Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his concerns about noise nuisance and planning enforcement issues relating to an airfield. The matters about noise are outside our jurisdiction because they have already been considered by a court. We will not investigate the planning enforcement issues because the Council has considered whether to take enforcement action but decided it is not expedient to do so. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this decision to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about noise disturbance and planning control issues at an airfield near his home. He says the Council has failed to take effective action to stop ongoing noise nuisance.
2. Mr X says the Council has failed to properly investigate breaches of planning regulations at the site.
3. He says the Council’s complaint handling has been inconsistent and that poor coordination between departments and a failure to address the issues raised has caused frustration, distress, and ongoing disruption for residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. We cannot investigate a complaint about noise disturbance as this matter has already been considered by a court. The court has approved a consent order which requires the airfield to adhere to a noise management plan. Any alleged breach of the consent order would be a matter for the courts and would need to be raised through them.
10. On the planning matters, the Council has told Mr X that its investigations into his concerns are ongoing. It has considered whether to take enforcement action but decided it is not expedient to do so at this time. The law gives councils discretion over enforcement decisions, and we do not provide a right of appeal. We can only criticise a decision if there is evidence of fault in the process, such as failing to consider relevant factors. There is no evidence of such fault here. The Council is aware of concerns, is continuing to investigate and has explained its current position to him. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
11. We also do not investigate how the Council handled the complaints as a standalone issue where we are not investigating the substantive matters.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the noise nuisance because it is the subject of a court order. We will not investigate his complaint about planning enforcement because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman