Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her noise nuisance complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating and it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X even if we did.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her complaint about a potential noise nuisance from an approved development in the area. She says the Council did not properly investigate her concerns and did not fully or satisfactorily respond to the points she raised in her complaint.
2. She wants the Council to reinvestigate and issue an abatement order to stop the potential noise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Councils have a statutory obligation under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to investigate complaints about possible noise nuisances. Where a council finds a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or is likely to recur or occur in the future, they must serve an abatement notice.
9. Mrs X complained to the Council about a potential noise nuisance from an approved development in the area. She wanted the Council to issue an abatement notice to stop the increase in noise she believes will occur.
10. The Council referred the matter to its planning and development team, which reviewed the relevant planning application and decided the development was unlikely to cause a statutory noise nuisance. Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s response and believes it did not consider the matter properly.
11. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even though a complainant may disagree with it.
12. I am satisfied the Council was entitled to rely on the existing environmental assessment and the professional advice of its planning officers and noise consultants when deciding the development was unlikely to cause a statutory noise nuisance. It was therefore entitled not to issue an abatement notice. There is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating and it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X even if we did. This is because we cannot say the Council should have issued an abatement notice or direct it to do so now. The possibility for any future noise nuisance is also currently entirely speculative, as the applicant has publicly confirmed their intention not to proceed with the development. It is therefore unlikely, at present, that we could say the Council’s decision causes Mrs X any injustice.
13. If the development does go ahead Mrs X may report any concerns she has about the noise levels to the Council and the Council must investigate them. If she is unhappy with any future investigation she may make a new complaint.

The planning process

14. While Mrs X’s complaint focuses on the Council’s handling of her noise nuisance complaint, several of the issues she raises concern its handling of the planning application for the development. Mrs X has not explicitly complained about the application process, and any complaint about the Council’s handling of the application falls outside our jurisdiction as the Council granted planning permission in 2023 and Mrs X did not complain to us until September 2025. Had she wished to complain about this point it would have been reasonable for her to do so at the time.
15. I have however considered the application documents to see whether the Council properly considered the issue of noise when reaching its decision to grant planning permission, as there is clear overlap with the noise issue Mrs X has raised in her complaint.
16. The evidence I have seen shows the Council assessed the environmental impacts of the proposed development, including any potential noise and health impacts, as part of the planning application process. It also considered and responded to any objections to the proposed development. The assessment decided the development would not have a significant noise impact and that any potential harm could be mitigated through planning conditions and obligations. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s handling of the planning application, even if we were to investigate.

Complaint handling

17. Mrs X also complains the Council did not fully or satisfactorily respond to the points she raised in her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. As I am not investigating the Council’s decision about the potential noise nuisance, I will not investigate this part of her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint mostly because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for her at the current time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman