that locality must establish that he acted with reasonable care. “Those who say that their interference with the comfort of their neighbours is justified because their operations are normal and usual and conducted with proper care and skill are under specific duty if they wish to make good that defence to use that reasonable and proper care and skill. (Sir Wilfrid Greene M.R in Andreae v Selfridge & Co[1938] 1 Ch. 1 , at 9.)”” “Those who say that their interference with the comfort of their neighbours is justified because their operations are normal and usual and conducted with proper care and skill are under specific duty if they wish to make good that defence to use that reasonable and proper care and skill. (Sir Wilfrid Greene M.R in Andreae v Selfridge & Co[1938] 1 Ch. 1 , at 9.)””
“The maxim was criticised by Lord Wright in Sedleigh-Denfeld v O’Callaghan (“Sedleigh-Denfield”)[1940] AC 880 , 903, as lacking in precision. As he pointed out, “An occupier may make in many ways a use of his land which causes damage to the neighbouring landowners and yet be free from liability”
“A reasonable man in the position of the grade foremen and the operators of these large machines would have known of the presence of the respondent’s mink, foreseen the possibility of damage and taken reasonable care to avoid it. Their failure to do so constituted breach of duty owing by them to the respondent. In considering whether person owes to another duty breach of which will render him liable to that other in damages for negligence it is material to consider what the defendant ought to have contemplated as reasonable man. This consideration may play a double role. It is relevant in cases of admitted negligence (where the duty and breach are admitted) to the question of remoteness of damage i.e., to the question of compensation not to culpability but it is also relevant in testing the existence of duty as the foundation of the alleged negligence i.e. to the question of culpability not to compensation. Lord Russell of Killowen in Hay or Bourhill v Young[1943] AC 92 , at 101. There is here present evidence of markings - [this was a reference to two signs on the plaintiff’s land reading “Mink, no trespassing”] - and conversations which, in the exercise of reasonable care, would have brought home to the appellants the presence of the mink and the damage that might result from the noise.”
“(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct— (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. (1A) […] (2) For the purposes of this section […] the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to or involved harassment of the other. (3) Subsection (1) […] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows— (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.” (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.”
“(1) […] (2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress (3) A “course of conduct” must involve— (a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person (see section 1(1)), conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person […] (3A) A person’s conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled or procured by another- (a) to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is); and (b) to be conduct in relation to which the other's knowledge and purpose, and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring). (a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person (see section 1(1)), conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person […] (a) to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is); and (b) to be conduct in relation to which the other's knowledge and purpose, and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring). (4) “Conduct” includes speech. (5) References to a person, in the context of the harassment of a person, are references to a person who is an individual.”
“[44] The principal cases on what amounts to harassment are: Thomas -v- News Group Newspapers [2002] EMLR 4; Majrowski -v- Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust[2007] 1 AC 224 ; Ferguson -v- British Gas Trading Ltd[2009] EWCA Civ 46 ;[2010] EWHC 2612 (QB) ; Dowson -v- Chief Constable of Northumbria Police[2010] EWHC 2612 (QB) Trimingham -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd[2012] EWHC 1296 (QB) ;[2012] 4 All ER 717 ; Hayes -v- Willoughby[2013] 1 WLR 935 ; R -v- Smith[2013] 1 WLR 186 ; Law Society -v- Kordowski [2014] EMLR 2; Merlin Entertainments LPC -v Cave [2015] EMLR 3; Levi -v- Bates[2016] QB 91 ; Hourani -v- Thomson[2017] EWHC 432 (QB) ; Khan -v- Khan[2018] EWHC 241 (QB) ; Hilson -v- Crown Prosecution Service[2019] EWHC 1110 (Admin) ; and Sube -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd [2020] EMLR 25. From these cases, I extract the following principles: i) Harassment is an ordinary English word with a well understood meaning: it is a persistent and deliberate course of unacceptable and oppressive conduct, targeted at another person, which is calculated to and does cause that person alarm, fear or distress; “a persistent and deliberate course of targeted oppression”: Hayes -v- Willoughby [1], [12] per Lord Sumption. ii) The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances, even a measure of upset, that arise occasionally in everybody’s day-to-day dealings with other people. The conduct must cross the boundary between that which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the border from the regrettable to the objectionable, the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability under s.2: Majrowski [30] per Lord Nicholls; Dowson [142] per Simon J; Hourani [139]-[140] per Warby J; see also Conn -v- Sunderland City Council[2007] EWCA Civ 1492 [12] per Gage LJ. A course of conduct must be grave before the offence or tort of harassment is proved: Ferguson -v- British Gas Trading Ltd [17] per Jacob LJ. iii) The provision, in s.7(2) PfHA, that “references to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress” is not a definition of the tort and it is not exhaustive. It is merely guidance as to one element of it: Hourani [138] per Warby J. It does not follow that any course of conduct which causes alarm or distress therefore amounts to harassment; that would be illogical and produce perverse results: R -v- Smith [24] per Toulson LJ. iv) s.1(2) provides that the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct involved harassment. The test is wholly objective: Dowson [142]; Trimingham [267] per Tugendhat J; Sube [65(3)], [85], [87(3)]. “The Court’s assessment of the harmful tendency of the statements complained of must always be objective, and not swayed by the subjective feelings of the claimant”: Sube [68(2)]. v) Those who are “targeted” by the alleged harassment can include others “who are foreseeably, and directly, harmed by the course of targeted conduct of which complaint is made, to the extent that they can properly be described as victims of it”: Levi –v- Bates [34] per Briggs LJ. vi) Where the complaint is of harassment by publication, the claim will usually engageArticle 10 of the Convention and, as a result, the Court’s duties under ss.2, 3, 6 and 12 of theHuman Rights Act 1998 . The PfHA must be interpreted and applied compatibly with the right to freedom of expression. It would be a serious interference with this right if those wishing to express their own views could be silenced by, or threatened with, proceedings for harassment based on subjective claims by individuals that they felt offended or insulted: Trimingham [267]; Hourani [141]. vii) In most cases of alleged harassment by speech there is a fundamental tension. s.7(2) PfHA provides that harassment includes “alarming the person or causing the person distress”
“[16] It is the course of conduct itself that must have the requisite harassing quality, not each individual piece of conduct. Harassment can, and often does, arise through the persistent, unwanted repetition of acts which, viewed in isolation, may be innocuous: see Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors[2011] EWCA Civ 123 at [45]”
“Yet the few cases on harassment that there are to date reveal no awards of, or indeed claims for, aggravated damages.”
“I have no knowledge that my building works were creating a problem for the claimants breeding season until Mr John Brady (claimants’ representative) spoke to my father on6 May 2022 .”
“Numbers of Falcons (female of breeding age) The percentage of hens of breeding age who are laying eggs The average number of eggs laid per laying hen The fertility level of eggs. The assessment of what percentage of days viable normal semen was available for insemination The % of laid eggs, resulting in a sold/exported chick For falcons bred and exported for racing – the percentage of chicks which were race winners”
“It is this Expert’s Opinion that no mortality event at ROP should be considered unless:- 1. There has been a full post mortem, conducted by a RCVS recognised veterinary surgeon, with histology (if recommended by the vet/pathologist). 2. There must be a legible closed ring and an associated A10 (with the same number on it) 3. Unless bred on site, there must be a transfer or importation certificate with authentication that the bird was on site at ROP at the time of its demise On the occasion of the experts site visit to ROP, after MN had recovered various carcases from the freezer, Dr Forbes asked MN if there were any other carcases of falcons which had died in 2022, remaining in the freezer. MN stated quite categorically that there were not.” …………… “…..MN has determined that disease was not present in any of these mortalities, despite finding disease in some and having not opened up others. These are high value birds, maintained for a commercial purpose, it seems amazing to this Expert that no professional post mortems have been undertaken in the nine birds which were not subjected to a veterinary post mortem examination.” …………. “Other considerations of these Mortalities We know that 3 of 26 birds that died were in what is described as the ‘effected side’. Of those cases one was postmortem examined by Madeiros and Forbes with a confirmed diagnosis of amyloidosis. One bird was examined by Martin Nicholas (who is not a vet), who believed that the bird had died of amyloidosis (whilst Madeiros and Forbes agreed that they could not comment as no veterinary post mortem, or histology had been undertaken). In the latter case, the experts (for both sides) had been informed that the carcass remained available for inspection, but was then discarded by MN prior to the experts site visit. The third carcass (subject to this hearing), no post mortem has been conducted and the cause of death remains conjecture, although this report states that it has also been PM by MN. As an expert well versed in the importance of ‘evidential material’, it surprises me greatly that evidential material (carcasses) have been disposed of. One is left wondering why some carcasses have been kept and made available and others have not. ROP report eight additional deaths in the ‘unaffected group of birds (87). Whilst there is only evidence that one (580948/02 in Pen 22) of these seven other mortalities had ever been at ROP. But if one accepts that these further 7 deaths (9.2% of the group), in the ‘unaffected’ birds, then this indicates a significant disease incidence which one would have expected to be thoroughly investigated and no doubt the post mortem findings would be made available to the court. The point being that if an additional cause of illness and death was on going in the collection during 2022, affecting birds in the ‘unaffected group’, then any such disease might have also been causing some or all of the claimed reduction in breeding success. The cause of the disease outbreak in 2022, was no longer present Less gyrfalcons imported Gyrfalcons being screened for amyloidosis prior to importation Improved observation of birds for signs of illness Improved veterinary treatment.”
“the point is, what caused it to die, the underlying causes [of] the amyloidosis which, in itself, in this situation, is not in my expert opinion, caused by stress.”
“… stresses the importance of avoiding stress to captive raptors (especially gyr falcons), as stress causes a suppression of the immune system, which effects [sic] gyr falcons specifically resulting in dramatic increased susceptibility to Aspergillosis, a typically fatal fungal respiratory disease. Hockin et al (1991), stresses that human induced disturbance (specifically industrial developments results) of breeding birds has a significant negative effect on breeding success by causing nest abandonment and increased predation.”
“Noise contributes to the development of some animal diseases and disorders caused by stressful conditions such as high blood pressures, immune suppression and other psychosomatic diseases.” (my emphasis again through underlining) v) Dr Forbes’s conclusion that Gyr 03 (and also Gyr 06 and Gyr 05) must have had amyloidosis before it left the Middle East, because that is supported by the circumstances in which he has only seen four cases of gyr falcons with amyloidosis in the UK, must in my judgment be treated with some caution. It is not clear when (presumably before Dr Forbes’s retirement in 2017) those cases occurred, having regard to Mr Garland’s point about amyloidosis in Middle Eastern birds not being as prevalent as it used to be, nor how long each of the birds had been in the UK following importation (compared with the 11 to 12 week period Gyr 03 spent in the UK before it died) or whether (compared with the apparent healthiness of Gyr 03 prior to death) the birds in question appeared to be fit and healthy during the relevant period. Further, both in his report and in testimony, Dr Forbes referenced a study by Hampel et al: ‘Increasing fatal AA amyloidosis in hunting falcons and how to identify the risk: a report from the United Arab Emirates’ (Amyloid, September 2009, 16(3) pp. 122-132). That study did highlight the prevalence of AA amyloidosis in pure gyr falcons and reported that 30.3% of the falcons examined were susceptible to amyloidosis compared with 12.7% of the peregrine falcons examined. Dr Forbes said that the gyr falcon is the only species of raptor likely to be imported to the UK from the Middle East. Although the Hampel study was based upon an examination of birds within the UAE, and amyloidosis within peregrine falcons is not an issue in the present case, it does raise a question as to whether there is any good veterinary scientific reason why a non-imported peregrine falcon living in the UK should not (despite the greater resistance of that species to the disease) die of amyloidosis. Although Dr Forbes’s evidence indicates he has not diagnosed such a case, and noting that peregrines may not quite be the “stress monsters” that gyrs are, I think the assumption behind his position must be that no peregrine falcon which has spent its entire life in the UK will ever have died from amyloidosis (whether or not a post-mortem was carried out to establish that as the cause of death). That is a possibility but the boldness of the proposition, if my assumption is correct, inevitably prompts a question about its soundness. vi) When I asked Dr Forbes why a gyr falcon at all times resident in the UK could not develop amyloidosis as a result of stress, just as one in the Middle East might, he recognised that is a key point. He repeated his position that it is only a bird coming from the Middle East (with an immune system already compromised before shipment either by vaccination or infection or possibly a prion) that can die of stress-induced amyloidosis. In his report Dr Forbes had mentioned but not attached a paper by Murakami et al ‘Systemic AA amyloidosis as a prion-like disorder’ (Virus Research 207 (2015) pp. 76-81). This contained the statement: “Birds that are bred under stressful conditions are known to frequently develop AA amyloidosis”
“19/12/2020 , 21:28 - Barns Thomas: How’s the breeding going?19/12/2020 , 21:30 - Martin: No more children expected anytime soon.😄19/12/2020 , 21:30 - Barns Thomas: You’re obviously or wearing that hat enough19/12/2020 , 21:31 - Martin: Birds don't kick off till march so just get everything clean around ready.19/12/2020 , 21:31 - Barns Thomas: Ready to rock19/12/2020 , 21:33 - Martin: Hopefully, my friend in dubai won some of the races in Abu Dhabi the other day, so hopefully my time is coming.19/12/2020 , 21:33 - Martin: Yeah only get one chance a year, they only breed once.19/12/2020 , 21:34 - Barns Thomas: Time is coming? Sounds ominous;-)19/12/2020 , 21:34 - Barns Thomas: I won’t make any noise in March then19/12/2020 , 21:35 - Martin: You will be fine noise is fine its just stuff they can see that put them off. Unless there is a crane next to them then you are all good.19/12/2020 , 21:36 - Barns Thomas: A crane would put me off.” ……………….. “03/01/2021 , 17:30 - Barns Thomas: U been busy with the birds?03/01/2021 , 17:33 - Martin: Yeah starting to get stuff ready for the breeding season. It takes 2hrs just to feed them. ………” …………. “07/01/2021 , 12:03 - Barns Thomas: Am about to light my fire. Will it upset your birds” …………… “08/01/2021 , 20:54 - Martin: I feel like I would like to do nothing for a day. If that make any sense08/01/2021 , 21:08 - Barns Thomas: Yes08/01/2021 , 21:08 - Barns Thomas: I do08/01/2021 , 21:08 - Barns Thomas: Luckily I can be manic and stop08/01/2021 , 21:18 - Martin: Mine gets worst again when the birds start. Goes to about 18hrs a day if lucky, while doing two jobs08/01/2021 , 21:19 - Barns Thomas: Think of the money love08/01/2021 , 21:20 - Barns Thomas: That and all of that spunk on your head. 🤣08/01/2021 , 21:33 - Martin: Liquid gold08/01/2021 , 21:33 - Barns Thomas: Granted08/01/2021 , 21:38 - Martin:£500 -£1000 a shot08/01/2021 , 21:40 - Barns Thomas: Is that what u charge08/01/2021 , 21:41 - Martin: No mines alot more, obviously if it comes out ginger you get your money back 😂” ……………… “03/03/2021 , 21:16 - Barns Thomas: Those birds bonking on your head03/03/2021 , 21:22 - Martin: Not yet none of the girls are ready. It all starts another week or 2 then it will be full on.03/03/2021 , 21:23 - Barns Thomas: Ooo er03/03/2021 , 22:00 - Barns Thomas: Full on breeder.” …………24/03/2021 , 19:15 - Martin: <Media omitted>24/03/2021 , 20:32 - Barns Thomas: Open wide24/03/2021 , 20:33 - Martin:£500 for that dribble ………… “30/03/2021 , 20:39 - Martin: It's Karen... 😃 Martin is mating with his birds! Hope all is smokin in London!30/03/2021 , 21:11 - Martin: Apologies... one to many baileys this evening and hadn't twigged I had Martin's phone... I wondered why you were messaging me 😂30/03/2021 , 21:53 - Barns Thomas: 🤣🤣🤣0/03/2021 , 22:02 - Barns Thomas: Love a Baileys30/03/2021 , 22:05 - Martin: He's still out with his other lovers! 😅”
“(2) Mr. Barnes Thomas confirmed the cessation of all works associated with construction within the red outlined area, as shown on the attached maps, in Appendices A and B to this HOA, to commence on09/05/2022 until the end of the breeding periods of the Raptors as located in the aviaries as owned by Mr. Martin Nicholas and his Dubai based business partner, Mr. Hussain. Commencement of said works to be on30/06/2022 or sooner by mutual agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this particular matter shall be deemed as an annual event from March to June and dated annually by agreement.” “(3) Mr. Barnes Thomas confirmed that he shall remove the large stones and soil berms currently located within the red zone adjacent to the aviaries. These materials shall be relocated by agreement at the end of breeding season or by the end of June 2022, whichever is sooner.” ……. “(7) Mr. Barnes Thomas confirmed that materials or mechanical implements that degrade or ferment shall not be stored within 400 metres from any point within the locii of the aviaries at any time.”
“I spoke to Barnes after the meeting with John Brady at Broadlands and Barnes agreed to stop all works until end of May as requested.”
“Hi Tom just to let you known that Eds digger has turned back up next to the birds. I have pens of babies with parents on that side.”
“…. I thought you said for the whole of May for no work and June was ok for digger.”
“Hi Tom it was the end of June. If they carry on, they will be held accountable.”
“Sorry to contact you direct but we are not having much joy with this through the planning sector of the council. Our neighbour has opened/operating a scaffold yard trading from a green field site located next to the aviaries. This causing issues with noise and access issues into and out the purposed site. The noise from the banging, cutting of steel & and operating hours is not [sic] causing and issue with the falcons located next door, which is an existing business and I do not seem [sic] why we have to suffer from someone operating out of an illegal site? Also they are constantly working in the early hours and late at night, including working weekends. They are constantly in and out with deliveries and loading/unloading their vehicles on a lane which is for agricultural proposes and for access to our properties. The area is a green field site and not for commercial use, therefore they are not paying rates etc.etc It has been put there just to a nuisance to us, by our neighbour. I’ve attached so photos for you [sic] record. They had about 10 lorry loads of equipment delivered which has been used and replaced, there were two more recently deliveries which is shown in the photos. The company is Zenith Scaffolding and can be found on facebook.”
“I understand that your clients Mr Martin Nicholas and Mr and Mrs Roger Nicholas have been making threatening and homophobic comments towards my client and his partner which are unacceptable.”
“MANOR FARM Regrettably due to mounting legal costs regarding a neighbour dispute over pollution we have had to resort to taking campers for 56 days this summer. Planning is not necessary. We apologise for the inconvenience caused and hope not to be in this position in 2022.”
“You held a firework display last year and we had no problem with the location of the display.”
“Fuck off prick, you’re a hateful and hated cunt.”