David Johnson(pictured, outside magistrates court) claimed that smoke from the next-door bungalow in Prestatyn, North Wales, was a statutory nuisance
A former police officer who claimed he was ‘being smoked out’ by his neighbour’s wood burning stove has lost his legal battle to have it turned off.
David Johnson argued that smoke from the next-door bungalow in Prestatyn, North Wales, was a statutory nuisance.
But after an all-day hearing during which both sides produced video evidence, magistrates refused to issue an abatement notice against teacher Karen Jones, 59.
Court chairman Bill Chapman said there had been no expert or forensic evidence to prove a statutory nuisance and Mrs Jones, who had twice extended the height of her chimney stack, had given ‘a very credible account’ of her efforts in evidence.
‘Statutory nuisance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt,’ he added.
Mr Johnson, who said he had 30 years’ service in Greater Manchester Police and had been a licensing officer, objected when an outside picture of his bathroom was shown to magistrates.
‘It’s a total breach of my human rights,’ he declared. ‘I was sat on the toilet when I became aware of Mrs Jones pointing a camera at me.’
Mrs Jones alleged afterwards that she had been ‘victimised’ for two-and-a-half years.
Mr Johnson said the trouble started when the boiler and its stack were installed in November 2015.
The smoke had even set off fire alarms in his own bungalow twice, and at times it had been impossible to sit in his garden or put out the washing.
He had spoken to Mrs Jones and involved Denbighshire county council and building regulators, and he showed the court images from his laptop.
Mr Johnson, who represented himself at the hearing, was questioned by solicitor Huw Roberts, for Mrs Jones.
Mr Roberts pointed out that five complaints had failed, with council officials and a safety body accepting that regulations were complied with.
‘It’s when the wind is blowing from the west it blows into my property,’ Mr Johnson contended.
‘He agreed that in 2015 his wife had sent a letter inside a Christmas card mentioning that they may have to follow “an official route”.’
Mr Roberts said: ‘What we have is a chimney doing what all chimneys do, emitting a bit of smoke and on occasion a little bit more.
David Johnson argued that smoke from the next-door bungalow(left) in Prestatyn, North Wales, was a statutory affecting his property(right)
‘This has been a case where it didn’t go into your property and isn’t a statutory nuisance.’
Mrs Johnson described how last June she had shot a video when the smoke alarm went off and their windows had to be closed.
‘It’s a nuisance and it’s stressful,’ she insisted.
Mrs Jones, a mother-of-four including a son who had served in Afghanistan, said when the first complaint was made she agreed to only light the boiler at night.
After officials had been to her home and found there was no statutory nuisance she decided to use smokeless fuel, at great expense.
The chimney at the side of Mrs Jones’ house, which she was taken to court over
Mrs Jones said the stack had not been used for several months at the start of 2016 following damage to it, and she had paid £1,600 for a new installation.
She had a certificate of compliance and the fire service confirmed there was no risk. ‘I firmly believed I had done everything,’ she said.
Mrs Jones had taken a photograph of her neighbour’s bathroom with the window wide open. Later she decided to install her own CCTV system.
Maureen White, a Denbighshire county council environmental health expert said at one stage a colleague had visited the scene after a complaint about ‘being smoked out’ but found nothing.
The stack’s height had been increased by a metre but Mr Johnson insisted they were still being affected by smoke.
A succession of visits by experts had failed to find a statutory nuisance.
She told the court : ‘I can only go by a snapshot. We can only say what we witness, I did not witness nuisance, I’m not saying there was not potential.’
Two neighbours, Mrs Jean Jones and Paul Brown, gave evidence that smoke was not a problem.
Mr Johnson assured the magistrates : ‘We are not bringing the case flippantly but because we strongly believe it’s a statutory nuisance.’
Mr Roberts recalled that complaints had been made to building regulators, three times to the environmental health department and once to heating experts – all of whom head stated there was no nuisance.
A further hearing will take place to discuss costs involved in the case.