Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision making over alleged breaches of the planning permission for a barn until December 2019. The Council is still investigating complaints about noise from the building and says if further commercial vehicle repair activity is reported to the planning department it will investigate further. Mr and Mrs B say the noise disturbs the peaceful enjoyment of their home.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I shall call Mr and Mrs B, complain the Council has not taken action over the unauthorised use of a barn for a thatching business and van conversions. They complain the noise from the use of the barn disturbs the peaceful enjoyment of their 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 read the papers put in by Mr and Mrs B.
5. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
6. Mr and Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

7. Mr and Mrs B live in a row of houses. Behind them, is a barn, with a yard between.
8. The barn got planning permission in the 1980’s for ‘change of use of agricultural barns to domestic stabling, storage, workshops and animal husbandry areas, for teaching purposes’. There was a plan associated with the permission.
9. Mr and Mrs B complained to the Council in August 2018 about a breach of planning permission at the site as vehicle maintenance took place on the site on two evenings. The enforcement officer visited and found the barn locked with no one present. The enforcement officer wrote to the owners of the barn and then met with the owner on site in September. The notes of the site meeting say ‘thatch stored in main area of building. No evidence that workshop areas were being sub-let. Various items within workshop area looked as though they had been there for some time. The owner said his son sometimes stored items in the workshop area but there was nothing to suggest they were being used for commercial activities. The owner said that one of the occasions referred to by Mr and Mrs B was when a local residents vehicle had broken down and he allowed the use of the area outside the barn so it could be fixed’.
10. In October 2018 the enforcement officer wrote to Mr and Mrs B to say there was no evidence the barn was being sub-let and his view was the landowner was only using it for thatch storage in association with his business. The notes the Council sent to me said that much of the work appeared to have taken place on the land outside the building so would not represent a change of use of the building. The Council decided that this appeared an isolated incident.
11. Mr and Mrs B made complaints about noise from motorbike repairs and power tools in March 2019. They said the repairs had been taking place inside the building since Christmas. They made a further complaint in April 2019 about repairs taking place in the building over the Easter weekend.
12. The enforcement officer emailed Mr and Mrs B to say she was on leave but would follow up with the owner. Mr and Mrs B reported repair activities on 7 occasions in May 2019.
13. The enforcement officer wrote to Mr and Mr B in June 2019. The officer said the area where a vehicle was worked on inside the building was a workshop area on the 1989 planning permission. So, the Council did not consider there had been a material change of use of the building which needs planning consent. The enforcement officer also said that it was not a breach of planning control to unload lengths of wood from a van into the workshop, use a power saw or to put bales of thatch into the barn. The officer said that she had spoken to the barn owner and asked them to ensure that they kept noise to a minimum. She also said that Mr and Mrs B may want to make a complaint about the noise to the environmental health department. (Mr and Mrs B emailed the Council in November 2019 about noise nuisance. When writing this report, the noise nuisance complaint is still continuing so is not part of this investigation.)
14. The Councils said to me that it decided the breaches of planning control took place over a relatively short period of time and were taking place over the weekend or during the evening rather than everyday. The Council has said the works alleged to have occurred inside the building may technically represent a breach although due to the reasonably sporadic nature of the works – only over a period of 2 months and none reported since June 2019 – the Council does not consider that a material change of use of the building has occurred or that a “commercial vehicle repairs business” is being operated from the site.
15. The Council said that it could have issued a Planning Contravention Notice seeking to establish the nature of the works being carried out and by whom, or an enforcement notice requiring the activities to stop. However, in both instances, it is likely the activities would have naturally stopped when the notices were served/came into effect.
16. The Council’s enforcement officer said Mr and Mrs B have not reported further unauthorised activities since July 2019.

My analysis

17. Mr and Mrs B believe that any use of the barn for storage or workshop use is only authorised if it is for teaching purposes. The Council’s does not consider the building can only be used for “teaching purposes”. The Council’s interpretation is the building can be used for any or all the uses listed i.e.
• Domestic stabling
• Storage
• Workshops
• Animal husbandry area for teaching purposes.
18. I can see the wording on the planning permission is open to interpretation. My role is not to decide the correct legal interpretation but to investigate whether the Council has considered all the relevant facts when making a professional judgement on how to interpret the wording. In this case, the Council has visited the site, spoken to the owner and Mr and Mrs B and decided how to interpret the planning permission wording. I can find no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making process on this point, although I can also understand why Mr and Mrs B disagree.
19. I asked the Council about the planning status of the land outside the barn. The Council said it could not confirm with certainty the lawful use of the land outside the barn. The Council said it would depend on where the exact boundary is and the exact location of the repairs carried out to decide the planning status.
20. Mr and Mrs B complain the Council has been inconsistent and it has not taken action to stop the use of the barn for vehicle repairs. I can see no evidence of fault on this point. The Council’s view is the use of the barn for commercial purposes is not authorised. The Council has said that if further vehicle repairs do occur within the building, the Council will respond and speak with the landowner again. However, unless a material change of use of the building occurs, the Council’s options for taking formal enforcement action may be limited.
21. It is clear the wording of the planning permission is such that the investigation of complaints about the use of the barn are not straightforward. The Council has investigated and reached a view that the vehicle repairs Mr and Mrs B have complained about have not occurred with a frequency that would warrant enforcement action. The Council also considers the other uses, such as storage of thatch, are lawful.
22. Mr and Mrs B have sent me some diary sheets dated December 2019 to May 2020 that they sent to the Environmental Health Department. I would recommend that they also send these sheets to the planning enforcement officer so the Council can consider this evidence. It is important that Mr and Mrs B report incidents where they consider there is a breach of planning permission, such as vehicle repairs, to the planning enforcement officer when it occurs. This complaint was made to the Ombudsman in January 2020, so these recent events from December 2019 have not been considered as part of this investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation. I have found no evidence of fault so this complaint is not upheld.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman