Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning and noise nuisance issues relating to a business operating close to his property. We will not investigate the complaint because past planning matters fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered Mr X’s recent reports of noise nuisance.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council did not safeguard his property in relation to planning permissions granted to a business which operates close to his property and that it has not acted to stop the noise nuisance he experiences from the operation of the business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
8. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complained to the Council about noise nuisance coming from a business close to his property which he hoped to develop.
10. Various permission had been granted by the Council to the business in previous years which Mr X says did not adequately safeguard the position of his own property. However, these past planning matters fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time as we would reasonably have expected him to have complained to us about them sooner.
11. The Council investigated Mr X’s recent reports of noise nuisance but found the noise did not meet the threshold to be a statutory nuisance and told him it would be taking no further action.
12. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils which complainants do not agree with. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While the Council’s decision is disappointing for Mr X, I have seen no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
13. In responding to my draft decision Mr X has said the 12-month time restriction should not apply in his case. However, Mr X bought his property in 2014 and the metal press which he has recently complained about causing noise nuisance was installed in 2016. We would reasonably have expected Mr X to have complained sooner about the installation of the press and it appears he was prompted to complain about noise nuisance when his own planning application was refused and noise played a part in the Council’s refusal. Mr X has appeal rights to the Planning Inspector if he wishes to challenge the Council’s decision on his planning application.
14. The Council investigated Mr X’s recent complaints of noise nuisance and did initially identify noise that was potentially a statutory nuisance. However, as it satisfied itself that this was addressed by the business stopping nighttime activities, it then concluded no statutory nuisance existed and no formal action would be taken. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and we cannot question the professional judgement of officers in making it.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because past planning matters fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered Mr X’s recent reports of noise nuisance.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman