Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mr B’s reports of noise from a neighbouring skate park. It properly considered the impact on Mr B and acted in line with relevant legislation. It was, however, at fault for a later delay in responding to Mr B’s emails. But it has already apologised for this delay, so no further action is needed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, lives next to a skate park. He says the park is so noisy it makes his garden unusable and affects him even inside with his doors and windows closed.
2. Mrs B complains that the Council committed to taking action to reduce the noise, but then it did not do so. He says it also said it would close the park at night, but, again, it did not do so. He says the Council’s investigation took too long, and it took months – and several attempts to gain a response by Mr B – before the matter was concluded.
3. Mr B says the Council’s failure to deal with the noise has caused him continued distress, as he loses sleep and cannot use his garden. He wants the park closed or relocated, or wants the Council to install noise mitigation measures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from Mr B and the Council.
8. I considered relevant parts of the:
• Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; and
• Environmental Protection Act 1990.
9. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s duties

Anti-social behaviour

10. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
11. However, anti-social behaviour can take many different forms, and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
12. For example, a council may approach an anti-social behaviour complaint as an environmental health issue if it is about noise or pollution.

Statutory nuisances

13. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. These can include nuisances caused by noise.
14. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and / or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
15. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits.
16. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
17. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance.

What happened

18. In December 2021, after Mr B had previously approached the Ombudsman about this case, the Council agreed to investigate whether the noise from the skate park amounted to anti-social behaviour, or whether it caused him a statutory nuisance.
19. Over the next two months, Mr B sent the Council audio recordings of the noise. He also agreed to keep a ‘noise diary’ and to let the Council install noise monitoring equipment. However, he suggested that the Council wait until later in the year to do this, as the park was not in regular use in winter.
20. The Council told Mr B that, if the noise was causing Mr B a statutory nuisance, it would have to act. It said, “noise dampening [measures] may be the only option”.
21. The Council’s parks department, in an internal email, said it had received a quote for sound deadening on the skate ramps “pre-Covid”, which was over £7k. It said the work would reduce the noise but would not eradicate it.
22. The Council agreed to install noise monitoring equipment at Mr B’s home during the Easter school holidays. However, this was then delayed until May, because snow in April meant the skate park was not in use.
23. The noise monitoring equipment was in place for weekends in May and June.
24. In July, at the request of the Council’s environmental health officer, its parks department agreed to look for a solution to mitigate the noise from the skate park.
25. In his request, the environmental health officer noted:

… the noise from bangs was clearly audible within the property with windows closed. At this point we have not determined a nuisance, however I can appreciate … when there are larger number using the skate park the noise would become more intense.

26. In September, after looking into this, the Council’s parks department decided the cost of filling the ramps would be too high. They noted that the park appeared well-used and was providing a “suitable facility for the needs of the community”.
27. However, they contacted colleagues in different councils across the region to find out if there could be any cheaper ways of dealing with the noise.
28. In early October, the Council completed its statutory noise nuisance investigation. It provided its findings to Mr B, which were largely based on the evidence gathered from the noise monitoring equipment. It referred to relevant noise assessment guidance, and said:
• Although the noise from the skate park was noticeable, it was not intrusive or excessive.
• The noise was in “short flurries” and not sustained over long periods of time, which meant Mr B got respite from it.
• The park, as a meeting place for children, was important to the community.
• The park pre-dated Mr B’s house, so some noise should have been expected when the house was built.
• As the noise was not “materially” interfering with Mr B’s use of his property, it did not amount to a statutory nuisance.
29. Later in the month, the Council’s parks department recorded that it had heard back from colleagues in neighbouring authorities, who reported that filling the ramps not only did not dampen the noise, but attracted vermin.
30. Over the following four months, Mr B tried to find out whether the Council had considered whether the use of the skate park amounted to anti-social behaviour (rather than a statutory nuisance). He did not hear back until late January 2023.
31. The Council told Mr B that the noise from the park did not amount to anti-social behaviour as the park was being used for the purpose it was designed for. It told him it could not do any more to help him.
32. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me that the skate park is open-plan and part of a public park available to the local community. None of the park is locked. There are signs that ask for the skate park not to be used between dusk and dawn, but this is a polite request, and the Council has no power to enforce it.

My findings

33. The Ombudsman has no power to question a council’s decision unless there were clear procedural errors which undermined its decision-making.
34. In Mr B’s case:
• There was a thorough consideration of the issue, including noise diaries from Mr B and noise monitoring equipment installed on two separate occasions.
• The Council took Mr B’s views into account when planning its investigation (such as when it would be best to install the noise monitoring equipment to record the most noise).
• The decision was explained in detail, with reference to guidance and legislation.
• The Council did not misinterpret the law or act beyond its powers.
• There was nothing obviously unreasonable in the Council’s conclusions.
• The Council considered installing noise mitigation measures anyway (although it had no legal duty to install them), but decided they were too expensive and ineffective.
35. Consequently, I have identified no procedural fault in the Council’s in investigation, which means I cannot question the outcome.
36. Although the investigation took a long time (around nine months), much of this period was spent waiting for an appropriate time to install noise monitoring equipment (on Mr B’s advice).
37. And, as there were three different departments dealing with the case, it is unsurprising that the remaining process took a while to complete. So I have found no obvious or unreasonable delay in the investigation.
38. However, after the investigation was completed, Mr B tried to get an answer from the Council about the anti-social behaviour element of his complaint. Although this was a relatively straightforward query (which the Council answered quickly once it had acknowledged his emails), he had to wait four months for a response.
39. This was an unreasonable delay, for which the Council was at fault. And Mr B suffered an injustice, as he had to go to the time and trouble of emailing the Council about this on more than one occasion.
40. However, the Council has already apologised to Mr B for this delay. And, as the eventual response from the Council did not change anything for him, I do not consider his injustice significant enough to justify any further remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

41. The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mr B’s reports of noise from the skate park. But it was at fault for a later communication failure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman