Summary: Dr F complained about the Council’s handling of the licensing of a music festival. He says the Council failed to consult with residents and it failed to comply with the Code of Practice for Environmental Noise Control at Concerts. He also says the Council failed to act on illegal noise levels after 11pm. We do not find the Council was at fault.

The complaint

1. Dr F complained about the Council’s handling of the licensing of a music festival. He says the Council failed to consult with residents and it has allowed inadequate notification of the festival. He says the Council has failed to comply with the Code of Practice for Environmental Noise Control at Concerts. Finally, he says the Council failed to act on illegal noise levels after 11pm and it has made no effort to ensure it does not reoccur in the future.
2. Dr F says the matter has caused him frustration and he has been put to inconvenience pursuing the issues. He says he has lost sleep and it is likely his house will be devalued.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Dr F. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Dr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Licensing Act 2003

7. All businesses and event holders must obtain a license before they can sell alcohol to the public or provide certain entertainment, which can include the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music. The Licensing Act 2003 sets out four licensing objectives, which includes the prevention of public nuisance.
8. Members of the public or other businesses can make representations on applications for licenses and variations but only in relation to the licensing objectives.
9. The requirements governing the advertisement of licensing applications is set out within the Licensing Act 2003 and the section 182 statutory guidance. Applicants are required to publish a notice in a local newspaper and display a summary of the application on an A4 (or larger) site notice immediately on or outside the premises for at least 28 consecutive days.

The Noise Act 1996

10. This Act aims to regulate and control noise pollution. It was amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. This states permitted noise levels of 34dB(A) should not be exceeded when measured within the complainant’s dwelling for both domestic and licensed premises. The permitted noise level applies during night hours (11pm to 7am).

Code of Practice on Environmental Noise Control at Concerts

11. This code (which has now been withdrawn) was prepared as a good practice guide to assist those responsible for licensing music events.
12. The code says:

• The music noise levels for urban and rural venues should not exceed 65dB(A) over a 15-minute period (1 to 3 concert days).
• For venues where more than three events per calendar year are expected, there should be a reduction in the permitted music noise level. The music noise levels should not exceed the background noise level by more than 15dB(A) over a 15-minute period.
• For events continuing or held between the hours of 11pm and 9am the music noise should not be audible within noise-sensitive premises with windows open in a typical manner for ventilation.

13. The code is not legislative, and councils cannot enforce directly against it.

The Environmental Protection Act (1990)

14. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
15. Typical things which may be a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment, or machinery in the street.
16. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
   

17. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer, or EHO) to gather evidence. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.

What happened

18. This chronology provides an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
19. An organisation (Organisation A) applied to the Council for a license to host a music festival near to where Dr F lives. The Council sent the application to responsible authorities including the police and the fire service.
20. Organisation A advertised the application by putting up a site notice and publishing a notice in a local newspaper.
21. The Council approved the license. It attached conditions to the license which said noise monitoring should continue throughout the festival and Organisation A should carry out a leaflet drop two weeks before the festival to all local residents. The Council also stated noise should not exceed 65dB(A) over a 15-minute period between the hours of 9am and 11pm and it should not be audible within any noise sensitive premises with windows open between the hours of 11pm and 9am.
22. The Council visited the site and the surrounding areas during the festival to monitor the noise. Officers recorded the noise was largely within the limits set out in the license. When the noise levels became too loud on a couple of occasions, officers contacted Organisation A and asked it to reduce the noise levels.
23. Dr F contacted the Council after the festival had taken place. He asked for information on the measures it had taken to ensure Organisation A complied with the conditions in the license. He also asked for information on the consultation it had with residents before the festival. The Council responded and said officials and the police carried out visits during the festival to ensure Organisation A was adhering to the licensing conditions. It said it carried out noise monitoring and the noise was below the limits set out in the noise management plan. It said Organisation A advertised the festival in the local press and displayed notices around the site. Finally, it said Organisation A had carried out a leaflet drop two weeks before the festival.
24. Dr F said he had not received a leaflet. He also asked for further information on who it consulted with it and how it publicised the festival. The Council responded and said under the Licensing Act 2003 there is no obligation to notify neighbouring properties of applications. It said it would tell Organisation A to extend the area of the leaflet drop for the festival the following year.
25. The Council held a meeting with Organisation A and other relevant authorities to discuss the upcoming festival and feedback from the previous year. Officers agreed Organisation A should extend the leaflet drop to further areas and there would be further publicity with residents. The environmental protection team asked for noise levels to be within 40dB(A) after 11pm.
26. Organisation A sent leaflets to residents with information about the festival. The Council also sent information to complainants (including Dr F) from the previous year.
27. Dr F contacted the Council during the festival and said the noise levels were too loud, especially after 11pm. The Council responded and said there was an occasion when the music was too loud. It said the incident was unacceptable and an officer raised it with Organisation A.
28. Dr F and the Council continued to exchange emails about the issues. The Council offered to meet with Dr F to discuss his concerns further. It also said if he was unhappy with the license, he could apply for a review.
29. Dr F complained to the Council. He said it failed to consult with residents and it failed to properly advertise the festival. He also said it failed to follow the Code of Practice for Environmental Noise Control at Concerts and it did not enforce lower noise levels after 11pm.
30. The Council responded to Dr F’s complaint. It said it had robustly engaged before, during and after each festival. It said it conducted site visits, arranged review meetings, and wrote to complainants and parish councils. It also said officers monitored the noise, and it was inaudible at the boundaries of noise sensitive properties. It said there was no evidence to suggest the festival was causing a public or statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Analysis

31. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons to. Dr F complains about matters from 2021, but he did not refer his complaint to us until 2023. I have exercised discretion to look at the issues from 2021 because it was an ongoing matter and Dr F was in continuous communication with the Council about it.
32. The Licensing Act 2003 and statutory guidance states applicants must publish a notice in a local newspaper and display a summary of the application on a site notice immediately on or outside the premises for at least 28 consecutive days. A notice was published in a local newspaper and Organisation A put up a site notice on the premises. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council ensured the application was properly advertised in accordance with the legislation.
33. There is no requirement within the legislation for councils to consult with residents. Therefore, I do not find fault. The Council did however ask Organisation A to circulate a leaflet to residents before the festival. When Dr F said he had not received a leaflet, the Council spoke to Organisation A and asked it to extend the leaflet drop to other areas. It also sent emails to complainants (including Dr F) and the parish council to advise of the measures in place and the action it was taking. Therefore, it is clear the Council has engaged appropriately with residents.
34. Dr F says the Council failed to comply with the Code of Practice for Environmental Noise Control at Concerts. This is good practice guidance (which has now been withdrawn), and the Council is not legally obliged to follow it. However, I am satisfied the Council has largely adhered to the code. It asked Organisation A to comply with the noise levels within the code. It has also provided me with evidence it carried out noise monitoring, and it raised any breaches with Organisation A. It also arranged meetings after the festivals to discuss any issues and agree any improvements for the following year.
35. Finally, Dr F says the music at the festival exceeded the legal limit of 34dB(A) for nighttime noise after 11pm, but the Council failed to act and ensure it does not reoccur in the future. The legal limit Dr F refers to is measured inside a complainants dwelling. The Council initially set an outside noise limit of 45dB(A) after 11pm, and then it reduced this the following year to 40dB(A). It has explained a partially open window provides a typical reduction of 15dB(A) in noise levels. A fully shut window would reduce the noise level further. Therefore, the limits the Council stipulated adheres to the legislation. There was a temporary period when the noise levels were too high after 11pm. The Council contacted Organisation A and resolved the matter informally. It decided there was no need for formal action, which is a decision it was entitled to take. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman