Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed and considered planning applications for a site next to Mr & Mrs Y’s home. Nor in the way it considered their reports of noise nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, we do not consider they suffered a significant personal injustice when a planning officer suggested they were too late to seek judicial review of a planning decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X represents his clients Mr & Mrs Y. He says the Council is at fault for the following:
• It failed to consult Mr & Mrs Y on a planning application in 2024.
• It failed to tell Mr & Mrs Y of the decision to approve the planning application.
• It failed to follow its policies when deciding to approve the planning application.
• It provided incorrect advice on the judicial review process.
2. He also complains the Council is failing to:
• take enforcement action against breaches of planning control; and
• investigate reports of statutory noise nuisance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and information on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We can look at the Council’s decision-making process, but we can’t say if a decision is right or wrong. The Council should take account of law, policy, relevant evidence and information. If it has followed those steps we cannot find fault.
7. In 2023 the Council received a planning application to vary a condition on a planning permission for a site next to Mr & Mrs Y’s home.
8. Mr X complains the Council failed to tell Mr & Mrs Y about the planning application. However, they became aware of the application and commented on it. The Council considered their comments. It decided to refuse the application. Therefore I do not consider Mr & Mrs Y suffered any injustice from the Council’s failure to notify them of the application.
9. In 2024, the Council received an application from Mr & Mrs Y’s neighbour to discharge a condition on a planning permission that was granted in 1998. The condition states:

“no part of the site shall be used for open storage unless prior approval in writing has been obtained from the local planning authority in respect of its location and height.”

10. The Council has no statutory duty to inform Mr & Mrs Y of applications to discharge planning conditions. As there is no duty to inform them, we cannot find fault in the Council not doing so.
11. Mr X also complains the Council failed to tell Mr & Mrs Y that it had approved the application to discharge the condition. As there is no duty to inform neighbours of planning decisions, we cannot find fault in it not doing so.
12. I have reviewed the way the Council considered the 2024 application. The Planning Officer’s report shows:
• the site history (including the previous refusal)
• the Council’s environmental health officers did not object
• the Officer considered the impact of the proposal in the green belt
• the impact of the proposal on Mr & Mrs Y’s grade two listed home; and
• the proposed storage area has been moved away from Mr & Mrs Y’s boundary which is an improvement on the previous, refused application.
13. I understand Mr X is concerned the Council has been inconsistent as the recent approval is contrary to several refusals for planning permissions on the same site for some years. However, planning decisions are made with regard to national and local planning policies. These have changed since the original planning permission was granted. The Planning Officer’s report includes details of relevant national and local planning policy and why the Officer considers the proposal is acceptable. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.
14. The Council confirms its Environmental Health team have investigated two complaints, in 2022 and 2023 for noise nuisance. The investigations included, site visits, noise recordings, correspondence with Mr & Mrs Y, and liaison with the Planning Enforcement team. Both investigations concluded there was no statutory noise nuisance. Having followed the appropriate investigations, these are decisions the Council is entitled to make.
15. The Council has confirmed there are no outstanding reports of noise nuisance or breaches of planning control. Should Mr & Mrs Y have further concerns they can make new reports to the Council for its consideration.
16. Mr X says a planning officer incorrectly told Mr & Mrs Y they were too late to seek a judicial review of the planning decision. The planning officer is not a lawyer. Mr & Mrs Y have sought legal advice on planning matters in the past and it is for them to seek their own professional legal advice when considering such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council processed and considered planning application for the site next to Mr & Mrs Y’s home.
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr & Mrs Y’s reports of noise nuisance.
• We do not consider Mr & Mrs Y suffered a significant personal injustice because of a planning officer’s comments on the judicial review process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman