Copies of all noise recordings since Jan 26
Received 11 September 2026
Please provide copies of any audio recordings made by, or on behalf of, the council as part of investigations into noise complaints between January 1, 2026 and September 10, 2026.
For the avoidance of doubt, this request includes, but is not limited to:
- Audio recordings obtained through noise-monitoring equipment deployed by the council;
- Audio recordings made by environmental health officers or other council staff during investigations;
- Audio recordings submitted by complainants and retained by the council as part of an investigation;
-
Metadata associated with the recordings, including the date, time and location of recording, where this can be disclosed.
Responded 18 September 2026
Since 1st of January 2026, via The Noise App, we have 454 one-minute noise recordings and 1,422 thirty second noise recordings submitted. This totals 1,165 minutes / 19 hours 25 minutes of recordings. This does not include noise recordings using our own equipment for those who cannot download The Noise App.
The noise recordings requested relate to ongoing investigations and we therefore are unable to provide you with these, as disclosure could potentially hinder these investigations.
The Council believes that the following exceptions are engaged in respect of your request, and these are detailed below:
In respect of those requests that are answered in full, partially or the total refused, please take this as notice under EIR, which we:
a) Consider the following exceptions of EIR apply:
b) Claim exception under sections of the Act:
Exception 12 (5) (b) Course of Justice Exception
c) State why the exception applies:
Regulation 12(5) (b) provides an exception from the disclosure of environmental information which would adversely affect the course of justice. Regulation 12(5)(b) allows you to refuse to disclose information “to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect” the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature.
We note paragraph 39 of the ICO guidance which outlines the factors an authority should consider including:
•The stage or stages reached in any particular investigation or proceedings:
The investigations are open and ongoing
•Whether and to what extent the information has already been released into the public domain:Noise recordings are not published or provided to the public.
• The significance or sensitivity of the information:
The requested information could potentially form part of a prosecution file. Disclosure of the recordings could compromise the proceedings and prejudice the right to a fair trial, as well as impact an appeal against any Enforcement Notice that may be served.
• The age of the information:
The noise recordings are all less than one year old and are evidence to open and ongoing cases.
We have reviewed the ICO Guidance which explains that proceedings can apply to any situation where an authority is exercising its formal decision-making powers. We consider that a noise matter would fall within this exception.
As these exceptions are qualified, we are obliged to outline the harm in disclosure and explain why we consider that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure: Whilst we appreciate the benefits in transparency and that disclosure could improve public knowledge and debate on noise complaints, the public interest in preserving the course of justice is paramount. If the proceedings are over, but there is still a prospect of future litigation, a weighty public interest in maintaining the exception still remains.
Whilst we are withholding the requested audio recordings under EIR exception 12(5)(b), we would also like to note that audio recordings are considered the personal data of the person who recorded them (as they contain their voice, background acoustic profile of their home, and timestamps linked to their property).