Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s failure to take action after he raised concerns that his neighbour is running a business from home. We find the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained about the Council’s failure to take action after he raised concerns that his neighbour is running a business from home. He says he is unable to enjoy living at his property because of the continued disruption.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 considered information Mr F submitted with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it provided in response.
5. Mr F 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

Planning enforcement

6. Local planning authorities can take enforcement action if they find a person has breached planning rules. However, local planning authorities should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
7. Government guidance, “Ensuring effective enforcement”, says local planning authorities should act in a proportionate way. They have discretion to take enforcement action when they regard it is as appropriate to do so. They should consider the development plan and any other material considerations.
8. In considering any enforcement action, local planning authorities should have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This sets out government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Paragraph 58 says: “Effective enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control”.

What happened

9. Mr F has raised concerns about the amount of business activity at his neighbour’s property over the past few years. He contacted the Council again more recently and said his neighbour was using his residential address for storing stock. He also said customers were turning up at his neighbour’s property and this was causing a noise disturbance. The Council said it would investigate the matter.
10. Mr F contacted the Council and asked for an update. He said every week there was a large lorry outside that delivered stock to his neighbour. The Council responded and said it would conduct a site visit.
11. The Council visited the site, although it did not make any notes. Mr F’s neighbour contacted the Council after the site visit and explained he visited customers and sold products for his business. He also explained that he had not had any customers visiting his property in recent months.
12. Mr F emailed the Council a few days reported further business activity. The Council apologised for the delay in responding. It said it had visited his neighbour and asked for some further information to decide if an application for planning permission for a change of use from residential to business would be suitable. Mr F replied and said an application for planning permission was not the aim. He also said the constant deliveries was starting to affect his family’s mental health.
13. The Council contacted Mr F’s neighbour and asked for more information about his business. Mr F’s neighbour said he had deliveries for his business, and therefore lorries would park on his driveway to deliver the items. He also said he stored some stock in his garage, but he did not primarily run his business from home.
14. Mr F contacted the Council and asked for an update. He provided it with some photographs of the lorries turning up outside his neighbour’s property. He also said his neighbour was not following the Council’s working from home guidance.
15. The Council wrote to Mr F and said it was closing its file. Mr F complained to the Council and reiterated his previous comments that his neighbour was not operating in line with its working from home guidance.
16. The Council responded to Mr F’s complaint. It said:

• The business associated with his neighbour’s property did not constitute the principal use. The principal use of the property continued to be a residential dwelling. Therefore, there was no breach of planning control.
• His neighbour’s garage was only being used for storage purposes.
• Heavy goods vehicles were not being parked at the premises. The vehicle in the photographs was likely to a light goods vehicle.
• The business operations did not involve significant traffic movement, significant noise disturbance or ‘out of hours’ activity.

17. Mr F referred his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. He said his neighbour had misled the planning department about the amount of business activity. He also said the vehicle in the photograph was a heavy goods vehicle, and therefore it was inappropriate to keep it parked at a residential address. Finally, he said he had witnessed many people visiting his neighbour’s property to collect equipment.
18. The Council issued its final response and reiterated the comments from its stage one response. It confirmed there was no evidence of a breach of planning control.
19. Mr F remained unhappy with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.
20. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it explained that it wrongly estimated the weight of the vehicle in Mr F’s photographs. However, it says the weight of the vehicle makes no difference to the situation in planning terms.

Back to top

Analysis

21. We expect councils to consider allegations of a breach of planning control and decide what, if any, investigation is necessary. If a council decides there is a breach of planning control, it must consider what harm is caused to the public before deciding how to act. Providing the council is aware of its powers and follows this process, it is free to make its own judgments on how or whether to act.
22. In Mr F’s case, the Council considered the photographs and information he provided it with, conducted a site visit, and gathered information from Mr F’s neighbour about the amount of business activity at his property.
23. After the Council had reviewed this information, it decided there was no evidence of a breach of planning control. Although Mr F said there was noise disturbance, and significant ‘out of hours’ activity, the Council came to the view there was insufficient evidence of a breach of planning control. I appreciate Mr F strongly disagrees with this decision and wants the Council to take further action. However, this was a decision the Council was entitled to take based on the information it had received. Therefore, I do not fault.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman