Tweet
I have been to this forum on previous occasions and found it extremely helpful.... and I'm back with another issue which I need some help and guidance on.
I live close to the railway line and across my home a company has set up its operations whereby they receive aggregate materials via trains which they unload onto the site. This is all well and good for their business but without any consideration to the environment they are working in. The site is surrounded by residents and other businesses. The problems encountered are: starting work early hours in the morning where machinery and train engines are left running which contributes to a huge amount of noise initially and this carries on throughout the normal hours during the day (9am to 4pm). The noise can be heard in our houses and disturbs our normal routines and sleep patterns in the morning.
While the material is removed from the train carriages, a high pitched scraping sound and vibration can be felt and heard in our homes. The council say this does not fit into the 'statutory nuisance' bracket as the site is permitted for this type of work.
As well as noise nuisance we have air pollution because all the aggregates are kept in the open which are piled up into huge mounds. There is no building or fencing covering this so during the day as the material is moved around with the machinery, dust is generated and travels all over the area. People are affected by this air pollution via their health, normal household activities and businesses such as car sales whereby they have to keep washing their cars constantly etc.
The council have not really been helpful and have said various statements which I would like a legal perspective on from you lovely people as seen below:
Arrival of trains for unloading and keeping engines on resulting in constant noise from 5-6am onwards. The response was:
"The Railways Act 1993 makes provision to exempt noise from the operation of a railway from consideration as a statutory nuisance. The council is unable to take action on this matter."
Is this actually acceptable? I assume this act is talking about exemption of noise generated by passing trains?
Any medical issues relating to the effects of air pollution to people's health:
"One factor we cannot take into account is the specific medical issues you have raised in relation to the people living in the area. Whilst I appreciate that some residents may have specific medical conditions which would mean dust may have a greater effect, the courts have been clear that the test of reasonableness must consider “the man on the Clapham omnibus” and cannot take such conditions into account."
How can they disregard health concerns? Is this valid?
The land where this company operates is owned by Network Rail and has permitted development right, What does that mean with the context of the operations at this site, Can they get away with not being accountable or diligent & considerate to neighbours and the environment?
Can anyone help me understand the legal perspective on any of the above with any specific references so I can respond to them as I feel they are trying 'brush' all the complaints under the carpet with assumptions and legal jargon.
Thank you for taking the time to read!
Tony
I live close to the railway line and across my home a company has set up its operations whereby they receive aggregate materials via trains which they unload onto the site. This is all well and good for their business but without any consideration to the environment they are working in. The site is surrounded by residents and other businesses. The problems encountered are: starting work early hours in the morning where machinery and train engines are left running which contributes to a huge amount of noise initially and this carries on throughout the normal hours during the day (9am to 4pm). The noise can be heard in our houses and disturbs our normal routines and sleep patterns in the morning.
While the material is removed from the train carriages, a high pitched scraping sound and vibration can be felt and heard in our homes. The council say this does not fit into the 'statutory nuisance' bracket as the site is permitted for this type of work.
As well as noise nuisance we have air pollution because all the aggregates are kept in the open which are piled up into huge mounds. There is no building or fencing covering this so during the day as the material is moved around with the machinery, dust is generated and travels all over the area. People are affected by this air pollution via their health, normal household activities and businesses such as car sales whereby they have to keep washing their cars constantly etc.
The council have not really been helpful and have said various statements which I would like a legal perspective on from you lovely people as seen below:
Arrival of trains for unloading and keeping engines on resulting in constant noise from 5-6am onwards. The response was:
"The Railways Act 1993 makes provision to exempt noise from the operation of a railway from consideration as a statutory nuisance. The council is unable to take action on this matter."
Is this actually acceptable? I assume this act is talking about exemption of noise generated by passing trains?
Any medical issues relating to the effects of air pollution to people's health:
"One factor we cannot take into account is the specific medical issues you have raised in relation to the people living in the area. Whilst I appreciate that some residents may have specific medical conditions which would mean dust may have a greater effect, the courts have been clear that the test of reasonableness must consider “the man on the Clapham omnibus” and cannot take such conditions into account."
How can they disregard health concerns? Is this valid?
The land where this company operates is owned by Network Rail and has permitted development right, What does that mean with the context of the operations at this site, Can they get away with not being accountable or diligent & considerate to neighbours and the environment?
Can anyone help me understand the legal perspective on any of the above with any specific references so I can respond to them as I feel they are trying 'brush' all the complaints under the carpet with assumptions and legal jargon.
Thank you for taking the time to read!
Tony
Comment