Summary: Based on current evidence there is no fault in the Council’s grant of planning permission for developments close to Mrs X’s property. The Council delayed responding to the complaint and failed to respond to the stage two complaint. That caused Mrs X frustration. An apology is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complained the Council:
• granted planning permission based on wrong information about use of the site for haulage and HGV;
• wrongly took into account two planning permissions for another part of the site in different ownership when granting planning permission;
• failed to consider her or her husband’s representations and the impact the development would have on them;
• effectively gave the owner of the site permission to use it for vehicle movements 24/7 as the permission only restricts hours of use for two specific buildings; and
• when responding to her complaint, incorrectly recorded the date it had written the complaint response to prevent her escalating the complaint to stage two.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s actions have caused her stress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I am not investigating any concerns Mrs X had about how the Council dealt with enforcement issues in 2021. That is because that is more than 12 months before the complaint to the Ombudsman. I see no reason why Mrs X could not have raised her complaint about the enforcement issues within 12 months.
9. I am also not investigating Mrs X’s concerns about the Council’s refusal to provide her with information about HGV use of the site. That is because I am satisfied Mrs X complained about that to the Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioner has issued a final response. That puts that part of the complaint outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
11. Mrs X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

12. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
13. A material planning consideration is one which is relevant to making the planning decision in question.
14. The scope of what can constitute a material consideration is very wide and so the courts often do not indicate what cannot be a material consideration. However, in general they have taken the view that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, so that the protection of purely private interests such as the impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property or loss of private rights to light could not be material considerations.
15. Planning uses of land or ‘use classes’ are set out in regulations. They cover a range of typical uses, like residential, business, industrial and commercial. Some uses do not fit within the use classes and planners refer to these as ‘sui generis’ which means ‘of its own kind’ or ‘unique’.
16. Planning permission is usually needed to change a use from one class to another. Whether a change of use has occurred is a matter of ‘fact and degree’ for the Council to decide.

Background

17. The complaint concerns the Council’s grant of two planning permissions, following enforcement investigations, for a site adjacent to Mrs X’s property. Mrs X says the Council based its decision to grant the two permissions on an incorrect understanding of the planning history of the site and failed to take into account the impact on residents.
18. Mrs X put in a complaint on 17 March 2025. The Council drew up a response dated 22 April 2025 but there is no evidence the Council sent that to Mrs X until she chased it. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two on 29 May. There is no evidence of a Council response to that.

Analysis

19. Mrs X says in granting the two planning permissions the Council relied on incorrect information about previous use of the site. Mrs X says the report for the planning applications referred to the site being used for HGV and vehicle repairs and haulage when there is no evidence of that. Mrs X says despite her husband raising concerns about the accuracy of the report at the committee meeting his representations were ignored.
20. In its response to my enquiry the Council provided evidence to support its conclusion the site has been in industrial/commercial use over a long period. That includes previous planning applications for the site, aerial imagery, its own observations during site visits and information provided by third parties, such as objectors to the planning applications. The Council’s view is that on the balance of probability the site has been in various industrial/commercial uses since at least the 1980s and the part of the site that was subject to these two applications falls within B2 use. The Council says that means the site may lawfully be used for any purpose within that use class which includes haulage, vehicle repairs and servicing.
21. I appreciate Mrs X strongly disagrees with the Council’s conclusion. It is not my role to adjudicate on two different views. Nor is it my role to determine what the lawful use of the site is. Instead, my role is to consider whether the Council reached its conclusions properly after taking into account all the evidence.
22. I am satisfied the Council has properly considered the use of the site given it has considered previous planning applications, aerial photographs showing HGV use of the site over a long period of time, information from third parties and the observations of its own officers. That there was a change of use of part of the site in 2017 and 2020 does not change the fact there was an established industrial use and the Council has confirmed B2 use applies to the site. I am therefore satisfied the Council has reached a view on use of the site after properly considering the evidence. As I said in paragraph 5, it is not my role to comment on the merits of a decision reached without fault. I have not found any evidence of fault here.
23. In reaching that view I am aware Mrs X has referred to correspondence from a planning officer in 2022. That correspondence noted the planning officer’s view that there was no evidence of haulage repairs and MOT or car repairs and storage on site during his visit. Mrs X cites that as evidence the Council’s decision making was flawed in this case.
24. I understand why Mrs X would take that view. However, the Council has also now considered previous planning permissions for the site, aerial photographs, comments from third parties and undertaken further observations. The Council has also provided me with evidence of those considerations. As I have made clear, it is not my role to comment on the merits of the Council’s view unless there is evidence of fault in how it has reached that view. Given the evidence the Council has provided I could not say the Council failed to properly consider the situation. In those circumstances I cannot say the Council misled the committee or that it included incorrect information in the reports for the planning applications.
25. I am also satisfied the planning committee were made aware of an alternative view: that the site did not have the use as set out in the reports. I say that because Mrs X confirms her husband addressed the committee and made those points. Had the committee had any concerns about the planning history for the site I would have expected it to raise those during the meeting. The minutes do not suggest any committee members raised concerns about the planning use of the site. As I am satisfied committee had both sides of the argument when it granted planning permission for the two developments I have no grounds to criticise it.
26. Mrs X has also raised concerns about the Council referring in the reports for the planning applications to previous planning applications on adjacent sites which are not under the same ownership. I am satisfied the Council has explained to Mrs X it considers those planning permissions relevant because they are on sites immediately adjacent to the ones for which planning permission was sought, were for haulage related development and because the sites use the same access road. It is not fault for the Council to take into account planning permission for similar uses, particularly when the sites are so close to the ones under consideration for these planning applications. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
27. Mrs X says the Council failed to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. I am satisfied the reports for the planning applications set out the objections raised by local residents. I am also satisfied the reports for the planning applications set out why officers considered the developments acceptable in terms of its impact on neighbouring properties. The reports also recorded the distances between the developments applied for and residential properties.
28. It is clear to me part of the Council’s reasoning for granting permission for these developments was because it would allow it to have some control over hours of operation on site which were not there previously. I am satisfied the Council imposed conditions on the permission to protect residential amenity which included hours of operation. I therefore could not say the Council failed to consider the impact on neighbouring properties.
29. Mrs X says the Council has effectively given the owner of the site permission to use it for vehicle movements 24/7 as the permission only restricts the hours of use for a specific building and the site previously did not have HGV usage. I cover earlier in this statement the reasoning the Council has put forward for its views about the planning status of the land. As I have made clear, that is a decision the Council is entitled to reach and not one that I could criticise, no matter how much Mrs X disagrees.
30. Mrs X is right though to say the two planning permissions restrict the hours of use for the buildings concerned between 8am and 6pm Monday to Saturday with no use on Sundays, bank or public holidays. I appreciate Mrs X’s concern about other parts of the site and adjacent sites being able to operate 24/7. However, the Council can only impose restrictions in relation to the applications under consideration. In both cases the Council was considering new buildings. The Council could therefore only impose hours of operation restrictions in relation to those two buildings. That is not fault.
31. It is also clear to me though that the site and the adjacent parts of the site which were not part of the planning applications, have no time restrictions. That was the case before the two planning applications were considered. So, the grant of the two planning permissions did not create the ability to use the rest of the site(s) 24/7. That was already in place. As I said earlier, I am satisfied part of the Council’s reasoning for granting planning permission in this case was to provide greater control over the hours of operation than previously existed.
32. Mrs X says the Council wrongly recorded the date it had written her complaint response and did so in order to prevent her accessing stage two.
33. The Council has provided evidence to show the word document version of the complaint response was last altered on 22 April 2025. The Council accepts though it does not have any evidence of sending Mrs X the response on 22 April. That is fault. I am also concerned the Council did not concede that point earlier given Mrs X asked the Council for evidence it had sent her the complaint response in April 2025. That is also fault.
34. In addition, there is no evidence the Council responded to Mrs X’s request to escalate her complaint to stage two. That is also fault. I am satisfied that caused Mrs X frustration. I recommended the Council apologise to Mrs X both for the delay sending her the stage one complaint response and in failing to respond to the complaint at stage two. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Action

35. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Mrs X for the frustration she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I find fault causing injustice in relation to how the Council handled the complaint. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman