Amber Valley Borough Council (05C00620)

Planning applications & Environmental health

No maladministration

18 October 2006

The introduction of a new skate park by Amber Valley Borough Council and, later, its action taken to deal with noise from the park, were not maladministration. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council, although she recognises that the complainants in the case did suffer inconvenience and disruption from the noise.

‘Mr Ford’ and ‘Mrs Lake’ (not their real names for legal reasons) were dissatisfied about the Council approving a planning application for and then providing a skate park on a recreation ground opposite their homes, and about the length of time that it took to deal with problems of noise and antisocial behaviour.

There is conflicting evidence from the complainants and other residents on one hand, and the Council on the other, about whether residents were notified of the planning application. The Ombudsman finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the Council did send notices.

Experience across the country has shown that skate parks can cause considerable noise nuisance. The Council received the planning application in November 2003 and, at that time, both its own experience and that elsewhere was more limited than it is today.

Councils face considerable challenges in meeting the differing needs and aspirations of the various age and interest groups in their areas. In this case the Council was endeavouring to provide facilities for young people utilising an existing recreation ground. On the information available at the time, the decision to create a skate park was reasonable and not maladministration.

Complaints about noise were made to the Council in August 2004 – almost immediately after the facility opened. The Council started legal action to stop the noise during the following July and introduced bye-laws in the November and December to control motor bikes and drinking alcohol. The Parish Council fenced the site in April 2006 and, in July, the equipment for skateboards was removed.

There was delay between the first complaints and the Council’s decisive action of removing the equipment for skateboards. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman finds that this was not maladministration. It was reasonable for the Council to leave some time after the equipment was installed to see how things ‘settled down’ and the weather and dark nights during the late autumn and winter meant that usage reduced. Although it would have been possible to introduce bye-laws more quickly and use more effective fencing, the speed with which the Council acted and the difficulties that occurred did not amount to maladministration.

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the complainants did suffer noise nuisance causing inconvenience and disruption caused to them. She regrets that her findings did not bring them the satisfaction that they sought.

Date Published: 16/01/09