Summary: There was some delay by the Council in deciding two planning applications and deciding whether to proceed with enforcement action against businesses near the complainant’s home. The Council has remedied the injustice by deciding the applications and deciding whether to take enforcement action. There was no fault in the Council’s investigation of complaints about noise and odour from environmental health.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complains the Council has delayed deciding two planning applications for car sales and car modifications. Miss X also complains the Council has not investigated and taken action over the other car repair businesses on the site which may be operating without planning permission.
2. Miss X says the Council has not taken action over complaints about noise and odour nuisance in her flat. Miss X says that she is stressed and her sleep pattern has been disturbed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the papers put in by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Miss 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

8. Miss X lives in a flat above commercial premises. New businesses took over the premises in April 2019, with several car related uses. Miss X complained to the Council about the noise, fumes and about work being carried out during evenings and weekends.

Planning permission

9. After investigations by the Council, the owners of two businesses put in applications for planning permission in August 2021. The Council approved the planning applications in October 2022. Both applications have conditions restricting hours of use, type of use (no panel beating, spray painting, servicing or repairs) and leaving car engines running when stationary.
10. The Council has taken over a year to approve the planning applications, so there is evidence this has taken longer than the government target. The government website says that planning applications should take 8 weeks to be decided. The governments planning guarantee says that ‘no application should spend more than a year with decision-makers, including any appeal. In practice this means that Councils should decide planning applications in no more than 26 weeks, allowing a similar period for any appeal’.
11. The Council took over a year to decide the planning applications, which is significantly longer than the governments time targets. This is fault. I can understand that this has caused frustration to Miss X. It is possible, now the hours of work are controlled by planning conditions, that this will mean the Council has more options to take action over out of hours noise and noise/fumes from unauthorised car repairs.

Car repair business

12. The Council has said the car repair business and chauffeuring business to the rear of the site are unauthorised.
13. The Council has said it intends to take enforcement action to require the removal of the canopy and cessation of the car repair use. The Council has said that it is not expedient to take enforcement action against the chauffeuring business as it cannot identify sufficient planning harm caused by its operations.
14. It has taken over two years for the Council to reach a point at which it has decided to take enforcement action over the car repair use. There does appear to have been delays and I can see that Miss X has had to make official complaints to get to this point.

Complaints about noise and odour

15. The Council’s records show Miss X has reported many complaints about noise and odour. I can see from the Council’s response to Miss X’s M.P. that officers visited 8 times. Officers witnessed no nuisance from noise and/or odour on 7 occasions. On one occasion officers heard a ‘low impact banging noise’ and warned the business owners. The Council has said that as audible noise was only heard on one occasion and that it was not a statutory nuisance, no action was taken.
16. Miss X complains that officers were always visible when visiting the garage so this was why they did not witness the nuisance. I understand her view, but officers have to witness a statutory nuisance in person, at her property.
17. I have looked at all the information and I can find no evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation of the noise and odour nuisance complaint. Officers have responded to her calls, visited and spoken to the business when they heard a noise on one occasion.

Conclusion

18. As I have found evidence of some delay in deciding the planning application (as it has taken longer than the 8 week target) and deciding whether to take enforcement action, I have to consider what injustice this has caused to Miss X and whether a remedy is appropriate.
19. Clearly, the main remedy Miss X wanted was the determination of the planning applications and the decision to take enforcement action. The Council has done this and has written to her.
20. I have considered whether the delay in making the planning decisions warrants an additional financial remedy to Miss X. Miss X reports significant noise and odour problems from the businesses, but there is no evidence of this when Council officers visited. She has also had to complain and contact the Council about the planning delays. My view is that at present, there is not enough evidence to warrant a financial remedy now the planning applications have been approved and the Council has decided to take enforcement action. If there had been nuisance witnessed by the Council officers this would have provided evidence for a financial remedy. But, at present I consider the actions already taken by the Council are enough.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation of the complaint. This complaint is upheld, as there is evidence of delay by the Council. Now the decisions have been made on the planning matters, I do not consider that this has caused significant direct injustice to Miss X to warrant a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman