By Emily Jane Davies and Ross Slater
08:17 June 01, 2024, updated 10:23 June 01, 2024
A family claims they were ‘bullied’ by the council after a nightmare neighbor complained about ‘stomach-churning smells’ coming from their garden.
Geoff Grewcock and his daughter Emma Hudson from Nuneaton, West Mids have been using their backyard to house rescued animals for more than twenty years.
But when a newcomer moved in on the street next door, they were faced with the terrifying prospect of a possible criminal conviction and a £20,000 fine when she relentlessly complained about a bad smell.
Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council sided with the neighbor and the family found themselves taken to court.
Mr Grewcock, 74, said: ‘The council made me feel like a complete criminal. It was pretty awful.”
After a lengthy legal battle, the court has now quashed the order, but not before the family has paid £25,000 in legal costs.
His daughter Emma, 41, said: ‘For 21 years the shelter has operated without anyone ever complaining about the smell or anything else.
‘Then a new person came onto the street and everything changed. She harassed the Council again and again and they relented. We are so pleased that the Court listened to the facts and ruled in our favor.”
Their appeal against the reduction order was heard by District Judge David Wain, sitting at Birmingham Magistrates Court.
Over the course of two days, neighbors from all sides of the shelter testified that they had never noticed a stench and that they supported their rescue efforts.
Nuneaton Council admitted they had monitored odors over a four-day period in September 2021 and found no problem.
But neighbor Maria Buchanan refused to drop it, sending about 30 emails complaining of “stomach-churning odors.”
The municipality also received two other anonymous complaints, but the senders were never identified.
After the initial warning, the family moved fox cages to the other side of their garden and installed windbreaks to protect their neighbours’ garden, the court heard.
After the verdict, Mr Grewcock said: ‘It has been a nightmare for us as we have always got on well with all our neighbours.
‘The municipality took its side and bullied us, even though we had been using our services for twenty years.
‘The worst part was when the municipality came with their report and wanted to know how many animals we could put to sleep that day.’
Emma said: ‘If we had lost we would have closed straight away. We looked at how on earth we were going to survive financially.
“But it shows that no matter how big the struggle is, you have to do it when you know you’re right.
“The support we have had has been tremendous, from the neighbors, the city and our volunteers.”
Retired vet Roger Coley, giving evidence in court, said: ‘I usually come once a month and have been doing so since they started doing it. It is a very well run place and provides a wonderful resource for the area.
“They are doing everything they can to control any odors and I’m glad they can continue.”
Neighbor Neil Ratcliffe, 67, said: ‘Geoff is an ideal neighbour. They keep that place spotless. We’ve had barbecues in the garden and no one knew they were there.
‘He is very aware that he is in a built-up area and has always been very considerate of his neighbours, which makes this so unfair.
“Why couldn’t the council ask for our opinion before wading in?”
In February 2022, their ‘sniffers’ returned to visit the complaining neighbor, but crucially did not visit the shelter to check the source of the odor.
They then notified the Sanctuary before issuing their reduction announcement in May.
But they were criticized by Judge Wain for “losing objectivity” and siding with Ms Buchanan without asking anyone else. They also couldn’t check where the smell came from.
Judge Wain said: ‘The (council’s) policy was not to contact potential witnesses for fear of being accused of making complaints. The risk of such an approach, as here, is that it fails to gather substantial evidence relevant to a fair investigation.
‘This is especially true if no investigation into the source is done.’
Referring to the complaining neighbour’s evidence, he said: ‘Her evidence and the manner in which she gave it shows that she views the Sanctuary with considerable hostility and holds it responsible for significant disruption to her home.
“Unfortunately, she is therefore not someone the court could consider an impartial witness, and her refusal to meaningfully address any question about odor, even if substantial changes had been made, was not helpful to the court.”
He ruled that the odors “did not go beyond the category of insignificant and minor” and concluded: “There is no doubt that the sanctuary is a clean, well-managed establishment, with the support of veterinarians and experienced volunteers.”
A municipal spokesperson said he was disappointed when he heard of Tuesday’s judge’s outcome on the appeal.
The authority added that it “has a legal duty to conduct investigations following complaints received and has done so in this case with the utmost good faith.”
The spokesperson added that they accepted the decision, recognized the shelter’s “important community work” and aimed to “build a productive relationship going forward.”