Noise recorded. Distress reported. Why was effective protection not delivered?
Miss E and Mr J allege that Torridge District Council’s assessment and subsequent response failed to protect her from recurring shooting disturbance and prolonged her suffering. They challenge Matthew Millichope’s 15 March 2024 conclusion and ask what reconsideration followed the video link sent to him on 29 March.
The 7 March summary gives several readings of 80–90 dB; the 15 March assessment gives some gunshots up to 80 dB. The diary records distress and ear pain. Miss E emailed the video link to Millichope on 29 March 2024 at 19:33 GMT, copying McIver and Mr J; she said McIver had already seen footage before monitoring. Before sending the video, Miss E sent a nine-page letter at 18:56 GMT. It records a reported 89.9 reading, shock and ringing ears, and directly challenges Millichope’s numerical account. She also records his confirmation that he had read two letters to Daniels and asks why these and her sound-analysis records were withheld.
The recorded response
The 15 March assessment found insufficient information to establish statutory nuisance. It considered duration, intermittency and locality, acknowledged possible significant annoyance and referred to the season ending and future mitigation. The 29 March link was sent after that assessment; what further review followed is the question.
The answer required
Produce the complete measurements and assessment, reconcile the two reported upper ranges, identify who considered the video and show the assessment of likely recurrence. Explain why no notice was served and whether any avoidable harm followed an inadequate response. Answer the 29 March letter point by point. Produce both letters to Daniels, the response, and the authority and reasons for withholding the requested material. Who reviewed her reported symptoms and the 89.9 account?
The allegation, harm and demand for independent review · Watch Miss E’s film · Read the recorded response in context
Responsibility must be explained. Avoidable harm must be addressed.
The questions distinguish this officer’s own decisions from the Council’s statutory responsibility. The family alleges that the response prolonged suffering and demands independent scrutiny, effective protection and redress for established failures.
Direct questions
HUNT-01
80–90 dB—or up to 80 dB? Show the measurements.
The 7 March summary describes several readings of 80–90 dB; the 15 March assessment describes some gunshots up to 80 dB. Miss E’s 29 March letter records McIver telling her one shot measured 89.9, and her experience of shock and ringing ears. What explains the different accounts of the same monitoring period? Identify the event, metrics, settings and measurement position behind each figure. Produce the complete monitoring and assessment record.
HUNT-02
Did the monitoring capture the complaint being made?
Miss E’s 5 March email says the final shooting days involved fewer participants than earlier occasions. How was that representativeness challenge assessed? What evidence considered the recurring Saturday pattern, the diary, her home recording and the reported impact on rest, work and ordinary use of her home?
HUNT-03
The season ended. What prevented the reported disturbance returning?
What separate assessment addressed likely recurrence under section 80? Explain the relevance of the seven-day informal-action provision and identify the evidence distinguishing a seasonal pause from effective mitigation. What reasons supported the conclusion that statutory nuisance had not been established?
HUNT-10
Nine pages. A video. Where is the point-by-point answer?
Miss E sent her nine-page letter to Millichope on 29 March 2024 at 18:56 GMT, copying McIver and Mr J, then sent the video link at 19:33. She recorded an earlier viewing by McIver, challenged the different noise figures, and said Millichope had confirmed reading two letters to Daniels. Who reviewed the letter and footage? Produce a point-by-point answer, the two letters and Daniels’s response, and identify who prevented disclosure and why. What happened to the reported assurance that an inadequate response could lead to consideration of an abatement notice?
HUNT-12
How was Miss E supposed to sleep or rest in her own bedroom when the Council’s monitoring summary reported gunshots reaching 80–90 dB inside her home?
The 7 March summary says several readings reached 80–90 dB; the 15 March assessment says some gunshots reached up to 80 dB. Mr J says the equipment stood beside Miss E’s bed. Each of you should answer within your responsibility: where were her ability to rest, the recurring shots, reported ear pain and filmed distress assessed? Council officers: identify the protective decisions, reasons and everyone responsible for them. Walsh: identify the evidence before you and the reasons addressing its impact in the claim you decided.
HUNT-14
The evidence reached the Council. What protected Miss E—and who answers for avoidable harm?
Identify each decision-maker and the evidence available at each stage. What justified not serving an abatement notice, how was likely recurrence assessed, and what checked that the promised relocation worked? Explain how the March video submission and December renewed complaint affected the response. Will an uninvolved reviewer examine whether failures prolonged Miss E’s distress, identify any avoidable harm and recommend corrective action and redress? Preserve and produce the complete complaint, monitoring, assessment and mitigation records.
These are publication questions prepared for follow-up; the historical complaint and replies retain their own dates.