New Projects The new year has started with a flurry of new odour related projects, I have just completed two pubic inquiries both looking at suitability of sites for residential use close to sewage works. I am also advising another housing developer where industrial emissions may affect a site for proposed housing. Finally, I have been involved in advising a major luxury hotel on odorous emissions from its kitchens.
Inteviewed by the BBC - I was interviewed by the BBC on 19 March 2012 discussing some of the general background to odours and when they might cause a nuisance. The interview was background material for their reporting of the latest judgement for the Biffa Ware site - see next story.
Appeal decides on Odour Nuisance - I previously noted that a Judge had defined an odour nuisance threshold in a claim for damages as a result of odour nuisance was made by a group of residents near a landfill site in Hertfordshire. The judge had to decide how many odour complaints made an appropriate threshold for a nuisance claim. Taking guidance from a case regarding noise from a racing circuit (not an obvious comparison!) the judge decided that "one complaint day each week" per claimant would amount to a prima facie case for nuisance (i.e. 52 a year) (see Derrick Barr and others and Biffa Waste services Limited, Case No HT-09-165).
However, this was overturned at the Court of Appeal on 19 March 2012. The judge decided that there should be consideration of "what people had to put up with" and also stated that there was no general rule requiring a threshold of complaints in nuisance cases. This overturns the previous threshold set requiring claimants to make 52 complaints or records of nuisance in order to prove nuisance. See my note on the case here.
Research Collaboration with Royal Holloway College I have been working with an MSc student from the Environmental Diagnosis and Management course at Royal Holloway College to examine the relationship between odour complaints around sewage works and odour modelling results. We have examined 15 sites around the UK where there was suitable complaints information available from the local authority. The work is now complete as this has given us a very valuable insight into how well the currently accepted odour assessment methods work. The MSc thesis is now complete and we are preparing a paper on the results for publication.
Odour Case Judgement - Hirose Electrical UK Ltd vs Peak Ingredients This is an interesting one although I wasn't involved! The operators of a company in premises next to food additives manufacturer took action against the food additives company as a result of alleged nuisance from the escape of noxious odours. Their original action was dismissed but they appealed to the High Court. The High Court judgement has just been released and their appeal again dismissed. The appeal was originally dismissed on four grounds:
1. The character of the area was a light industrial estate - the judge decided Park Ingredients operations were a reasonable use given the nature of the area;
2. The evidence of frequency, intensity and effect of the odours was not sufficient to amount to nuisance;
3. The occupier of a unit on a light industrial estate must expect the possibility of disagreeable smells;
4. There was nothing unreasonable in the company's use of the a unit on the industrial estate, it was not out of place for the area.
Hirose Electrical challenged these arguments at appeal, much of their arguments centred on the fact there was a porous wall between the two premises and because of this, odorous activities were not a suitable use of the premises. They also argued that the judge had been wrong to hold that the odours did not constitute a nuisance and had not taken regard to the evidence of their employees.
The High Court dismissed the appeal firstly because it was felt it was a reasonable use of the premises given it was an industrial estate and the operations of the food additive company had continued without objection or intervention on environmental grounds by the statutory authorities. Secondly, the appeal court had no ground on which to doubt the original findings of the judge regarding the strength and effects of the smell, the original judgement had been influenced by the fact that Hirose had remained on the site for nearly 6 years after Peak had started manufacturing and had done little about the problem. Finally the nature of the party wall was relevant; the original judge noted that it would have been cheaper to seal the party wall than take court action.
This is an interesting judgement but possibly with limited applicability elsewhere as it largely concerns odours within a building rather than the external environment. The comments regarding expectations of odours in light industrial areas are interesting but probably wouldn't apply to the external environmental. However, this case again highlights the requirement to fully document all odour complaints - the courts appear to place great weight on the volume and frequency of complaint in determining whether nuisance has occurred. See judgement here.
Summary of the use of Odour Standards in the UK - I've produced a short note on the subject, download here.