A lawyer who sued a village charity over the noise from a neighbouring playground has lost her case after a judge ruled that kicking a ball does not count as a nuisance.
Solicitor Marie Sampson has been ordered to pay nearly £3,000 in costs after her two year-long campaign against the recreation area was dismissed.
The mother-of-two had taken Brockenhurst Village Trust in Hampshire’s New Forest to court, accusing yobs using the playground – which backs onto her garden – of anti-social behaviour including teaching her young child swear words.
As part of her case, the 44-year-old argued that the sound of balls slamming against the fence amounted to a crime.
But a judge has ruled that though the noise may be an annoyance, it was ‘insufficient’ to qualify for a noise abatement order.
Marie Sampson (outside Southampton Magistrates’ Court) has been ordered to pay nearly £3,000 in costs after her two year-long campaign against the recreation area was dismissed
The mother-of-two had taken Brockenhurst Village Trust in Hampshire’s New Forest to court, accusing yobs using the playground (pictured) – which backs onto her garden (circled) – of anti-social behaviour
The recreation area – which includes sports pitches and is used by the local Cubs and Brownies groups – opened behind Mrs Sampson’s £600,000 home following a community fundraising drive.
In addition to the noise, Mrs Sampson had also complained of anti-social behaviour and swearing at the facility – which once prompted her five year old child to ask her ‘what the F word meant.’
The solicitor, who runs her own legal consultancy, had said that though she was seeking the noise abatement order, she was not seeking the closure of the Multi Use Games Area (muga) – acknowledging that her own children use the pitch.
Instead she wanted special fencing erected around the pitch which meets the recommendations of acoustic professionals, and for the facility to be locked at night.
The court heard that this fencing would cost the trust £35,000 – over half the original cost of the facility.
In a statement, Mrs Sampson told the court: ‘The ball impact noises from the wooden surround are audible internally, even with doors and windows closed.
‘[When] you are in the garden and you do not know it is coming, you literally jump, as the noise is so loud and unexpected.’
Refusing her claim, Judge Anthony Callaway said: ‘Noise has been defined as ‘unwelcome sound’. Sound to one person is noise to another person.
‘It is accepted by this court that the very existence of the sound may be an annoyance, but…’ball kicking’ appears to be a minority event insufficient to constitute a statutory nuisance.’
Mrs Sampson has logged more than 100 incidents since the £63,000 recreational facility opened over two years ago.
The recreation area opened behind Mrs Sampson’s £600,000 home following a community fundraising drive
When the facility first opened in February 2018, the trust described it as ‘a recreational facility that will integrate the community, irrespective of age or status, through shared enjoyment of sports and social interaction’
Despite several attempts, an out of court compromise between the two parties was not reached.
Both sides employed sound experts to argue the case of whether the noise breached health guidelines, with the expert for Mrs Sampson providing audio evidence recorded at the back of her garden, which was played in court.
Large dossiers of statements from neighbours were also submitted to the court by both sides, including a 500 page ‘bundle’ submitted by Mrs Sampson.
Although he dismissed Mrs Sampson’s case, Judge Callaway did suggest that the facility was being poorly supervised by the trust and, as such, may be in breach of assurances it had given when seeking planning permission for the play area.
A statement from the Brockenhurst Village Trust said they were ‘pleased’ that the case had been dismissed, adding: ‘The Trust and its lawyers maintain that the case should not have been brought in the first place.
‘There was no evidence to support the contention that the muga posed a statutory noise nuisance.
‘A number of measures were undertaken in order to address issues raised. However, the complainant was still unhappy.’
Mrs Sampson was ordered to pay a total of £2,947.20 towards court costs for the Trust.