Ipswich noisy neighbour Lee Hines told he must pay more than £1,000 after drum and bass music boomed from his Chantry flat

A noisy neighbour must pay £1,200 in fines and costs after making other residents’ lives a misery by playing booming drum and bass music in his Chantry flat.

Lee Hines, of Newnham Court, Ipswich, was summonsed to appear before the town’s magistrates for two offences of failing to comply with a noise abatement notice.

However, the 30-year-old failed to do so and the case was found proved in his absence.

Ipswich Borough Council, which brought the prosecution, had issued Hines with a noise abatement notice on April 25 after a complaint about the volume at which he was playing his music.

However, at just before 11.15pm on June 6 one of the council’s environmental protection officers received a further call.

When visiting the premises loud music was said to be clearly audible, with drum and bass-type music coming from Hines’ home.

The officer said the noise could be heard in the complainant’s living room with the TV on at a reasonable level, and in the bedroom with the windows and doors shut.

Most Read

The music then changed to a “reggae” type song with vocals and bass audible. It then changed to a “rap” type song with male vocals. The words were not discernible but the drum and bass beat was said to be “very intrusive”.

Shortly before 7.20pm the following day an officer went to the flats again after another complaint.

More loud music was heard coming from the property where Hines lived.

Again the drum and bass beat could be heard from the complainant’s living room with the television playing at a reasonable volume.

Hines was fined £400 for each of the two breaches of his noise abatement notice and was ordered to pay £40 to the victims’ fund.

An order was also made for Hines to pay £362 towards investigative and legal costs.

After the hearing an Ipswich Borough Council spokesman said: “This case illustrates that when people’s lives are being affected through noise issues we will taken action.”

• An earlier version of this story carried an image of a property owned by Orwell Housing, we would like to point out the defendant was not a tenant of this association and did not live in this block.