Summary: The Council delayed investigating Mr X's reports of a noise nuisance from a nearby business. It then delayed deciding what action to take following breaches of its abatement notice. This caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and make a decision whether to take further action against the breaches.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Council B failed to act on a statutory noise nuisance following continued breaches of a noise abatement notice from neighbouring businesses. Mr X says Council B’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 B 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. Mr X alerted Council B to a potential statutory noise nuisance in early 2023 and complained to Council B in October 2024. Following the Council’s complaint response Mr X said he wanted to wait and see if the noise issue had been resolved until deciding whether to complain sooner. Due to the seasonal nature of the noise Mr X’s first opportunity to do this was early 2025. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
7. I have decided to investigate events back to early 2023 as it was reasonable for Mr X to wait to see if the matter had been resolved before complaining further.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and Council B as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and Council B 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.

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

20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
23. 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.

What happened

24. Mr X complained to Council B in early 2023 about noise from a neighbouring shooting business in Council A’s area. Around the same time Council B also received complaints about two other shooting locations in the area. Mr X also complained to Council A.
25. In May 2023 Council A told Council B it did not consider the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance. There is no record of any further action from Council B until April 2024 when it carried out a noise assessment of one of the shooting sites. It recorded an SNL of 74.4dB.
26. Later in April 2024 Council B carried out a noise assessment of the shooting business Mr X complained about. It recorded an SNL of 61.9dB. Its report noted this exceeded the acceptable noise limit and the business needed to implement noise mitigation strategies.
27. Council B wrote to all three shooting sites in July 2024. In August 2024 it carried out an assessment of the third shooting site. It measured an SNL of 76.6dB.
28. In September 2024 the shooting business told Council B of its forthcoming shoot dates. It said it was planning to use subsonic cartridges to reduce the noise. In On 7 October 2024 Mr X complained to Council B. He said it had found a statutory noise nuisance from the shooting business but failed to take any action. Council B responded to Mr X’s complaint on 23 October 2024. It said the issue was complicated by there being multiple sources of noise and it had to investigate each one and decide if they had used the best practicable means to mitigate the noise. It said it was liaising with Council A and an informal resolution did not look possible. It said it would now review the evidence before deciding what action to take.
29. A few days later an officer for Council B submitted a potential noise abatement notice for approval. Around the same time Council B recorded SNLs of 50.3 dB at the shooting business but noted this was only on less elevated sections of the area. Over the coming months the Council considered whether to issue the abatement notice. It noted the recent lower noise reading and that the shooting business was cooperating.
30. In February 2025 Council B received further evidence of a statutory nuisance and decided to proceed with the abatement notice. It issued the abatement notice against the shooting business on 16 February 2025. The notice specified a noise limit of 55dB and asked the business to develop a noise management plan.
31. The business submitted its noise management plan at the end of February 2025. It agreed to:
• Mandatory use of subsonic cartridges
• Installation of noise reducing measures
• The reduction of shooting stands
• Engage a professional noise consultancy to recommend further measures.
32. In June 2025 the shooting business provided Council B with an update on its progress. It said it was using subsonic cartridges and had begun boxing in shooting stands.
33. In August 2025 another of the shooting sites provided Council B with details of its noise mitigation. This included low noise cartridges, reducing use, a relocation of some shoots and changes to its times of operation. Around the same time Mr X contacted the Council over its lack of enforcement of its abatement notice. He said the shooting business continued to breach the notice and the Council was not acting. The Council said it was satisfied it was acting properly and must consider the evidence before deciding whether to take legal action against the business. Mr X also complained to the Ombudsman. The Council carried out a further noise check at the same time and noted an SNL of 57.2 dB.
34. In December 2025 the Council carried out a joint visit with noise consultants commissioned by the shooting business. It recorded an SNL of 62.7dB. In February 2026 Council B recorded a noise range between 70.3 and 76.7dB from the business. The shooting business told Council B that users had used unauthorised cartridges on this shoot, and it would implement stricter protocols.
35. In April 2026 the Council completed a noise shooting assessment to summarise the case. The assessment noted that in four out of the five monitoring sessions the shoots had exceeded the established acceptable noise limit, and this was likely to cause an annoyance. The Council referred the matter to its legal services and said it would carry out further monitoring.
36. In response to our enquiries the Council accepted delays in its investigation following its initial investigation in May 2023. It said it then invested in new support which led to the issuing of the abatement notice. It said it was still considering whether to take further action.

My findings

37. Council B has accepted it delayed investigating and acting on Mr X’s noise complaint between May 2023 and April 2024. This was fault, causing Mr X frustration and uncertainty.
38. Following the original delay, Council B established action was needed in April 2024. It was entitled to initially seek an informal resolution. By October 2024 it had decided this was not possible and its officer proposed an abatement notice. Following this, the Council was again entitled to review the evidence following lower readings and cooperation from the business, until it issued the abatement notice in February 2025. The Council was not at fault during this time but, the evidence shows further delays after the Council issued the abatement notice which continue today.
39. Having issued the abatement notice the Council has since found breaches of the conditions in the notice but failed to consider further action. It found breaches of the notice in August 2025, December 2025 and February 2026. By April 2026 it’s assessment report confirmed the shooting business had exceeded the notice and caused an annoyance, but the Council has still to decide what further action to take. This was fault. It is not for the Ombudsman to say what action the Council should take, but its failure to decide has caused Mr X additional frustration and uncertainty.

Impact on Mr X

40. Had the Council acted without delay between May 2023 and April 2024 it is likely, on balance, it would have issued the abatement notice sooner. Had it acted without fault following the abatement notice, it is also likely it would have decided what action to take sooner. On balance, I am satisfied the fault by the Council has resulted in a loss of amenity to Mr X, in addition to the frustration caused by the delays in acting. The seasonal and infrequent nature of the shooting business mean this loss has not been permanent but I am satisfied there was a cumulative impact of around one month’s lost amenity on Mr X.

Back to top

Action

41. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty and frustration caused by its delay investigating and acting against the noise nuisance, followed by its delay deciding what action to take following breaches of its abatement notice. 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 for the uncertainty and frustration caused by its delay investigating and acting against the noise nuisance and its delay deciding what action to take following the breaches of its abatement notice.
3. Pay Mr X £350 to recognise around one month’s loss of amenity on Mr X.
4. Decide what, if any, action to take against the shooting business following the breaches of the abatement notice and write to Mr X with its decision.
42. Within three months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to review its procedures for acting against breaches of an abatement notice to ensure it makes a decision promptly over what, if any, action to take.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman