Manchester City Council (25 027 833)

Category : Planning > Enforcement

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 26 Aug 2026

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to accept and grant permission for a non-material amendment planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to accept, process and grant permission for a non-material planning (NMA) application.
  2. He wants the NMA planning permission reversed and the original permission imposed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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, 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

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council received an NMA application to make changes to an existing planning permission for a development next to Mr X’s home. One change was to remove the roof from the bin store on the site.
  2. Mr X is concerned that the Council did not follow the correct process when it evaluated whether removing the bin store roof was a non-material change.
  3. The Council noted there was no change proposed to the size or location of the bin store. The only change was the removal of the roof. The wall around the bin store and the vegetation and trees along the boundary remain. The Council decided the removal of the bin store roof was a non-material change.
  4. Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority to make a change to a planning permission relating to land in their area if they are satisfied that the change is not material. There is no definition of ‘non-material’ and whether a change is non-material is a decision for the local planning authority to make.
  5. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council; however, I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered and decided the NMA planning application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered and decided the NMA planning application. Also, we cannot require the Council to revoke the planning permission so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings