Dennis and Another v Ministry of Defence
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Buckley |
| Judgment Date | 16 April 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 793 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 02/TLQ/0970 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 16 April 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 793 (QB)
The Honourable Mr Justice Buckley
Case No: 02/TLQ/0970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Derek Wood CBE, QC and David Hart (instructed by Richard Buxton) for the Claimants
David Elvin QC and Williams Hoskins (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
Hearing dates : 10 th, 11 th, 12 th, 13 th, 14 th, 17 th, 19 th and 21 st March 2003
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Mr. Justice Buckley
This case concerns the effect of noise from Harrier jet fighters on the 1 st Claimant's neighbouring estate. It is alleged to constitute a nuisance at common law and/or to infringe his human rights, and also to infringe the human rights of his wife, the 2 nd Claimant. A declaration and damages are sought, alternatively damages of some £10,000, 000.
The Estate
Walcot Hall Estate may be described as a traditional, residential, sporting and agricultural estate of some 1,387 acres. It is situated about 3 miles south east of the attractive market town of Stamford in Cambridgeshire and ten miles north west of Peterborough. It is west and slightly south of The Wash. The area generally is rural with scattered farms, some larger residences and villages. Walcot Hall itself is located in the north east of the Estate. Most of the land thus extends south from the Hall and has some frontage in the southwest on to the A1 road.
The Hall was built in 1678 of local limestone. On any view it is a very beautiful building and a fine example of a Carolean mansion, attributed to John Webb. It is now a Grade 1 listed building. There are various other buildings, cottages and structures forming part of the Estate, several of which are listed Grade 2.
The 1 st Claimant ("Mr Dennis") is now 50 and has lived at Walcot Hall for most of his life. His father bought the Estate in 1963 and the family lived there until his death in 1977. Mr. Dennis and his mother remained until he married in 1981 and went to live with his wife in Huntingdon. However, he continued to be involved in the day-to-day running of the Estate. In 1984 Mr Dennis' mother moved out to Mill House, a property on the Estate, and Mr and Mrs Dennis moved into Walcot Hall, where they have lived since with their three children. Also in 1984 the Estate was transferred to Mr Dennis.
RAF Wittering
I need not go into the honourable history of RAF Wittering in detail. It is, perhaps, the oldest established operational station of the RAF. The aerodrome was first built for the Royal Flying Corps in 1916 and was operational during the First World War. Its name was changed to Wittering in 1918 just after the RAF came into being. It was chosen by Major Harris RFC, later to become Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur T. Harris. Wittering was then:
"Just a series of farm fields and I had my doubts whether with its contours it would be really suitable as a flight station for a flight of night anti-Zeppelin fighters of No. 38 Home Defence Squadron which I was forming at Castle Bromwich."
as he was later to recall.
RAF Wittering has developed over the years. It has played its part in two World Wars, not to mention wars in the Falklands and the Gulf. It has housed a variety of aircraft including fighters, helicopters and bombers. Today it is "The Home of the Harrier". The first Harriers, in the form of No. 1 (Fighter) Squadron arrived in August 1969. The Harrier is capable of vertical takeoff and is essentially a state of the art jet fighter. RAF Wittering has developed further with the advent of the Harriers. It is now a purpose built operating and training base for the Harrier. The facilities include runways, vertical landing pads and operating strips together with engineering and maintenance infrastructure. The full range of these facilities is necessary for training pilots, not only in the particular handling of the Harrier in flight, but its ability to takeoff vertically or from short strips.
The 1990's saw a gradual reduction in RAF manpower and a reduction of its presence in Germany. In 1992 consideration was given to relocating the Harriers to RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge, but later that year the Ministry of Defence (MOD) announced that a detailed investment appraisal had revealed that the move would not be cost effective. In 1999 Harriers which had been in Germany were brought back and based at nearby Cottesmore. The present position is that the operational squadron hitherto based at RAF Wittering has moved to RAF Cottesmore. This has reduced the flying from RAF Wittering by 12 1/2—30% (the evidence is not clear). However, all RAF Harriers are now at Cottesmore and Wittering which is convenient and cost effective. No other twin bases are available, so that any further move from Wittering would lead to a split in the Harrier force. RAF Cottesmore thus maintains Harrier fighter squadrons to deploy in a United Kingdom emergency, in support of NATO and other overseas tasks and RAF Wittering trains the pilots without whom there could be no operational Harrier squadrons.
I believe the above background facts to be non-contentious. For the avoidance of doubt, I find them as facts on all the evidence deployed before me. I also find that the reduction in flying since the operational squadron moved to RAF Cottesmore, has no material effect on this case. It is the training of pilots and the necessary circuit flying which creates the worst noise.
The Noise
Mr Elvin QC, for the Defendant, the MOD, sensibly conceded that the Harrier is a noisy aircraft. Indeed no one convincingly suggested that there was a noisier one, particularly considering the decibels generated when it comes in for a slow landing. However, Mr Elvin submitted it was important not to exaggerate the level of noise which was relevant to the MOD's defence and, should the question arise, damages or compensation. I shall therefore summarise the evidence and reach some conclusions.
First, it is necessary to say something of the operations and layout at RAF Wittering. The main runway is east to west. Walcot Hall and its Estate is situated about 2 miles along the mid-line of the runway extended to the east. The prevailing wind is west to east and, in the main, the Harriers takeoff into the wind and thus away from Walcot Hall. But they come in to land from the east which brings them over the Estate and almost over Walcot Hall itself.
The noisiest exercise from Walcot Hall's point of view, is when pilots are flying their training circuits, in particular, the so called "emergency circuit" and come in to make a slow landing which involves the use of the Harrier's nozzles in order to increase the uplift effect. The training circuits typically takeoff to the west, turn south and then east and fly the downwind leg parallel to the runway, turn north and then west and back towards the east end of the runway to land. There are two circuits. The only difference geographically is that the emergency circuit makes the turn to land less tightly than the other. It simulates some problem or other and thus the turn is wider or outside the normal circuit and it is the emergency circuit that flies virtually over Walcot Hall. The nozzles are turned down to about 60 degrees by the time the Harrier comes out of its final turn before landing.
I heard evidence from Wing Commander Richardson and Air Commodore Leakey. I was satisfied by their evidence that it would not be reasonably practicable to alter the layout of the runway or training circuits to take the Harriers further away from Walcot Hall, without simply putting the noise problem on someone else's doorstep. Also, the prevailing wind is westerly, which itself largely dictates that the aircraft takeoff and land along the east-west access. Training on the emergency circuit I also accept as necessary. Pilots need to be trained to cope with the various problems they may encounter in operations for obvious reasons.
Various measurements of the noise levels at Walcot Hall have been taken, both by the two experts who gave evidence and in earlier surveys, in particular, the AIRO survey back in 1988 which the MOD paid for. The experts, Mr Stigwood for the Claimants and Mr Weston for the MOD, met and produced a joint statement shortly before the trial, which contained a good measure of agreement. The MOD operates voluntary schemes whereby it will make grants for double-glazing or offer to purchase properties sufficiently affected by aircraft noise, according to the level of interference. The experts agreed that where grants are provided, it indicates an acceptance by the MOD that airfield operations are particularly disruptive to the residents; they agreed that the AIRO report concluded that the levels at Walcot Hall exceeded the level which triggered a grant under the MOD's scheme. I interpose here that as it turned out, largely due to its listed status, double-glazing of Walcot Hall was not practicable. In any event it would not have affected the noise outside. The experts also agreed with the AIRO conclusion that:
"Those noise levels are sufficiently high as to cause disturbance to the occupants and material interference with normal domestic and business activities at Walcot Hall and the nearby properties."
The disagreement between the experts was as to the extent of the disturbance; they agreed that disturbance and annoyance arises. Mr Stigwood described it as "highly intrusive" and referred to "extremely high peaks of noise." Mr Weston thought that overstated the situation. He agreed there were extremely high...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanifa Dobson and Others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and The Water Services Regulation Authority
...In addition, there is an issue between the parties as to the extent that the decision of Buckley J. in Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793 correctly follows the principles in Hunter. In that case, the owner of a property and his wife brought a claim in nuisance and for breach of Hu......
-
Derrick Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [No 3]
...well be undesirable that they should do so." 193 In passing, I note that these particular observations were echoed by Buckley J in Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793 (QB); [2003] Env LR 34. In that case, when talking about developments which had largely gone ahead pursuant to sta......
-
Lawrence (Katherine) and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd & others
...might arise from the proper use and operation of the sub-station. So the answer to the question: could a conveyancer draft it (see Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793 (QB) [2003] Env LR 34§ 52) is 91 It is true that, as the judge said, there is no reported case in which an easeme......
-
Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
...had recovered damages for nuisance in the courts of a Member State. 44 The issue which we are now considering was not raised in Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793, [2003] 2 EGLR 121. The case was a clear instance of pecuniary loss flowing from the nuisance, although damages for n......
-
Table of Cases
...Trust Deed, Re; Holman v Martyn (HH) & Co [1969] 1 Ch 373, [1968] 3 WLR 457, [1968] 3 All ER 65 198 Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793 (QB), [2003] Env LR 34, [2003] 2 EGLR 121 16 Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534, [1993] 2 WLR 449, [1993] 1 All ER 101......
-
Table of Cases
...209 Dennis v. Minister of Defence, [2009] 3 All E.R. 249 (Q.B.) ............................. 455 Dennis v. Ministry of Defence, [2003] EWHC 793 (Q.B.) ................................. 212 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Sharp (1988), 18 F.C.R. 475, 82 A.C.T.R. 1 (S.C.) ......................
-
The Nuisance of the Proprietary Interest Lord Cooke's Dissent in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
...having a claim. 62 However, there are some procedural differences, such as the limitation period. 63 See Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793 (QB), [2003] Env LR 34 and Dobson and Others v Thames Water Utilities Limited and Another [2009] EWCA Civ 28. law private nuisance and would ......
-
John Murphy, THE LAW OF NUISANCE Oxford: Oxford University Press (www.oup.com), 2010. xxvii + 208 pp. ISBN 9780199214532. £75.
...came too early to take account of cases such as Marcic v Thames Water Utilities [2004] 2 AC 42, Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793 (QB); [2003] EHLR 17, Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 28; [2009] HRLR 19 (and most recently – too recently for this book – Barr v ......