Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council considered their reports of statutory nuisance from a nearby development. Mr and Mrs X say noise and fumes are causing health issues and ruining their living standards. We have found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about how the Council decided to approve a planning application for a development near to their home, and how it considered their reports of statutory nuisance in regard to gas and noise pollution from that development. Mr and Mrs X say this has caused health issues and ruined their living standards.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. We cannot usually investigate events that took place more than 12 months before a complaint was brought to the Ombudsman. We can only exercise discretion to look back further if there are good reasons to do so.
8. As Mr and Mrs X brought their complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2024, anything that happened prior to September 2023 would be considered late.
9. The planning application Mr and Mrs X complained about was approved in 2020, but I have seen no good reason to look back to that point.
10. Mr and Mrs X first reported alleged statutory nuisances to the Council in June 2023. As the delay in bringing this complaint to us was due to the Council investigating the allegations, I have exercised discretion to look back to June 2023.
11. I have investigated how the Council considered Mr and Mrs X’s reports of statutory nuisance from June 2023 up until the Council issued its final response to their complaint in March 2025. Any mention below to events that took place before June 2023 or after March 2025 are for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

14. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. If a council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice.
20. 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.
21. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.
22. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action.

What happened

23. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
24. The Council granted planning permission for a development near to Mr and Mrs X’s home.
25. In June 2023 Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council to report noise and air pollution from the development.
26. The Council sent an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to visit Mr and Mrs X to get further information about the alleged nuisances and take noise readings, which showed higher levels than agreed in the planning permission.
27. The EHO also contacted the Environment Agency (EA) who confirmed recent emissions tests were compliant with permitted conditions.
28. Towards the end of June 2023, the Council held a multi-agency meeting with EA, UKHSA and its planning department to share information and discuss the alleged nuisances.
29. In July 2023, the Council commissioned an external agency to carry out Carbon Monoxide and Nitrogen Dioxide checks. but they did not detect any exceedances of levels in the area. The Council also arranged to instal noise monitoring equipment at Mr and Mrs X’s home.
30. In August 2023 the Council assessed the noise recordings and concluded there was intrusive noise from the development. That month the Council also installed air-quality monitoring equipment at various locations in the area.
31. In November 2023 the Council carried out noise testing near to the site and decided the levels were enough to be considered a statutory notice. The Council wrote to the site owner to notify them of its intention to issue an abatement notice.
32. On 5 December the Council sent a statutory noise abatement notice to the landowner with a compliance date of 20 March 2024.
33. In February 2024 the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X to explain the air-quality monitoring showed levels taken were consistent with the rest of the borough.
34. The landowner contacted the Council in March 2024 to confirm they had installed silencers to the development to bring noise levels in line with compliance. The Council informed Mr and Mrs X this had happened, but they said while there was a slight improvement to the noise it was still causing a disturbance.
35. The Council carried out further noise tests in the area and found this had been reduced.
36. In May 2024 the Council informed Mr and Mrs X it had closed its investigation into the air-quality complaint as two periods of monitoring showed no reasons for concern. It also offered to install noise monitoring equipment to assess the current levels of noise at Mr and Mrs X’s home.
37. In September 2024 Mr and Mrs X raised a complaint with the Council through the Ombudsman. Mr and Mrs X said the Council had approved an illegal planning application and had failed to properly deal with their reports of noise and air pollution.
38. The Council responded to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint in March 2025. The Council explained its air quality monitoring had found levels to be within the permitted levels and officers who had visited the area determined a statutory nuisance could not be proved. The Council explained it had initially agreed noise from the development was causing a statutory nuisance, but the developer had now complied with the abatement notice. The Council repeated its offer to reinstall noise monitoring equipment if this issue was ongoing. The Council explained Mr and Mrs X were free to take their own legal action and explained how to do this.

Analysis

39. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to consider whether a statutory nuisance has occurred. Rather, we look at the process the Council followed to make its own decision. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr and Mrs X disagree with it.
40. When the Council received reports from Mr and Mrs X, it acted on them and installed noise monitoring equipment as well as monitoring the air quality in the area.
41. The Council reviewed the noise recordings and decided there was a statutory nuisance occurring. It then contacted the landowner and issued a noise abatement notice instructing them to bring the level of noise to an acceptable level. The landowner notified the Council they had completed the required work and the Council updated Mr and Mrs X on this. I do not find fault with the process the Council followed here.
42. Mr and Mrs X said the noise reduced but is still at an unacceptable level. The Council offered to reinstall noise monitoring equipment to assess this to determine if further action is needed, but Mr and Mrs X did not agreed to this at that time. I understand Mr and Mrs X’s frustration, but I would not expect the Council to take further action where it has been unable to gather further evidence to determine if a statutory nuisance is still occurring. The Council has offered to reinstall noise monitoring equipment, but it is reliant on Mr and Mrs X engaging with this process. I do not find the Council at fault in the way it has attempted to collect further evidence to witness the alleged ongoing nuisance. If Mr and Mrs X want the Council to reassess the noise at current levels, they would be free to contact it to arrange further noise monitoring.
43. In respect of the air pollution complaint, the Council carried out several visits to the area and installed air quality monitoring equipment at various locations. The Council has said it has not witnessed any evidence of a statutory nuisance occurring or levels being outside the permitted levels. I appreciate Mr and Mrs X disagree with this, but I consider the Council has taken account of relevant legislation, guidance, evidence from its own site visits and information from Mr and Mrs X when making its decision. I am satisfied the Council followed the appropriate procedures when making its decision and therefore I cannot criticise it.
44. I find the Council has also followed good practice in advising Mr and Mrs X of their private right of action under Section 82 of the EPA.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find no fault with the process the Council followed when considering Mr and Mrs X’s reports of statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman