top of page

Expert Witness

Sustainable Acoustics provides a comprehensive range of independent expert witness services for licensing, nuisance, planning disputes and hearing loss injury. The availability of our well-respected experts covers a diverse range of specialist disciplines where acoustics is involved. This enables the selection of the appropriate expert on a case-specific basis. We aim to provide robust evidence, critical analysis, and a clear and understandable presentation. 

Solicitors Group logo
Register Expert Witness emblem
Expert Witness established 1996.

Sustainable Acoustics’ expert witness service embraces the provision of expert evidence, which provides clear and objective technical reviews of a dispute’s merits and substance, and reports detailing a claim’s technical strengths and weaknesses. Steps to achieve best practices can also be provided.

Peter Rogers is an experienced technical expert in litigation, arbitration, adjudication and mediation, familiar with the pre-action protocol for construction and engineering disputes. He has five years as a Local Government enforcement officer to draw on in addition to his 20 years of experience in consultancy. Other experts are also available if Peter’s expertise does not match the issue. We are held on two expert registers and regularly vetted to validate our claims to be experts in our field. 


Whether you are a Local Authority wishing to do a comprehensive baseline of your area as part of the Agent of Change principle or having to deal with getting a Local Authority to take a complaint seriously, or taking action yourself through the S82 route of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 we can help. Nuisance is a difficult concept, but good evidence and clear communication are essential ingredients to a successful legal outcome.


If you are a venue seeking to protect an existing late-hours trading licence or seeking to extend hours, you will likely need to consider the noise impact on the surrounding residents.

Specialist expert advice is essential to solving problems that may make that path bumpy and, in case the matter becomes legal, to protect the business. 

Case Study: Night & Day, Manchester

Peter was instructed on behalf of the well-known grassroots live music venue, which had been served with an S80 Noise Abatement notice served by the Local Authority under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for noise from music causing a Statutory Nuisance in the flat next door. This was appealed, and Peter conducted exhaustive monitoring to establish a robust acoustic baseline of operations over 30 events and prepared expert witness evidence.  He worked with Manchester Environmental Health to explore possible solutions, concluding that inadequate sound insulation limited what could be done. The technical evidence was of central importance in this landmark ruling, where the Best Practicable Means was eventually proven as a defence and the venue had the notice amended to include reasonably restricted levels. "This makes this the first effective licence to cause a statutory nuisance that I am aware of", said Peter. Although this effectively "sterilises" the residential use, turning back the clock to the time when it was a warehouse and no nuisance existed. Two cases were key to this decision, which were the Supreme Court rulings of Coventry v Lawrence [2015] and Fearn v Tate [2023] UKSC 4. The full judgement can be found below:

Lessons learnt: This is what happens when things go wrong at the planning stage - be warned. 

For similar help with top-notch expert support contact us, whether you are a venue wanting to protect your operation from encroaching residential development and making sure Agent of Change is being implemented, or a resident who needs a solution or to pursue a rouge developer. Contact Peter at  

An image of an omni-directional noise source set up on the stage of the Night and Day, Manchester. The image shows a dimly-lit stage with only a drumkit and the noise source

Case Study: Heaven Farm

Peter was instructed on behalf of a farm business that had an S80 Noise Abatement notice served by the Local Authority under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for noise from music and people from wedding events, which was causing a Statutory Nuisance. This was appealed, and Peter was engaged quickly so that it could be demonstrated in subsequent events that it was possible to avoid a nuisance being caused. This avoided subsequent litigation and resulted in the Local Authority allowing an increase of events for a year, so the business to continue. 

This raises the difficult issue of how farmers thinking of diversifying their operations might at first see weddings as a tempting situation, but the reality can be costly and bruising.

A cozily-lit wedding tent set up on the site of Heaven Farm.
A council estate basketball court with a person throwing a basketball into a hoop

Case Study: Skyllings Play Area

Peter was instructed on behalf of a Town Council in a difficult case concerning an application under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  Peter produced his report swiftly, and it dealt with all the significant points regarding whether a statutory nuisance existed; his previous experience as a local authority officer and his general wealth of experience was a decisive factor in the subsequent litigation. 

Related News

An image of a sound level meter set up next to a robotic milking machine. The machine has a very industrial look to it, and you can see a cow's legs from the angle of the photo, suggesting that the milking machine is in use

Case Study: Farming Noise affecting resident (S82) - (Ward v Seabridge)

Peter was instructed on behalf of a local dairy farmer in Devon who was using robotic milkers and other livestock farming practices in a case which hinged on the character of the locality. The noise emissions (and smells & flies) from the activities resulted in an application under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by the resident who lived over the road.  Peter produced his expert report swiftly to meet the court deadlines, and presented oral evidence to the District Judge regarding whether a statutory nuisance was likely to exist; his clear style helped dig into the details of BS4142 and proved a convincing factor for the District Judge, who allowed the appeal. The full judgement can be read here. :  

bottom of page