A neighbourly dispute over cat litter in a quiet Welsh street has made its way all the way to the High Court.
Richard Williamson, a new father living in Bedwas in the Caerphilly borough, grew so frustrated with a neighbour’s cats repeatedly using his garden as their toilet that he decided to take legal action.
The situation became so unbearable that Mr Williamson said he “wakes with dread each day wondering if there is more cat mess for me to have to clean up”.
His frustration with Caerphilly council’s handling of his complaint ultimately led him to seek a judicial review.
The trouble began last year when Mr Williamson first contacted the local authority about cats fouling his property.
His main worry centred on the potential dangers to his newborn child, “who will soon be playing in our garden”, according to court documents.
“As a parent of a newborn who will soon be playing in our garden, I am particularly concerned about the health risks associated with cat faeces,” he wrote to the council.
Before escalating matters, Mr Williamson had tried sorting things out directly with his neighbour.
A neighbourly dispute over cat litter in a quiet Welsh street has made its way all the way to the high court
|
GETTY
He emailed his formal complaint to Caerphilly council in October 2024 after those attempts proved unsuccessful.
Caerphilly council did look into the matter, but their investigation took a rather different direction than Mr Williamson had hoped.
Officials concluded that cats aren’t subject to the same roaming regulations that apply to dogs or livestock.
A council representative visited the cats’ owner to verify they had proper litter trays available at home.
The official was “satisfied that there are adequate provisions for the cats” at the property.
The council also noted that keeping cats indoors when they’re used to going outside could actually harm their welfare.
However, what the authority didn’t properly examine was whether the fouling might constitute a statutory nuisance.
Judge Jarman KC, ruling at Cardiff High Court, found that the council had missed the central point entirely.
The “essence of the challenge” was that officials had focused on how the cats were kept and their common law right to roam, rather than considering whether the mess “amounted to deposits which were prejudicial to health” under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The judge ordered the council to reconsider the complaint, though stressed his ruling shouldn’t be taken as indicating which way the decision should go.
A Caerphilly council spokesperson said: “We are considering the judgment and will take further appropriate action in due course.”