Summary: The Ombudsman has not found fault by the Council in its consideration of enforcement action following Mr X’s reports of planning breaches near a listed building.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly investigate his report that his neighbour’s development on his home breached planning permission. He considers the Council’s failure to act has had a negative impact on the listed building which is his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have also invited the complainant to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained in 2016 regarding business use of a residential dwelling next to his home. Mr X’s home is a Grade II* listed building (particularly important buildings of more than special interest) and he was concerned about the impact on his home.
6. The Council’s planning enforcement officer visited but did not consider there was a material change of use to business use. While there was a portacabin on site, this was assessed as a temporary home office while the owners carried out works to renovate their home. The Council considered there was no evidence of stocks or sales at the property. The Council closed the case.
7. Mr X complained again in March 2017 regarding business use of his neighbour’s home. He said several men arrived each morning and he believed some worked at the house. He thought the house was being turned into a factory because there was noise from heavy machinery day and night. He said there were also massive fires from packaging. He said he had not seen a planning application for change of use.
8. Mr X received no response and so chased the Council up in June 2017. It apologised that the report had not been added to its system. The Council’s planning enforcement officer visited the property. He considered that business use had intensified since the previous year as the owners confirmed business vehicles used the property and were left overnight. The Council wrote to Mr X to say it considered planning permission was required for continued business use and for the hardstanding the owners had created. It had written to the owners to invite them to make a retrospective planning application so that it could fully assess the development.
9. The owners responded and explained they were carrying out renovations to their home and had created a temporary yard using reclaimed stone and gravel while they carried out the works. They had intended to use part of the property as a business compound but had now decided they would not store any business materials or vehicles at their home, aside from the owner’s own van.
10. The Council considered the owners’ response. The planning enforcement officer said he would visit the property again. He advised the portacabin must be removed when the works to create a home office in the property were complete.
11. Mr X chased the Council for response in July and September 2017. The planning enforcement officer visited the property in September 2017. He noted the owners were carrying out renovation works and repairs internally and externally. This included excavation of the internal floors to damp proof and insulate. He also noted the owners appeared to be using the hardstanding for residential purposes for storing materials for renovation to the property. He considered that the building works did not amount to development, or they were permitted development.
12. Parliament has given a blanket planning permission (‘permitted development’) for many minor works. Subject to the specific nature of the works, councils have no control over these matters. (The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.)
13. The Council wrote to Mr X in September 2017 and stated that it had investigated Mr X’s report regarding breaches of planning control and business use of the property. It said that the owners had intended to use part of the property as a storage area for their business but had now ceased this activity. The Council considered that any remaining business operations such as the home office and keeping owners’ vehicles at the property were ancillary to its residential use. Therefore, the owners did not need to obtain planning permission.
14. The Council further explained that explained that the property was not listed and the works that had taken place to repair, maintain or renovate were not development, meaning that no planning permission was required, or the works were permitted development. This included the provision of gravel hardstanding, digging out of floors to underpin foundations and other internal works.
15. Mrs X complained further that the Council did not understand the significance of his historic building. He said he now overlooked a huge car park.
16. The Council carried out three further site visits at different times of the day but did not identify any apparent material change of use. It closed the case.
17. Mr X complained to the Council again in January 2018 that the Council had not replied to his complaint. He considered the works at his neighbour’s property were breaches of planning control. He said he could not live with disruption caused by business vehicles, noise and bonfires.
18. In February and March 2018 Mr X’s solicitor wrote to the Council on his behalf to complain that in her view the neighbour’s hardstanding was not permitted development. She said it was not for purposes incidental to the dwelling house due to its scale as it was for up to 30 cars. She referred to the portacabin which was still in use on the site. She said the Council had not properly inspected internally. She also considered the owners did not occupy the property and it was being used for business only. She claimed the Council had not properly investigated and it was in the public interest to consider enforcement action.
19. The Council visited the property again and reopened the case as it considered there may be potential material change of use to business use.
20. The Council wrote to Mr X’s solicitors in March 2018 and advised that it had visited the property, but it had not been clear whether vehicle movements and activities related to business activity or to renovation projects. The Council said it would issue a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN). This was in order to request information from the owners and more formally clarify the level of business related activity at the property. The Council would then consider if the owners needed to apply for planning permission.
21. Mr X’s solicitors wrote further about operational development at the property such as hardstanding, access roads and breeze block enclosure of an agricultural building. The solicitors did not consider the Council had properly addressed these matters.
22. The Council replied that it would reconsider all the operational developments once it had a fuller picture of the uses of the property when the owners responded to the PCN. The Council issued a PCN which states that the alleged breach was “change of use of residential dwelling to mixed use comprising residential and …business use and associated operational development.” The Council asked a number of questions and required a response within 21 days or it stated it would consider taking enforcement action or issuing a stop notice to prevent continued or further development.
23. The owners responded to the Council’s PCN questions and later removed the portacabin as they said that internal works to create a home office were complete.
24. Mr X’s solicitors chased a response in July 2018 and said Mr X was still suffering disruption from the neighbour’s use of the property. The Council replied that it had now considered the owners’ response and it did not feel there was a material change of use of the property. It said that officers had seen inside the building and confirmed it was residential. The Council said it would continue to monitor the building to see if there was any evidence of intensified business activity.
25. Mr X’s solicitors responded that the evidence of residential use did not mean that there was no business use of the property. Therefore, the Council should not accept the operational development that had occurred was allowed as permitted development. In her view the business use of the property was significant and she gave details of specific works or activities. She said the Council’s response gave no detail and she and Mr X expected more information in response to each part of her complaint.
26. The Council visited the property once more and considered that there was some business use of the building but that it was ancillary to its use as a residential property.
27. In September 2018 Mr X continued to complain that the Council had not responded adequately to a clear breach of planning control and had refused to take enforcement action.
28. The Council wrote to Mr X in November 2018. It said it had inspected and monitored the property. It had formally requested confirmation of the operations taking place. The Council said it had not formally identified a material change of use or building works that would require planning permission. While the owners carried out some ancillary business activities, the primary use was clearly residential. The Council said the alleged business activities were largely maintenance and improvements that did not affect the appearance of the buildings and did not require planning permission. The Council further agreed that the setting of Mr X’s listed building and the nearby listed church were material planning considerations. However, the neighbour’s property was not listed, and therefore, the neighbour did not require planning permission for the renovation work he was carrying out. The Council said it would investigate credible reports regarding change of use, but in this instance it had now closed the case.

Analysis

29. I have considered how the Council dealt with Mr X’s reports regarding planning breaches. The Council has investigated the matter and carried out several visits. It has inspected the building and its interior. It has considered the potential change of use and operational development. It sought further information via a formal PCN. It considered the responses and visited again to consider the extent of the business use. Its decision was that there was no material change of use. Therefore, the operational development such as provision of hardstanding and access roads was deemed authorised under permitted development rights.
30. I have not found that there was fault in the Council’s decision making because it fully investigated and considered relevant factors. Therefore, as I explain in paragraph 2, I cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have not found fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman