Summary: The Council failed to act on Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring business. This caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration over whether there was a statutory nuisance. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and carry out a new assessment of the noise.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Council A failed to act on a statutory noise nuisance following continued breaches of a noise abatement notice from a neighbouring business. Mr X also complained Council A failed to properly review the acceptable noise levels since it first issued the abatement notice. Mr X says Council A’s failure to act has caused him and his wife distress and frustration as they repeatedly must suffer the impact of excessive noise from the business. He wants Council A to act against the nuisance and ensure there are no further breaches of the notice.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. 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)
6. The Council issued an abatement notice in 2017. Mr X alerted Council A to a potential statutory noise nuisance in early 2023. In May 2023 Council A told Mr X it did not consider the noise to be a statutory nuisance. Council B was carrying out an investigation into the nuisance at the same time. Mr X decided to wait for the outcome of that investigation before deciding whether to complain further.
7. I have not investigated the Council’s original abatement notice from 2017. It was open to Mr X to complain about the levels in the abatement notice at the time. I have decided to investigate events back to early 2023 as it was reasonable for Mr X to wait for Council B to look into the matter to see if the issue was resolved.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Statutory nuisances

10. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
11. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include:

• noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street;
• smoke from premises;
• smells and fumes from industry, trade or business premises;
• artificial light from premises;
• insect infestations from industrial, trade or business premises; and
• accumulation of deposits on premises.

12. 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 property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

13. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
14. Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
15. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise or fumes.
16. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance, but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

Abatement notices

17. If a council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, the council may delay issuing an abatement notice for a short period, to try to address the problem informally.
18. An abatement notice requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.
19. A person who receives an abatement notice has a right to appeal it in the magistrates’ court. If they can show the court they have done everything reasonable to prevent or minimise the nuisance, the court may decide the abatement notice is not appropriate.

The Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000

20. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) are protected by the CROW Act 2000. The Act placed a duty on local authorities to give regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) when carrying out their functions.
21. The Act was amended in 2023 to say authorities must make sure that all decisions seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the AONB.

CIEH: Clay Target Shooting, Guidance on Control of Noise 2003

22. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) guidance on control of noise from clay target shooting provides practical advice for local authorities and shoot operators on how to minimise and prevent annoyance and intrusion, including a recommended method for the measurement and assessment of noise from clay target shooting.
23. Where there are justified noise complaints. the guidance recommends restricting shoots to between the hours of:
• 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday, with a maximum cumulative duration of 4 hours.
• 10am to 6pm on Saturdays, with a maximum cumulative duration of 3 hours.
• 10am to 2pm on Sundays, with a maximum cumulative duration of 3 hours.
24. It also recommends:
• Restricting the number of shooting stands in use at any one time and the maximum number of entrants.
• Use of subsonic (low noise) cartridges
• Purpose built noise barriers on permanent sites
25. The guidance says there is no fixed shooting noise level where annoyance starts to occur, but annoyance is less likely at a shooting noise level (SNL) of 55dB and highly likely to occur at a n SNL of 65bB.

Background

26. Mr X lives in Council B’s area, which is close to Council A’s area. In 2017 Council A issued an abatement notice for noise coming from a nearby shooting business. The notice limited noise from the business to 65dB and said weekend shoots should last no longer than three hours. It said the business may also use “subsonic” cartridges and install noise barriers “as required”. The officer’s report into the noise demonstrated how they had taken account of the CIEH clay target shooting guidance in deciding what mitigations were needed in the abatement notice.

What happened

27. Mr X alerted Council A to further noise in early 2023. He said the noise level of 65dB in the abatement notice was too high. Council A visited the site and decided the noise did not amount to a statutory noise nuisance in May 2023. It told Mr X the site appeared to be operating within the conditions specified in the abatement notice, but it had been unable to check the noise levels at the boundary of the residential property. It said it had no plans to revisit the notice.
28. Mr X told Council A he disagreed with its decision. He said Council A had not carried out further tests, and shoots at the business had increased in frequency. He maintained the noise level in the abatement notice was too high. He said he would wait for the outcome of Council B’s investigation before deciding whether to take matters further.
29. Mr X contacted Council A again in early 2024. He asked Council A how it had considered its obligations under the CROW act when deciding there was no nuisance. In later correspondence he asked Council A to contact Council B to resolve the issue. Council A told Mr X it was committed to working with Council B to investigate the issue.
30. Council A carried out further monitoring in May 2024. Council A said the noise of gunshots was not loud, but the report contained no specific noise measurements.
31. Mr X chased Council A for an update in July 2024. In August 2024 he told Council A of a non-weekend shoot at the business. Mr X complained to Council A on 25 September 2024. He said Council A had failed to investigate his noise complaint and the noise levels in the abatement notice were too high. He said Council A had a duty to promote tranquillity under the CROW act.
32. Council A responded to Mr X’s complaint on 8 November 2024. It said it was not responsible for investigating Mr X’s noise complaint as Mr X lived in Council B’s area. It said it was confident it had followed the correct procedure in deciding the levels in the abatement notice. It accepted it had communicated poorly with Mr X and said it was happy to review the level in the abatement notice given the time since it was first issued.
33. Mr X asked Council A to escalate his complaint to stage two on 14 November 2024. He said it had accepted his complaint knowing he lived in Council B’s area and failed to follow the necessary legislation in investigating the noise nuisance. Council A responded at stage two of its complaint procedure on 13 December 2024. It said it should not have accepted Mr X’s complaint, but its communication was not good enough. It said it would re-open the case, re-test the noise levels and investigate the implications of the CROW act.
34. Council A later wrote to Mr X to clarify its duties under the CROW act. It said the act placed a “Duty of Regard” on Council A when it took decisions regarding the AONB. It said the recent amendments to the Act meant the Council now had to also conserve and enhance the AONB in its decision making. It said it would take account of this when assessing the current levels and reinvestigating the noise.
35. There is no record of any further contact between Mr X and Council A until August 2025 when Mr X alerted Council A to further noise from the business. During this time Council B issued its own abatement notice and worked with the business to put in place a noise management plan. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in September 2025.
36. Following Mr X’s new report, Council A contacted the business to ask what measures it had in place. It asked Mr X to fill out noise diary sheets. The Council chased the business for a response. In October 2025 the business said it had implemented several measures over the last 18 months and instructed a noise consultancy firm.
37. Council’s A and B spoke on the phone in October 2025. Council B said it had commissioned a noise assessment to determine if there was a breach of its own abatement notice. Mr X continued to report noise to Council A.
38. In response to our enquiries Council A said it had yet to receive a copy of Council B’s noise report or any diary sheets from Mr X. It said it was not under a duty to investigate Mr X’s noise complaint as he did not live in its area. It said it had not carried out any testing itself as it was waiting for Council B’s report.

My findings

39. The Council set the conditions of the abatement notice in 2017. When Mr X raised new concerns in 2023 it carried out a site visit and was satisfied the shooting business had not breached the notice. It is not clear how the Council arrived at this conclusion. In its letter the Council accepted it had not been able to take readings at the residential boundary, and it has not provided any site visit notes or other readings to support its findings.
40. On balance, I cannot say the Council properly investigated Mr X’s concerns in 2023 or made an evidence-based decision there was no statutory nuisance. This was fault, causing Mr X uncertainty over whether the business had breached the abatement notice and caused a statutory nuisance.
41. When Mr X got back in touch with the Council in 2024 the Council carried out further monitoring and determined the noise from the business was not loud. However, the site visit notes contained no readings to support this. There is insufficient evidence to support the Council’s conclusions not to take further action. This was fault, causing Mr X further uncertainty.
42. The Council was entitled to reject Mr X’s complaint as he does not live in its area. However, the Council’s approach outside of its complaint process meant Mr X was entitled to expect it to act. Before Mr X complained the Council engaged with Mr X and investigated the noise issue. When it rejected the complaint, it still said it would revisit the levels in the abatement notice, with regard to its updated duties under the CROW act. There is no evidence the Council has done this. Instead, the Council appears to have left matters to Council B, rather than investigating a noise complaint about a business located within its own area. This was fault.
43. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide if there is a statutory noise nuisance, and it is not possible to say whether the Council would have identified a statutory nuisance with proper investigation. The Council missed opportunities in both 2023 and 2024 the properly investigate Mr X’s noise complaint and then failed to carry out a new assessment and review the abatement notice when it said it would. This has caused Mr X prolonged uncertainty and frustration.

Back to top

Action

44. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the prolonged uncertainty and frustration of failing to act on Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Pay Mr X £150 to recognise the uncertainty and frustration of failing to act on Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance.
3. Carry out the new assessment and review of the abatement notice, as promised to Mr X in its complaint response. If the Council finds evidence of a statutory nuisance it should act accordingly.
45. Within three months of the final decision the Council has agreed to review why it repeatedly failed to properly investigate Mr X’s concerns and put measures in place to ensure it bases its decisions on robust evidence and investigation.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman