Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission or enforcement because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about planning permission granted by the Council for an extension to a neighbour’s property. She says that the owner’s builder’s vehicles have blocked her drive and caused noise and nuisance.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Planning permission was granted for a neighbour’s extension in September 2022 and January 2023. Ms X objected to both. The Planning Officer report on both referred to her objections and the effect upon nearby property.
6. Planning permission granted in 2022 contained a condition which stated that the existing parking spaces and garage space should be retained to reduce possible parking on the road.
7. Ms X says that the planning permission failed to properly take into account the effect on local roads of vehicles parking to gain access to the property.
8. The Planning Officer report for the planning application considered the issue of parking. The Planning Officer noted that the Council’s parking standards required a minimum of three parking spaces and the planning application proposed four. The Planning Officer also noted that the property was located on a T junction and would not be subject to high volumes of traffic. The Planning Officer concluded that this was not a ground for refusal. Nevertheless, a condition was added to ensure the retention of parking spaces.
9. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered objections to the planning application based on parking and traffic. The planning permission itself was not therefore the result of fault and the Ombudsman could not question the merits of that decision.
10. The Council says that a Planning Officer visited in response to Ms X’s complaints about parking. The Planning Officer concluded that there was no evidence of a breach of planning permission. The Council advised that any obstruction of a highway or access is a matter for the Police. The Council added that any noise associated with the building of the development was not sufficient to warrant enforcement action.
11. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
12. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
13. I appreciate that Ms X has found those parking nearby (and associated noise) a nuisance but I am satisfied that the Council properly considered these matters when the planning applications were determined. Further, the decision that there were no grounds to take enforcement action was also taken after proper consideration of the facts. In the absence of fault, the Ombudsman could not question the merits of that decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman