Bristol City Council (18 016 366)

Category : Environment and regulation > Noise

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 07 Jun 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms X complains the noise levels permitted by the Council for an event in a local park, were too high. There is no fault in the way the Council reached this decision. We do not uphold Ms X’s complaint.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains the noise levels permitted by the Council for an event in a local park, were too high. She says the Council did not follow relevant guidance when it approved a licence for the event. She says this caused unreasonable levels of noise pollution for local residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered:
    • Ms X’s complaints and supporting information;
    • the Council’s responses to Ms X’s complaint;
    • the Council’s response to my enquiries;
    • relevant legislation and guidance on noise control; and
    • the comments received by Ms X and the Council in response to my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. The purpose of this code was to give guidance on how the disturbance caused by noise from music events can be minimised. It sets out guidelines for music noise levels for different venue categories set over a certain number of days.
  2. The review acknowledges that 10 years have passed since the original guidance was published. It provides more up to date guidance and suggests further considerations. These include that the limit for areas such as parks could be increased.

What happened

  1. In September 2018, Ms X complained to the Council about the noise from a music festival in a nearby park. She said she had rung the festival’s helpline during the event. She said she was told the volume measurements were within the Council’s limits. She therefore concluded the Council had set the limits too high, as the noise was excessive.
  2. The Council responded to Ms X. It explained the licence for the event contained conditions related to noise. These included the monitoring of noise levels by acoustic consultants, compliance with a noise limit of 70dBA at nearby residential properties and the compliance with noise limits of 75dB at the bass frequencies of 63 and 125Hz at properties 1km or more away from the event.
  3. The Council explained that the limits were the same as used for other events in the same park and other similar venues. It said this was in line with national guidance.
  4. Before the event, the Council required the organisers to notify over 5000 local residents in writing and had to provide a dedicated phone number for complaints. The Council confirmed it had received 15 complaints about the event.
  5. Ms X asked the Council to provide her with further information. This included the national guidance the Council had said the noise limits were in line with. She asked to see the organiser’s noise monitoring report. She also asked for confirmation whether the Council considered her to be a ‘nearby resident’.
  6. The Council responded. It sent Ms X a copy of the guidance. It confirmed that it had not received the monitoring report yet, and that it may not be a public document. Ms X obtained the report through a Freedom of Information request. The Council said she would likely be considered as a ‘nearby resident’.

The Noise Council’s Code of Practice

  1. The Council explained the main guidance is from the Noise Council’s Code of Practice on Noise Control at Concerts (1995) (‘the Code’). It explained this guidance was available online up to 2017 and included the following statement ‘the code does not take account of the Licensing Act 2003 and, until it is possible to update it, it should only be used with caution’.
  2. The Council confirmed whilst no further guidance has been issued, the Code is still used a guide for noise levels from outdoor events. It added that a review of the Code was published in 2005. One of the conclusions of this review was that the ‘Code’s noise limit of LAeq(15 min) 65dB for venue category of ‘other urban and rural venues’ should be reviewed for areas such as parks and other congregational spaces (city squares etc) where limits of LAeq 75dB have been successfully adopted’.
  3. Ms X asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said the Council had not correctly followed the noise guidelines. She raised questions about the duration of the festival, the type of music, and the status of the 1995 guidance and 2005 review.
  4. In the Council’s final response, it explained the Code is guidance that is over 20 years old, and the Council is not bound by it.
  5. Ms X complained that the Council was slow in responding to her complaints and requests for information. Ms X initially complained in September 2018. The Council provided various responses and information in October and November. The Council’s final response was sent to Ms X in December 2018. I do not consider this to show delay.

The Council’s Licensing Committee

  1. The Council said the noise levels for major events are determined through the Council’s licensing process. As such, the Council’s Licencing Committee makes the final decision. The Licencing Committee considered officer representations which acknowledged the requested noise levels were above the guidance levels. They also expressed concern when an application was made to extend the festival from a one-day to a two-day event. I have seen evidence that these representations were discussed and considered by Committee.
  2. The Council responded to my enquiries. It confirmed, that when determining the premises licence for the event, the Council had reconsidered the venue category of the park in light of the 2005 Code review. Officers and members of the Committee felt that that should be some relaxation of the 65 dB limit. They agreed that 70 dB was a reasonable compromise.

Analysis

  1. I cannot question a council’s decision if it was properly made. I can only look at how a council made a decision. In looking at this, I expect councils to have followed correct procedure and to have fully considered evidence.
  2. Ms X complains the Council agreed noise limits for an event that were too high and not in line with national guidance. The Council has acknowledged that it agreed a limit higher than set out in the 1995 guidance. This decision was consciously made in line with the 2005 review of the guidance.
  3. I have considered the Council’s licensing committee notes where the proposed noise levels were discussed and agreed. It is evident that members considered representations and other information relating to previous years’ events.
  4. There is no fault in how the Council reached its decision to agree the noise limits for the music festival. I cannot question the decision itself, and so I have not found fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I do not uphold Ms X’s complaint. There is no fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant a licence for the event.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings