Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control and noise and light pollution. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to act in a timely and effective way following his reports of breaches of planning control and noise and light pollution.
2. He wants the Council to apologise, handle the annual event better and pay him compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. At the end of November, Mr X reported a breach of planning control to the Council. He said a restaurant near his home had put up a marquee in its garden. He also said he was suffering from noise and light pollution from the use of the marquee.
7. The Council confirms an officer visited the site at the beginning of December. Officers noted the temporary nature of the marquee. They decided it did not breach planning control.
8. Mr X also gave the Council diary sheets detailing occasions of loud music, people singing and light intrusion on 11 days between the end of November and the end of December.
9. The Council’s Environmental Health team considered the report. They noted the temporary nature of the noise and decided not to take further action as the marquee was removed and the noise and light issues were therefore resolved.
10. The information we have seen shows the Council visited the site and considered Mr X’s reports. It decided the marquee did not meet the definition of development and was not a breach of planning control. It also explained to Mr X the reasons for not acting on his reports of noise and light nuisance.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal service. The Council has considered Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control. It has visited the site. It is satisfied there are no breaches of planning control at the property. We will not investigate the way the Council considered Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control at his neighbour’s property. This is because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
12. Mr X also complains the Council failed to act on his reports of statutory noise and light nuisance.
13. Councils have a duty to investigate noise complaints they receive but their powers to take enforcement action in noise matters are discretionary. They may only use their powers where they are satisfied the noise identified amounts to a statutory noise nuisance. The assessment of whether a noise is a statutory nuisance is for officers to make. It is also for officers to decide what investigations of noise reports are required to make their statutory nuisance decision.
14. The Council has investigated Mr X’s concerns. It is satisfied the noise was temporary and was resolved by the removal of the marquee.
15. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Nor can we tell the Council what is or is not a statutory noise nuisance. Instead, we look at the processes a Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the Council made.
16. From the information we have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his reports of noise and light nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control and noise and light nuisance. Further investigation would not change the outcome of his complaint.
18. Also, Mr X is seeking compensation, which is not something we can achieve for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman