Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement as there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice and the planning permission itself is out of time for investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says that the developer of a building behind his house as breached planning permission by playing loud music. He says the original planning permission is invalid as it did not have the correct ownership details.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning permission was granted in May 2021 for a replacement roof and second floor flats to be built at the back of Mr X’s house. Mr X objected at the time. I consider that any complaint about the planning permission could have reasonably have been made to this office within 12 months of the decision and so this is out of jurisdiction.
7. Mr X says that the developer has worked outside of the approved working times and has played music loud which he says is a nuisance.
8. The Council says that Planning Officers have visited and advised the developer about the planning conditions. The Council considers that any enforcement action would not to be appropriate at this stage.
9. The planning enforcement process we expect is as follows. We expect councils to consider allegations and decide what, if any, investigation is necessary. If the council decides there is a breach of control, it must consider what harm is caused to the public before deciding how to react. Providing the council is aware of its powers and follows this process, it is free to make its own judgement on how or whether to act.
10. I am satisfied that the Council responded properly to Mr X’s concerns about the planning breach. The Council has considered its powers and decided not to take action. In the absence of any administrative fault, the Ombudsman could not be critical of that decision.
11. Mr X says that the roof ventilation has not been built in line with the approved plans. The Council investigated and decided that, as no planning harm was being caused, no enforcement action would be taken. Again, the Council’s consideration of this discretionary power does not in my view contain administrative fault.
12. Mr X's dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council's decision but, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman