Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s discharge of a planning condition. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate his complaint about the delay in enforcing a court order for noise nuisance. We have no jurisdiction not investigate complaints which have been subject to court proceedings.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s investigation of noise nuisance which he says is being caused by a factory near his home. He says the Council failed to properly ensure noise was mitigated from the factory before it discharged a planning condition in 2022. As a result, he says his home is affected by noise from extraction units at the factory. He also complained about the time taken to process an abatement notice through the court and to enforce it against the factory owners.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he moved to his home in 2021 and noticed noise nuisance from a neighbouring factory, notably from the extraction equipment. He says he met several times with the Council’s Planners and Environmental Services and formally complained about the planning approval for his home in September 2022. The Council told him that a planning condition for noise mitigation had been discharged following a noise report commissioned in 2021. Mr X remained dissatisfied and the Council advised him to complain to us. He did not do so until 2024 which is outside the normal 12-month timescale for accepting complaints.
7. Mr X also complained about the noise nuisance to the Council’s Environmental Services. He said the noise was apparent outside the hours approved for working and that it was loud enough to make him have his windows closed for most days of the week. The Council investigated in November 2022 and served an abatement notice. The factory owners appealed within 21 days and the matter has been ongoing with the courts until 2024.
8. Although the court issued an order against the factory owners it allows until November 2024 for compliance. Mr X says this is too long and the Council should have challenged the order and required a shorter timescale.
9. We cannot investigate complaints about matters which have been subject to court proceedings. In this case the proceedings started in 2022 with the issue of an abatement notice.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s discharge of a planning condition. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate his complaint about the delay in enforcing a court order for noise nuisance. We have no jurisdiction not investigate complaints which have been subject to court proceedings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman