Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council decided to approve a discharge of conditions application and the way it investigated reports of breaches of planning control. We do not find fault with the process the Council followed to reach its decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council decided to approve a discharge of conditions application. Mr X also complains about the way the Council has investigated reports of a breach of planning conditions.

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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. We cannot usually investigate events that took place more than 12 months before the complaint was brought to the Ombudsman. We can only exercise discretion to look back further if there are good reasons to do so.
8. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2025, meaning anything that took place before June 2024 has been raised late. This includes the original decision to grant planning permission.
9. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint as set out above from June 2024, up until the complaint was brought to the Ombudsman in June 2025. Any mention below to events that took place outside this time are for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. 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

12. Where planning permission is required, a council must decide on planning applications in accordance with its development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
13. 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 impact on amenity and environmental factors.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how to apply these.
19. 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.
20. The Council publishes information about planning enforcement on its website.

What happened

21. 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.
22. Prior to the start point of my investigation, the Council granted planning permission for a development in Mr X’s local area. This permission had various conditions attached to it.
23. The Council then received an application to discharge conditions that were attached to that planning permission. The application was supported by additional documents, including a vibrations, noise and dust management plan and stated a letter drop would take place to neighbouring properties to advise of the commencement and duration of works and provide contact details for the site manager.
24. The Council considered the application and the supporting documentation provided and approved it. The decision notice confirms the Council found the details provided satisfied the requirements of the conditions.
25. From January 2025, the Council received numerous reports of breaches of planning control.
26. The Council completed desk-based investigations by considering the planning history, the relevant conditions and the evidence that had been provided. The Council also visited the site to engage with the developer around the issues that had been raised.
27. The Council did not identify any breaches of planning control that required enforcement. However, it reminded the developer of the need to comply with the granted permission and said work should not continue outside until it had completed the letter drop to local residents.
28. The Council wrote to the complainants to explain what action it had taken and that it did not find it expedient to pursue any enforcement action at that point.
29. The Council then received further complaints about breaches of planning control. Again, the Council completed a desk-based evaluation and visited the site shortly after. When the Council visited the site, it identified the work related to the alleged breaches had now been completed. The Council considered the complaints and decided now that work had been completed it would be difficult to identify if a breach had occurred due to lack of available evidence and any formal action would be obsolete.
30. The Council left the enforcement case open to monitor any further developments or reports but closed this in June 2025 due to a lack of further issues.

Analysis

31. 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.
32. 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.
33. The decision notice for the discharge of conditions shows the Council considered the information it had received and decided this met the requirements of the conditions and was sufficient to approve the discharge application. I do not find fault with the process the Council followed when deciding to approve the application. I appreciate Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision, but Mr X disagreeing is not enough reason for me to find the Council at fault. As the Council made a judgment taking account of the relevant conditions and information, I cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision-making process.
34. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to say what enforcement action the Council should take if any. However, 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.
35. Once the Council received reports of alleged breaches of planning control, it appears to have engaged promptly with the complainants and the developer. The Council carried out site visits, reminded the developer of their responsibilities under the approved permission, and considered all the evidence it was provided with. The Council assessed the situation and explained it did not find sufficient evidence of breaches for it to be expedient to take further action. As the Council followed the right process to make its decision, I cannot find fault with the decision it reached. Again, I appreciate Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision, but as it considered all relevant factors, I cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find no fault in the process the Council followed to make its decisions on the discharge of conditions application or the reports of breaches of planning permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman