Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider the noise impact of a new highway on himself and his neighbours. Mr X complains the Council only awarded noise payments to some residents. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for only issuing payments to some residents. This is because the Council followed the legislation on how the noise was measured and which residents were eligible for payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has unfairly decided to make noise payments to 22 of 27 homes affected by local road noise.
2. Mr X complains the Council has not properly considered the noise affects all properties, including his own.
3. Mr X also complains that payments were made to properties further away than those that did not receive payments. Mr X says that payments were made to residents who moved away before the road was completed and noise impacted them.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and information provided by him. I also considered information provided by the Council. I have considered comments submitted by Mr X and the Council on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Highway Noise Payments Regulations

7. The Department of Transport has set out regulations on highway noise payments. The legislations sets the procedure which Councils must follow to measure changes in highway noise. It says where use of a highway is expected to cause noise at a level not less than the specified level, the authority shall make payment to eligible homes if a claim is made.
8. The regulations say the specified level of noise is one decibel. Therefore, to be eligible for payment, the use of the highway must cause or expect to cause noise greater than at least one decibel.

What happened

9. Mr X lives in a property that is part of a group of 27 properties in a mobile housing development.
10. The Council set out a scheme to introduce a new highway close to the mobile housing development.
11. As part of this scheme, the Council assessed what impact the new highway would have on the residents of the mobile housing park.
12. The Council used the procedure from the Department of Transport to measure the sound the development was experiencing and provided an estimate of how this would impact each property once the new highway was introduced.
13. The Council said only residents who saw a change in noise of one decibel or more were eligible for a noise payment from the Council.
14. From its measurements, the Council found that 14 of the 27 properties would experience a change of more than one decibel and were therefore eligible for payments.
15. The Council provided these payments to the eligible residents. However, residents who did not receive the payment felt this was unfair and raised this with the Council.
16. The Council carried out a second set of measurements once the highway was built. The Council said the second measurements identified that the first measurements were accurate and had in fact considered worst case scenarios for the noise levels experienced by the residents.
17. The Council said the remaining 13 properties were not eligible for payment as they were not experiencing a change in noise above one decibel.
18. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision not to award all residents a payment. Mr X felt that all residents were impacted by the noise of the new highway. Mr X said that some residents who had been awarded the payment were less impacted than those who lived closer to the highway.
19. In its response, the Council explained that its measurements considered any noise that properties were already experiencing and any mitigations that were in place to minimise noise. It remained of the view that not all residents were equally impacted, and that Mr X was not eligible for a payment.
20. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s decision and complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s decision not to award payments to all residents.

Analysis

21. I have reviewed the legislation from the Department of Transport on how Council’s must award noise payments. The legislation states that properties where there are changes of one decibel or more are eligible for payment.
22. I have reviewed the Council’s pre and post highways scheme graphs of noise, and the measurements taken at the first assessment. I have also reviewed the Council’s information on how it followed the legal procedure for measuring noise impact. I am satisfied the Council completed initial measuring of four sites within the development and followed the procedure for measuring noise as set out in the guidance from the Department of Transport.
23. This data also shows that 14 of the 27 properties experienced a change in noise of one decibel or more. The remaining 13 properties experienced either no change or change under one decibel.
24. The Council explained that some properties were experiencing noise before the scheme being introduced, including noise from surrounding roads. This meant that when the scheme was introduced, some properties saw a greater impact in noise. Those who were already experiencing noise saw less of an impact. The Council also explained the measurements reflect any noise mitigation measures that may be in place from some residents.
25. The Council accepted that some residents remained unhappy and therefore carried out a second measure of the noise. Mr X commented that he felt the second measurement was taking during a COVID-19 lockdown, when the road was not at full use. I have reviewed all the information from the Council. The second measurements were lower than the predicted noise given by the first measurement. This could have been due to reduced use of the road. However, as the prediction accounts for a higher amount of noise, I am satisfied that the prediction accounts for higher use of the road, and it therefore supports the conclusions from the first measurement.
26. Mr X feels strongly that the Council has not recognised the impact that he has suffered as a result of the road. Having reviewed the Council documents and complaint responses, I am satisfied that the Council has not discounted Mr X being impacted by the noise, but that he remains not eligible for a payment.
27. It is my current view the Council identified the residents eligible for payment according to its policy. It carried out suitable measuring of the noise and considered the circumstances of the mobile housing development. It applied the payments in line with the legal guidance for noise payments.
28. Although Mr X believes the Council has paid 22 of the 27 residents, I have reviewed the Council’s records and am satisfied 14 residents received payments, with all 14 of these residents having measurements of one decibel or more. Therefore, it is my current view there is no fault by the Council in its decision to award payments to some residents and not others.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have now completed my investigation. I find no fault in how the Council measured the noise impact caused by a new highway. I find no fault with how the Council reached its decision to award noise payments to some residents of a nearby mobile housing development.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman