Summary: Mrs X complained a council development caused noise and disturbance that affected her business. There was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider her complaint about noise and disturbance from development work the Council was carrying out near to her home. She runs a business from home and she needed to rent a room elsewhere during the work. She complains the Council declined to compensate her for the costs of this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mrs X and considered her complaint. I asked the Council for information and considered its response. I sent my draft decision to Mrs X and to the Council to enable both parties to comment. I considered the comments I received before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X works from home, seeing clients in a home office in her garden. Because of the nature of her business, a quiet environment is needed.
6. Mrs X complained about a site owned by the Council to the rear of her garden. The Council engaged a contractor to demolish the existing properties there and build a new development on the site. She explained the work was noisy and the area was busier, so her garden was more overlooked, reducing confidentiality.
7. When work began in August 2018 Mrs X spoke with the site manager several times. She explained her situation and asked what could be done about the noise. The Construction Manager was co-operative and receptive and lowered the volume where possible. He also discussed when quieter times may be to help Mrs X to try and work around it.
8. In April 2019 Mrs X wrote to the contractor. She explained the difficulties the work had caused. She acknowledged the site manager was helpful but stated as a result of the noise she had to change her work schedule and see clients later in the day which impacted her private life. As work was continuing and there was an intention to develop another site in front of her property Mrs X felt she would need to rent a room to work in. She felt the contractor/the council should meet the cost of this as a minimum.
9. The contractor acknowledged there was some impact, but stated they could take no responsibility for loss or earnings and couldn’t compensate her. The Council also responded to Mrs X. It stated it had attempted to minimise the disruption by choosing a contractor registered with the Considerate Constructor Scheme and it put neighbour relations into its selection criteria. The Council noted the planning process did take account of the impact on neighbours to a degree; it required a construction method statement to be submitted.
10. The Council noted the difficult situation for Mrs X but felt it had acted reasonably and could not meet the costs of an alternative location for Mrs X’s business.
11. Officers met with Mrs X ahead of another project that would take place to the front of her property in 2020. They discussed the issues and agreed to put Mrs X in touch with the project manager well in advance of the start of works so she would have a contact point for any concerns.
12. Following the meeting the officers shared details of the Construction Method Statement for the existing project. It placed some rules on construction methods and hours of work.
13. It stated “The site will operate from 7:30am until 6:00pm Monday to Friday, 8:30am until 1:00pm Saturday with no works on a Sunday. Operatives will arrive from 7:30am but no machinery will be started prior to 8:00am. Hours will only be extended to ensure that the area is left safe at the end of the working day. Work will be sequenced and programmed to avoid this in so far as is practicable”
14. “We intend to act as a good neighbour to all Residents and will promote a close liaison particularly with the local Businesses and Residents. The site will be registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme and signage to this effect will be posted on the heras fencing. This signage will give clear contact details of the person who Residents/Road Users should contact if they have any concerns.”
15. Mrs X told officers that on one occasion a loud bang was heard at 7:30am, but she had not noted any other incidents of noise outside permitted hours.
16. As the meeting with officers did not resolve the matter for Mrs X the Council escalated the complaint and responded further. Although the Council acknowledged the nature of Mrs X’s business and the points she made, it felt it had not been at fault. It had no grounds to offer compensation as a result.
17. The Council told us that it responded to Mrs X’s complaint in its capacity as the landowner. No complaints were made to the planning or environmental health teams about the noise or impact of the development, so they had not been involved in responding to Mrs X. Mrs X made no contact with planning or environmental health teams.
18. On 19 June Mrs X emailed the Council about the expected completion date for the works. She also said that she had been woken up in the early hours of the morning the previous day by people in the building to the front of her property. They were talking and shining torches, which disturbed and disconcerted her. The Council’s response to Mrs X noted the Council had written to residents in May to make them aware that several bat surveys were to be carried out during the night in May and June. It gave dates but stated the future dates may be subject to change as the surveys were weather dependant. Unfortunately, the proposed date of 5 June couldn’t go ahead, so the survey took place on 18 June at short notice. The Council apologised for the disturbance and that it wasn’t able to communicate the new date in time.
19. The Council provided us with copies of letters sent to local residents ahead of the works and to update them at various stages. A copy of the letter advising residents of the bat surveys was included in this.

Was there fault by the Council

20. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether a council has acted in accordance with any relevant policies, the law and whether its actions were in accordance with good practice. If we find fault in a council’s actions, we would consider what injustice that fault caused to the complainant. We would seek to remedy any injustice caused directly by the fault.
21. Any noise from a construction site can cause disturbance to surrounding properties for the period that the works take place. However, some noise is inevitable. The fact that there was some noise from construction, does not constitute fault by the Council in itself.
22. The Council has shown that it took reasonable steps to ensure the contractor adhered to good practice. The Council considered the impact as part of its tender process and it ensured the contractor was a member of the considerate constructor’s scheme. There is evidence the Council’s contractor was courteous and helpful when Mrs X’s raised some concerns.
23. I note the Council communicated with neighbours about the development appropriately.
24. The Council’s planning and environmental health teams did not receive complaints about noise or work outside of working hours. Mrs X only observed one loud noise at 7:30am. It seems this was not a breach of the method statement for the development as it did not involve machinery. In any event it would be unlikely that a single incident would warrant any formal enforcement action.
25. Having considered the complaint, and the information provided by the Council, I found there was no fault. As a result, I have no grounds to seek compensation or remedy for Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

26. There was no fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman