Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a festival near Mr X’s home. This is mainly because investigation is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile now.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about events related to a three-week festival held on land near his home. He is unhappy the Council did not consult him and other residents and that it allowed the event to proceed. Mr X says this affected his right to quiet enjoyment of his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant, copy complaint correspondence the Council supplied, and information available online about the event complained of. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The complaint is about a three-week festival including music, theatre and film on land near Mr X’s home.
5. The event took place under a temporary event notice or notices (TEN). The Council was not obliged to consult residents about the event, nor would residents’ views in themselves have prevented the event. Residents do not have an automatic right to quiet near their properties. Here, the Council could only have objected to the TEN on limited grounds, none of which appears to have applied in this case. So it is unlikely any investigation would find fault in the Council not objecting to the event.
6. The Council states it responded to noise complaints and got the organisers to reduce the noise level. That might not have satisfied Mr X completely. However, there was little more the Council could do unless the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance, in which case serving a notice and enforcing it as necessary would not necessarily have been a quick process and might have taken longer than the event lasted.
7. This was a cultural event held partly in response to the difficulties the arts and entertainment sector suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. I am mindful the Council could have been criticised for not allowing its land to be used for the event, or for being too quick to act against the event.
8. Mr X wants the Council to apologise and to undertake such an event will not happen again. It would be disproportionate for us to investigate the Council’s actions just for the possibility of seeking apology if we were to find any fault by the Council that caused Mr X injustice. We would not ask the Council to guarantee such an event will not happen again. The Council must balance various factors in such matters. Avoiding any noise or disruption to residents does not necessarily always override other considerations. On this point, I have also given some weight to the Council telling Mr X that, while it cannot give guarantees, it doubts there will be more events as the Council is currently aiming to sell the land for development. In the circumstances, it would appear disproportionate for the Ombudsman to devote time and public money to pursuing the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because in all the circumstances investigation is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile for Mr X or other local residents.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman