Local Government Lawyer

Demo Midpage Premium

Default Image
Jul 03, 2025

AI, copyright and LLMs

What are the copyright and confidentiality issues arising from use of public and private Large Language Models (LLMs)? Justin Harrington…
July 03, 2025

Automatic suspensions and the public interest

Tim Care provides a summary of the recent case of Unipart Group Ltd v Supply Chain Coordination Ltd [2025], and assesses its impact upon the application of the Public Contract Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015).
Jul 03, 2025

FOI and communication

The Upper Tribunal recently considered the meaning of ‘reasonably practicable’ in s11 of the Freedom of Information Act. Jonathan Dixey…
Jul 03, 2025

Too much?

In the fourth and final article on a Court of Appeal judgment that involved an exploration of the law and procedure relating to challenges…

June 27, 2025

The attendance of experts in family proceedings

Rosie Muncer looks at the lessons to be learned from how a High Court judge considered a case management application for the single joint experts in care proceedings to attend to give oral evidence.
Jun 27, 2025

Closures of educational sites

The Court of Appeal recently refused permission to appeal in judicial review proceedings concerning the decision to close part of a school…
Jun 25, 2025

Public law case update Q1 2025

Kieran Laird and Sophie O’Mahoney offer a straightforward and concise overview of six public law and regulation cases from the first…

Jun 25, 2025

AI solutions: the contractual issues

What are the key contractual issues that public sector organisations should prepare for when implementing an AI solution? Justin Harrington…
Jun 20, 2025

Negotiating s106 agreements

Why does negotiating section 106 agreements have to be such a drag? Simon Ricketts looks at the key issues.
Jun 20, 2025

Heat network zoning coordination

Carrie Davies sets out some early-stage considerations for local authorities when it comes to heat network zoning coordination.
Jun 20, 2025

Mediating PFIs

Mediation is a potentially underused tool for unlocking contract disputes arising out of PFI, write Emma Beynon and Andrew Lancaster.
Jun 20, 2025

Generative AI and data protection

Justin Harrington sets out what UK public sector organisations need to know when it comes to generative AI and data protection.
Jun 19, 2025

The final say

The Court of Protection has provided an important reminder that it is the judge who has the final say as to best interests, writes Alex…
Jun 18, 2025

Too late

In the second article of a series on challenges to decisions about care for young people brought after the event, Catherine Rowlands looks…
Jun 18, 2025

One teacher, two jobs

Alexandra Addington looks at a recent disciplinary hearing concerning a teacher who phoned in sick to work at a different school, and…
Jun 18, 2025

Too little? Or too late?

In the first in a series of articles, Catherine Rowlands examines a Court of Appeal judgment that involved a wide-ranging exploration of…
Jun 13, 2025

Unlocking legal talent

Jonathan Bourne sets out why in-house council teams and law firms should embrace apprenticeships.
Jun 12, 2025

AI in the UK public sector

In the first in a series of articles on the adoption of AI by the public sector, Justin Harrington sets out some use cases and provides a…
Jun 11, 2025

Subsidy control: referral of subsidies

The financial threshold for referral of subsidies to the Competition Markets Authority is to increase from £10m to £25m with effect from 4…

Dan Jacklin provides a detailed analysis of the enforcement powers available to local authorities in relation to domestic beekeeping.

The majority of the UK honey bee population are kept in hives as livestock. The average hive can support 35,000-40,000 honey bees during the peak season between May and the end of July, typically between 11 am and 4 pm (BBKA, 2025). There are approximately 47,000 bee keepers registered with BeeBase, the vast majority being hobbyists (BeeBase, 2025). 

Keeping honey bees can be a rewarding and enjoyable past time. However, problems can arise when a large number of hives are located on domestic premises within high-density residential areas. Such properties have been known to house as many as 1 million bees (BBC, 2025). 

Neighbours of such properties have reported being fearful of using their gardens, particularly when the bees are swarming, having to keep windows shut, pay for the bees' removal from their property, and there have even been reports of tradespeople (such as window cleaners and gardeners) blacklisting addresses because of being attacked by bees (or the fear of such occurring). 

There are two major touchpoints between bee keepers and local authorities: (1) planning controls and (2) statutory nuisance controls.    

Planning controls

Section 57(1) of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 (‘TCPA 1990’) requires planning permission for any ‘development’ of land. Development is defined by section 55(1) of the TCPA 1990 as being the “means of carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over, or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or land.” Any change in use is deemed to have begun at the time the new use is initiated (section 56(1), TCPA 1990). 

The decision in Tandridge District Council v (1) Homewood (2) The Honey Farm (1986) 1 P.A.D. 410 concerned a significant upscaling in the intensity of honey bee farming at the Defendant property. 

The Secretary of State found that the manufacturing and sale of honey bees were uses of the land and not ‘operational development’ within the meaning of section 55(1) of the TCPA 1990. Further, the sale of bees bred on the site in hives was not development requiring planning permission. The manufacturing and selling of hives with and without honey bees did not constitute ‘development’ and did not require planning permission. The manufacture of beehives (without bees) from Western Red Cedar trees grown on the site was deemed to be a ‘beneficial activity’ and permission was granted for such development. 

It is suggested in Tandridge, that if apiarian products began to be sold or exchanged from a domestic property, this could constitute a material change in the use of the land under section 55(1) of the TCPA 1990. Authorities have plenty of time to take action within the 10 year longstop provided for breaches of planning control under section 171B(3) of the TCPA 1990. 

Section 251 notices under the TCPA 1990 are unlikely to provide a viable option as beehives are chattels and so do not form part of the land; a pre-requisite for serving such a notice. 

Statutory nuisance

Most bee keeping will not cause problems for other residents in the surrounding area. Where such hives become problematic, local authorities will need to review the relevant enforcement powers available to them. 

Authorities have traditionally turned to their powers under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (‘EPA 1990’). Choosing the right part of section 79 to raise any abatement notice is critical. 

Section 79(1)(fa) of the EPA 1990 may appear to be the most obvious provision to apply as it applies to insects. However, on closer examination, the provision only applies where insects emanate from “relevant industrial, trade or business premises”. This provision is not, therefore, appropriate for nuisances arising from domestic premises. The situation may be different if apiarian products are being sold from the otherwise domestic premises.

Section 79(1)(a) of the EPA 1990 concerns any premises which are in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance. However, for the reasons stated above, beehives are chattels, so the risk to health or nuisance does not arise from the ‘state of the premises’. 

Where local authorities have found a suitable power to exercise is under section 79(1)(f) which pertains to any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance. The term ‘animal’ is not defined by the EPA 1990, but by any ordinary construction would include bees. A more difficult question to answer is whether the bees are ‘kept’ within the meaning of section 79(1)(f) of the EPA 1990. The answer lies in the case law that has arisen around such cases. 

Slesser LJ spoke of the ownership of bees as being ratione soli and said “thus a qualified property may be had in the bees in consideration of the property whereon they are found” (Kearry v Pattinson [1939] 1 KB 471 at [479]). The learned judge also said that bees were “farae naturae before being hived but they may be taken into the disposition of the owner per industriam by hiving and so become his property.” 

The most recent precedent on the law of property in bees is the decision of Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 578 where Sir Timothy Lloyd said that “animals ferae naturae cannot be subject to absolute property rights. 

It was said that whilst the bees are on hive owner’s property, his rights of ownership over the bees arises ratione soli, because ownership is both necessary and sufficient as the basis of the asserted right. When the bees leave the hive owner’s property, his rights over the bees per industriam require him to retain possession of the bees. This is clearly impossible to do, so the law has carved out an exception for “roaming animals.” 

Sir Timothy Lloyd states that “in roaming animals, what is necessary to show is that they have established a home territory” (Borwick, [42]). Rights per industriam can be asserted provided the bees have an intention to return. However, the swarmed bees are lost if they choose not to return. 

Thus bees should be considered as being ‘kept’ when they are on the property of others for the purpose of section 79(1)(f) of the EPA 1990, provided they have an intention to return to the hive. 

Typically, the manner or place of the bees keeping is not prejudicial to health, but it can and has been held to constitute a nuisance. Fear of using one’s land because of the presence of a nuisance on neighbouring land has been held to constitute an actionable nuisance (Birmingham Development Co v Tyler [2008] EWCA 859 at [55]). 

As Lord Leggett pointed out in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Fearn and Ors v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4 at [13]: 

“Frequently, such interference is caused by something emanating from land occupied by or under the control of the defendant which physically invades the claimant’s land.

[…]

Moreover, there is no requirement that the interference must be caused by a physical invasion.”

Consequently, a local authority is not required to prove that the index bees visited a given property to establish a statutory nuisance. 

As to the final two elements to be established, whether the interference is ‘substantial’ and the use of the land ‘unnatural’ is highly fact specific. 

Whilst not binding, Judge Campbell in Johnson v Martin [1950] 1 WLUK 177 considered that beekeeping was an ordinary use of the land. The learned judge decided in that case that the keeping of 750,000 bees was not ‘unreasonable’. However, the parties do not appear to have brought to the judge’s attention that a use being ‘unreasonable’ is not a defence to a claim in nuisance (Bamford v Turnley (1862) 3 B&S 62 at [83]). 

Further, 1950 was the height of UK beekeeping according to Professor Ollerton’s research, so the decision may well be different today and is always context dependent. As Thesiger LJ famously said:

What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey.” 

Any previous use of the land for beekeeping is not a defence to a statutory nuisance claim (Lawrence v Feb Tigers Ltd [2014] UKSC 13), nor is that the keeping of bees is of public benefit (Fearn, [121]). 

Although many of the nuisance cases fall within the legislation preceding the EPA 1990, it is likely that the keeping of a large number of bees could constitute a statutory nuisance in appropriate cases. 

Whilst there is no case law on the point, it may also be possible to use Community Protection Notices under section 43(1) of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, but discussion of those powers will have to wait for another article.  

Summary

In summary, local authorities have a range of enforcement powers to ensure domestic bee keeping is responsibly managed and to support them to take action where appropriate. 

Dan Jacklin is a barrister at St Philips Chambers.

Events

Demo Premium Event