Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Not upheld Noise 20-Nov-2017
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council considered the effect of noise from Mr and Mrs X's animal boarding kennels on proposed residential housing during the planning application process.
Statement Upheld Noise 10-Nov-2017
Summary: There was fault by the Council in its handling of a noise nuisance complaint. However, I cannot say that the Council would have been able to take legal proceedings against the alleged perpetrator if it had not been for this fault.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 26-Oct-2017
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council has issued her with a Community Protection Notice. We consider it reasonable for her to have used her right to appeal against the Notice in the magistrates' court.
Statement Upheld Noise 26-Oct-2017
Summary: The Council properly considered whether there was a statutory noise nuisance. It did not consider properly the complaints of fumes from machinery on the site. The Council will apologise to Ms B and respond to any further complaints Ms B makes. It should also pay her £100 in recognition of the failing. The Council should also, within the next two months, consider how it records investigations of possible statutory nuisance.
Statement Upheld Noise 24-Oct-2017
Summary: There is no evidence that the Council failed to take appropriate action to limit the growth of a clay pigeon shooting range near Mr B's address. It appropriately investigated Mr B's noise nuisance complaints. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not challenge the merits of its decisions. But at times its communication with him was poor.
Statement Upheld Noise 23-Oct-2017
Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered a planning application for a change of use of agricultural land to a clay target shooting club. This caused an injustice to Mr X who lives close enough to the site to be disturbed by gunshot noise. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated complaints about a statutory noise nuisance. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.
Statement Upheld Noise 20-Oct-2017
Summary: The Council delayed in serving an abatement notice against a local business owner for causing statutory nuisance. This has created some uncertainty for Mrs Y because we cannot conclude whether the Council could have ensured abatement of the nuisance, had it served the notice sooner. The Council will pay £250 to Mrs Y and improve its procedures internally.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 18-Oct-2017
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about noise from a new road surface. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Statement Upheld Noise 17-Oct-2017
Summary: The Council was at fault when it took too long to respond to Miss X's concerns about noise from a construction site close to her home. It has agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 12-Oct-2017
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about noise from a school play area. This is because the complaint is about the actions of a school, and the actions of a Council relating to the management of a school, which fall outside our jurisdiction.