Mansfield District Council (19 013 757)

Category : Planning > Enforcement

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 10 Jan 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour for running a business from his home and causing disturbance. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour for running a business from his home and causing disturbance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we would find fault.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered the complainant’s comments and the Council responses. The complainant has had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X’s neighbour runs a business away from his home. However, Mr X says that he works early in the morning in his home and makes noise causing a disturbance.
  2. The Council has investigated the matter to see if his neighbour needs planning permission for the work conducted in his home. The Council concluded that no planning permission was needed. It says that no other employees are involved, the work is carried out in a garden office and no noise other than a printer could be caused by the activity.
  3. I am satisfied that the Council has properly investigated the question of whether planning permission is necessary fort the work. Its decision was made in the absence of any procedural fault and so the Ombudsman cannot be critical of its judgement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings