Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council considered a planning application for a development near to his home and how it responded to his reports of a breach of planning permission. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council considered the issue of overlooking and loss of privacy when deciding on a planning application and says it did not consider the height of a carpark before approving it. Mr X also complains the Council did not properly consider the situation when deciding on its enforcement case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. We cannot usually investigate complaints about events that took place more than 12 months before a complainant contacted the Ombudsman. We can only exercise discretion to look back further if there are good reasons to do so.
7. Mr X first brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2025, meaning anything that took place before February 2024 has been raised late.
8. However, I have decided to look back to the point the Council made its decision on the original planning application as it is reasonable to say Mr X may not have been aware of the alleged issue until work was underway.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

11. Where planning permission is required, a council must decide on planning applications in accordance with its development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
12. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants, or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking and loss of privacy.
13. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission unless it is founded on valid material planning reasons. Government statements of planning policy are material considerations.
14. General planning policies may pull in different directions (e.g., in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities). It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to give to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.
15. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines breaches of planning control as:
• The carrying out of development without the required planning permission; or
• Failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted.
16. Planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
17. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how to apply these.
18. The Framework says effective enforcement is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.
19. The Council publishes information about planning enforcement on its website.

What happened

20. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
21. The Council received a planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a discount food store, a care home, retirement living apartments, car parking, landscaping and associated works at a site near to Mr X’s home. The application was supported by additional documents and plans, including existing and proposed elevation plans. The application did not indicate any increase in the levels of the car park.
22. The Council consulted locally on the application and Mr X and other local residents made submissions directly to it.
23. The Council’s planning case officer’s report on the application outlines the relevant local plan and policies and sets out the officer’s consideration of whether the development would create overlooking or loss of privacy issues. The report also considered the representations the Council had received from neighbouring residents. The case officer considered the proposed plans would not have any undue impact on the amenity of the existing neighbouring properties when it came to issues of overlooking and loss of privacy. The report recommended the application be approved subject to conditions.
24. The Council approved permission based on the case officer’s report and work commenced.
25. In September 2024, the Council received reports of alleged breaches of planning control claiming the site levels had been increased. The Council acknowledged these and reached out to the developer to discuss the allegations.
26. In October 2024 the Council’s case officer carried out a site visit and asked further questions of the developer.
27. In the meantime, the Council received additional reports of alleged breaches of planning control. It updated all parties involved in making complaints and continued to discuss the situation with the developer.
28. The Council met with the local residents and the developers on the site. Notes from this meeting show discussions centred around vibrations caused by the building work and an allegation the car park was being built three metres above the previous car park height.
29. The Council remained in contact with the developer and explained it was going to issue a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) to obtain further information about the site levels.
30. The Council issued a PCN explaining it was not clearly evident whether a breach had occurred and asked the developer to provide further information to help the Council to decide whether to take formal enforcement action.
31. The Council visited the site again in December 2024 and the developer then responded to the PCN.
32. The Council updated the parties who had reported alleged breaches of planning control to let them know it had received a response to the PCN, which it was considering and was also engaging a third-party surveyor to confirm the current site levels.
33. In January 2025, the Council agreed for a third-party surveyor to inspect the site and assess current site levels to determine whether there was a breach of planning control. It received the third-party surveyor’s report later that month.
34. In February 2025 the Council wrote to the parties who had reported the alleged breaches to confirm it had completed its investigation and its file was closed. The Council explained the third-party surveyor had now confirmed there is a de-minimis difference in the height of the carpark level as built from approved plans.

Analysis

35. The Ombudsman is not a planning authority and cannot determine whether a planning application should have been approved or whether a breach of planning control has occurred and, if so, what action should be taken to resolve the breach. Instead, we investigate how the Council considered applications and any reported breaches, and whether it has acted in accordance with the law, guidance and its own enforcement objectives.
36. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether its decisions were right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
37. The case officer’s report shows they considered and applied relevant policy and considered how the development would affect local residents when it came to issues of overlooking and privacy. The plans did not propose an increase in the height of the site and the case officer’s report was carried out on this basis. I do not find fault with the process the case officer followed when making their recommendation to approve the application.
38. Mr X disagrees with the case officer’s decision and says the development has created a loss of privacy for his property, but Mr X disagreeing with the case officer’s judgment is not enough for me to find the Council at fault. As the case officer made a judgment, taking account of relevant policies, I cannot otherwise question whether the decision was right or wrong. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision-making process.
39. Mr X has said the Council ought to require the car park to be lowered and for an acoustic barrier to be installed to the site. It is not for the Ombudsman to say what action the Council should take so I do not find fault here.
40. That said, we expect councils to carry out thorough investigations into enforcement complaints and consider the full range of enforcement options open to them. Even if a council decides not to take enforcement action, we expect it to record its reasons and explain its decisions to any complainants. We would expect the council to do so without unnecessary delay.
41. Once the Council received reports of alleged breaches of planning control, it promptly engaged with the complainants and the developer. The Council carried out site visits, issued a PCN while it investigated and arranged for a third-party surveyor to consider the issues that had been raised. The Council assessed the situation and decided the difference in levels was not sufficient to warrant further action and informed Mr X of this. As the Council followed the right process to make its decision, I cannot find fault with the decision it reached.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find no fault with the process the Council followed when deciding on the initial application or when considering the alleged breaches of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman