King v The Advocate General for Scotland. Country/Territory United Kingdom Type of court National - lower court Date Dec 11, 2009 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name COURT OF SESSION Seat of court London Judge Pentland Reference number [2005] CSOH 169 Language English Subject Air & atmosphere, Environment gen. Keyword Air quality/air pollution Noise pollution Air pollution (non-stationary sources) Noise standards Vehicle noise Noise emission Military activities Aircraft noise Abstract The pursuer resided in premises which were situated near Castle Douglas. The area was used by the Royal Air Force for the purposes of low-flying training. The pursuer claimed that the noise from military aircraft which flew at a height of less than 250 feet above the ground created an unacceptable level of disturbance and, therefore, amounted to a nuisance in law. The pursuer claimed that the noise from the aircraft had not only caused her great personal annoyance but had also caused physical injuries to the horses which she kept on the premises. The pursuer also claimed that the noise amounted to an infringement of her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) and also Article 1 of Protocol 1 (which guarantee respect for family life and home as well as the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and possessions) The Lord Ordinary (Lord Pentland) held that the pursuer (who represented herself) had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support her action, both in terms of nuisance and, also, in terms of the Convention. In the last analysis, the amount of flights which the RAF had actually made over the pursuers property was substantially less than the pursuer had claimed. The pursuer had also failed to lead any evidence of the noise levels to which she was exposed. Furthermore, she had not adduced any veterinary evidence to support her claim that her horses had sustained injury. Full text COU-159870.pdf