An animal rescue organization has secured a £19,000 settlement after successfully appealing a council abatement notice. Nuneaton & Warwickshire Wildlife Sanctuary was initially targeted by Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council following three complaints regarding odours.
In May, District Judge David Wain revoked the notice at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court after the sanctuary’s appeal. Geoff Grewcock, who manages the sanctuary with his daughter, rejected the council’s initial offer of no compensation and a subsequent offer of £12,500, citing their legal expenses, which exceeded £30,000.
Emma Hudson, Grewcock’s daughter, explained that they chose not to pursue a higher amount, as it would have further strained public funds, alongside the council’s own legal costs. She also mentioned their refusal to sign a “gagging order” that would have prohibited them from discussing the settlement publicly.
Ms. Hudson told the BBC, “We were justified in our appeal as it was determined that no nuisance existed, but it should never have escalated to this point.”
A spokesperson for Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council commented that the full and final settlement was agreed upon to minimize additional costs to the council. They stated, “In light of the court’s verdict in May, the council has reconsidered the outcome and acknowledged the findings.”
The spokesperson added, “We will review our procedures based on the judge’s remarks and aim to establish a positive working relationship with the sanctuary moving forward.”
Abatement notices are issued by local authorities when they believe a statutory nuisance exists, has occurred, or is likely to recur. If found guilty of such an offence, the maximum fine is £5,000 for domestic premises and £20,000 for commercial premises. Since the rescue sanctuary is classified as a commercial premises, it falls under the higher fine threshold.
Ms. Hudson revealed that despite the settlement, the rescue organization remains over £10,000 short of covering their costs from the appeal. These costs include not only legal fees but also expenses for private assessments, new equipment, and groundworks. She described the additional financial burden as “completely unnecessary” given the judge’s ruling that there was no statutory nuisance.
“This expenditure wasn’t anticipated in the costs,” Ms. Hudson said. The notice also affected their fundraising efforts, as the sanctuary had to close to visitors during the appeal period.
The sanctuary is currently raising funds to relocate to a new premises. Ms. Hudson expressed concern about the current location due to its close proximity to the complainant. “As the judgment indicated, the complainant has continued to blame us for various issues over the past three years, and we believe this remains the case,” she said.
She added, “We are now focused on restoring our damaged reputation and rebuilding our confidence. The situation has deeply affected us, and we need to recover before we can fully trust again.”