Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to assist him with measures to address traffic noise and pollution. This is because we could not now effectively investigate what happened several years ago, it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council from 2020 and we could not achieve the outcome Mr B wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained about the Council’s failure to assist him with measures to address traffic noise and pollution. He told us the noise and pollution has now reached an unacceptably high level.

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 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered the information Mr B provided and the Council’s responses to his complaint. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr B told us he has raised his concerns with the Council several times over the past ten years. But he said the Council failed to explain how to escalate his concerns about its responses. More recently he complained to the Council again about traffic noise and, during the complaint process, he found out about plans for an increase in the number of houses in a new development near his home.
8. Mr B would like the Council to assist him with the installation of soundproof fencing. Mr B said the Council had dealt with the issue mainly by email rather than by discussing it with him.
9. The law does not impose a duty on councils to act when traffic noise reaches a specific level. The provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 do not apply to traffic noise. People who live near a new road may be able to apply for sound insulation. But, in this case, we could not now effectively investigate a complaint about the Council’s decision making when it made its original decisions about the highway alterations several years ago. The same applies to the decision making on the original planning applications for the new development in Mr B’s area. That was when the Council decided to grant planning permission in principle for the development in phases. The Council told Mr B in its planning process it is currently considering alternative routes in and out of the new development.
10. Mr B told us the Council has attempted some remedial action by arranging limited tree planting. But he said this has had no effect on the noise problem. Mr B’s view is the Council could have used the money it spent on this work towards the cost of the acoustic fence he had requested. He said the Council’s contractors have recently completed tree maintenance work which has made his property even more exposed to the noise and pollution.
11. The Council has considered Mr B’s complaint. Its view is the tree planting will provide noise screening in the longer term. It explained to Mr B it does not consider installing noise attenuation barriers unless it is increasing the capacity of the road with new works. The Council told Mr B the recent cyclical tree maintenance work is unconnected with the tree planting. It said the maintenance work is in accordance with its trees and woodland strategy and good aboricultural practice. The Council does not consider arranging a meeting with Mr B would make any difference to the outcome for him.
12. The speed of traffic can affect road noise. Speeding is a matter for the police. When it responded to Mr B’s complaint the Council said it would refer the matter to the police.
13. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in the way it has responded to Mr B’s concerns from 2020 onwards. Councils can only take the actions the law allows them to take. There is no duty on the Council to take the action Mr B wants. Our role is to consider the way a council reached its decision. We are not an appeal body with powers to evaluate the merits of Mr B’s request for an acoustic fence, overturn a council decision and substitute our own decision. We have no powers to order the Council to take the action Mr B wants.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not now effectively investigate what happened several years ago, it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council from 2020 and we could not achieve the outcome Mr B wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman