Summary: We found no fault on Mr S’s complaint against the Council about it failing to take enforcement action against a local gym for causing noise and light nuisance along with breaching planning conditions. He claimed this affected his amenities. The environment health team had limited evidence of reports about noise from him and he refused to complete diary logs. The planning team considered and acted on his reports about planning consent breaches.

The complaint

1. Mr S complained about the Council failing to take enforcement action against a local gym for:
1. causing noise nuisance;
2. causing a light nuisance from 6am each day to 12am: and
3. breaching planning conditions attached to its planning consent.
2. As a result, his quality of life was affected which caused him a great deal of anxiety, stress, worry, and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 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 investigated any complaint about the Council’s actions that took place:

• before 23 November 2023. This was because this was when we decided his previous complaint (23 006 993) and found insufficient evidence of fault on the same issue; and
• after June 2024. This was because we received his complaint at this point.

7. Information in this statement referring to events before November 2023 was for background to put later events into context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered all the information Mr S sent, as well as the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr S and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mr S lives in a house near to a gym. His house was separated from it by a main road and the road to the front of his house. He complained despite making many reports about the gym creating a noise nuisance, the Council failed to act and take enforcement action.
10. He was unhappy that while there was a noise management plan, it was not being followed. A noise management plan aims to put in place reasonable measures to reduce the noise impact from sources associated with a site. He also claimed the gym failed to follow other planning conditions, including hours of use.
11. Whether noise amounted to a:

• statutory nuisance was for the Council’s environmental health team to decide. This would include light pollution; and
• breach of planning consent was for the planning team to decide.

Environmental health: noise and light

12. Mr S told the Council the noise and light from the gym caused him a statutory nuisance.
13. The Council provided evidence of a letter sent in July 2023 to Mr S. This said officers made unannounced visits to witness any noise nuisance he reported, but nothing was observed. It would close his report.
14. The Council confirmed no diary logs were returned by Mr S about noise or lighting.
15. In June 2024, the Council wrote to the gym warning it had recently received a noise report about loud music. I have not seen the report which prompted this warning letter so cannot say whether it was from Mr S or someone else. The letter to the gym advised it to ensure music did not impact on neighbouring properties and any further reports would lead to an investigation.

My findings

16. I found no fault on this complaint. This was because I have seen no evidence of Mr S making reports of noise or light nuisance to the Council between November 2023 and June 2024.
17. While the Council clearly received a report in late May or early June about noise, I am satisfied it exercised its discretion to send a warning letter to the gym at that stage.

Planning: noise

18. Mr S told the Council the gym breached planning consent. It breached planning conditions about its hours of use, noise levels, and when it could open shutters.
19. The gym was subject to two planning conditions which said:

• It cannot be used outside 0645 to 2130 (Monday to Friday) and 0800 to 1500 (Saturday and Sunday); and
• The development shall be carried out according to the approved plans (local plan and noise management plan). The noise management plan set out the measures in place to manage noise from the site. This gave maximum noise levels for inside music, outside music, hours of use of the shutters (closed from 2030 to 0800 Monday to Saturday and to remain closed on Sunday), and for the training for staff to ensure it was complied with.

20. In July 2023, the planning enforcement team received an email from Mr S about car parking at the gym between certain hours. The Council confirmed the hours of use were being followed by the gym.
21. In August, the Council received a further email from Mr S which covered parking by visitors to the gym, equipment used outside the gym, and during the pandemic, the roller shutters being closed. He also reported noise from the gym, light pollution, signage installation, and not following operating hours.
22. The Council replied stating there were no planning conditions about traffic management or parking so it could not investigate this report. It also told him the environmental health team was satisfied the noise management plan was being followed. The lights and signs did not need planning consent.
23. The Council told him it needed CCTV footage, digitally time stamped photographs showing the exact time and date, along with diary sheets showing hours of operation. The Council sent him diary sheets to complete.
24. The Council wrote to the gym in September, warning it was not complying with the hours of use condition and attached a screenshot of its website. This showed adverts for classes which could be booked from 0630. It also warned it could issue a Breach of Condition Notice (the Notice) if the gym failed to contact it.
25. In response to this warning, the gym sent a planning application to vary the hours condition. The Council told Mr S about this application. It also explained it would place enforcement action on hold until it decided it.
26. Mr S sent his representations against the application but in early 2024, the Council agreed a variation of the first planning condition. It was changed and now said:

• It cannot be used outside 0600 to 2130 (Monday to Friday) and 0800 to 2000 (Saturday and Sunday).

27. In May, the Council told Mr S it was contacting the gym about the need to comply with the planning conditions now in place. It sent Mr S more diary logs to complete and again told him about its need for evidence to allow it to decide whether there was a breach of planning consent or not.
28. Mr S sent a video taken on a Sunday morning showing the noise levels from the site. He made further reports about the gym opening earlier than it should. Mr S refused to complete the logs as he considered it unreasonable given the impact it had on his mental health after eight years.
29. In June, the Council confirmed the opening of the roller shutter doors was a breach of planning consent. The Council again wrote to the gym about the need to comply with planning conditions. It decided to draft a Notice for the legal team to review. It also told Mr S when it had sent the draft Notice to the legal team for authorisation to issue.

My findings

30. I found no fault on this complaint. This was because the Council considered the evidence he sent about the gym breaching planning consent. It acted on his reports when satisfied there was evidence of a breach. When the gym sent its planning application to vary the condition, the Council decided it could not take any enforcement action until it was decided. This decision was not fault because had the Council decided to take enforcement action at this point, the gym would have a defence. It could reasonably argue it had applied for consent for the very breaches the Council had taken action against.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I found no fault on Mr S’s complaint against the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman