The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions not to act against reports of breaches of planning control and noise nuisance. The Council has explained the reasons it will not take action and there is not enough evidence of fault affecting these decisions.
The complaint
Mrs X complains the Council refuses to act against breaches of planning control at a neighbouring property which she says causes noise nuisance.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X complains the Council refuses to take enforcement action against the business next to her home. She says the business started storing metal barriers on site in recent years without planning permission which causes a noise nuisance.
The Council has explained it sought information from Companies House and the business operator. It also considered aerial photographs. From this information it decided there is enough evidence to support the business claim that it has been storing the equipment on the site for at least ten years. Although it acknowledges it was previously stored inside buildings but was more recently moved nearer to Mrs X’s property. It has therefore decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action against the alleged breaches of planning control.
I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council. However it is satisfied the alleged breaches are immune from enforcement action. Having investigated this point, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make and one which the Ombudsman cannot question.
Mrs X also complains the business is causing a noise nuisance.
The Council installed noise recording equipment in Mrs X’s home. Having listened to the recordings it confirmed it did not consider there was a statutory noise nuisance.
Mrs X reported further noise nuisance. She provided diary sheets which the Council says detailed eight incidents of noise over roughly nine weeks. The Council advised it did not consider this to amount to a statutory noise nuisance.
It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council investigated and came to a view based on the evidence available. It is unlikely further investigation would find fault in how the Council made its decision and therefore we cannot question the outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council came to its decisions not to taken enforcement action against or reports of breaches of planning control and reports of noise nuisance.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman