Summary: We found no fault on Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council failing to manage and take enforcement action about a noise nuisance from a nearby outdoor music event. The Council effectively monitored noise levels during the event and acted to reduce volumes when agreed levels were exceeded. It was at fault for failing to respond to her formal complaint and allowing the dismantling of equipment until after midnight. This caused her frustration and disturbance. It agreed to apologise, make a payment, provide greater clarity for future events, and remind staff about complaint procedures.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained about the Council failing to manage and take enforcement action against a noise nuisance caused by a music event in a park it owned near her home in June 2023; as a result, this affected her amenities and lost her sleep over several nights.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not considered any complaint Mrs Y has:

• about noise causing property damage or damage to her health. This was because these were outside our jurisdiction. These are issues for the court, not the Ombudsman to decide. I have seen no good reason for exercising discretion to investigate these complaints.
• about events that took place before May 2023. This was because Mrs Y complained to us in May 2024. The law says 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. Any complaint she may have before May 2023 is late.
• about events that took place after May 2024. This was because this was when she complained to us. We are unable to investigate events after this date because the Council had to have the opportunity to respond to any new complaint from her.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered all the information provided by Mrs Y, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to our enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Statutory nuisance

8. Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 creates a duty on councils to investigate and, where identified, take action to address ‘statutory nuisances’. Under the Act, a statutory nuisance is one which:
• unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and/or
• injures health or is likely to injure health; and
• which is happening, has happened, and is likely to happen again, or is likely to happen in the future.
9. The Act sets out what can constitute a statutory nuisance. A statutory nuisance can come from ‘premises’ (which includes both domestic and commercial properties) and includes:
• noise;
• smoke, fumes or gases; and/or
• artificial light.

What happened

10. In 2023, the Council allowed a music event to take place on land close to Mrs Y’s home. This disturbed her and she claimed it damaged her property. Noise caused her house to vibrate, shook shelves, broke window shutter hinges, damaged brickwork, and caused cracking in the ceiling. She also claimed it affected her health, as she suffered sudden hearing loss.
11. She complained the Council failed to:

• cap noise from the event in line with the ‘Code of Practice on Environmental Noise Control at Concerts’ (the Code). Instead of capping it at 65 decibels, it was allowed to reach levels beyond this as measured one metre from her home by a noise specialist firm she instructed. Over the two-day event, the noise was recorded on occasion as reaching 112 decibels (dBs).

In July 2023, the Council set out the readings to her made over the weekend of the event. These showed the 75 dB limit the Council had set was exceeded slightly on four occasions with a maximum reading taken on the Sunday of 75.7 dBs. It explained each time it exceeded this limit, the volume was quickly lowered when immediately notified. Later readings confirmed this happened.

I note the evidence showed there was also one reading of 75.3 dBs.

• to monitor noise levels on site. The Council denied this claim and confirmed event officers monitored noise close to her property throughout as agreed with her.

The Council manually recorded sound levels every minute during a 15-minute period for each performance. An average was then taken from the readings. It provided a copy of these results for each act over the two-day event. It agreed with her before the event started to monitor noise from outside her front door. This was a different location to the monitoring done by the event organiser. Monitoring outside her door was five foot higher than the pedestrian access gate and the acoustic barriers placed along the hedge. The event organiser was not allowed to monitor from her door so had lower readings.

The records showed the maximum was slightly exceeded four times over the two days. The evidence supported the Council’s claim noise levels were quickly reduced when notified it was too high. The evidence showed for each of the four occasions, the levels were reduced for the second period of monitoring for each act.

• make it easy for residents to make noise reports about it. For example, out of hours staff declined to take noise reports over the telephone during the event and told residents to lodge a complaint by email or during office hours. When she used the email provided to make a complaint, she received no response for five months.

The Council explained the event plan for 2024, a copy of which she was given, set out contact details for Mrs Y to call throughout the entire event. This included its own emergency out of hours telephone service, but this had an asterisk which stated, ‘the out of hours service no longer action noise complaints over the phone. It is now an email service.’ It then provided the email contact address. The Council said this was because it did not have routine attendance over the weekend by environmental health officers to respond to noise reports. It also said the plan was broadly like the one for 2023, a copy of which I have not seen.

The Council also explained for 2023, the events team had two officers on site for the whole event who were monitoring noise levels. They liaised with Mrs Y and the event promoter. They also had access to more senior management over the weekend.

• ensure there was adequate security for the event which allowed people to camp overnight.

The Council confirmed there was an overnight security presence during the event. They were on the site to look after and protect the equipment.

• ensure dismantling of equipment was not done too late as she was disturbed by this happening after midnight.

The Council said dismantling for this event was allowed to continue until around midnight as they were able to remove the stage the same night rather than return to do it the following day.

• ensure friends and family were able to visit her without being turned away from her home by the organiser.

12. The event took place under a premises licence. This licence was needed when an organiser wanted to sell alcohol or offer entertainment at a specific venue. It sets out the times when live music could be played. The licence for this event allowed the performance of live music from 9am to 11pm Monday to Sunday.
13. The licence did not set out the specific noise levels or noise mitigation for the event agreed with event organisers. This was set out in the noise management plan (the plan). Noise levels at the event were monitored by the event promoter and Council officers for its duration.
14. I have seen a copy of the plan for the same event for 2024. The Council confirmed it was broadly the same as the one for 2023. The plan started by saying the site layout reflected previous events. This set the recommended noise levels for the event at 75 dBs over a 15-minute period based on advice from the environmental health team for the 2019 event, a copy of which I have also seen. The Council said the format and the duration of the event had not changed since.
15. The plan explained: electronic drums would be used; instruments would be plugged into amplifier simulators; there would be a decibel meter on site near the control point; the sound engineer would control speaker volume from this point; there would be an onsite noise manager provided by the event organiser who would monitor levels near premises which were noise sensitive and would record the results; the Council’s environmental health officers would not monitor noise at the event; there would be a Council officer on duty who would work with the noise manager to ensure volumes were kept within limits
16. The Council noted the day before the event, Mrs Y met an officer and agreed to allow the installation of noise monitoring equipment one metre from her front door.
17. The Council provided a copy of the sales brochure for Mrs Y house. This warned events were held on the site which generated noise and crowds up to midnight, including the dismantling of equipment. It also noted access to her property may be restricted or prohibited during such events.
18. The Council also provided a copy of a report which considered events and noise from events. The report noted the Code was produced in 1995 by the Noise Council which was not a statutory body. Disturbance and annoyance were not considered in the same way as statutory nuisance and so failure to comply with the Code could not, on its own, justify a finding of noise nuisance.
19. A report on noise monitoring in 2019 to the Cabinet noted levels below the Code’s levels. Officers concluded as a whole, while there were some instances of levels being exceeded, this did not amount to a statutory nuisance due to levels, frequency, and timing of the event. The levels agreed had been not to exceed 65 dBs over a 15-minute period with a level up to 75 dBs in the lower frequencies. These levels were agreed by the event organiser for the years that followed. Music would end by 9pm and all event stakeholders would leave by 10.30pm.
20. The ‘Operational Procedure for events in the Council’s Parks’ referred to the site next to Mrs Y’s property. This was considered by the Cabinet in 2011. This contained specific restrictions for the site following advice from the environmental health team. Maximum noise levels would be discussed with environmental health. It also said there would be no overnight dismantling of equipment, but conditions suggested could be varied.
21. The Council explained the monitoring firm used by Mrs Y loaned her a noise monitor which did not record an average reading over 15 minutes as required in the restrictions.
22. Mrs Y was unhappy that when she formally complained on the last day of the event, apart from an acknowledgement, she heard nothing back from the Council. The evidence showed the Council registered it as a stage 1 complaint. Apart from an acknowledgement, she was unhappy she never received a proper response under its complaints procedure. Under its complaints procedure, she should have received a response within 20 working days of it receiving her complaint.

My findings

23. I found the following on this complaint:
1. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the appropriate noise level for the event. This was because I have seen the plan for 2024, which was broadly the same for 2023. The Council provided evidence of what was considered when setting this level which included a 1995 report from the Noise Council, a report to the Cabinet in 2019 about noise monitoring, and its Operational Procedure for events in the Council’s Parks.
2. I am also satisfied the Council ensured it had appropriate measures in place to monitor noise levels throughout the event. Event officers were present for the whole two days.
3. When the agreed level was exceeded, the evidence supported what the Council said about notifying the event organiser who immediately reduced the volume. The evidence showed after each of the four periods when the levels were slightly exceeded, the following 15-minute period of monitoring recorded reduced levels under the stated limit. This showed monitoring done by the Council was effective and supported the claim about the presence of officers.
4. I noted the noise levels Mrs Y said the equipment supplied by a firm she employed recorded. I am not satisfied they were monitoring the same way the Council did to ensure compliance with the agreed noise levels and 15-minute period monitored.
5. I am satisfied Mrs Y had direct access to officers who were present on site during the 2023 event. This meant she could have contacted them directly if there was any problem with noise during this weekend.
6. I found fault with the decision to allow the event organiser to dismantle and remove the stage equipment until after midnight to save them returning the following day to remove it. This was because the event plan stated all stakeholders would be packed down and leave the site before 10.30pm with all event noise ceasing by 11pm. There was lack of clarity about what event noise included but, a reasonable interpretation would be all noise connected with the event which would include the dismantling and removal of the stage. The event timings in the plan also said by 10.45pm ‘Depart Site, except overnight staff’ on the last day. Again, I would interpret the intention behind this was to ensure an end to noise from the event site by this time.
7. I found no fault on the complaint about friends or family being refused access to Mrs Y’s property. This was because the event plan allowed for an event steward to provide access to her property.
8. I found fault on the failure of the Council to respond according to its complaint procedure to the complaint she sent on the final day of the event. While she received an acknowledgement, I have seen no evidence she was sent a substantive response.
9. I consider the identified fault caused Mrs Y an injustice. This was in the form of disturbance until after midnight on the final event evening while the stage was dismantled and removed from the site. It would also have caused her some frustration.
10. In addition, I consider the failure to reply caused her an injustice. This was in the form of frustration and a lost opportunity to have her complaint dealt with promptly.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. I considered our guidance on remedies.
25. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mrs Y a written apology for: allowing the dismantling and removal of the stage equipment from the event site until after midnight; not responding to her complaint properly under its complaints procedure.
2. Pay £100 to Mrs Y for the injustice caused by the identified fault.
3. Ensure future event plans clearly set out when the dismantling and removal of the stage and associated equipment will be done to ensure minimum disruption to neighbouring properties.
4. Remind relevant staff involved with this complaint of the need to comply with the Council’s complaints procedure.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I found fault on Mrs Y’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman