THE Ombudsman has forced East Hampshire District Council to apologise to Petersfield home-owners for its failure to control noise and vibration at an engineering company.

The council has also handed out a total of £2,500 to two neighbours on Ramshill for their "loss of residential amenity, their time, trouble and stress."

Brian Evans, of Ramshill, has waged a four-year battle with the council on behalf of his neighbours in a bid to stop the daily noise and vibration which came from the tool-making company Diametric on Ramshill.

The company went into liquidation two years ago and was taken over by Tooling Products of Langrish.

Neighbours described the nuisance as a "daily nightmare." They were unable to enjoy their gardens and were often woken up at night by the vibrations. They frequently called council officers out late at night to listen to the noise.

But despite countless protests the district council never took legal action on their behalf.

Mr Evans told The Herald this week he was pleased with the Ombudsman's decision to back the residents but he added: "The machines which caused all our problems are still there and I am still apprehensive that the planners will try to avoid taking action. I will not be celebrating until these machines are gone."

Problems began for the Ramshill and Hoggarth Close home-owners in May l997 when Diametric began working in its new £750,000 extension on Ramshill.

A total of 29 planning conditions had been imposed on the company when permission was granted, including a condition requiring Diametric to obtain permission to instal the machinery which caused the noise and vibration problem.

When Mr Evans first complained, the council agreed to investigate the matter. In August l997 councillors agreed to take legal action if necessary to make Diametric keep to the planning conditions.

There followed an 18-month period of extended monitoring. But still there was no help for the residents from the council and in November l998 Mr Evans contacted the Ombudsman.

In April l999 Diametric went into liquidation and it was taken over by Tooling Products.

"They have been very helpful in keeping the vibrations to a minimum since they took over," said Mr Evans. "The staff has been cut dramatically there and there is very little going on at the moment to annoy us."

The Ombudsman, said Mr Evans, said he would continue to watch the situation at Tooling Products.

In l999, said Mr Evans, they submitted a planning application which included retrospective permission to keep the machines at the centre of the noise dispute.

It was not determined by East Hampshire planners until April 2001, when it was refused on the grounds of insufficient information.

"I believe it was this that brought matters to a head with the Ombudsman," Mr Evans told The Herald. "I believe he lost patience with the council and officially made up his mind to uphold our complaint because the council still had not made up its mind whether or not to let the company keep the machines."

He added: "His compensation is a token compensation and not intended to reflect the intensity of the problem. The main issue remains to get rid of the machines and have proper foundations installed and we are hoping our councillors will make sure this happens."

Tooling Products has this week submitted a new planning application asking for permission to keep the machines.

At the same time Mr Evans has been told that the council's legal department has been instructed to prepare for enforcement action.

"If they approve the application we will have vibration forever," he said. "If they do not I am hoping the enforcement action will soon result in a permanent solution to the vibration problems. If not, I will have to go back to the Ombudsman."

In his letter to Mr Evans Chief Executive of EHDC Philip Burton said: "The district council has accepted the advice of the Ombudsman concerning your complaint to him about your loss of residential amenity.

"This leads us to two actions. Firstly we apologise to you for the council's failure to bring the installation of the heavy milling machinery . . . within the council's control from the outset."

The council also sent Mr Evans £750 and his neighbour £1,750 in compensation.

Council spokesman Steve Bradley said: "There was no finding of maladministration but the Ombudsman accepted that the council had acted too slowly to address the issue.

"The compensation paid related to the time and effort of residents in making the complaint and their loss of residential amenity during the time it took to enforce the planning conditions.

"The council is continuing to monitor the premises and will take enforcement action if necessary in the future."