Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (19 018 985)

Category : Environment and regulation > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 18 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not consider Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to serve a noise abatement notice further. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would result in a different outcome for Mrs X.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complained the Council issued her local Town Council with a noise abatement notice to address noise caused by a skate ramp. She says removal of the ramp will damage the health and wellbeing of her child and other local children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered all the information Mrs X provided. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint. I have written to Mrs X with my draft decision and considered her comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires councils investigate noise which may be a statutory nuisance. Where noise causes, or likely to cause a statutory nuisance, councils must serve an abatement notice. The notice requires the person responsible to either stop or restrict the noise. If the person does not take action, they can be fined or prosecuted.
  2. In July 2019, the Council served the Town Council with a noise abatement notice. The notice related to noise from a skate ramp located in a park owned by the Town Council. The notice said the Town Council must prevent noise from the ramp as it was causing a nuisance to nearby residents.
  3. Mrs X disputes the skate ramp caused the noise. She believes children playing and anti-social behaviour taking place in the park were responsible. Mrs X says removing the skate ramp will not address the noise issues and will damage the health and wellbeing of local children.
  4. The recipient of a noise abatement notice has 21 days after receipt to file an appeal to the Magistrates Court. The Town Council did not file an appeal and later sought an extension until September 2019 to allow time to remove the ramp before the Council took enforcement action. The ramp is still in place.
  5. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint and was satisfied with its reasons for issuing the noise abatement notice. It confirmed it had notified the Town Council of the 21-day appeal time limit.
  6. The Ombudsman considers it is reasonable to have expected the Town Council to appeal the decision if it disagreed with the notice. It is unlikely further investigation would result in a different outcome to that of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page