Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the reported breach of a planning condition. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision not to take formal enforcement action.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains her neighbour has installed machinery that is creating significant noise. Mrs X says the Council has not enforced the planning conditions correctly to ensure the installed machinery did not exceed noise levels stated in its policy. Mrs X says the noise has prevented her from enjoying her home and being able to sleep. Mrs X wants the Council to resolve the noise issue and ensure that noise emissions are considered with every new planning application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council granted planning permission for a development near Mrs X’s home. The permission was subject to conditions some of which needed to be discharged before the development started. Mrs X complained to the Council that her neighbour installed machinery that did not meet the requirements of the planning application.
7. Mrs X says the Council failed to enforce the conditions of the planning application.
8. Planning enforcement action is discretionary. Councils may decide the nature of a breach is not enough to warrant enforcement action. Councils may also decide to regularise a development by asking for a retrospective planning application. We cannot say the Council should have taken a particular view about a breach if it has acted properly by considering it.
9. I am satisfied the Council properly looked into Mrs X’s concerns and officers visited the site. However, the Council decided formal enforcement action was not needed. The Council explained to Mrs X why it would not take formal action at this stage and its reasons for waiting on the outcome of a previous retrospective application. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide formal action was not needed and councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action it is unlikely I would find fault.
10. Since Mrs X complained to the Council her neighbour received retrospective permission to discharge the planning condition. Mrs X can make a new complaint if she is unhappy with how the recent application was dealt with. She can also contact the Council’s environmental health team if she believes the noise amounts to a statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to take formal enforcement action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman