Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of an alleged nuisance caused by noise and dust from a construction site. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. And, in any event, Mr Q has not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained that East Cambridgeshire District Council has failed to take action over dust and noise from a construction site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered information available on the Council’s website. And I considered Mr Q’s response to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

4. Mr Q lives about 100 metres from a construction site. He complained to the Council’s Environmental Health Department about noise and dust caused by activities on the site. Mr Q wanted the Council to get the developer to put up screens to reduce the dust and noise affecting local residents. He also wanted the Council to require the developer to use bored piling rather than impact piling.
5. The Environmental Health Department decided not to take action against the developer. It said

• a complaint and a photograph of dust on a car from a resident living 100 metres from the site was not enough evidence for it to require the developer to put up screens;
• it had not received complaints from residents living along the site boundary;
• it invited Mr Q to complete diary sheets to record the dates and times he noticed problems at his property so it could make a full assessment;
• it did not insist on bored piling for development in the district but, if it found evidence that noise and vibration were at levels that caused a statutory nuisance, it would serve a notice on the developer;
• it would continue to monitor the site and liaise with the developer; and
• it was open to Mr Q to take his own action against the developer under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

6. Mr Q remains unhappy with the Council’s actions. He thinks it should require the developer to place acoustic boards around the site to reduce noise and dust. He also thinks the Council should insist the developer use bored rather than impact piling.
7. In response to a draft of this decision, Mr Q said most local authorities insist on non-impact piling near to residential properties. He also provided an exchange of emails with the Environmental Health Department which showed it was monitoring the site, it had been in touch with the site manager, and measures were being put in place to control dust.

Analysis

8. We will not investigate this complaint.
9. When Mr Q complained to the Council it had not received any complaints about noise and dust from residents living along the site boundary. Its view was that a complaint from Mr Q, who lives about 100 metres from the site, was not enough evidence to justify it taking action against the developer. It invited Mr Q to provide more evidence and said it would monitor the site itself.
10. It seems to me that the Council properly considered Mr Q’s complaint and properly explained what action it would and could take. In addition, the email exchange Mr Q provided in response to a draft of this decision showed that the Council continues to monitor the site as it said it would, and action is being taken to control dust. So it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.
11. Mr Q is unhappy the Council does not insist on the developer using non-impact piling. However, as I said above, Mr Q lives about 100 metres from the site. He is therefore unlikely to be affected by noise and dust in the way that residents living along the site boundary might be. So, even if the Council is at fault in the way Mr Q alleges, his personal injustice would not be significant enough to justify an investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in the Analysis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman