Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approval of a planning application or its actions following a report of a breach of planning conditions. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault and we could not achieve the outcomes Mr Y and Mrs X seek.

The Complaint

1. Mr Y and Mrs X complain the Council approved planning permission for a development at a nearby site without adequate consultation and failed to take enforcement action on its lighting. They report light disturbance and believe the development is not in keeping with an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. They want the structure and lights removed, and the trees replanting.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y and Mrs X complained the Council approved planning permission for a structure at a nearby property. They believe the Council failed to carry out adequate consultation and the structure harms the rural landscape and Green Belt. They also reported tree clearance and light disturbance at the site which they believe breaches planning conditions. They also alleged the Planning Officer’s report understated how visible the structure is to nearby properties, including their home.
6. The Council explained it publicised the application with a site notice and did not need to notify wider neighbours because of the site’s location. It added that views from private property are not a material planning consideration.
7. The Council agreed the Planning Officer’s report did not fully acknowledge the structure’s visibility from some limited sites, but confirmed this did not mean the overall decision to grant permission was flawed or unreasonable.
8. The Council reviewed Green Belt guidance and decided that the structure was compliant, it is visually permeable, positioned appropriately among existing buildings, and functions as an acceptable facility for outdoor recreation without harming Green Belt openness.
9. The Council addressed the outdoor lighting issue by arranging removal of the external lights and instructing the site owner to place internal lights on a timer. After Mr Y and Mrs X reported further breaches outside permitted times, the Council investigated this in line with its statutory guidance and policy.
10. The Council said its Officers acted lawfully and proportionately in line with statutory duties. It has advised Mr Y and Mrs X it will continue to monitor compliance and will pursue enforcement if it confirms any further planning breaches.
11. The Council’s Environmental Protection Department considered its duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and decided the lighting was unlikely to constitute a statutory nuisance because of its distance from neighbouring properties. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a Council’s decisions to decide if they were wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decisions. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question the merits of the decision. In this case, there does not appear to be evidence to suggest the Council’s decision-making was flawed to justify our intervention.
12. The Council has explained the trees Mr Y and Mrs X believe have been removed from the site have no statutory planning protection, so the Forestry Commission, not the Local Planning Authority, must consider whether any breach has occurred and has the power to order replanting of trees where appropriate
13. We will not investigate this complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault and we could not add to the detailed and thorough responses the Council has already provided to Mr Y and Mrs X’s complaints. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr Y and Mrs X seek.

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault and we could not achieve the outcomes Mr Y and Mrs X seek.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman