Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning permission near the complainant’s home. However, the Council was at fault for refusing to accept his complaint about this. This did not cause the complainant an injustice, but the Council has, at our recommendation, agreed to amend its complaints policy to prevent a recurrence.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr D.
2. Mr D complains the Council has not used its planning enforcement powers to require the relocation of a light column, erected directly behind his house during the redevelopment of a fire station, in breach of the planning permission. He also complains the Council did not properly respond to his complaint about this. Mr D says this has had a significant impact on his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Planning enforcement

7. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
8. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
9. As 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.
10. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining 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.” (National Planning Policy Framework December 2024, paragraph 60)

Mr D’s complaint

11. Mr D’s home borders an emergency services facility. In 2022, the service applied to the Council for planning permission to redevelop the facility, which the Council gave. The approved plans included the installation of several new light columns around the site.
12. In August 2024 Mr D contacted the Council to report that one light column had been erected away from the approved position, and was now directly behind his house. The Council discussed this at length with Mr D over the following months, and this culminated in the service agreeing to reduce the brightness of the light. However, in April 2025 the Council told him it would not take planning enforcement action over the position of the light, because it was only a short distance away from where it was supposed to be.
13. Mr D then made a formal complaint to the Council, but the Council responded to say its policy did not allow it to accept complaints about planning decisions. In June, Mr D referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

14. Mr D complains, in redeveloping its facility, the emergency service wrongly placed a light column directly behind his property. Mr D says this has caused a light nuisance, although he acknowledges the service addressed this by reducing the intensity of the light; however, he says is also distressed simply at the fact he can see the column from his property, in a place where it is not supposed to be. Mr D has described a significant impact on his mental health as a result.
15. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way a council has made its decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or unduly delayed making a decision. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
16. However, we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a right of appeal against its decisions. If we find a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if the complainant feels strongly it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
17. As I have noted, although councils have the power to take enforcement action against breaches of planning permission, this power is discretionary, which means it is for the council in question to decide what to do on a case-by-case basis. Government guidance makes clear councils should only use their enforcement powers when it is proportionate to do so.
18. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has explained clearly to Mr D why it will not take enforcement action over the position of the light column. This is because it is such a short distance from the approved position it would be disproportionate to require the service to move it.
19. I note Mr D says he has been given different assessments of how far out of place the column is, ranging from 6 feet to 20 metres. I asked the Council to clarify this, but unfortunately it did not respond to my question.
20. But, and although I cannot say precisely, having reviewed the approved plans, online maps, and several photos the Council has provided, I am satisfied there is only a short distance between the approved position and the finished light column. It certainly does not appear possible for it to be as far as 20 metres out of position.
21. Whatever the facts about the distance, though, this remains a decision for the Council to take. There is no evidence of fault here.
22. However, I am concerned about the Council’s rationale for refusing to investigate Mr D’s complaint. The Council’s complaints policy lists several subject areas it will not accept complaints about, because “alternative remedies exist”. One of these areas is “planning decisions”.
23. A planning applicant has the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, against a council decision to refuse or impose conditions on planning permission. But this right does not extend to a third party, such as Mr D, who is complaining about a decision to grant planning permission. It is therefore not accurate to say a person in Mr D’s position has an alternative remedy, and so – assuming it meets other relevant criteria – the Council should accept a complaint of this nature.
24. I asked the Council for its comments on this. In response, it said:

“[The] District Council’s complaints process does not allow complaints against planning decisions, or disputes regarding the decision to take, or not to take, enforcement action. The decision on any actions is discretionary and supported alongside Government Guidance to seek resolutions where possible without action.”

25. This explanation is difficult to follow. It is true that, in many respects, the Council’s planning powers are discretionary, but this can also be said of many other areas of the Council’s work. Relevant powers being discretionary is not a reason for a council to refuse to accept a complaint about a decision it has made.
26. And I cannot understand the Council’s comment about seeking “resolutions … without action”, as this seems to bear no relevance at all to this type of complaint.
27. This is fault, therefore. While the Council is entitled to refuse a complaint about a planning decision, where the complainant has a right of appeal on the same subject, this is not a reason to reject a complaint from a third party such as Mr D. We expect councils to investigate complaints of this nature.
28. I do not consider this has caused any injustice to Mr D himself. This is because, despite rejecting his complaint, the Council has given him a full explanation for the reasons for its decision anyway. I do not consider anything of substance was lost by its failure to repeat these comments as a formal complaint response.
29. But I still consider the Council should take steps to avoid a recurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Action

30. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• amend or add a note to its complaints policy to make clear there is no alternative remedy for a third-party planning complainant, and that complaints of this nature should not be rejected for this reason;
• circulate guidance to relevant staff to ensure they are aware of and understand this change.

31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman