Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving a planning application for an employment development, and how it handled associated planning enforcement matters. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have complained to us sooner about some of the earlier issues and, in any case, there is not enough evidence of fault causing him a personal significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council granting planning permission for an employment development in his local area, and its handling of alleged breaches of planning control at the site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. With regard to the first bullet point, we can 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)
5. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
6. And 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included some of their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning application and the associated Planning Committee meeting, on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 6 above would apply to any issues or parts of the complaint which Mr X became aware of in mid-2023. Mr X only contacted the Ombudsman in November 2024, and I see no good reasons why he could not have complained to us sooner about these matters.
9. And even if there was no time restriction, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong, or ask whether the Council could have done things better. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made. We must also consider if any errors we find are Iikely to have influenced the planning decision or directly caused some other significant injustice.
10. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr X a significant personal injustice to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Planning policies may pull in different directions; it is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to these policies, and any other material considerations, in determining a planning application.
• Objections to the proposal were summarised in the report to the Planning Committee.
• The report includes a detailed assessment of the proposal against the key planning policies, and goes on to consider the impact on the character/appearance of the locality, highway safety, and ecology.
• Consultees on the application included the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit.
• The County Council, as the highway authority, is responsible for works in the highway.
• If protected species are being harmed this can be reported to the Police.
• Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Planning enforcement is discretionary, and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use. As such councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
• The Council issued a temporary stop notice, has regular liaison meetings with the developer, and is considering a retrospective application for a structure on the site which required planning permission. It also explained that some works either did not amount to development or benefitted from permitted development rights.
• Whilst Mr X appears to have an interest in ecology/biodiversity issues and enjoys the local area for recreation, I am also conscious that he lives approximately 500m from the site. On balance, I am not persuaded any personal injustice he has suffered, as a result of the alleged faults by the Council, is significant enough to justify the Ombudsman pursuing his concerns further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have complained to us sooner about some of the earlier issues and, in any case, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman