Summary: Mr and Mrs B have complained that the Council has failed to take appropriate action to deal with noise and other nuisance from events at a nearby farm. The Ombudsman has found no significant fault in the way the Council responded to Mr and Mrs B’s concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council has failed to take appropriate action to prevent noise and other nuisance from events at the neighbouring farm. They say the Council has:
• allowed the landowners to hold events on the land for longer than the 28 days allowed under permitted development rules;
• failed to apply appropriate licensing conditions, in respect of hours of operation and noise levels, or enforce the conditions that are in operation; and
• failed to undertake promised noise monitoring, attend in response to reports of late night loud music, or ensure that noise levels comply with applicable legislation.
2. This has caused them stress, anxiety and loss of sleep over a period of several years, affected their enjoyment of their home and discouraged them from having visitors when events are ongoing.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. Although Mr and Mrs B did not complain to the Ombudsman until April 2018, I have exercised discretion to investigate their complaints about the Council’s actions from the date of the issuing of the planning enforcement report in June 2016 until the four-day music festival in August 2018. For the reasons set out below, I have not investigated matters before or after that date.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 26A(1) and 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
7. 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

8. Mr and Mrs B have raised many concerns about the Council’s approach towards events on the site and its response to their concerns. The Ombudsman’s task is not to answer all the questions that they may have. Rather it is to consider whether there has been fault by the Council which has caused them injustice. I have therefore considered how the Council has handled these matters under the respective legal and regulatory regimes: planning; noise and licensing.
9. I have considered Mr and Mrs B’s written complaint and spoken with them. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered its responses together with the planning papers available online. I have also sent Mr and Mrs B and the Council a draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

10. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain development (both building works and changes of use) to be carried out without making a planning application to the council as local planning authority. Each type of permitted development right has certain conditions and limitations. If a development does not meet all the relevant criteria then a planning application will be required.

Planning - planning enforcement

11. Councils can take enforcement action if they find that planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. The National Planning Policy Framework (2018) explains that:

‘Effective enforcement is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control…’

Noise – Environmental Protection Act 1990

12. Councils must to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate complaints about noise that could be a ‘statutory nuisance’. The noise might be loud music, barking dogs, noisy neighbours, rowdy pubs or noise from industrial, trade or business premises. To count as a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and / or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
13. The statutory nuisance must be witnessed by an Environmental Health Officer, who will come to an independent judgement. The process of determining what level of noise constitutes a nuisance can be quite subjective. If an officer decides that a statutory nuisance is happening, or will happen in the future, councils must serve an ‘abatement notice’. This requires whoever is responsible to stop or restrict the noise. If someone does not comply they can be prosecuted and fined.
14. Councils can decide to take informal action if the noise complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance. They may meet with or write to the person causing the nuisance, or suggest mediation.

Noise – Noise Act 1996 (as amended)

15. Further powers to deal with night-time noise, between the hours of 11.00pm and 7.00am, are available under the Noise Act, should councils choose to adopt those powers. Defra’s guidance explains that:

‘The provisions of the Noise Act 1996 are intended to provide an alternative means of addressing disturbances caused by excessive noise. Previously, excessive noise could only be dealt with if it was thought to create a statutory nuisance. It is not always easy to establish such a case. Under the Noise Act 1996 an offence is committed if a person fails to ensure that any noise emitted from their premises does not exceed the permitted level.’

Licensing - Premises Licences

16. Under the Licensing Act 2003, a premises licence is required for a range of activities, which include: the sale by retail of alcohol; the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club; the provision of late night refreshment (the supply of hot food and/or drink from premises between 11.00pm and 5.00am); and the provision of regulated entertainment.
17. Section 5.1.1. of the Council’s Licensing Policy states that:

‘The role of the Council as Licensing Authority is to hold a balance between the needs of the licensing, entertainment and food industry and the needs of residents and other users of the District including businesses, workers, shoppers and visitors.’

18. The Council must have regard to its licensing policy, and determine whether an application promotes the four licensing objectives:
• the prevention of crime and disorder;
• public safety;
• the prevention of public nuisance; and
• the protection of children from harm.
19. Responsible authorities (such as the police, and health and safety authorities), residents and businesses may make representations or objections as to the likely effect on the licensing objectives within 28 days of making the application.
20. If a representation is received, members of the Council’s Licensing Committee will consider the application. They listen to evidence from all parties and then decide whether to grant the licence, either as applied for or with additional conditions, or to refuse the licence.

Licensing – Temporary Event Notices

21. The Licensing Act 2003 also uses a 'light touch' system to permit temporary activities. The system involves an event organiser, or premises user, simply giving a temporary event notice (TEN) to the licensing authority. Copies of the TEN must be served on the same day, by the organiser, on the Police and the Council’s Environmental Protection Team.
22. This allows relatively small-scale 'ad hoc' events to be held at venues where no premises licence is in place or where the terms of a premises licence would not normally allow the event. Up to 15 TENs may be issued in one year, provided that these do not total more than 21 days. A TEN can only be used where fewer than 500 people are likely to attend, and the event for less than 7 days.
23. The police and local authority exercising environmental health functions may intervene on the grounds of any of the four licensing objectives. Their intervention can be to prevent the occurrence of or modify the arrangements for an event. If either the police or local authority’s environmental health team object, the event will not go ahead and a counter notice will be issued.

Licensing – Appeals

24. Interested parties such as applicants, or neighbours who have made relevant representations, can appeal to the Magistrate’s Court against the licensing authority’s decision. Appeals can be about the granting or not of a premises licence, variation to or review of an existing licence; and a TEN.
25. They can appeal about whether:
• the licence should or should not have been granted;
• there should have been different conditions;
• a licensable activity should have been excluded or included;
• the 'designated premises supervisor' should or should not have been agreed; or
• there was an irregularity in our procedures that affected the decision.
26. If an interested party’s appeal is unsuccessful, the Magistrates’ Court can award costs against them. This would mean they would have to pay other parties’ legal costs as well as their own. However, the Magistrates Association and the Justices’ Clerks Society has advised that awarding costs for a licensing appeal should be an exception and not a rule, and any resident with reasonable grounds for appeal should not be penalised.

What happened

27. Mr and Mrs B live in a rural area surrounded by farmland. Their house is next to farm where a range of entertainment events have been held in recent years. There are very few properties in the vicinity.
28. In 2013, a premises licence was issued to Licensee 1 for a youth organisation event. In March 2015, Mrs B complained to the planning service that the landowner had erected a detached building and was using the site as a wedding venue, for the storage of caravans and for a music festival. In April 2015, a premises licence was issued to Licensee 2 for a four-day music festival, with a condition that the maximum noise level should not exceed the background noise level by 15dBA over a 15-minute period, and 70dBA for lower frequency noise. The planning enforcement team investigated Mrs B’s complaint and met Mr and Mrs B on several occasions.
29. In January 2016, Mr and Mrs B provided records of events since April 2015, which included two music festivals, six weddings, a youth organisation event and storage and use of caravans.
30. The Council issued a new licence for the four-day music festival in April 2016, setting a level of 65dBA over 15 minutes for the noise management plan, instead of using the background noise level criteria. The EHO explained to Mr and Mrs B that the Noise Council’s Code of Practice gives (non-statutory) guidance on noise levels at concerts which are typically much larger and produce much higher volumes of music. He therefore considered it practical to apply a single level of 65dBA which he felt should not result in significantly more disturbance and would prove easier to measure and enforce.
31. Officers completed their enforcement report in June 2016. This concluded that, based on Mr and Mrs B’s records which showed close to 90 days of activity including setting-up and taking-down, the use of the site for temporary events far exceeded the 28 days allowed under permitted development rules. They considered that the change in use was a breach of planning control, and that the new outbuilding did not have planning permission. They recommended that the landowner be asked to apply for planning permission to try to regularise the activities. Officers proposed to work with the environmental health team to place planning conditions to restrict the number of events, hours of operation and noise.
32. In June 2016, a wedding was held on site, under a TEN. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) visited the site as part of programmed monitoring. Calls about noise were received by the Council’s Out-of-Hours Service (OOH) but were not passed on to the duty EHO (the failure to pass on the calls was investigated). However, proactive monitoring revealed no problem.
33. In July 2016, the youth organisation event was held again. A third party complained to the OOH service and the duty officer gave advice over the phone. The officer discussed the complaint with the licensing team the next working day.
34. Later that month, the landowners submitted a planning application to regularise the planning uses on the land.
35. A wedding was held on site in August 2016. Mr B complained about noise to the OOH service. A licensing officer in the vicinity monitored the event. A senior EHO (SEHO) emailed Mr and Mrs B and passed the matter on to the licensing team for further investigation. The landowners were also spoken to.
36. Later that month, the four-day music festival took place. A noise management plan was prepared as part of the revised Premises Licence. This included the appointment of a suitably experienced person to monitor noise levels, sound checks, regular noise monitoring, a limit on noise levels (65dBA general and 70dBA low frequency) at a range of points, the organisers’ agreement to respond to any reasonable request to reduce noise levels, a telephone complaints line and the keeping of a complaints log.
37. The Council undertook proactive monitoring with site visits from the SEHO in relation to food, health and safety, and noise, and from the licensing officer. Advice was given to the event organiser during the event. The noise monitor log subsequently confirmed that the noise from the festival fully complied with the conditions in the noise management plan. The noise levels at Mr and Mrs B’s boundary were measured at between 45 and 57dB and verified by the SEHO during the festival.
38. Mr and Mrs B emailed the Council about light nuisance from the music festival. The licensing officer, who was on site, took action, though Mr and Mrs B subsequently said that this had not improved the situation.
39. Mr and Mrs B were consulted on the planning application and made written objections. The SEHO also provided a consultee response. He recommended a noise impact assessment to establish base sound levels and proposed attenuation measures to determine the noise impact from weddings. He also recommended conditions in respect of hours. A background noise level was not felt to be appropriate for the four-day festival as this was held over a busy bank holiday weekend where noise levels were somewhat elevated.
40. Mr and Mrs B submitted a Freedom of Information (FoI) request and a complaint about the Council’s handling of the events on site, dating back to 2015. The Council responded to both. It partially upheld their complaints about the recording of some noise complaints, due to issues with its administrative procedures.
41. In November 2016, the landowners’ agent withdrew the planning application so as to undertake a noise survey and noise impact assessment the following year.
42. In February 2017, Mr and Mrs B emailed the Council with concerns about a third-party company using the site for festival and camping events, and hen and stag weekends. The Council investigated and gave advice to the organisers and Mr and Mrs B. Mrs B then made an FoI request with specific questions about planning and licensing, to which the Council responded in March 2017. The Council also updated its licensing policy to include a temporary event protocol.
43. In April 2017, a premises licence was issued to Licensee 1 for a charity music festival in June. The Public Health Manager and SEHO visited before the festival and spoke with the sound engineers. A licensing officer also visited twice during the event. A neighbour complained about noise the day after. The Council advised the neighbour that it had systems in place to deal with noise complaints but it could take no further action as he had not complained at the time.
44. in July 2017, the Council’s planning department received complaints about overnight camping by a large number of children and adults, daily activities on the site and ‘glamping’. Planning officers visited the site and spoke to the persons using the land. They found that the uses did not need planning permission as they were permitted under the 60-day caravan and camping licence issued by Natural England and obtained by the persons using the land. This being the case, the investigation was closed.
45. In July 2017, a neighbour called the OOH service at 10.50pm about noise from an event. The call record notes that the EHO stayed on the line until 11.10pm and, as the noise had stopped at 11.00pm and not recurred, he did not attend. Mrs B says they also called and left a message about noise on the event organiser’s hotline at 11.15pm. However, she says when she spoke with the EHO a couple of days later, he said the message had accidentally been deleted. She says the EHO had also said that the noise was loud but he could not realistically stop 500 people singing.
46. The following month, a running event was held under a TEN. As the SEHO had made representations, a mediation meeting was held at which the organiser proposed noise monitoring and noise reduction, where necessary, in order to meet the licensing objectives.
47. A neighbour complained to the OOH service during the event. After a call from the EHO, the SEHO investigated and confirmed that the noise was a nuisance and there was inadequate control of DJs playing music. The event organiser was warned, but explained that they did not intend to repeat the event. Mrs B emailed and complained about this and the two other recent events. The Council responded but did not uphold her complaint.
48. Shortly after, the annual four-day music festival was held. The Council again undertook proactive monitoring with site visits from the SEHO in relation to food, health and safety, and noise, and six visits by the licencing officer. Officers again gave advice to the event organiser during the event. Mrs B complained about a spotlight shining into her home. An officer on site resolved this immediately.
49. In August 2017, planning permission was granted to retain the outbuilding.
50. In September 2017, Mrs B made a further FoI request to which the Council responded. They also attended the Licensing Sub Committee meeting and expressed concerns about the events at the site and suggested that the licence needed to be revisited. They were advised that residents affected by the four-day festival could request a review of the premises licence and advised that they could contact the licensing officer to ascertain how to request a review.
51. The same month a TEN was issued for a wedding. The SEHO made representations against the application which asked for music until midnight. The applicant then made a new application for a TEN only for alcohol, and to operate under the Live Music Act 2012, with amplified music between 8.00am and 11.00pm. On this basis, the SEHO had no grounds to object. Mrs B complained during the event about noise up to 11.00pm. The SEHO investigated and closed the complaint with no further action.
52. The following weekend, a further wedding was held. No TEN was required as no alcohol was sold Mrs B says she contacted the OOH service about noise at 22.30pm but was not called back. She says she then spoke with the OOH service at 11.15pm as the music was continuing but was told that no action would be taken as she was the only complainant. She says the music then stopped at 11.30pm. Shortly after, Mrs B emailed the Council with concerns about the lack of service, and the number of events being held during the year. She also made a further FoI request about historic noise complaints, and a formal complaint under the first stage of the Council’s procedures.
53. The Council response to the FoI request explained that there were three licensed events at the site: the four-day music festival; the youth organisation event and the charity music event. In each case, the licence was considered annually by the Licensing Sub Committee and conditions agreed.
54. It said that in 2017 there had been three further events regulated through a TEN. It explained the limited grounds on which it and the police could object to TENs, and that there had been other on-site activities which were not licensable. It said that planning officers still considered that there had been a material change of use and had asked for a list of events over the past year. The landowners stated that there had been events totalling 13 days, though Mr and Mrs B consider that the total should be 47 days including setting-up and taking-down. Planning officers were awaiting a revised planning application. If no application was received, they would consider whether there was sufficient harm being caused to warrant enforcement action.
55. In November, officers arranged a meeting at Mrs B’s home with the General Manager Public Health and Housing, neighbours and the local parish councillor. A further meeting was held in December, with the General Manager Public Health and Housing, Development Manager, neighbours and district councillor present.
56. The Council then responded to the Stage 1 complaint and questions. It found that:
• On two occasions, complaints to the OOH number had not been passed on. The Council apologised and said that appropriate action was taken.
• It considered that officers could have been a little more proactive in monitoring some of the events over the past 12 months. Although proactive visits had taken place, they could have installed noise monitoring equipment to confirm if there was noise nuisance or music after the agreed hours.
• However, there was no evidence that events had not been run in accordance with the licences, which would make it difficult to object to licences or seek to vary their conditions.
57. The Council explained that:
• There would be a presumption that TENs would be restricted to 11pm or rejected unless there was a robust noise management plan, and it would add wording about statutory nuisance to the TENs.
• A resident hotline number would be provided and checked, and the Council would provide a single point of contact.
• Licensees would be reminded that proactive monitoring would take place, officers would discuss a reduction in the noise limit at the four-day music festival and would write to the landowners.
• It could not refuse licences based on cumulative impact.
• The counting of days towards the 28-day permitted development allowance was a matter of ‘fact and degree’ – case law suggests that moving temporary structures onto the land would not count against the 28-day allowance.
• The camping operation has a 60-day exemption issued by Natural England, which can revoke that exemption if the necessary conditions are not met.
• There would be a mediation meeting if the running event were to be repeated.
58. Mrs B escalated the complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s policies and met the Chief Executive.
59. In April 2018, after the landowners advised of a proposed increase in the number of weddings, the Development Manager emailed their planning agent, expressing concern that this increase might now constitute a material change of use.
60. In May, the Chief Executive explained in the Stage 2 response why the Stage 1 complaint had been closed. He noted that a couple of noise complaints had been lost in the past, and that the Council might have undertaken noise monitoring from Mr and Mrs B’s home. He confirmed that the Safety Advisory Group had taken the parish council’s notes on the noise management plan into account - amplified music on the nearest stage would end at 10.30pm and the Council would work with the organisers to agree a reduction in the noise. The Council’s response also explained in detail why it did not consider that it could realistically use the Noise Act to limit noise from the site. As to the issue of TENs, EHOs would object to any application on the same site where there had been an event in the previous two weeks or the entertainment would go on after 11.00pm.
61. The Council contacted the landowners at the start of the year to check the number of proposed events. The Development Manager emailed the landowners to say that, based on one wedding, the running event and the four-day music festival, this would not appear to constitute a material change of use. However, on learning from the landowners that there might be further weddings, he expressed concern that this might constitute a change of use. In the event, the Council says there were only two further weddings so it was not considered that there was a material change of use.
62. In June 2018, there was a wedding on site but Mr and Mrs B were away. There was a further wedding later that month, during which a noise meter was installed at Mr and Mrs B’s house. However, no statutory noise nuisance was established. Mr and Mrs B say that there was a further wedding in August before the four-day festival.
63. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment in Mr & Mrs B’s property ahead of the annual four-day music festival in August. The licensing officer undertook a proactive site visit to check compliance with the licence conditions. Four different officers undertook noise monitoring at various locations around the festival including monitoring in Mr & Mrs B’s garden and property. The Council found no breach of licensing conditions or noise deemed to be a statutory nuisance.
64. The Council then sent Mr and Mrs B a copy of the noise report from the four-day music festival. The report concluded that the event was considered to be well managed and did not breach the licence conditions. Measured noise levels were up to 15dBA below the 65dBA condition and no significant bass noise was noted. There was no evidence that noise continued after 11.30pm. Noise was audible from nearby properties, including that of Mr and Mrs B but not considered to be causing significant disturbance or a statutory nuisance.
65. It was however proposed to reduce the maximum noise level the next year to 60dBA, as it was felt that this could be achieved without compromising the enjoyment of attendees while providing some reassurance to residents.
66. Mr and Mrs B have since raised further concerns. They say the background levels used in the noise report were taken at unrepresentative times they were higher than usual. They feel that the real background noise levels are lower, and this means that the 65dBA limit set from the second festival onwards is therefore more than the 15dBA above the background levels in the first licence. They do not therefore consider that the level should have been set at 65dBA for the four-day music festival. They have also questioned the granting of the other two licences for music up to midnight with no noise management plans.

My assessment

Planning

67. From a planning perspective, the Council’s role is to determine whether there has been a breach of planning control. If it considers that to be the case, then it must decide whether it is expedient to take enforcement action.
68. The Council investigated Mr and Mrs B’s concerns. It determined that there was a breach of planning control and advised the landowners to apply for planning permission to regularise the use of the land, and the newly constructed outbuilding. That was for the Council to decide, but I consider that that this was a reasonable and proportionate response to the alleged breaches, particularly as this would enable the application of conditions to any planning permission which would serve to control the operations on site.
69. The outbuilding was granted planning permission. However, the change of use application was put on hold pending the applicant’s proposal to undertake a noise survey and noise impact assessment the following year.
70. In the event, the Council considered that there were only 13 days of activities on site in 2017. I note that Mr and Mrs B consider that these events exceeded the 28 days allowed, when setting-up and taking-down times are included. But the Council does not consider that, as a matter of fact and degree and based on case law, the setting-up and taking-down time would fully count towards the 28-day limit. The other camping activities were covered by a separate 60-day Natural England exemption. There were also limited events there in 2018. Given this, I see no grounds to question the Council’s view that, since 2017, the non-agricultural activity has not been at a level that would trigger a material change of use requiring planning permission, and that there is no current breach of planning control.
71. I see no fault in the way the Council has considered matters from a planning perspective.

Noise

72. I appreciate that some noise complaints were incorrectly recorded and, on a few occasions, noise complaints did not receive a response. But, in the context of the number of events, the actions that the Council has taken to monitor those events, and its overall response to Mr and Mrs B’s concerns, I do not consider this to be significant fault on the part of the Council.
73. I also note that the Council said that it might have undertaken noise monitoring earlier. That is correct, but that does not necessarily mean that this was fault. There were measures in place to allow residents to report concerns and the Council undertook both proactive and reactive monitoring of events.
74. Although Mr and Mrs B and other neighbours had expressed about noise, there was no firm evidence of noise which was out-of-hours or which might constitute a statutory nuisance until the running event in August 2017. I am not therefore persuaded that the absence of noise monitoring at Mr and Mrs B’s house in 2016 and 2017 was fault, when the Council had taken other steps to respond to monitor noise and respond to their concerns, but had not found evidence of nuisance.
75. I note further that when monitoring was undertaken at Mr and Mrs B’s house in 2018, EHOs did not consider that the noise was a statutory nuisance, although Mr and Mrs B felt that the bass noise level was too high.
76. As to the Noise Act, these powers are discretionary. The Council has explained that using these powers within a 30-minute window after between 11.00pm and 11.30pm would involve making a 10-minute reading, drafting a warning notice and delivering this to the licensee, allowing a minimum of 10 minutes to comply and then returning to Mr and Mrs B’s property to undertake a 15-minute assessment before a fixed penalty notice good be served. I see no grounds to question the Council’s decision that the use of its powers under the Noise Act would be impractical in this case.

Licensing

77. The Council says it has not identified any breaches of licences in 2017 or 2018. It says that, as there were no breaches, it has had no grounds to seek a change to the licences though, in order to reassure residents, it is seeking to reduce the maximum noise level to 60dbA in the current licence for the four-day festival.
78. There have been no breaches of TEN conditions, aside from the reported playing of music to 11.30pm at a wedding in September 2017. There were noise concerns over the running event in 2017 and the organiser was warned that the Council would look more closely at noise monitoring if the event were repeated. In the event, this event was not repeated.
79. The Council however updated its licensing policy in March 2017 to include a new appendix, which enables it to provide tighter regulation regarding TEN applications that are submitted close together, and an outdoor events checklist.
80. I appreciate that Mr and Mrs B have concerns about the noise levels and hours of operation that the Council has permitted at the events on site. But, if they consider that there have been or may be breaches of one of the licensing objectives or disagree with the conditions applied, including the maximum noise level permitted in dBA, it was and remains open to them to call in a licence or TEN for review. The law expressly provides the right for interested parties to make relevant representations in respect of licence applications and then to appeal to the Magistrates Court if they are dissatisfied with the outcome. I consider that it would have been reasonable for Mr and Mrs B to have done so if they disagreed with the terms of the licences, and it remains the case that this course of action is open to them.

Back to top

Final decision

81. I have closed my investigation to Mr and Mrs B’s complaint because I have found no significant fault in the way that the Council has responded to their concerns about noise and other nuisance from the neighbouring site.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

82. I have not investigated Mr and Mrs B’s complaints about the way the Council responded to their concerns prior to the issuing of the planning enforcement report in June 2016. If Mr and Mrs B felt that the Council was failing to take appropriate action prior to that date, then I consider that they could reasonably have complained to the Ombudsman at the time.

Recent events

83. I have not investigated Mr and Mrs B’s concerns about the further use of the site for weddings following the four-day festival in August 2018. The law says that, before investigating a complaint, we must normally be satisfied the Council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and to reply. If Mr and Mrs B consider that the use of the neighbouring farm since the four-day festival in August 2018 constitutes a breach of planning control, it is open to them to raise this first with the successor authority to the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman