Noise


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (16 018 402)

    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.

  • Dover District Council (16 017 485)

    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.

  • Brentwood Borough Council (17 009 917)

    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.

  • Tendring District Council (17 000 918)

    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.

  • East Devon District Council (17 000 550)

    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.

  • Bassetlaw District Council (17 000 125)

    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.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (16 018 911)

    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.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (17 010 220)

    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.

  • South Cambridgeshire District Council (17 003 433)

    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.

  • Cornwall Council (17 004 584)

    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.

;