Anglesey RAF jet training nuisance

This was a civil nuisance claim where we acted for the Claimants against the Ministry of Defence. The Claimants lived in Anglesey and planned to develop their land to create a holiday and leisure park. They claimed that this project failed because of the noise from RAF aircraft which were carrying out circuit training in the area.

Although the RAF had been using the nearby airfield since 1951, it was alleged by the Claimants that after they had bought their property, the aircraft had changed their flying patterns and had started flying much closer/over the area where the holiday and leisure park was situated.

Until trial, the Ministry of Defence admitted that the aircraft were supposed to fly about 550-800m from the Claimants’ property and the only real dispute was whether the aircraft were in fact flying closer than this. On the third day of trial, the admission was withdrawn and the Ministry of Defence was given permission to serve new witness evidence which asserted that the aircraft had always flown close to/over the property now owned by the Claimant. That evidence was preferred by the Judge and the claim failed.

The Judge agreed that the noise of aircraft was very loud and likely to have put off some holidaymakers. He agreed that the noise interferes with the use and enjoyment of the land. However, the Judge concluded that although the area was largely agricultural, because the RAF had been training there for many years, it was appropriate to characterise it as a locality in which very loud noise from aircraft is heard on frequent occasions. The Judge also decided that there is a significant public interest in training fast jet pilots for the defence of the realm and concluded that the flying of military aircraft is an ordinary use of the land in that locality. He concluded that the RAF had taken all measures that they reasonably could to minimise the noise at the Claimants’ property. The overall conclusion therefore was that the aircraft noise did not amount to a nuisance.

Although the Judge concluded that there was no nuisance, he also addressed the issues of “coming to the nuisance” and “change of use” and applied the obiter remarks on these by Neuberger LJ in Coventry v Lawrence. Although there was evidence of other residential and commercial use in the immediate area prior to the Claimants’ purchase of the property, the Judge concluded that there had been a change of use and that the Claimants had introduced activities that were sensitive to the noise created by the aircraft.

The Judge also dismissed claims pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998.

David Hart QC and Alasdair Henderson were instructed by Richard Buxton Solicitors as counsel for the Claimants.