Lifelong wildlife campaigner, Juliet Auburn, represented by Angelica Rokad, found not guilty of charge alleging breach of an abatement notice in prosecution brought by East Hampshire District Council
October 29, 2024

Ms Auburn cared for sick and injured animals for many years, and has particular expertise in foxes. Since she moved to her current property in 2016, she had an average of 16 foxes at any given time. Most were released back into the wild, and some require permanent care or rehoming at other sanctuaries.
This activity was Ms Auburn’s hobby and was not a commercial adventure. Since 18 January 2024, following the Local Authority’s issuing of an enforcement notice, she was required to cease the use and from this point onwards, no longer carried the activity out.
On 14 August 2017, the Local Authority, East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) issued Ms Auburn with an abatement notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, requiring her to control the odour that was allegedly emanating from the foxes’ pens. By 6 March 2018, having developed a more sophisticated system for neutralising odour, she was told in writing by EHDC deemed to be compliant with that notice, and no further action was taken.
In December 2020, Ms Auburn was told by EHDC that she would need planning permission for the activity despite being told on 18 September 2018 by EHDC that it was not necessary. There had been no change to the activities on the site, and nor had they intensified. Ms Auburn made an application to EDHC to obtain planning permission which was refused on 9 July 2021.
Two working days later, on 14 July 2021, EHDC, issued her with an Enforcement Notice requiring her to cease all the activity on the land and remove all fixtures in her garden relating to that activity. Ms Auburn appealed the enforcement notice and awaited the outcome of the appeal to the Planning Inspector. The effect of the appeal was that until it was determined, and found unsuccessful, Ms Auburn was permitted to continue the activity concerned on her property.
In October 2021, without prior notice, EHDC decided to issue Ms Auburn with a Community Protection Notice. Ms Auburn queried why the EHDC had decided to issue a CPN, in a letter dated 15 October 2021, and asked why EHDC decided to use this method to deal with alleged odour complaints. The letter was not responded to by EHDC. Ms Auburn therefore considered that EHDC had decided to change the enforcement tool, that EHDC was using to deal with the alleged odour complaints.
Ms Auburn heard nothing further from EHDC suggesting that she was in breach of the abatement notice served on her, since the last correspondence regarding the topic on 6 March 2018. She was also not made aware of any complaints relating to her ongoing activity were in breach of the abatement notice, until she received a letter from EHDC dated 26 April 2023 – nearly 6 years later telling her that complaints from local residents had been made.
The letter of 26 April 2023 did not explicitly state that she was in breach of the abatement notice and was only a paragraph long. On 5 May 2023, a further letter from EHDC was sent in which it was suggested that further complaints were received and attaching the 2017 abatement notice. Again, there were no further details provided and no reference to the fact that the abatement notice had been breached.
Ms Auburn responded to the letter on 15 May 2023 asking for further details, including whether EHDC officers had actually carried out site visits to the neighbouring properties. She indicated that nobody had visited her property since 2017 from the Environmental Health Department.
There was no response to that letter till 25 May 2023. In this letter, EHDC detailed the visits that had been taking place in April 2023 and stated explicitly that a statutory nuisance has been observed on four occasions from 20 April 2023 to 25 May 2023. It also stated that the EHDC “may consider” prosecuting Ms Auburn for breach of the abatement notice and indicated that further correspondence would follow.
However, following repeated disclosure requests to EHDC, it emerged that the Local Authority’s Environmental Health Department had met with the Legal Department on 24 May 2023, the day before the letter of 25 May 2023, with a “view to prosecuting” Ms Auburn for breach of the statutory nuisance. The EHDC Environmental Health Department also wrote to complainants the following day, to request the preparation of witness statements used in the case to prosecute Ms Auburn.
Ms Auburn heard nothing further from EHDC’s Environmental Health Department or had no knowledge that the Local Authority was seeking to prosecute her until she received a letter from Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court telling her that her first appearance hearing had been adjourned as she did not attend. It further transpired that EHDC’s had not informed her that it was starting proceedings and failed to serve her with paperwork telling her that a summons had been issued.
When Ms Auburn eventually found out about the detail of the case EHDC sought to bring against her in November 2021, it emerged that the Environmental Health Department had issued a summons alleging that a breach of the abatement notice had taken place from 20 April 2023 to 24 July 2023. However, it was clear from the evidence that the Environmental Health Department only visited the property last on 5 May 2023, and on that date, found that no statutory nuisance had taken place.
A trial of the matter took place on 21 October 2024 before a District Judge. During the trial, the Prosecution confirmed that it could no longer rely upon any period from 5 May 2023 to prove the charge given that it agreed that evidence that had been collated from neighbours from that date to 24 July 2023 was not sufficiently independent, and thus reliable.
Following the hearing of evidence, the Court found Ms Auburn not guilty of the offence as charged, indicating that she had a reasonable excuse for non-compliance of the notice and that EHDC had failed to discharge the burden upon it that she did not have one.
In particular, the Court found that Ms Auburn could not be expected to know that EHDC was of the view that a statutory nuisance was occurring given the mitigation measures she had implemented in 2017 and the lack of communication by EHDC in the intervening period to suggest otherwise. The Court ruled that the case was very different from the reported case of Wellingborough Borough Council v Gordon [1993] Env LR 218 which discussed the remit of the “reasonable excuse” defence and therefore distinguished it from Ms Auburn’s case.
Angelica Rokad has was instructed by Michael Riordan of Richard Buxton Solicitors to represent Ms Auburn. See press coverage from the Telegraph, GB News, and the Daily Mail.
Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/28/juliet-auburn-grayshott-hampshire-fox-smell-garden/
GB news https://www.gbnews.com/news/neighbour-from-hell-ruined-homeowner-vegetable-patch