Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a grant of planning permission as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably granted planning permission for a holiday accommodation property to be used as an exclusive use self catering accommodation.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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. Mr X says that the Council should not have granted planning permission for a change of use of a nearby house from self catering accommodation to exclusive use self accommodation. Mr X objected on the grounds that the use of the building would be a nuisance and affect neighbouring amenity negatively.
6. The Planning Officer’s report on the planning application referred to the objections and considered the effect the planning permission would have on the neighbouring amenity. The Planning Officer noted that the existing use would not be different to that experienced when the property was used as a public house. Nevertheless, conditions were attached to the planning permission to limit noise and disturbance in unsocial hours.
7. The property had previously been granted planning permission for a change of use from a public house to that of self catering accommodation. The numbers used in the property exceeded that allowed by the planning permission so the retrospective planning application was submitted to authorise increased use.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
11. The Council’s decision to seek a retrospective planning application to authorise the current use was not fault. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered all the objections to the planning application and, in the absence of administrative fault, the Ombudsman cannot question the decision to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman