Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council's planning and enforcement processes for a lighting scheme on a nearby commercial property. Investigation would not achieve a different planning outcome than that now reached, which provided what Mrs X wanted. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its enforcement process to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives near a commercial property, granted planning permission several years ago. The permission required the owner to submit to the Council an exterior lighting scheme for the development, to meet the relevant planning condition. The property’s owners installed lighting, visible from Mrs X’s house, which had not been agreed with the Council.
2. Mrs X complains the Council has failed for several years to enforce the planning condition relating to the lights.
3. At the time of her complaint to us, Mrs X said the exterior lights were too bright and were left on all night. She did not find the lighting acceptable and said its was unhealthy, intrusive and affected her privacy. Mrs X says she has spent time and been caused trouble dealing with different officers over several years.
4. Mrs X wanted the Council to do what its Development Control Committee required without further delay. This was to require the owner to reduce the lighting’s brightness and whiteness, because of its impacts on her amenity and on the character and appearance of the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council, relevant online planning documents, maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X made her complaint to us after the Council’s Development Control Committee (DCC) considered the property owner’s exterior lighting scheme as fitted at that time. The DCC voted to not sign off the condition in mid-2025. Members sought improvements to the scheme, to make it less bright and white, reducing impacts on the surrounding area and Mrs X’s property. Soon after this refusal, planning enforcement officers served the second enforcement notice on the owner. The owner then changed part of the lighting, on the section of building nearest to Mrs X’s property, as an example of their next proposed scheme. The DCC considered that option in late 2025. Members agreed it met the planning condition and provided the improvements they had sought at the earlier meeting.
8. The DCC’s assessment and decision in late 2025, after Mrs X raised her complaint with us, provides her with the outcome she wanted, set out in paragraph four above. There is no different outcome an investigation would now achieve for Mrs X, so we will not investigate.
9. We have considered whether there was any fault by the Council during the enforcement process which led to injustice to Mrs X. The planning enforcement process took a long time. Such processes often take many months to be resolved. The process was required because of the actions of the property’s owner not complying with the planning permission condition on lighting. The Council served two enforcement notices to pursue compliance with the lighting condition. Officers could not take further action on the first notice as the property’s owner changed the lighting. The Council had to start the process again, based on what the owner had fitted, not on what had been there before. Officers had to respond to a site which had changes affecting their enforcement process and the decisions they could make. The correspondence does not show there was significant avoidable delay or other fault in the Council’s process. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in that process here to warrant us investigating.
10. We understand the enforcement process took much longer than Mrs X would have liked to reach the final outcome. She spent time and had the inconvenience of pursuing the matter, as well as experiencing the impact of earlier lighting schemes. But we cannot say those impacts stemmed directly from Council fault in the enforcement process.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• an investigation would not achieve a different outcome than that which has now been reached; and
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault in its enforcement process to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman