Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of alleged planning breaches. This is because we are unlikely to find fault affecting the Council’s decision and any injustice caused by its delay is not significant enough to warrant a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action in relation to an alleged planning breach on neighbouring land. She complains the Council delayed its investigation, provided inconsistent responses and has not properly explained its decision.
2. She says the alleged breach significantly affects her ability to enjoy her property and garden. She wants the Council to issue a planning contravention notice (PCN) and stop the unauthorised use she complained about.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating,
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained,
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where there has been a material change of use of land without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control.
7. Mrs X complained to the Council that a business operating on neighbouring land had breached planning control. She complained the business generated significant noise, did not have planning permission and changed the use of the land without permission. The Council initially told Mrs X it would serve a PCN on the landowner and the business owner. However, following a site visit, the Council decided there was no change of use of the land and therefore no breach of planning control. It therefore did not take any further action or serve a PCN.
8. Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s investigation. She says the Council has not properly explained why it did not issue a PCN or why the business’ use of the land is not a change of use requiring planning permission. She is also unhappy with the Council’s delays throughout the process.
9. I have reviewed the Council’s decision and its investigation records. These show the Council visited the site and spoke with the business owner. During the visit, it assessed the noise impact on Mrs X’s property and neighbouring homes. It also considered whether the activity had changed the use of the land. In doing so, it considered factors such as other uses on the site, public access and the permissions given by the landowner. The Council decided there was no breach of planning control because the land’s primary use remained the same and although there was evidence to show it was being used for a different purpose, this was no different to other areas of land and did not amount to a material change of use.
10. I am satisfied the Council took proportionate action to investigate the allegation and used its professional judgement in reaching its decision. I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision and therefore we cannot question it.
11. I recognise there were delays throughout the process and the Council’s early reference to a PCN may have raised Mrs X’s expectations that it would take action to stop the alleged unauthorised use. However, I do not consider these issues wrongly affected the outcome and I am satisfied the Council has reached a decision it was entitled to. I therefore do not consider these issues caused Mrs X significant injustice and further investigation is unlikely to achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.
12. Mrs X says noise from the business continues to affect her. It remains open to her to make a statutory noise complaint to the Council if she believes the noise amounts to a nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision not to take formal action. While Mrs X also complains about the Council’s delays and failure to properly explain its decision, we cannot say this wrongly affected the decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman