The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council publicised a planning application for a fence on a sports field, which it later approved. He also complained about noise from balls hitting the fence. The Council was not at fault.
The complaint
Mr X complained about how the Council publicised a planning application for a fence on a sports field near his house. He also complained about noise from balls hitting the fence. Mr X said the noise disturbed him and gave him headaches.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered: all the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him; the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and the relevant law and guidance.
Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance Planning permission is required for the development of land. When a council receives a planning application, they have to notify those with an interest in ‘neighbouring land’. That is land which is attached or within 20m of the boundary of the land subject to the application.
What happened Mr X lives several streets away from an area of land owned by the Council. The land had previously been used as a sports ground but had fallen out of use.
In February 2020, the Council leased the land to a sports club. The club applied for planning permission to construct a length of ball stop fencing 15 metres from the perimeter of the land, separating it from the residential housing.
I have reviewed the planning documents for the application for the fence. The planning officer’s report shows the Council sent notification letters to the neighbours located near the site. Mr X was not one of those people. None of the objections the Council received about the application were about potential noise from balls hitting the fence. The Council approved the application.
In spring 2021, Mr X complained to the Council about noise from balls hitting the fence. He contacted the Council several more times about the noise that year. Mr X also said that the Council had not properly publicised the planning application. He said that if it had, it would have been aware from responses that previous fences on the site had caused unacceptable noise.
The Council responded to Mr X to say: it had properly publicised on the planning application and the club had also separately sought the views of local people; the club had put up signage asking people to avoid hitting balls into the fence; it had asked the club to speak to all coaches and players to ask them not to hit balls into the fence the club had installed sound fixings to the fence to reduce the noise to a standard recognised by the county Football Association.
In June 2022 Mr X contacted the Council again. He said the noise was still an issue and the rubber fixings had not resolved it. Mr X contacted the Council several more times about the noise before complaining to the Ombudsman.
The Council said the club had identified some of the rubber fixings had come loose after a year of use and it would tighten them. The Council said there was nothing further it could do to reduce the noise.
Mr X told the Ombudsman he wanted the Council to either remove the fence or silence it. He also said he wanted the land to be turned into an open space with more trees.
Findings
The Ombudsman cannot question a council's decision if it is made without fault. Mr X complained the Council did not properly publicise the planning application for the fence. He feels that if it had, it would have been aware the fence would cause significant noise. The Council's report shows it sent notification letters to the relevant neighbours. Mr X does not live adjacent to the field, nor within 20m of its boundary so the Council was not required to notify him. The Council was not at fault. In any event, none of the objections received from neighbours closer to the sports field were about noise from the fence.
The Council took appropriate steps to try and reduce the noise once Mr X complained to it and so was not at fault. It worked with the club to lessen the number of times people kicked balls against the fence; by agreeing with the club that it would put signs up and speaking to coaches and players. The club also applied for fixings to reduce the sound of the fence, and when Mr X complained the noise was still an issue, the Council contacted the club again, who said they would tighten the fixings to make them more effective.
Some noise is always to be expected where ball games are played. It is not feasible to silence the fence as Mr X wishes, nor would it be appropriate to remove the fence. Its purpose is to prevent balls from leaving the site of the sports field and potentially damaging residential property or gardens nearby. Mr X told the Ombudsman he wanted a change of use of the site, into an open side with more natural planting. That is not something the Ombudsman can achieve.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman