SCHOOLS AS A NUISANCE
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] Sia,—May I call your readers' attention to certain features of the " Hampstead Nursery School" case, of which, judging by your comment on Mr. Hugh Burnaby's letter in your issue of January 27th,. you may not be aware ? During .the case. Mrs. E. A. Davies, who is, a prominent member of the Committee of the Nursery. School Association, gave evidence that the noise at Miss Tudor-Hart's school was no greater and probably considerably, less than at the numerous .other nursery schools of which she has had experience and against which no legal action of this kind appears hitherto to have been taken. If her evidence. is correct (and it was never contradicted throughout the , case), all privately managed nursery schools are now in danger of legal proceedings wherever the children's shouts disturb a chance neighbour. Further, Miss Tudor-Hart's school was inspected at her .own request a year ago by the Board of Education, who made no objection whatever in their report to the size of the garden in relation to the number of children, which was one of the grounds on which the injunction was granted.
I understand that all State schools in this country are specially protected by law from any liability to legal pro- ceedings on the ground of nuisance. It is assumed (and quite rightly) that there is always a chance of the noise of a school being a nuisance to someone, but that it is not in the public interest for a school to be attacked as a nuisance, even when it is in a residential district. The noise made by Miss Tudor-Hart's tiny group of children cannot possibly compare with the noise in any elementary school playground, but just because she is a private individual her school (and as a possible consequence of this case, any other similar school) is liable to legal proceedings which in practice may make its continuance impossible—a curious state of affairs in a country which has always prided itself on encouraging private enterprise in education as in other social affairs. In such cases we can only look to the Courts to see that private efforts are not penalized as compared with powerful public institutions.
Of course the " degree " of a noise in its aspect as a nuisance must always be a matter of opinion, but it does seem that if this case is taken as a precedent there is grave risk of the personal convenience of one or two neighbours being regarded as of greater importance than the continuance of a good and intelligently conducted nursery school. Though the injunc- tion granted against Miss Tudor-Hart does not in theory prevent her from carrying on her school, anyone who knows anything at all about the normal noises made by healthy young children at play and about the objections which are likely to be made to such noises in " residential districts," will realize that in practice such injunctions may make it difficult or impossible to carry on a nursery school such as Miss Tudor-Hart's in any ordinary urban locality.—I am,
Previous page
