Pollution


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • East Staffordshire Borough Council (18 007 319)

    Statement Not upheld Pollution 09-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to deal with his reports of nuisance from burning and dog barking at his neighbour's property. Mr B says he had to put up with smoke and noise nuisance for longer than necessary and the smoke damaged some belongings. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Cornwall Council (18 009 330)

    Statement Not upheld Pollution 08-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council failed to investigate reports of smoke nuisance. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

  • Canterbury City Council (18 008 998)

    Statement Not upheld Pollution 04-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not impose a planning condition to prevent waste being burned on his neighbour's property when it granted this individual planning permission. He says it took too long to explain why it was not able to impose the condition, and its Environmental Health Team was powerless to stop his neighbour burning waste after the permission was granted. The Ombudsman has found the Council was not at fault because it considered Mr B's request for a planning condition but was not required to impose one. In addition, it's Environmental Health Team acted in line with its procedure when Mr B reported his neighbour was burning waste. We accept it initially did not clearly explain why it could not impose a planning condition, but this is a customer service issue rather than a case of maladministration.

  • South Lakeland District Council (18 001 359)

    Statement Upheld Pollution 29-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to take action when a business operator began using an incinerator outside the hours allowed by a planning condition. The Council's communications with Mr B have been confused, the Council has not been clear about the purpose of the condition and officers failed to keep site visit notes. That did not affect the outcome. Mr B's injustice is therefore limited to the confusion the Council's communications created and his raised expectations. An apology, payment to Mr B and commitment to keep site visit notes in future is satisfactory remedy.

  • Cornwall Council (18 004 826)

    Statement Not upheld Pollution 26-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to monitor air quality in his village after a new Energy Recovery Centre began operating in 2017. He said the Council also failed to practice the precautionary principle by not recognising the health risks of the mixing of emissions from the centre and a nearby china clay production plant. The Council is not at fault. The Council considered the law, government guidance and modelling completed by the Environment Agency. It decided Mr X's village did not meet the criteria for monitoring and said there was no good reason to practice the precautionary principle.

  • North Norfolk District Council (17 017 807)

    Statement Upheld Pollution 06-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to properly investigate an odour nuisance. She said the nuisance caused by the odour caused her to relocate her business and she suffered an injustice. We find the Council at fault for sometimes failing to do what it said it would do. However, we do not find this caused Mrs X a significant injustice.

  • Reading Borough Council (17 018 729)

    Statement Upheld Pollution 30-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr X and Ms Y, who live together, complain the Council has not properly investigated their nuisance complaint about smoke emissions from a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman finds there was fault in the Council's response to Mr X. It failed to respond quickly when he called about an incident in progress, as it had asked him to, was slow to provide details of its out of hours service and then arranged site visits at arbitrary times without making plans to see Mr X in person. Although we cannot say the Council would have found the smoke was causing a statutory nuisance, the failure to investigate properly has caused uncertainty and frustration. We proposed this be remedied by an apology and financial redress and the Council agreed.

  • Halton Borough Council (17 016 708)

    Statement Upheld Pollution 11-Oct-2018

    Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to respond to her complaint about nuisances caused by an Energy from Waste (EfW) plant near her home. The Council was at fault as it failed to take reasonable steps to investigate her complaints. The Council subsequently investigated her complaints about the site and it has changed its practice. These are reasonable remedies to the complaint.

  • London Borough of Islington (17 018 956)

    Statement Not upheld Pollution 02-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr C complained about how the Council handled problems at a development site next to his house. He complained about noise and vibration, parking problems and work on the wall adjoining his flat. Mr C says these interfered with use of his home, particularly as he is carer for his disabled son. There was no fault by the Council in how it dealt with these issues.

  • London Borough of Islington (17 014 211)

    Statement Not upheld Pollution 02-Oct-2018

    Summary: Ms B complained about excessive noise and vibration and other problems at a building site adjacent to her home. Ms B says the problems interfered with her enjoyment and use of her home, particularly as she is disabled. There was no fault by the Council in how it dealt with these issues.

;