News & Insights

The laughter of children at play is often considered one of life’s most joyful sounds. However, when that play occurs right next to your garden boundary, the noise can become a source of significant stress and legal disputes. A recent High Court case involving a school’s all-weather play area offers valuable insights into how the law balances children’s need for recreation with neighbours’ rights to peaceful enjoyment of their property.

The Case: A School Play Area Under Legal Scrutiny

In May 2025, the High Court addressed a dispute between homeowners Mohamed and Marie-Anne Bakhaty and Hampshire County Council over an all-weather play area built at Westgate All Through School in Winchester. The Bakhatys, who lived next to the school, complained about excessive noise from children playing and frequent footballs entering their garden, 170 incidents in 11 months, claiming it made their garden unusable.

Understanding the Legal Framework

The law focuses on protecting the use and enjoyment of land, not just the personal comfort of the people living there. The main question is whether the activity causes a ‘substantial interference’ with how the complainant can normally use their property. This is judged by what would bother an average person, not someone particularly sensitive.

If interference is proven, the court looks at whether the defendant is using their land in a way that’s considered ‘normal’ for the area. Even normal activities must be done responsibly, taking into account the impact on neighbours.

The Court’s Balanced Decision

The judge recognised that the case required careful balancing of competing interests. The evidence showed noise levels reaching 60 dB(A) during play periods, which expert witnesses agreed could cause moderate annoyance. The substantial number of footballs crossing the boundary before mitigation measures were implemented also constituted a significant interference.

However, the judge found the claimants overly sensitive, noting the school’s use of land for an all-weather play area was reasonable in a suburban setting with limited alternatives. The court ruled that use during school hours, including pre- and after-school activities, was not a nuisance if the school maintained protective netting.

Where the School Crossed the Line

The school’s decision to hire out the facility to external organisations on weekends was treated differently. The court found this constituted a nuisance because it occurred when the usual ‘ambient noise’ of general school activity would be absent, creating a disproportionate impact on the neighbours. This weekend use was deemed unnecessary and showed insufficient consideration for the residents’ interests.

The judge awarded £1,000 in damages for the period when the facility was used excessively and when significant numbers of footballs were crossing the boundary fence.

Lessons for Property Owners and Institutions

This case demonstrates that the law seeks to balance legitimate community needs with individual property rights. Schools and other institutions can generally expect to use their facilities for their intended purposes during normal hours, even if this causes some inconvenience to neighbours. However, they must show ‘proper consideration’ for nearby residents through reasonable mitigation efforts.

For homeowners, the decision emphasises that tolerance of some noise and disturbance is expected, particularly in areas where schools and community facilities are established parts of the neighbourhood. The legal system protects against substantial interference but requires an objective assessment of what constitutes unreasonable impact.

The school’s prompt response to concerns such as installing netting, creating a buffer zone, and restricting weekend use, was viewed favourably by the court. This proactive approach to mitigation can make the difference between facing an injunction and achieving a workable resolution.

Finding the Right Balance

Rather than granting an injunction to stop the school’s use entirely, the court accepted undertakings about future use and awarded modest damages for the period of excessive use. This pragmatic approach allows the school to continue serving its educational mission while ensuring residents’ rights are protected.

The decision reflects a mature legal approach that recognises both the importance of children’s play and education, and the legitimate expectations of homeowners to enjoy their property. By establishing clear boundaries around when such uses become unreasonable, the law provides a framework for resolving similar disputes.

As communities continue to evolve and space becomes more precious, such disputes are likely to increase. This case provides valuable guidance for anyone facing similar challenges, whether as a complainant seeking relief or an institution trying to balance community service with neighbourly relations.

For further information and assistance, please contact one of our Dispute Resolution experts today.