Background
Richard Williamson complained to Caerphilly County Borough Council that his neighbours’ cats repeatedly entered his front garden and left faeces, creating what he said was a health risk to him and his young child. After receiving CCTV evidence and visiting the neighbouring property, the council determined in November 2024 that there was no statutory nuisance. Its reasoning focused on how the cats were kept, their facilities at home, and the common-law principle that cats may roam.
Williamson sought judicial review. The High Court held that the council had failed properly to consider whether the faeces could constitute an “accumulation or deposit” prejudicial to health or a nuisance under section 79(1)(e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It quashed the determination and ordered reconsideration without deciding that a statutory nuisance actually existed. The council appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the council’s appeal. Section 79(1)(e) does not require an accumulation or deposit to result from a purposeful or wilful act. The provision concerns the physical existence of an accumulation or deposit and whether it is prejudicial to health or a nuisance, not the state of mind or conduct of the person who caused it.
The statutory scheme separates two questions. Under section 79, the local authority first investigates whether a statutory nuisance exists. If it does, section 80 governs service of an abatement notice on the person responsible, with responsibility defined separately by section 79(7). Animal droppings are capable in principle of being an accumulation or deposit, so the High Court’s declaration requiring lawful reconsideration remained in force.
The Court stressed that it had not decided that the cat fouling in Williamson’s garden was a statutory nuisance. It decided only that the council could not exclude the complaint from section 79(1)(e) on the ground that the deposit was not purposeful or wilful.
Key Takeaways
- An “accumulation or deposit” under section 79(1)(e) need not result from a purposeful or wilful act.
- Whether a statutory nuisance exists is analytically separate from who is responsible for it and may receive an abatement notice.
- Cat faeces can in principle constitute a statutory nuisance, but the judgment did not find that this particular complaint met the statutory test.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that local authorities investigating alleged statutory nuisances must focus first on the physical condition complained of and its effects. They cannot import questions of intention, agency, or legal responsibility into the threshold definition of an accumulation or deposit.
Although the ruling confirms that animal fouling may fall within section 79(1)(e), it does not make cat owners automatically liable or establish that ordinary cat fouling is necessarily a statutory nuisance. Each complaint still requires a fact-specific investigation into whether the accumulation or deposit is prejudicial to health or a nuisance.