A lawyer who sued a village charity over the noise from a neighbouring playground has lost her case after a judge ruled that kicking a ball does not count as a nuisance.

Solicitor Marie Sampson has been ordered to pay nearly £3,000 in costs after her two year long campaign against the recreation area was dismissed.

The mother of two had taken Brockenhurst Village Trust to court, accusing those using the playground - which backs onto her garden - of anti social behaviour including teaching her young child swear words.

As part of her case, she argued that the sound of balls slamming against the fence amounted to a crime.

But a judge ruled that though the noise may be an annoyance, it was 'insufficient' to qualify for a noise abatement order.

In a statement, Mrs Sampson told a court: "The ball impact noises from the wooden surround are audible internally, even with doors and windows closed.

"[When] you are in the garden and you do not know it is coming, you literally jump, as the noise is so loud and unexpected."

Refusing her claim, Judge Anthony Callaway said: "Noise has been defined as 'unwelcome sound'. Sound to one person is noise to another person.

"It is accepted by this court that the very existence of the sound may be an annoyance, but...'ball kicking' appears to be a minority event insufficient to constitute a statutory nuisance."

The judgement at Southampton Magistrates Court is the latest instalment in a long running feud between Mrs Sampson and the village trust.

She has logged over 100 incidents since the £63,000 recreational facility opened over two years ago, which she had claimed occurred after the designated 8pm closing time.

The recreation area - which includes sports pitches and is used by the local Cubs and Brownies groups - opened behind the 44-year-old's £600,000 home following a community fundraising drive.

The area was once named Britain's best place to live, but the court case has caused a significant rift in the community of the historic village.

Despite several attempts, an out of court compromise between the two parties was not reached

The two day case was heard in October of this year, with Mrs Sampson and her husband Martin seeking a noise abatement order, which was fought by the charity.

In addition to the noise, Mrs Sampson had also complained of anti-social behaviour and swearing at the facility - which once prompted her five year old child to ask her what the F word meant.

The solicitor, who runs her own legal consultancy, had said that though she was seeking the noise abatement order, she was not seeking the closure of the Multi Use Games Area (muga) - acknowledging that her own children use the pitch.

Instead she wanted special fencing erected around the pitch which meets the recommendations of acoustic professionals, and for the facility to be locked at night.

The court heard that this fencing would cost the trust £35,000 - over half the original cost of the facility.

When the facility first opened in February 2018, the trust described it as 'a recreational facility that will integrate the community, irrespective of age or status, through shared enjoyment of sports and social interaction.’

Both sides employed sound experts to argue the case of whether the noise breached health guidelines, with the expert for Mrs Sampson providing audio evidence recorded at the back of her garden, which was played in court.

Large dossiers of statements from neighbours were also submitted to the court by both sides, including a 500 page 'bundle' submitted by Mrs Sampson that was deemed 'entirely irrelevant' to the case.

In referencing these statements, Judge Callaway said in his ruling: "A Dr. Gamble complains that the noise is is impacting upon his ability to work in his home office.

"A Melvyn Watt complains about noise, although considers the Muga good for the village provided it is properly managed.

"A David Burnett resides 40-50 metres from the Muga and has been a resident of Brockenhurst for 21 years.

"He has no difficulty with noise generated by the site and estimates that noise from a nearby school is a lot louder and more frequent."

Although he concluded by dismissing Mrs Sampson's case, Judge Callaway did suggest that the facility was being poorly supervised by the trust and, as such, may be in breach of assurances it had given when seeking planning permission for the play area.

A statement from the Brockenhurst Village Trust said they were 'pleased' that the case had been dismissed, adding: "The Trust and its lawyers maintain that the case should not have been brought in the first place.

"There was no evidence to support the contention that the muga posed a statutory noise nuisance.

"A number of measures were undertaken in order to address issues raised, such as a tall fence to try to stop balls entering gardens and installation of a CCTV system for monitoring.

"However, the complainant was still unhappy."

Though her case was dismissed, Mrs Sampson said she was pleased that Judge Callaway had acknowledged that the trust's inability to correctly monitor the pitch.

She said: "The judge states that currently the muga is not properly managed. This failure of management and control is ongoing.

"Despite the facility being closed due to the second lockdown, there have been 16 instances that I am aware of where users have scaled the fence, trespassed and used it.”

She also said that she was aware of another neighbour having made a complaint which has launched a noise nuisance investigation by Environmental Health, adding: "I don't doubt that improvements will need to be made to the facility once that investigation has been completed.”

Mrs Sampson was ordered to pay a total of £2,947.20 towards court costs for the Trust.